M.U. On The dynamics, my thoughts.

[Gadfly]

Damn, you guys have some long posts. Fast typists or voice recognition software?

Fast typist.

And I use only 2 fingers!

I am CONSTANTLY making typing mistakes, and backing up and correcting (and using the sell-checker).

Where there is a will there is a way . . . . .

 

[Aiki]

"When 'fully' in pt things slow down for you, the one in pt.

I don't mean subjectively either. For real." - Aiki

Cripes, "for you" MEANS "subjective".

The experience of time, between YOU and whatever else involves a relationship.

The state or condition of YOU in relation to the stuff out there (or in here), directly effects HOW you EXPERIENCE IT.

They are ALL "real". It is just that the experience of reality changes depending on the state or condition of the observer. This is simply taking Einstein's theory of relativity and applying it to consciousnesses and personal experience.

There is no "real experience of reality" off alone by itself without an observer to experience some aspect of reality.

It is a relationship:

Experience - The Experiencer

What is Observed - The Observer

The RELATIONSHIP between the two result in an experience that "appears as real". THAT is "reality". But there is no EXPERIENCE of reality possible without the observer, or without the relationship between the observer and what is observed. All of Einstein's talks on such things involved "from the viewpoint of an observer". He was right to point that out and make it clear. Far too many people fail to take the state of the observer into account (with psychological and spiritual things).

People who get all wrapped up in "what is it really", or "what is it without any observer" fail to grasp that there is NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY EXPERIENCE without the relative factor of the relationship between some observer and what is observed. The simply truth is that things appear and are experienced differently depending on HOW you look at them.

Yes, time appears to and is experienced as slowing down when one is fully in PT. It really does, but when you are out of PT, or have attention on getting out of work soon, it REALLY SLOWS DOWN.

All EXPERIENCES of reality involve the observer, what is observed and the relationship between the two. And, once you decide to ignore or discard "experiences", there is nothing there.

Look at a circle drawn perfectly on a piece of paper. When you look off-axis, it appears and is experienced as an ellipse. Which is it "really"? All and none. Looking at it directly, at a full 90-dgegree angle, is just ONE ARBITRARY way to view the object, but many people ASSUME or make up the judgment that this is somehow superior to all other ways to view it. So, looking directly at it, at a 90 degree angle causes it to appear as a circle, but all other views, from any other angle, get it to appear as an ellipse. And, actually, if you look at the circle from the side, along the plane of the circle it appears to be a LINE!

Things change depending from where you look at them. There is no "the way it is really". The perception or experience of the nature or quality of anything involves a relationship between a looker, and what is being looked at.

Time doesn't exist without an "experience of time". And THAT is always relative to some observer who does the experiencing. One really needs to grasp the nature of how all reality, once any of it is experienced, is always relative. Of course, you can't know anything about it until and unless you experience some aspect of it. And any experience is conditional, specific, temporal and spacial.

Any experience is just one of an infinite number of possibilities that fall out of the undefined field of quantum reality. Actual reality is all possibilities, and what we experience is just some unique but random combination of observer and observed, where the state of the observer has a great deal to do with what is observed (and how).

Of course you are in essence just a viewpoint. Thus you can change and view from all kinds of viewpoints. So we agree on that.

Each viewpoint thus gives a different PERSPECTIVE.

So we have a reality......a circle. Real. Objectively real. The we look at it from an angle and see an ellipse. Objectively looking, subjectively seeing a reality called unreality. A perspective that doesn't fit the reality.

So you are missing something. How one should look to see the reality. To see the reality of writing or two dimensional drawings on a surface one must directly face them.

So there is a factor of correct relationship as far as reality is concerned, as far as the isness.

So no arbitrary, when the tree falls in the forest two miles away it did make a sound.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Aiki]

Add on to the above last post of mine that when you are somewhere you don't want to be and have to wait to leave like the analogy you gave time slows down......subjectively only. Not real. Or should I say real only in mind. You are not observung time.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Gadfly]

So no arbitrary, when the tree falls in the forest two miles away it did make a sound.

Peace.Aiki.

No, it didn't. Of course, this involves a traditional deep philosophical debate with many brilliant folks arguing each side.

I say NO, because sound is defined as:

the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium

If the organ of perception isn't there to be stimulated, there can't be a "sound". It takes both. Again, it involves a relationship. There might be waves traveling through the air right after the large tree banged against a large rock, but until these waves act upon some organ of perception, there is "no sound".

A simple finding of studies in Quantum Physics is that the observation of any phenomena changes it into something it wasn't before it was observed. The simple act of looking at it CHANGES IT.

Things change as they are viewed.

As I pointed out, the truth of this object that can appear as a circle, as an ellipse and as a line, is that the FULL REALITY or TRUTH is:

The knowledge that embraces ALL of them, the circle, the ellipse, and the line, and includes the understanding and basic importance of the relationship between what is looked at and how it is looked at.

It is like a CHEMICAL REACTION. Experience is the result of adding together some observer and something to be observed. But the reaction will NOT always be the same. And I for one LOVE how there can be so much variety, that can instantly switch just by changing how I am looking.

 

[Gadfly]

So you are missing something. How one should look to see the reality. To see the reality of writing or two dimensional drawings on a surface one must directly face them.

Peace.Aiki.

No, THAT is YOUR arbitrary.

How one "should" look? That is an evaluation. That is the addition of a value, or the judgment of an importance.

The experience of reality is NOT FIXED, and shifts as the viewer changes how it looks.

You are far too free and liberal with how you use the word "reality".

Any experience of reality is an APPEARANCE, and without an experience of some person or thinking mind, conditioned by various contextual factors, there is no such thing as "the thing in itself". "The thing in itself" is just an IDEA. It cannot be experienced outside of the imagination or as a mental concept.

Any experience of reality is a version only, of many possible versions, that is defined by specific contextual constraints involving the observer and what is observed. Always. And, just because you fail to grasp this does not make it untrue. It just means that you fail to grasp it. This involves a wider understanding that takes in and embraces a great many ways to see and experience things.

 

[Aiki]

No, THAT is YOUR arbitrary.

The reality is NOT FIXED, and shifts as the viewer changes how it looks.

You are far too free and liberal with how you use the word "reality".

Any experience of reality is APPEARANCE, and without an experience of some person or thinking mind, conditioned by various contextual factors, there is no such things as "the thing in itself". "The thing in itself" is just an IDEA. It cannot be experienced outside of the imagination.

No I'm not. You seem to be. I use the standard agreed upon definition of reality thanks. No liberal use.

The physical universe is the result of joint agreement causing what we all call REALITY. That's the one I'm talking about. No other.

It is you who introduce the arbitrary factors about what if looking from another angle etc. Lokk from whatever angle you like a cube is still a cube in REALITY. ISNESS. All else is subjecvtive.

When you say reality is appearance I suppose you are going to quote fundamentals of thought or something Buddha said or even maybe good old Einstein. A very aware dude Einstein, shame he said such a nonsense statement of you can't travel faster than the speed of light.

Again, do you actually know what that means for it does not mean it's not real and it does not mean it's subjective either.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Gadfly]

No I'm not. You seem to be. I use the standard agreed upon definition of reality thanks. No liberal use.

The physical universe is the result of joint agreement causing what we all call REALITY. That's the one I'm talking about. No other.

It is you who introduce the arbitrary factors about what if looking from another angle etc. Lokk from whatever angle you like a cube is still a cube in REALITY. ISNESS. All else is subjecvtive.

When you say reality is appearance I suppose you are going to quote fundamentals of thought or something Buddha said or even maybe good old Einstein. A very aware dude Einstein, shame he said such a nonsense statement of you can't travel faster than the speed of light.

Again, do you actually know what that means for it does not mean it's not real and it does not mean it's subjective either.

Peace.Aiki.

The notion that reality exists only to us as appearance began before Plato, and has been the subject of many careful thinkers ever since then.

The simple fact is that you are not familiar with the great thinkers who have argued and thought about all of this LONG BEFORE YOU made your "glib" comments above.

I can't even have a sensible conversation with you about such things until you get up to speed a bit.

APPEARANCE AND REALITY by Bertrand Russell

Here is a good place to start:

Appearance and reality in the 21st century (excerpt below)

Appearance is what we perceive around us; it is sometimes known as the empirical, which means known through the senses. Reality is most commonly defined as all that exists regardless of whether it is perceived or not; in other words, it exists independently of anyone’s perception. According to common sense appearance IS reality: objects that we perceive around us continue to exist when no one is perceiving them; this is known as realism.

But there are two difficulties with this. One is that everything that we perceive is illusory to some extent, and illusions are unreal. If you doubt this, try to point to something that you perceive which is wholly free from illusion, and explain how you know it to be so. Furthermore, there is only one reasonable explanation of illusions: namely, that they are misrepresentations of reality, in which case they are images of reality, not reality itself.

The second difficulty is that everything we perceive around us is composed of sensations: colours, sounds, tactile sensations such as various degrees of hard and soft, hot and cold, rough and smooth, solid and liquid, and forces such as weights, inertia, and electromagnetic forces, as well as tastes and smells. These are what philosophers call secondary qualities and they are manufactured in the brain as a result of real data stimulating the sense organs. But if everything empirical is made out of secondary qualities it must be inside the perceiver’s head, private, and mental; while it is a fact that everything we perceive is outside our heads, public, and material. So that is the problem: are appearance and reality one and the same, or are they quite different things?

There is a solution, which is logically easy but psychologically difficult. If all appearances are images of reality rather than reality itself (because of being somewhat illusory and composed of sensations) then your own body, which is also an appearance, is an image of your real body. This means that beyond the apparent blue sky on a sunny day is the inside surface of your real skull.

The relevance of this for people of the 21st century (or for any other century) is that common sense is wrong about realism, just as it was wrong about a flat Earth, geocentrism, and evolution. If you are a genuine seeker after truth you must not be complacent about common sense. Common sense is wonderful for everyday living but not for philosophy or science.

 

[Gadfly]

A very aware dude Einstein, shame he said such a nonsense statement of you can't travel faster than the speed of light.

Peace.Aiki.

This sounds just like Hubbard - make fun of and denigrate actual REAL thinkers, scientists and philosophers.

Personally, I have no idea whether the speed of light represents some uncrossable speed barrier.

But you know. Right? From direct experience?

 

[Aiki]

This sounds just like Hubbard - make fun of and denigrate actual REAL thinkers, scientists and philosophers.

Personally, I have no idea whether the speed of light represents some uncrossable speed barrier.

But you know. Right? From direct experience?

Yep. I know. Funny how this great thinker KNEW you couldn't. Funny how we live in a world where people who can't do or experience can KNOW you can't. They must be experts

Great thinkers is the right word. The explanations you give in italics by one such is to me not very intelligent on the broad scale of intelligence but is intelligent compared to many others thoughts.

Reminds me of the zen koan "a cup of tea" That fella was a great thinker too.

Alas you are wise though in the fact that we cannot proceed on this particular topic, apparently

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Veda, you beat me to the punch! I started to type the same sort of thing, but had to make the soup for dinner.

People ATTACH and ASSOCIATE all sorts of other ideas to this blanket term "OT" (where they don't belong). I am sure that Hubbard encouraged that with instructions about what sort of articles to place in "Advance" magazine. It seems that how it worked out actually is that ANYTHING that didn't fall under the simple five physical senses - call it OT!

Telepathy . . call it "OT". Telekinesis . . . call it "OT". Precognition and predicting the future . . . call it "OT". Making things appear out of nowhere . . . call it "OT". For all practical purposes, how it is used by various dummies in Scientology is as some "catch-all phrase" for anything not understood in terms of phenomena.

The simple fact is that these ideas are all ADDITIVES to how Hubbard simply defined it. And, also, look at the Creation of Human Ability (Route 1), and the old OT Levels 4-6 that were built on these processes. It is all about being out of a body, with the usual senses, able to make things happen in the physical universe. THAT was Hubbard's idea, and many people were attracted to it (at least for some small while).

Here are promo pieces from back in 1974-76 promoting these ideas (see attachments).

You can't have a clue what it "actually means", because it is nonsense defined by Hubbard. Anything else that anyone understands it to be is DUB-IN. Plain and simple.

Now, you CAN talk about advanced abilities and how various methods have been developed (supposedly) in Tibetan Buddhism and advanced Hindu practices. They have names for all the various abilities. They do though look DOWN on anybody who aspires to such abilities, because they act as a distraction to honest spiritual growth (aim to unite with God).

you want to juggle words about "OT" juggle words


I'M HOTSHOT "OT" MUTHUHFUKKAK

i does what i does...

while you doze up you nose...

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Let me clarify. I assume it is possible, because I experienced it once, for about 15 seconds, and spent the rest of the day more blown out than ever before. It happened while doing TR 0, and was not a result of auditing.

But, I place NO VALUE in it as something to aim for or achieve as any sort of permanent state. Also, this had NOTHING to do with any sort of "advanced ability". NOTHING!

Why do I have no concern for it?

Because until a person has developed his character to a point where he or she can transcend the usual first, second and third dynamic concerns and biases, in other words, until he or she has developed a REAL SENSE of ethics and morality (which Scientology and Hubbard do NOT) any sort of abilities would be greatly misused along some insane application of the "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics".

Strangely, outside of very difficult and disciplined techniques of eastern spiritual subjects, nobody is going to gain any advanced abilities through Scientology. You might get a random accidental "taste" here and there (as I did), but there is NO PATH to stabilize and improve various "abilities". That is all PR and bait for ego-obsessed materialistic westerners. Hubbard picked his buttons well.

There seems to be a built-in safeguard. Until a person gets a bit closer to God, or AWAY from the concerns of self and ego (the first three dynamics especially), he or she will NEVER be able to cross into that selfless realm where the abilities reside.

And, as I mentioned above, concern and desire for such abilities is a wrong goal or desire. The view in Hinduism is that while some spiritual aspirants may experience certain "advanced abilities" along the path, they are of NO CONCERN, and act only as a distraction if focused upon. But in Scientology, Hubbard turned them into the primary key purpose.

Also, the realm where people have delved into these sort of advanced abilities the most, all of which can easily be verified by research, involves the ego-directed darker path of Black Magic.

Most Scientologists have no clue about the history of such things. Hubbard made sure never to let THAT cat out of the bag.

not the best usage of cat/bag


the cat was the "cat o' nine tails" and it was kept in a leather bag and it was shall we say a dramatic moment when it come out of the bag because it never went back until fresh blood was cleaned off it

when i studied in the academy i studied what was on the checksheet

studied other things before and since

makes sense to me


i do seem to have wound up knowing more about the darker side of higher spiritual abilities than i expected ever to learn but so long as i'm just posting on the internet no one can actually see the horns growing out of my head

 

[Gadfly]

Alas you are wise though in the fact that we cannot proceed on this particular topic, apparently

Peace.Aiki.

Aiki, earlier in this or another thread, you talked about the commonly agreed upon meaning or way to view something. You gave some value or worth to things that were agreed-upon. I can dig out the quote if you'd like.

Well take that and use it here with what I say next.

In fact, just about everybody else on this ESMB board also cannot proceed with YOU about almost ANY topic! You might question why that might be. :confused2:

 

[Commander Birdsong]

Remote Viewing, as it's defined these days, is usually clairvoyance; astral travel, of course, involves a rarefied body as a vehicle.

Hubbard omitted astral travel from the Scientology curriculum. Was it a missing step?

From Aleister Crowley's 'Magick in Theory and Practice' -

This text is mentioned in the 'Philadelphia Doctorate Course' lectures of 1952, with the title 'The Master Therion'.

Chapter XVIII: '...Body of Light, its Power and Development...':

"You may also try 'Rising on the Planes' with a little practice... you ought to be able to step in and out of the astral body as easily as you slip in and out of a dressing gown. It will then no longer be necessary for your astral body to be sent far off..."

The idea, it seems, was to be out of the physical body with an astral body, and then be out of the astral body.

Looks like Hubbard skipped a level of rarefaction. Oops.

__________​

IMO, there are many things that might be regarded as (Scientology term) "exteriorization." Hubbard made millions promising people "exteriorization with full perception," "stably and at will." Scientology didn't deliver, and Scientology regs and PR people have been weasel-wording their way out of that for decades (usually after the person has spent his money on the "OT levels" and been disappointed.)

In 'DMSMH', the word "exteriorization" is used to mean a kind of disassociation with regard to recall: the person recalls having burned his finger on a hot toaster in a kitchen, and sees his body in the kitchen as though exterior from it. This was not regarded as being out of the body, but a tendency to remember by re-creating the incident in ones mind rather than simply viewing the actual facsimiles of the event, which would have the person experiencing the event from inside his head and not seeing himself from outside. To "run" the incident properly, it would be necessary to bring the person "in valence," so he/she could view the facsimiles of the incident as-is, and not as a re-created version produced by his/her imagination.

The above 1950 Dianetic use of "exteriorization" is largely disregarded, as Scientologists are usually eager to "have gone exterior." IMO, much of the time this is group-pressure and wishful thinking.

As with the process of abreaction http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abreaction , psychical phenomena (or interest in it) http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=239573&postcount=60 is exploited by Scientology, so it's a very mixed up situation - probably a dozen items are classed as the state of being "exterior."

There's what could be called a state of psychological disassociation; the there's being in one's body yet extending a kind of etheric finger and touching or perceiving remotely, while still being "in the body"; then there's being a golf ball sized etheric amoeba popping out of the body; then there's astral travel with an astral body which separates from the body, and a more rarefied "body" that separates from that. (This seems to be a missing bit of information in Scientology which sees astral bodies as "some mystic's delusion." ['Scn 8-8008']; and then there's the idea that one is naturally (as a "being") much larger than the body and that the body is in oneself (or one's being) not the other way around.

_________​

Sometimes, using exteriorization as a "gimmick" backfired on Hubbard.


From a post by Alan Walter, from the 'Exterior with Full Perception' thread - post #35:

Possibly this was my most embarrassing incident to do with LRH.

It occurred on the Original Class VIII course, in Oct 1968.

We were docked in Corfu, a small Greek Island halfway between Greece and Italy.

Each night at 8.00 p.m. LRH gave a lecture.

We were in the main dining room which doubled as the lecture room. Behind LRH were the picture windows facing out to the docks across the way.

Thus there were an approx 300 of the upper level SO Staff and Class VIII students crammed into this room - facing Hubbard and Mary-Sue who sat alongside LRH - so except for LRH and MSH we all viewed the activities outside the windows.

Each night at around 8.30 pm there was a ferry from Corfu to Brindisi that would leave. It was very punctual. There was a lot of clanging and banging and the reving of engines and the ferry would come chugging past us - the sounds are probably still on the tapes.

Of course this pissed LRH off - he would turn and glare at the offending ferry boat.

Any way one night at the exact time there was the usual clanging and banging and the reving of engines the chugging past us noise.

LRH does not turn his head but stares straight us and proceeds to give us how he is exterior with full perceptics - and describes the ferry, etc. He was really puffed up with his ability to demonstrate his exterior with full perceptics.

The only problem was that night a tug boat towing a garbage scow was went past the windows.

We all witnessed it - the emperor was naked!!!

There was deathly silence in the room - the room went very solid. No one looked at another.

Later on only Fred Fairchild, Nev Chamberlin and I dare speak about it. But every staff member and future Class VIII were given a major withhold that night.

Alan

__________​

And not to end on a down note, a song...

Douglas Traherne Harding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AK2m7rYjZ54

brilliant...

that muthuhfukkah had BALLS!!!

he knew what was behind him...


that muthuhfukkah had BALLS!!!

 

[Aiki]

Aiki, earlier in this or another thread, you talked about the commonly agreed upon meaning or way to view something. You gave some value or worth to things that were agreed-upon. I can dig out the quote if you'd like.

Well take that and use it here with what I say next.

In fact, just about everybody else on this ESMB board also cannot proceed with YOU about almost ANY topic! You might question why that might be. :confused2:

May I point out that on amny points I have been told "great points" and various similar positive things too. I'll also point out as with many boards most keep quiet and don't join in for they enjoy reading various viewpoints without any need to jump in to prove anything.

It is true that this thread has done pretty well so far on MY topic. It's proceeded nicely.

Now, with me personally, proceeding in an ongoing communication on a point? Well I haven't been talking to thin air.

So yes I think I know why you consider it so.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Aiki]

brilliant...

that muthuhfukkah had BALLS!!!

he knew what was behind him...


that muthuhfukkah had BALLS!!!

Nice story. I know Nev by the way.

Isn't it funny how a person, no matter who, can be two things.(and more) I've never met one single person who wasn't.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Spirit]

I had many different, but related experiences. The "feelings" of being "keyed-out", "blown-out", "and "exterior" overlap.

First, while doing TRs early in my Scientology career (TR 0), I found myself situated between my face and my twin's face. The visual perception was totally clear, not hazy, and was as vivid as any waking moment. I was looking from a point, with 360 degree visual, and it felt totally natural. It didn't seem weird in any way. Of course, I burst out laughing, in a line-charging sort of way, and lost the viewpoint within 10 or 15 seconds. Sometimes I wish I had someone there to immediately start me in on with the processes of Route 1!

While I lost the perception from any location outside the body, this feeling of being NOT connected to the body, lightness, covering a greater space, serenity, along with a disappearances of any and all attention "in here" lasted many hours, and settled down over a few days. All thought disappeared, and I suddenly was simply totally extroverted upon the MEST universe, with no inner yapping, imagining, playing out inner dramas, or talking to self (which we all usually do constantly).

It was entirely enjoyable, and I can't see how any person would not like the same experience. There was NO component of thinkingness at all. I wasn't thinking about feeling larger, or about not having a mind, and simple was in that state. This had NO component of intellect, and was all direct experience. That is why you can't argue with people who experienced such things.

Second, while studying the PDC tapes at Flag, I would spend many hours studying one paragraph, doing drills, making up drills, making up my own essays, and so forth. I got yelled at all of the time by the Supervisor, for "additives", BUT I always managed to give him large amounts of student points, so he let it go. Plus, I was doing GREAT on it. I immersed myself in it. I would go home thinking about it all, relating it all to other ideas, go to bed thinking about, dream about it, and wake up thinking about it.

Now, in effect I was NOT just "reading", and I was constantly "doing things with my mind", and experimenting with the techniques and processes Hubbard talked about. After applying some idea in some section, I suddenly felt myself as "huge", I "filled the entire room". I felt as if "I" was in the back corner of the room, looking down, but still using the body to look through. I had no perception from outside, but I "felt" as if I was very much "outside. Also, as usual, I was totally calm, lost all inner attention and focus, had little or no attention on the body, ceased all mental activity, and was simply "there". As I walked around I felt as if I was a few feet above my head, but directing and using the body. The senses of sight and hearing were through the body. I had to "take a walk", because I could not sit there in the course room in that state.

Third, I had many blow-outs during auditing. These were usually accompanied by great feelings of serenity, expanded sense of "personal" space, ceasing of all attention towards "self" or towards "inside realm of mind and thoughts", increase in vibrancy of colors, and increase of perceptual details of the physical universe.

Rarely did I have any perceptions for a location outside the body as I did with TRs mentioned above. But, I felt "less connected" to the body, and in a sense "outside" to some varying degree. Part of this may very well be that when you lose attention and focus on the mind, aiming inward, that you naturally change to focusing outward, and THIS manifests as many of the "feelings" described above.

I wonder whether or not the term "exteriorization", as existing out from the body, is the BASIC involved here. For example, it seems to me that if I were OUT of the body, with suitable drilling, I should be able to lose all focus or attention on the body, and instead focus on something like my own IMAGINATION. I wish that I had experimented with visualization techniques back then, but I didn't. I felt too GOOD to bother with anything other than simply being there experiencing the physical universe with nothing else. Though, in retrospect, I should be able to experience ANY universe with nothing else!

I want to discuss a few things about this that I think many never bother to notice.

First, some of our experiences are defined by time, meaning that the idea or experience ONLY makes sense spread out over time. The "growth of a tree" is a real thing, and you can have a real idea about it, but it does NOT exist at any specific point in time. It exists spread out OVER time. One can't view "it" here, right now in PT. See, IN FACT, there are MANY things that exist, but you can NEVER see them "in PT". You can see the IDEA of "growth" in PT, but you cannot ever observe growth in PT. Sure, you can take time elapsed photos, and view the progression quickly, but still, time passes. There are a great many REAL things that exist, but because they are spread out over time or involve relationships, they cannot be viewed "in PT".

This has something to do with these experiences of "exterior". How?

Well, just as a frog won't notice the increase of heat or getting boiled alive in a pot if you increase the temperature slowly, so each of us do NOT notice as our overall general state of being changes. I have a theory about this. I could NEVER have the same or similar experiences today doing Scientology, because I am NOT the same person as I was back then when I first "blew out" and "went exterior". I was a young and naive, quite insecure 25 year old. I was confused about a great many things. I had a great many "personal issues". So, what I was "snapping out and away from" was this bundle of "me" as I existed back then. It was an introverted bundle of messy confusion. I didn't have much experience of life, and had not yet spent many years looking into various things, ideas and aspects of life (from many other viewpoints besides Scientology).

For me, and for others I have spoken to, these GREAT experiences and feelings occurred for the most part IN THE BEGINNING. The reason for that, as I see it, is because the largest changes were made in the beginning. But, as you changed, there would not and could not later be such large changes. For me, the later auditing had less and less experiences of this nature. But also, I was less introverted, and generally had a larger space, so any experience of change would be "less".

Now, today, due to a great many factors, not limited to but including long ago Scientology, studies in the occult, experimentation with visualization, meditation and many other things, I commonly exist with a feeling of a clear and large space. If I were to "go exterior" now, the sense of change or feeling would NOT be the same as back then, when I was so stuck in my own personally-created world of significances, ideas and insecurities. The point is that these early feelings of "exterior" only SEEMED so drastic and HUGE because YOU were such a mess back then! They were, as all things, "relative". They appeared a certain way to you, at the time, based on who and what you were at the time.

Many of us grow and evolve naturally through life. I know that my current state of calmness, serenity and sense of space is far more stable than it ever was with Scientology, and this has little to do with involvement with Scientology or any aim to "be exterior". The experiences early on in auditing seem so HUGE because of the comparison and relative factor of what you were like BACK THEN.

I don't desire or need to "be exterior". It doesn't solve any problem for me. But then, in many ways, I probably am what some might call exterior, to a greater or lesser degree, much of the time.

There are many gradations of such experiences. You can be "fully out with perception from the outside location", or you can be "fully out with no perception from the outside location, but still through the body senses". And anywhere in between. And, you can be partially "out" in a myriad of ways.

In the end it might all be a bunch of nonsense from the viewpoint of an entity of awareness. The awareness unit mocks up and exists in some universe. All of it is of the nature of an "illusion". The idea of "being in a body", "being out of a body", and so forth are considerations of awareness. I suspect that these earlier experiences might have been so dramatic for some of us because various mental factors were shaken up so much - in a very large way. You were taking a WHOLE LIFETIME of previous confusion, and shaking it all up. But once you shake up and rearrange all of that, the amount of possible change left afterwards is far less.

I had some of my largest "blow-outs" and "line charging" in the first few hours of Life Repair.

I can't pretend that the experiences didn't exist. But you cannot and should not evaluate them as you "remember them", because you are ignoring the "change over time" factor here. And this factor is extremely important. You have changed, you have grown, you have evolved, due to a great many factors, and any relationship of YOU NOW, with various processes and techniques will NOT result in the same sets of experiences.

These feelings of "sudden blow-out" were a result of a RELATIONSHIP of YOU (as you existed then) with the processes. Some people grasp onto the feelings and experiences, and want to "feel them" like any other enjoyable experience, over again, just like they did before. In a very real sense, one desires to "be the effect" of feeling serene, expansive, and bright.

That was always a problem I had with Scientology. It didn't provide a system of methods so that you could CREATE the feeling and state at will. You were always the unknown EFFECT of some process. It happened "to you". And, it couldn't be predicted or brought about consistently at all. I suspect that due to my extensive experimentation with other practices where one learns to better direct attention, focus and ones inner sense of space, I have some ability to "go exterior" at will - though I cannot be out with any perception (granted I have never tried to either). But, in many other ways, in terms of calm, serenity, loss of mental introversion, ability to be there either extroverted or introverted, I am FAR better than I was back in them early days of Scientology.

Now, could I develop the ability to "be out", and perceive with total clarity and consciousness? Maybe. Bur for me, I simply place no value in that, and concern myself with other things (to thus develop my character which I might then carry forward in a Karmnic sense).

During TR0, I went exterior also, but my perceptics were not a bright as yours. I also had the physical universe vanish for a few moments and then it came back with brighter perceptics, then it went away and came back with even brighter perceptics. Each time the MEST universe vanished I could only percieve a field of static. I was blown out. As you stated before, it was in the beginning of my Scn experience.

There was a change that took place during this period of time, but near death experiences a few years later surely were a factor: I developed a stronger telepathic ability and an ability to heal, along with some unique abilities when emotionally charged. I do not think you would believe me if I told you the rest of the story. You mentioned exagerated claims by Scientologists and I am sure you would feel that I was doing just that. I did have witnesses to the events. This abilty to influence MEST while emotionally charged has diminished somewhat (for now). Restoration of these abilities is one of my objectives.

 

[Spirit]

Fast typist.

And I use only 2 fingers!

I am CONSTANTLY making typing mistakes, and backing up and correcting (and using the sell-checker).

Where there is a will there is a way . . . . .

That is amazing. I have noticed how quickly you whip out long posts in the time it takes me to write a short one.

 

[PirateAndBum]

The notion that reality exists only to us as appearance began before Plato, and has been the subject of many careful thinkers ever since then.

The simple fact is that you are not familiar with the great thinkers who have argued and thought about all of this LONG BEFORE YOU made your "glib" comments above.

I can't even have a sensible conversation with you about such things until you get up to speed a bit.

APPEARANCE AND REALITY by Bertrand Russell

Here is a good place to start:

Appearance and reality in the 21st century (excerpt below)

Appearance is what we perceive around us; it is sometimes known as the empirical, which means known through the senses. Reality is most commonly defined as all that exists regardless of whether it is perceived or not; in other words, it exists independently of anyone’s perception. According to common sense appearance IS reality: objects that we perceive around us continue to exist when no one is perceiving them; this is known as realism.

But there are two difficulties with this. One is that everything that we perceive is illusory to some extent, and illusions are unreal. If you doubt this, try to point to something that you perceive which is wholly free from illusion, and explain how you know it to be so. Furthermore, there is only one reasonable explanation of illusions: namely, that they are misrepresentations of reality, in which case they are images of reality, not reality itself.

The second difficulty is that everything we perceive around us is composed of sensations: colours, sounds, tactile sensations such as various degrees of hard and soft, hot and cold, rough and smooth, solid and liquid, and forces such as weights, inertia, and electromagnetic forces, as well as tastes and smells. These are what philosophers call secondary qualities and they are manufactured in the brain as a result of real data stimulating the sense organs. But if everything empirical is made out of secondary qualities it must be inside the perceiver’s head, private, and mental; while it is a fact that everything we perceive is outside our heads, public, and material. So that is the problem: are appearance and reality one and the same, or are they quite different things?

There is a solution, which is logically easy but psychologically difficult. If all appearances are images of reality rather than reality itself (because of being somewhat illusory and composed of sensations) then your own body, which is also an appearance, is an image of your real body. This means that beyond the apparent blue sky on a sunny day is the inside surface of your real skull.

The relevance of this for people of the 21st century (or for any other century) is that common sense is wrong about realism, just as it was wrong about a flat Earth, geocentrism, and evolution. If you are a genuine seeker after truth you must not be complacent about common sense. Common sense is wonderful for everyday living but not for philosophy or science.

Hmm, I don't know Gad, it seems to me that this quote is refuting your definition of reality. I just may be a stupid doofus, but it seems to me that what you are calling "reality" is what Bertrand names "appearance" and that Aki is talking about reality per this quote. You seem to be arguing for the "common sense" definition while Aki is opting for reality being "what is actual".

 

[PirateAndBum]

I don't think Bertrand really gets to the root of the matter. I'll post here Homer W Smith's "Abstract" of his "The Proof". It does a better job IMO.

For the entire series (where he goes into this in much greater detail) of his writings on this see: http://www.lightlink.com/theproof/

Quite a nice piece of work by Homer

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the Machine Certainty Theorem (MCT) and it's
ramifications.

The MCT states that a machine can not learn anything with perfect
certainty.

This statement depends heavily on the definitions of machine,
learn, and certainty.

A machine is defined as any system of parts interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.

A "space time distance" is later generalized to "dimension" which
is later generalized further to "difference", i.e. two different
objects.

Thus "learning across a difference, dimension, or space time
distance is impossible."

To learn is defined as to come to know knowledge about.

Certainty is defined as perfect certainty.

Perfect certainty is defined as learned knowledge which can not
be wrong, i.e. knowledge one is sure is true without possibility of
error.

It is asserted that all learning results from being the effect of
some cause. The effect contains some data about the nature of the
cause, and that effect IS the learning that takes place.

This is called learning by indirect perception. One learns about
A by looking at B, i.e. A's causal imprint on B. In this case B is
the machine learning about A.

In the absence of an effect or causal imprint, there is no
learning.

It is also asserted that "state does not prove prior state", i.e.
any state a machine might be in, will never contain certainty that it
was ever in a prior state.

Thus it is concluded that a machine can not learn with certainty
that it has changed state.

In the absence of certainty of a change in state, there must also
be an absence of certainty that an effect was received, which implies
an absence of certainty on any learning that might have been deduced
from that effect.

It is further asserted that correlation does not prove causation.

Thus effects do not prove cause, i.e. changes in state 'here' do
not prove prior states 'there', either in the machine itself or
elsewhere.

Remember 'here' and 'there' mean two different points in either
space or time or both. It will be shown that the key term is 'two
different'.

It is thus concluded that a machine can not be built to prove
that there is a cause merely by looking at effects, EVEN IF COULD BE
CERTAIN OF EFFECTS WHICH IT CAN'T.

Since effects do not prove cause, and all a machine can do is BE
an effect, no machine can learn with certainty that there is cause.

In other words it is offered that because a machine learns by
being an effect of causes, and because effect does not prove cause, a
machine can never learn with certainty if cause exists merely by
studying effects.

The concept of an effect is native to a machine, because machines
work by being an effect.

But the concept of cause is non native to a machine.

Cause and its nature forever remain a theory to a machine, not a
directly perceived perfect certainty.

IN CONCLUSION

Because a machine can only learn by being an effect, and

because a machine can not learn with certainty that it has
changed state, and

because a machine can not learn with certainty that a change in
state was caused,

it is concluded that a machine can not learn with certainty
about anything, which includes cause, space, time, or the existence
of anything including itself.

The important application of the MCT is in the reverse, since
consciousness can learn with perfect certainty a number of things, including
its own existence, perception of two different colors, and personal
agency (causation), one is led to conclude that consciousness is not a
machine, not using indirect perception to learn about itself, but
instead using direct perception by looking at itself directly.

Homer


Thus, it is consciousness that one can have a perfect certainty on. No perfect certainty can be had that there really exists something "out there" using the "machine" we call a body.

 

[Spirit]

brilliant...

that muthuhfukkah had BALLS!!!

he knew what was behind him...


that muthuhfukkah had BALLS!!!

http://youtu.be/_W-fIn2QZgg