Is consciousness expansion dead?

[Veda]

well out there in the wild and wooly new age, the main people doing anything... in the 80s and 90s tended to be ex-scientologists... So I would say it has certainly had a dominant effect on how "consciousness expansion" is practiced, and nowadays there are lots of people processing various things in various ways as a distant outgrowth of the mid-80s splinter movement....

Can you name some?

[... = snipped]

Roland Barkley comes to mind. He received lots of auditing at Flag in the 1970s, then left, and later received auditing (summer of 1985) from L. Ron Hubbard Jr.

He is a shaman and also a "consciousness designer."​

 

[JustSheila]

I had no expectations - I was surprised there was any emotion at all.

My point is this - if a person doesn't think it is possible to interiorize into some object other than his /her body, or another body, (edit) the inevitable a possible conclusion must be that the person does not believe him/herself to be a spiritual being. He/she may say so, but what does he really believe down deep?

Why, if the person is a spiritual being, can't he interiorize into anything under the sun moon and stars?

What is your response to that?

And don't attack my use of the terminology - that is a dodge. You could call it an out of body - into a solid body experience if you wish, the action is the same.

Mimsey

Mimsey, this isn't right. It's an A=A=A. A person doesn't have to think in Scientology terms to think spiritually. A Scientologist can believe that if he imagines being an object hard enough, he becomes the object and yet maintains his own life. That's got nothing to do with whether a person is spiritual or not, it has to do with whether a person wants to throw out all known education and definitions of life and believe imagining things is the same as having them actually happen.

I understand it all seemed very real to you at the time, but your belief that a person can become an inanimate object is pretty esoteric, uncommon, and not widely accepted in or out of the spiritual community. That doesn't mean people like me don't believe we can link up with animals or other people in a spiritual way. It doesn't mean people who believe it's malarky that people take on inanimate objects don't believe in an afterlife.

It just means there are tons of people out there who are spiritual but don't agree or believe in the way Scientology defines spirituality.

If you stop using the terminology and thinking through that funnel and take a broader view, you'd see for yourself there are millions of people in the world who are highly spiritual in the truest sense of the word, but don't have the same beliefs as you. What you call an out-of-body experience or exteriorization, someone else might call the same sort of experience an extension of awareness, or expansion of consciousness, or a rainbow of other things.

By the way, I agree that animals and others can link up spiritually and you recommended that book some years ago and I read it. You're right, it was a fun read, and I'm happy to see in the last ten years that people are more aware of animal intelligence, emotions and bonding than ever before. We've come a long way.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

You can read a rock's mind? Now that is a skill!

Heyyyy you..... I loved my pet rocks and I know they loved me. I know this for a fact because they never got up and walked out the door when I lost my temper at them for not answering my auditing questions and they also never got jealous when I told my ashtrays to sit down on the chair beside me. The "A" was always rock solid as in "R" and "C"ultic. Do you "U"derstand? Thank you for listening.

 

[programmer_guy]

When I was at The Manor one of my roommates (PC at AOLA) said that he once went into a coffee pot and rode the bubbles from the bottom to the top of the coffee pot.

Should I have believed his claim?

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I edited my post because after reading one of Strati's posts I realized I was wrong - rather than delete the error in my logic - I struck it out so it would be obvious if anyone reread my post to see the change. Apologies if that was confusing.

Anyway, I ran across a quote a moment ago I thought was interesting and worth posting:

"Can you learn anything new if you limit yourself to verifying what you think you already know? This question reaches to the very heart of scientific reliability..."

The author of the piece launches off into a subject not germain to our discussion on this thread, but there's another larger, quote I'd like to share below. First some background: this springs from 2 cures for Beriberi by two different researchers, the first by Eijkman, by feeding people unpolished rice, and the other by second researcher, Grijns, finding a wider cure, in the course of invalidating the first work, because the first didn't cure beriberi from eating a diet high in tapioca root.

The point being the first researcher's scope of work was too narrow in scope (it only applied to eaters of polished rice who contracted Beriberi, and was cured by eating unpolished rice)

Here's the big quote - enjoy:

"Douglas Allchin’s paper “The Epistemology of Error”, discusses the episode of Eijkman, Grijns, and beriberi. He emphasizes that the important distinction for characterizing knowledge is not the conventional “dichotomies of fact/artifact, true/false, and right/wrong.” Rather, the “key epistemological distinction … is between empirically unresolved questions, or uncertainty, and resolved questions.”

“Grijns’s challenge was not to show … that beriberi was a nutrient deficiency. Rather, he had to show first how initial evidence consistent with a bacterial interpretation was ambiguous. Then … it could indicate something else. Allchin identifies “uncertainty as the primitive state. Fact and artifact co-emerge from undifferentiated perception.”

[bcolor=#ffff00]He goes on to assert that simply confirming a theory doesn’t provide reliability.[/bcolor]
This was Hubbard's error!!!! His confirming his theories by getting a positive result from one or two samples lead his research off into never never land.

Verification must be accompanied by a search for alternate explanations, which he calls “error probes”. He presents the idea of error probes in a rather static way: A theory, such as Eijkman’s, which is verified, is later shown to be “erroneous”. But in moving from one to the other, a dynamic process occurs. One can’t assume (as the term “error” tends to do) that the process stops with the second theory. The later theory may eventually be shown also to be erroneous.

The concept of “domain of validity” fits better with an ongoing process of discovering alternative explanations. The domain of Eijkman’s theory was the data then available about rice diets and the effects of polishings. Within the boundaries of that domain, Eijkman’s theory was true. Verification, then, is a “truth probe” that probes no further than a theory’s frontier. Eijkman’s efforts were limited to truth probes. He neglected to perform an error probe because he assumed (albeit unconsciously) that the domain of the bacterial theory was infinite. You can’t learn anything new if you limit yourself to verifying what you already know.

Presumably, Eijkman was not in a position to be able even to imagine a cause bigger than bacterial infection. But his work began the process of differentiation that prodded Grijns to imagine a bigger concept.

To establish what Allchin calls “deep reliability”, it’s necessary to investigate possible alternative explanations. “reliability hinges on a dual process of confirmation and ruling out error.”

 

[Veda]

Psychometry is the supposed ability to discern information/impressions about events or persons by touching inanimate objects. (This has nothing to do with "Body Thetans")

Psychometric effects are said to sometimes occur when sensitive (perceptive) people visit sites where there was great emotion in the past.

Some people claim to be able to sense the traces of lives, personalities, and emotions when visiting historical sites.

 

[programmer_guy]

When I was at The Manor another one of my roommates said that his name, in a past life, was Ernst and he wanted people to refer to him by this name (I didn't and continued to call him Gary).

He also told me that he was in mental/spiritual contact with a UFO that was above Los Angeles.

Should I have believed his claims?

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Sheila - here is a place I really want to visit in Peru. They had some awesome technology. Mimsey

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

No, but one time I exteriorized and then interiorized into a stapler - it's tone level is total effect. .......

Jeez, your posts on this thread have so many OT wins and OT words!

Maybe you can help me solve a problem I have had with Scientologists for decades. . .

They talk all the time about paranormal powers (exteriorization, levitation, et al). They can even do clay demos of it or give lectures about it to new public or other Scientologists attending their exciting workshops!

They can speak with authority, scholarship and certainty on all these powers.

They just can't DO any of them.

Can you?

Can you demonstrate your OT powers by exteriorizing and letting others witness it? Or are you only OT on the 1st Dynamic? If that is the case, I fully appreciate and understand why you can't demonstrate these powers, because the moment someone else comes into the room, that makes it a third dynamic activity and your exteriorization powers instantly shut down, right?

This fully explains why OTs can never demonstrate OT abilities.

However, it's not all negative--on the very positive side, even though an OT can't demonstrate any OT powers, they absolutely can show up and lecture others and read LRH quotes about how easy it is to exteriorize a being.


you exteriorize and let others witness it? Or are you

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Jeez, your posts on this thread have so many OT wins and OT words!

Maybe you can help me solve a problem I have had with Scientologists for decades. . .

They talk all the time about paranormal powers (exteriorization, levitation, et al). They can even do clay demos of it or give lectures about it to new public or other Scientologists attending their exciting workshops!

They can speak with authority, scholarship and certainty on all these powers.

They just can't DO any of them.

Can you?

Can you demonstrate your OT powers by exteriorizing and letting others witness it? Or are you only OT on the 1st Dynamic? If that is the case, I fully appreciate and understand why you can't demonstrate these powers, because the moment someone else comes into the room, that makes it a third dynamic activity and your exteriorization powers instantly shut down, right?

This fully explains why OTs can never demonstrate OT abilities.

However, it's not all negative--on the very positive side, even though an OT can't demonstrate any OT powers, they absolutely can show up and lecture others and read LRH quotes about how easy it is to exteriorize a being.


you exteriorize and let others witness it? Or are you

I guess you missed my earlier posts wherein I discussed the spontaneous nature of esp. Here's a quote from one of them about Ingo Swann:

"In 1971 Ingo Swann was at the American Society of Psychical Research in New York, participating in a series of experiments being conducted. They were focusing on OOB or OOBE – meaning Out of Body and Out of Body Experiences, respectively.
Ingo wrote an auto-biography in 1996 titled: Remote-Viewing The Real Story: An Autobiographical Memoir.
He described that in early October 1971, he began working with Dr. Karlis Osis at American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR). As I mentioned earlier, they were focusing on Out of Body Experiences (OOBE).
In Chapter 12 of his memoir, we find Swann saying –
My only reservation was that I did not have the least idea of how to float up to the ceiling. I was well aware of the famous OOB phenomena reported world-wide and since antiquity.
I had gotten all of the appropriate books, tried everything suggested in them, to little apparent avail.
Although many, including some of Osis’s other subjects, claimed they could “go OOB at will,” evidence of this was quite slim.
[…] if anyone could go OOB at will, then the world would certainly be a different place, and psychic spying in the OOB state would have already been incorporated into you know where. In 1971 out-of-body experiencing had not yet been hysterically hyped as it was soon to be.
I told Osis that I believed OOB to consist only of spontaneous factors, and usually within some kind of unusual situation, and that I did not know how to do it."
More, including pictures, at: https://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.co...eriorize-after-he-did-scientologys-ot-levels/

You just bullbait me with the same old argument if it can't be done on command it isn't real, that I am a braggadocio about what "OT Abilities" I have.

Dude get over it. I never said I could exteriorize at will nor can I. The things I posted were spontaneous occurrences, as were Ingo's, and many many others that I have read about. Perhaps you have never had such occur to you, and thus you feel your experience trumps mine. Fine!

I will say this - if you and other posters continue to create a hostile environment that scoffs at any "OT abilities" or ESP occurrences, people won't want to post the things they have experienced of that nature. They won't want to suffer the embarrassment you and others put me through. Mind you - this is nothing recent - I have been assailed for years on ESMB on this subject.

You are in effect anti-pathetic and prejudiced against it. And in suppressing any such communication, you are doing just what I posted in my post #85:

"Can you learn anything new if you limit yourself to verifying what you think you already know? This question reaches to the very heart of scientific reliability..."

Mimsey

 

[strativarius]

<snip>
"Can you learn anything new if you limit yourself to verifying what you think you already know? This question reaches to the very heart of scientific reliability..."

Mimsey

Yes, but precious little of what you say ever has anything remotely connected to scientific reliability.

 

[TomKat]

Can you name some?

[... = snipped]

Roland Barkley comes to mind. He received lots of auditing at Flag in the 1970s, then left, and later received auditing (summer of 1985) from L. Ron Hubbard Jr.

He is a shaman and also a "consciousness designer."​

What about Shakti Gawain? Ekhart Tolle? Gary Douglas? Harry Palmer? Werner Earhard? Paul Twitchell? David Hawkins was sure fond of scales... I'm often coming across authors or interviewees whose language betrays a scientology history. NOBODY advertises prior history in scientology though.

 

[pineapple]

Roland Barkley comes to mind. He received lots of auditing at Flag in the 1970s, then left, and later received auditing (summer of 1985) from L. Ron Hubbard Jr.

L. Ron Hubbard Jr. was auditing in 1985 (after leaving scn in 1959)? That must have been interesting. Do you have any idea what that auditing was like?

 

[Veda]

I guess you missed my earlier posts wherein I discussed the spontaneous nature of esp. Here's a quote from one of them about Ingo Swann:

"In 1971 Ingo Swann was at the American Society of Psychical Research in New York, participating in a series of experiments being conducted. They were focusing on OOB or OOBE – meaning Out of Body and Out of Body Experiences, respectively.
Ingo wrote an auto-biography in 1996 titled: Remote-Viewing The Real Story: An Autobiographical Memoir.
He described that in early October 1971, he began working with Dr. Karlis Osis at American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR). As I mentioned earlier, they were focusing on Out of Body Experiences (OOBE).
In Chapter 12 of his memoir, we find Swann saying –
My only reservation was that I did not have the least idea of how to float up to the ceiling. I was well aware of the famous OOB phenomena reported world-wide and since antiquity.
I had gotten all of the appropriate books, tried everything suggested in them, to little apparent avail.
Although many, including some of Osis’s other subjects, claimed they could “go OOB at will,” evidence of this was quite slim.
[…] if anyone could go OOB at will, then the world would certainly be a different place, and psychic spying in the OOB state would have already been incorporated into you know where. In 1971 out-of-body experiencing had not yet been hysterically hyped as it was soon to be.
I told Osis that I believed OOB to consist only of spontaneous factors, and usually within some kind of unusual situation, and that I did not know how to do it."
More, including pictures, at: https://mikemcclaughry.wordpress.co...eriorize-after-he-did-scientologys-ot-levels/

You just bullbait me with the same old argument if it can't be done on command it isn't real, that I am a braggadocio about what "OT Abilities" I have.

Dude get over it. I never said I could exteriorize at will nor can I. The things I posted were spontaneous occurrences, as were Ingo's, and many many others that I have read about. Perhaps you have never had such occur to you, and thus you feel your experience trumps mine. Fine!

I will say this - if you and other posters continue to create a hostile environment that scoffs at any "OT abilities" or ESP occurrences, people won't want to post the things they have experienced of that nature. They won't want to suffer the embarrassment you and others put me through. Mind you - this is nothing recent - I have been assailed for years on ESMB on this subject.

You are in effect anti-pathetic and prejudiced against it. And in suppressing any such communication, you are doing just what I posted in my post #85:

"Can you learn anything new if you limit yourself to verifying what you think you already know? This question reaches to the very heart of scientific reliability..."

Mimsey

By October 1971, Ingo Swann was OT 6 (I'm pretty sure) and, as I was recently reminded, had done (at least some version of) the SHSBC.

Does anyone have a scan of the 1969/early 1970s Grade Chart with the old OT levels and their "EPs"? (End Results)

It noteworthy that Ingo makes no mention of Scientology whatsoever. It's as though he never encountered it.

It was even this way when he was a member. When not in a Scientology environment, Scientology was never mentioned, and the time I witnessed him being asked if he was a Scientologist (at a Mensa Society conference in Manhattan), he (very subtly, and "lightly,") bristled with displeasure.

 

[Veda]

What about Shakti Gawain? Ekhart Tolle? Gary Douglas? Harry Palmer? Werner Earhard? Paul Twitchell? David Hawkins was sure fond of scales... I'm often coming across authors or interviewees whose language betrays a scientology history. NOBODY advertises prior history in scientology though.

As far as I know, the only ex Scientologists on your list are Harry Palmer and Paul Twitchell.

Werner "borrowed" from the lower grades and other things, including "Hard Sell" tech.

Re. the others, you'll have to provide the details.

 

[Leland]

Thanks for that.

Yes, I remember reading that interview years ago.

Still seems strange that Ingo Swann would endure sittting through the Class VI course, but we have no choice but to take his word for it.

I had heard rumors that back in the day....(pre mid 70's) some BC students would listen to the tapes at a higher rate of speed. Most tape recorders would do 3 3/4 IPS and 7 1/2 IPS (inches per second)

So...one could listen to a tape at a faster speed if recorded at 3 3/4 IPS. Some tape recorders also had 15 IPS....

This was back in the days of Reel to Reel tape recorders and 1/4 " tapes...

LOL....don't know what LRH would sound like at double speed...

 

[Bill]

I had heard rumors that back in the day....(pre mid 70's) some BC students would listen to the tapes at a higher rate of speed. Most tape recorders would do 3 3/4 IPS and 7 1/2 IPS (inches per second)

So...one could listen to a tape at a faster speed if recorded at 3 3/4 IPS. Some tape recorders also had 15 IPS....

This was back in the days of Reel to Reel tape recorders and 1/4 " tapes...

LOL....don't know what LRH would sound like at double speed...

Many's the time I would sit with my back to the course room, put on a reel to reel, turn the volume to zero and catch up on my sleep. Best use of "study time" in the Sea Org, I figured. LRH sounded great at zero volume.

 

[Leland]

LOL....

I didn't do that.

Listened to every last one of em...

Edited: What were there....423 tapes each over an hour long? Or something like that.
Crikey....!! That is a lot of tapes.

 

[Bill]

LOL....

I didn't do that.

Listened to every last one of em...

Edited: What were there....423 tapes each over an hour long? Or something like that.
Crikey....!! That is a lot of tapes.

The famous "wall of tapes" of the BC! In my mind that would have been a possible 423 hours of sleep in the Sea Org.

 

[TomKat]

Re. the others, you'll have to provide the details.

or not