"The first REAL OT Level" enemy line?

[The Oracle]

"It's usually easier to knock a theory down than to come up with a good one in the first place".

Oh, that explains a lot for me.
I do have my blind spots!

 

[Zinjifar]

"It's usually easier to knock a theory down than to come up with a good one in the first place".

Oh, that explains a lot for me.
I do have my blind spots!

But, does it explain enough?

What's called a 'theory' here isn't really; it's a 'hypothesis'.

The point to a 'hypothesis' is that it's *presented* for people to throw stones at it.

Knock it down.

It's why it's *there*

If it stand around, long enough, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and even the scoffers and scallawags of eternal denigration...

Then, and *only* then, might it become a 'theory'.

Which *remains* on a pedestal just *begging* to be knocked off.

A theory is only as good as its last tomato or brickbat.

There's nothing 'holy' about a 'theory'. It's an open challenge with all the gunslingers trying their best to knock it off.

And, all it takes is *one shot*

The more 'expansive' the theory, the more likely it is to be shot at from multiple angles, and, the less likely it is to survive a year or a week or a day.

Zinj

 

[Veda]

I'm not sure what qualifies as 'parting ways with The Tech', but, as far as I know, Alan was still in VGS (very good standing) until the late 70s.

Zinj

Permit me to restate: Years ago, Alan parted ways with (what became) the "tech" after 1964, meaning the post-1964 "tech" (notice the quotes, as I don't usually use the term, "tech"), by which is meant the main counseling procedures ("Commodore Hubbard/Xenu package," for short) that came about after 1964.

P.S. Below was originally posted to theillusioness:

Alan parted ways with (what became) the "tech" after 1964, while you buy the Commodore Hubbard/Xenu package, complete with Hubbard's PR lines about various enemy conspiracies - although you haven't yet commented on Hubbard's assertion that his 2nd wife was a Russian spy.

I think I have more in common with Alan's views than do you, yet I don't flaunt those similarities.

Long before I heard of Scientology I practiced what is usually called "astral travelling," separating the astral body from the physical, and then the more subtle "light body" (an 'aura' with no other form) from the astral. Yet, I don't make "Ten Commandment" type (single sentence) pronouncements about it.

TI, I think you're on a bit of an ego trip, and are very much (happily?) "tangled up in Hubbard," and do hope you make it through the Hubbard "tilt-a-whirl" fun house ride OK.

 

[Veda]

Veda wrote: "TI, I think you're on a bit of an ego trip, and are very much (happily?) "tangled up in Hubbard," and do hope you make it through the Hubbard "tilt-a-whirl" fun house ride OK".


Who were you trying to suppress before me?

Observation: You snipped my post, and left in the part that suited you, and provided an accusation of "suppressive" intent, and did so in the form of a "no-answer answer" disguised as an auditing question.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I'd like to point out that merely achieving "at cause over mental mest on the first dynamic" would be enough to make it easy for a Being to "decide" he could do all the OT tricks and it would be true for him.

I look on that description not as something all-encompassing but much in the same way as David Mayo in this essay on Clear. Here's a brief excerpt:

It is also significant that the attributes of a clear, as described in DMSMH, were never actually attained, although in reading DMSMH, one might be led to believe that they were. When people started attesting to clear, the definition was watered down to the vague generality "at cause over mental MEST as regards the first dynamic". This definition can mean many different things to many different people. Anyone is at least somewhat causative over his own mind. So anyone can find an interpretation of this definition of "clear" that he can attest to.

Paul

 

[Terril park]

I think we need to take a look at our definition of knowing. I grew up understanding it to mean: to know the truth. That implies there must be
some mechanism in the human mind which raises doubts or signals uncertainty whenever there is something we believe we "know" but which in fact is untrue. About the only things I can know with complete certainty are those things I have created myself. I always take "knowledge" of external things (facts, etc) with a grain of salt because it is so obvious to me how easy it is to be mistaken about such things. Even my own perceptions can sometimes be completely off the mark, but I am gradually getting better at taking responsibility for my own role in their origination. The gradient on that is to acknowledge the contribution of one's own interpretation to what is perceived. Lots of people apparently fail to adequately distinguish between
direct knowledge of something they're creating ("first dynamic" in the jargon) and indirect or inferred knowledge about everything else. It's easy to assume our internal "certainty of knowledge" can be extended to external things and other beings' creations. Quite a big mistake. Obviously we don't understand everything about the physical universe - we cannot yet cure cancer for example. But still we have acceptable theories which sometimes pass for the complete truth. Humans have erroneously believed they had the right understanding of things for a very long time now. The next generation often shows the previous generation's "truths" were only approximations or worse, outright lies! Earlier in this thread someone posted a link to a discourse on differentiating between knowing something and knowing about something. I'm looking forward to checking it out.
Bill

Exteriorisation is an obvious phenomenon when it occurs. Being able to achieve it may be a different matter. When I was 6, one evening drifting of to sleep, the whole universe shifted. It was scary! I called for my mum and told her everything had got further away. She had no idea what I was talking about. For the next 8 years I would at times and without intention go exterior. Then sometimes there was the problem of getting back in again.
Eventually I got this under control and could go in or out at will. I then
didn't bother to use this ability and lost it, only to have it return sporadicly since.

This was a definite recognisable phenomenon and occurred many years before I heard about scientology. The description 3 feet back of the head
is the best description. Described as the optimum position. That was my take on it.

 

[lionheart]

TI, is it just my interpretation of your recent posts on this thread, or have you become somewhat more dogmatic recently?

You said a particular view of heaven only existed on heroin (I think, you named a drug of some sort anyway) - how do you know that?

You seem to think, now, that to criticise or disown a Hubbard theory, one must have proof of an alternative theory or some sort of equally dogmatic answer.

You postulated some sort of theory about if not being cause (after death in particular) you would be effect. How do you know that? Suppose cause and effect are just illusions of life?

I always thought you had a more open if somewhat unusual take on life and Hubbardology.

 

[spbill]

I look on that description not as something all-encompassing but much in the same way as David Mayo in this essay on Clear

For me, "at cause over mental mest on the first dynamic" isn't a watered-down definition. LRH doesn't say "at cause over *some* mental mest" - so
that implies (to me at least) at direct cause over all mental mest. As you point out, everyone is capable of influencing mental mest in some ways. I don't think that's what Hubbard had in mind. He went to great lengths to assert differences between clears and non-clears. So it doesn't seem very likely to me he would come up with a definition of clear that would apply to every Being on the planet! I agree lots of interpretive watering-down was done afterwards by persons trying to reconcile their actual abilities achieved with those promised by Hubbard.
Bill

 

[spbill]

Exteriorisation is an obvious phenomenon when it occurs. Being able to achieve it may be a different matter. When I was 6, one evening drifting of to sleep, the whole universe shifted. It was scary! I called for my mum and told her everything had got further away. She had no idea what I was talking about. For the next 8 years I would at times and without intention go exterior. Then sometimes there was the problem of getting back in again.
Eventually I got this under control and could go in or out at will. I then
didn't bother to use this ability and lost it, only to have it return sporadicly since.

This was a definite recognisable phenomenon and occurred many years before I heard about scientology. The description 3 feet back of the head
is the best description. Described as the optimum position. That was my take on it.

I've no doubt there is some phenomenon which gives rise to the subjective sensations you describe. I do, however, question the literal interpretation. Just for argument, let's assume you stayed inside your head all the time. Could you not then *imagine* looking at things from a viewpoint 3 feet in back of your head? Of course you could! I agree with Hubbard that a Being has no inherent location in space or time so it doesn't even make sense to try to establish where you were in fact while you thought you were exterior. A Being can consider he is located anywhere; that doesn't mean he *is* located there, it just means he has the consideration. A Being can also consider he can perceive things remotely from his body. Just like we all do, for example, while dreaming at night. Doesn't mean squat though, because when we wake up it's immediately obvious that whatever happened in the dream never happened in the real world. The whole thing was mocked up.
Bill

 

[Veda]

I've no doubt there is some phenomenon which gives rise to the subjective sensations you describe. I do, however, question the literal interpretation. Just for argument, let's assume you stayed inside your head all the time. Could you not then *imagine* looking at things from a viewpoint 3 feet in back of your head? Of course you could! I agree with Hubbard that a Being has no inherent location in space or time so it doesn't even make sense to try to establish where you were in fact while you thought you were exterior. A Being can consider he is located anywhere; that doesn't mean he *is* located there, it just means he has the consideration. A Being can also consider he can perceive things remotely from his body. Just like we all do, for example, while dreaming at night. Doesn't mean squat though, because when we wake up it's immediately obvious that whatever happened in the dream never happened in the real world. The whole thing was mocked up.
Bill

What does it all mean? Ask Mr. Natural:

http://students.ou.edu/M/Richard.T.Marcy-1/Images/mr natural.JPG

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Oh gosh, never say I have "MUs" on Monty Python! Oh noooooo!

 

[Tanstaafl]

Oh gosh, never say I have "MUs" on Monty Python! Oh noooooo!

Why are you afraid? Is it that the penalty for MUs on Python is to be poked with the soft cushions? Or, god forbid, to be sat in the comfy chair?
Beats doing condition formulas.

 

[Terril park]

I've no doubt there is some phenomenon which gives rise to the subjective sensations you describe. I do, however, question the literal interpretation. Just for argument, let's assume you stayed inside your head all the time. Could you not then *imagine* looking at things from a viewpoint 3 feet in back of your head? Of course you could! I agree with Hubbard that a Being has no inherent location in space or time so it doesn't even make sense to try to establish where you were in fact while you thought you were exterior. A Being can consider he is located anywhere; that doesn't mean he *is* located there, it just means he has the consideration. A Being can also consider he can perceive things remotely from his body. Just like we all do, for example, while dreaming at night. Doesn't mean squat though, because when we wake up it's immediately obvious that whatever happened in the dream never happened in the real world. The whole thing was mocked up.
Bill

Its a bit like truth from the mouths of babes, I wasn't much more than one.
I didn't have any references or knowledge to begin to imagine being three feet back of my head. Why on earth would I want to? I didn't try to imagine anything. The phenomenon just occurred. In fact I don't really know why it happened, except perhaps because it could. Although I had extremely poor control of it.

Sounds to me that you may have not experienced this phenomena and look
at it from a theoretical viewpoint. Just trying to share a reality.

 

[spbill]

[..]
Sounds to me that you may have not experienced this phenomena and look
at it from a theoretical viewpoint. Just trying to share a reality.

I have experienced hallucination but I expect you wouldn't agree that was the same thing
Bill

 

[Alan]

Gee! Bill - there was some sandal wearing long haired hippie back a couple of thousand years ago that summed thing up pretty good - he said: "The Kingdom of Heaven and all lower harmonics are within!"

Create the space - be the space - be in the space - be a dot within a dot to be within the infinity of smaller dots. -then reverse the process using at least 8 anchor points until you can create and occupy it all again.

The physical universe seen from the correct distance is a wonderful spinning golden ball , neatly centered within yourself......thats partial exterior.

Alan
________

 

[beyond_horizons]

Gee! Bill - there was some sandal wearing long haired hippie back a couple of thousand years ago that summed thing up pretty good - he said: "The Kingdom of Heaven and all lower harmonics are within!"

Thats exactly the way I felt 30 some years ago when I set out to understand the nature of that "light" that appeared during that NDE before ever getting wrapped around that axil called scientology.

I recall that was along the lines of the very first thing I talked about, the very first week in the mission, the very first time I picked up the cans in that mission.

 

[spbill]

Gee! Bill - there was some sandal wearing long haired hippie back a couple of thousand years ago that summed thing up pretty good - he said: "The Kingdom of Heaven and all lower harmonics are within!"

I wonder if he got whatever he was on from the Tel Aviv Head Shop?

Create the space - be the space - be in the space - be a dot within a dot to be within the infinity of smaller dots. -then reverse the process using at least 8 anchor points until you can create and occupy it all again.

Thanks Alan, that was helpful. I am somewhat reluctant to actually do it however. You see, I'm a computer person - and I tend to think with a programmer's mindset. Until recently it was quite impossible to harm a computer just by running software on it - even flawed software: you could always hit the reset button if you got into trouble. Lately however, the distinction between hardware and software has become blurred. With the advent of Flash memory engineers have been increasingly putting the "brains" of the computer into firmware which can be overwritten just by running a special program on the computer. In other words, the computer's mind can rewire its brain. It is sometimes possible to destroy a computer (turn it into a brick for all practical purposes), just by inadvertently running a flawed program on it. I'm talking here about reflashing the BIOS and accidentally wiping out the code which enables the BIOS to be reprogrammed. My apprehension stems from a concern that the human computer may be set up the same way. Let's say someone comes up with a process which leads to insanity. PC runs the process. PC is thereafter unreachable. The feeling I have is that by as-ising the outermost context I'd lose all of my past including my identity. I could always create a new identity later (if it occurred to me to do so) but that wouldn't be the same would it? I feel safe running any process as long as it's done within a context so there is some way to get back, some surviving reference to the way things were before I started the process. Creating and destroying space threatens that sense of security. Of course I realize (intellectually) that there is charge on the chain of contexts which needs to be as-ised but that doesn't quite override my apprehension. It's like going to a faith healer who gives you a knife, tells you to stab yourself in the heart but not to worry about it because you won't die, everything will be all right. "Try it, you'll like it" or "you must have faith before you can know the Lord" etc. Personally, I have an aversion to taking leaps of faith. Let's face it, stepping into the unknown can be downright dangerous! On the other hand, never doing so can be downright boring; one could spend a lifetime in the same trap! For what it's worth, my grade 6 endwords were Open/Shut. I'm an open and shut case

The physical universe seen from the correct distance is a wonderful spinning golden ball , neatly centered within yourself......thats partial exterior.

Yes, and as Roland might say, you knew I already knew that, right?
Bill

 

[ExScnDude]

Technically, a thetan is a pure static, a singularity.

Therefore, by definition, one's mind is not one's self.

Hence, fully exterior would include the concept of being out of one's mind.



You remember the old joke - "My parents told me that if I became involved in Scientology, I would amount to nothing."

And they were right!

 

[ExScnDude]

Writing that last post got me to thinking - I still think a few thoughts every once in a while.....

The first thing a person new to Scientology has to believe is that they are indeed a static, a pure potential. Thus, a person is not their body and a person is not their mind. Because an individual in native state is truly a static, they are not actually located in the duality of the physical universe.

IMO, this is the leap of faith an individual must take for the entire Scientology bridge to make sense to them. It IS a leap of faith because this is the one datum in Scientology that can never be empirically proven, because by definition, a static is not measurable in the classically scientific sense.

I think the entire bridge, the way it is arranged, the processes on it, the theory etc.... all makes sense as soon as one buys into this first datum.

I'm thinking if an individual feels that they are receiving some benefit from Scientology that they have to some degree made this first datum their own.

Conversely, when I think back to my career in Scientology, all of those things I really hated were those activities and behaviors that violated this first datum. For instance, the use of force on a staff member. The use of force is making the target into a something. :mad: How about an S.P. declare - if that isn't the exact opposite of this first datum, I don't know what is. Hey everybody, Joe Blow is an S.P.

Anyway, I thought it was about time the old Ex-Scientology Dude shared a few brain cells. And it's a damn good thing they are not me because I'm running out of them at a good clip.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

To this day, I refuse to be an organ donor cuz of what happened to that lady in The Meaning of Life.