The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[RogerB]

Nice, Ed.

Congrats to your daughters, you, and their mum!

I know M****, she's the economist, but I'm not familiar with the movie maker

Rog

 

[Hatshepsut]

re Carmelo's daughter

Same kids whom clearly had quite remarkable parents who gave them love, support and ecouragement, thus enabling and empowering them with a deep selfconfidence, a sense of being imortant, central to their parent's world, through being and feeling so very loved. It, surely, is that, that allowed them to blossom and grow in the fullest sense and become complete and wonderful adults, enabled to achieve such great and such remarkable things in their lives. Well done to you. It is such life affirming stories as your's that point to the real solution.

DITTO
VERY WELL DONE on raising her Carmelo!

 

[Ted]

re Carmelo's daughter




DITTO
VERY WELL DONE on raising her Carmelo!

Watching this situation unfold, I have come to believe that daughter, now grown, is raising good parents.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

God, more thought police!!! Get yourselves free, people!

I got invited to the party by Hector. I was told it was for ex CCLA staff so I quickly called Candy and invited her since she was CCLA staff too. Hector called me back told me that the person hosting the party said that I was okay but that Candy could not come. I asked, "Why, praytell, is Candy being barred?" I was told that the hostess knows that Candy still believes that some of Scn tech works and that anyone who believes that is not welcome. I told Hector that I believe that as well so I will not be coming either. He said fine. I had to call Candy and tell her we could not go and she hit the roof.

How small is it to bar someone from your party because they believe that some pieces of Scientology are effective? I would never associate with people of such a mindset, They are not any better than C of S in my opinion. They are being foolish and stupid. Who needs it? There are so many people of good will and with some sense of sanity and justice which appreciate good communication and dialogue, why mess around with a few sickos? Like they used to say in Scientology, we will pick them up later on and get them cleaned up too.
Lakey

Oh, for Pete's sake!!! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...geeze, no offense to anybody who squirrels the tech, which Ron himself didn't invent or create but "squirreled" from others...

Both Purple and Lakey are lovely fun beings who would be an asset at any social gathering. Period.

Oh grow up people and let go of some of your fear and false boundaries!!! PLEASE!!!

Sorry that this happened to you guys. Lakey, good for you for speaking your truth and sticking up for a friend with integrity. Bravo.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Bloody brilliant, Ted.

This is a very right item.

The ideal scenario is for a Being to be able to permeate and be at one with and in harmony with all. Then there can be the loving and harmonious action of influencing.

When in that position of loving "oneness" one is most easily duplicated. And one can most easily, and actually only then, can truly duplicate and get the actual truth of things.

So, "being three feet behind" or out of anything is really a losing proposition destined to cause strife.

But by the same token one does not have to be "in" the thing . . . one can be bigger than it while permeating it within oneself.

Rog

I LOVE the way you worded this Rog, I am going to needlepoint it on a pillow! It is what I try to put into practice every day of my life!

 

[Terril park]

Bloody brilliant, Ted.

This is a very right item.

The ideal scenario is for a Being to be able to permeate and be at one with and in harmony with all. Then there can be the loving and harmonious action of influencing.

When in that position of loving "oneness" one is most easily duplicated. And one can most easily, and actually only then, can truly duplicate and get the actual truth of things.

So, "being three feet behind" or out of anything is really a losing proposition destined to cause strife.

But by the same token one does not have to be "in" the thing . . . one can be bigger than it while permeating it within oneself.

Rog

I disagree with you and Ted here. Quite unusual.

Having spent time three feet back of my head prior to scn I see it as a step
towards pan determinism.

"The ideal scenario is for a Being to be able to permeate and be at one with and in harmony with all. Then there can be the loving and harmonious action of influencing."

This is different? If so how?

Being three feet back of ones head in my experience is a step upward.

Not using, I sort of lost it at least spacially wise.

The ability to locate 3 feet back of ones head I consider an excellent step in spiritual progress.

Exterior is almost as tricky as Law.

Lamont Jackson defined 10 categories of exterior. If ACT still has these I'll post here.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

If you can find them, I'd like to read them Terrill! Thanks!

 

[Ted]

Int./Ext. WTF?!

I disagree with you and Ted here. Quite unusual.

Having spent time three feet back of my head prior to scn I see it as a step
towards pan determinism.

"The ideal scenario is for a Being to be able to permeate and be at one with and in harmony with all. Then there can be the loving and harmonious action of influencing."

This is different? If so how?

Being three feet back of ones head in my experience is a step upward.

Not using, I sort of lost it at least spacially wise.

The ability to locate 3 feet back of ones head I consider an excellent step in spiritual progress.

Exterior is almost as tricky as Law.

Lamont Jackson defined 10 categories of exterior. If ACT still has these I'll post here.

In my usual style, I will state my case with no ill will towards another's.

Exterior, yes, we discussed that. Alan contributed as did Enid Vien. I might have as well. I do not remember.

dynamism.org/articles/timeless.html

If you put all these references together you will likely find some crossover and some new stuff from each. LaMont's writing was always supportive of LRH and he leans closely to those references. ACW and Enid branched out on their own and added greatly to the knowledge and experience base. "Three feet behind" will work for some peeps and others will be led astray.

As for "being three feet in back of," on the outset this looks like a correct perspective especially when comparing that to pan-determinism and the subject of 8C. Yet, I find this concept lacking as it too closely relates to domination. The damnedest situation I ever experienced was working with Int. Management and even my own OEC trained staff and the field(!) where everyone seemed to be jockeying for that coveted position of control "three feet behind" my head. And not a damned one of those people could have done my job. How's that for potential 8C? Not too good, huh? Talk about the feeling or perception of BT's and clusters, well there it was right in PT.

As for me personally, I had a very tough time "going exterior." Objective processes drug on and on. Why? I am almost always cheerful, cooperative, and exterior! I am not three feet behind the head or body. I am all around it and definitely in it too. I am at the perceived center of the universe. That a human body happens to be there right now is but a matter of perception. AllThatIs is right here. How exterior is that?

To paraphrase Hubbard from some forgotten PL talking of "doing what one is doing while one is doing it," when being a human being, BE A HUMAN BEING.

A being is "exterior" to anything it is looking at or otherwise perceiving. People are always asking to prove this exterior state. To that I say, "Okay. First tell me what you have going on that will prove to me that you are interior." It helps in figuring out their reference points and hidden standards.

Being "three feet behind" is, itself, a hidden standard. Not to invalidate your perceptions at all. I just think that we might not be speaking the same language when it comes to this subject.

 

[Terril park]

In my usual style, I will state my case with no ill will towards another's.

Exterior, yes, we discussed that. Alan contributed as did Enid Vien. I might have as well. I do not remember.

dynamism.org/articles/timeless.html

If you put all these references together you will likely find some crossover and some new stuff from each. LaMont's writing was always supportive of LRH and he leans closely to those references. ACW and Enid branched out on their own and added greatly to the knowledge and experience base. "Three feet behind" will work for some peeps and others will be led astray.

As for "being three feet in back of," on the outset this looks like a correct perspective especially when comparing that to pan-determinism and the subject of 8C. Yet, I find this concept lacking as it too closely relates to domination. The damnedest situation I ever experienced was working with Int. Management and even my own OEC trained staff and the field(!) where everyone seemed to be jockeying for that coveted position of control "three feet behind" my head. And not a damned one of those people could have done my job. How's that for potential 8C? Not too good, huh? Talk about the feeling or perception of BT's and clusters, well there it was right in PT.

As for me personally, I had a very tough time "going exterior." Objective processes drug on and on. Why? I am almost always cheerful, cooperative, and exterior! I am not three feet behind the head or body. I am all around it and definitely in it too. I am at the perceived center of the universe. That a human body happens to be there right now is but a matter of perception. AllThatIs is right here. How exterior is that?

To paraphrase Hubbard from some forgotten PL talking of "doing what one is doing while one is doing it," when being a human being, BE A HUMAN BEING.

A being is "exterior" to anything it is looking at or otherwise perceiving. People are always asking to prove this exterior state. To that I say, "Okay. First tell me what you have going on that will prove to me that you are interior." It helps in figuring out their reference points and hidden standards.

Being "three feet behind" is, itself, a hidden standard. Not to invalidate your perceptions at all. I just think that we might not be speaking the same language when it comes to this subject.

Totally agree we may not be speaking the same language!

I experienced 3 feet behind many times in my youth. Originally
compulsively. Then after 8 years gained full control, and then problem solved
did no more of this. Pre scn. Except sporadically In COS.

Lost the ability. I think. Am I exterior now? Not the same way if at all.

Don't think it relates to domination. Don't see much relation to 8C.

Those trying to control you via " Three feet back" were assholes. We/I
understand your wisdom.

"As for me personally, I had a very tough time "going exterior." Objective processes drug on and on. Why? I am almost always cheerful, cooperative, and exterior! I am not three feet behind the head or body. I am all around it and definitely in it too. I am at the perceived center of the universe. That a human body happens to be there right now is but a matter of perception. AllThatIs is right here. How exterior is that?"

Fascinating. For me the same really. However I have a long track of
handling the problems given me by compulsive exteriorisation.

I solved them to a degree.


"Being "three feet behind" is, itself, a hidden standard."

Perhaps you can explain more.

For me it was a fact. When around 6 years old I observed the whole room
moving back. I had then no data on this phenomena and my mum didn't either.

 

[Ted]

Totally agree we may not be speaking the same language!

I experienced 3 feet behind many times in my youth. Originally
compulsively. Then after 8 years gained full control, and then problem solved
did no more of this. Pre scn. Except sporadically In COS.

[1] Lost the ability. I think. Am I exterior now? Not the same way if at all.

[2] Don't think it relates to domination. [3] Don't see much relation to 8C.

Those trying to control you via " Three feet back" were assholes. We/I
understand your wisdom.

"As for me personally, I had a very tough time "going exterior." Objective processes drug on and on. Why? I am almost always cheerful, cooperative, and exterior! I am not three feet behind the head or body. I am all around it and definitely in it too. I am at the perceived center of the universe. That a human body happens to be there right now is but a matter of perception. AllThatIs is right here. How exterior is that?"

Fascinating. For me the same really. However I have a long track of
handling the problems given me by compulsive exteriorisation.

I solved them to a degree.


[4] "Being "three feet behind" is, itself, a hidden standard."

Perhaps you can explain more.

For me it was a fact. When around 6 years old I observed the whole room
moving back. I had then no data on this phenomena and my mum didn't either.

1) See all the extant definitions for ext.

2) Sit in the Hubbard universe as I was when I wrote that. I find it plain as day.

3) It's classic 8C stuff. Start with SOP-8C. EP of that process is ext.

4) Gladly. See the other definitions of ext. first.

 

[FoTi]

Totally agree we may not be speaking the same language!

I experienced 3 feet behind many times in my youth. Originally
compulsively. Then after 8 years gained full control, and then problem solved
did no more of this. Pre scn. Except sporadically In COS.

Lost the ability. I think. Am I exterior now? Not the same way if at all.

Don't think it relates to domination. Don't see much relation to 8C.

Those trying to control you via " Three feet back" were assholes. We/I
understand your wisdom.

"As for me personally, I had a very tough time "going exterior." Objective processes drug on and on. Why? I am almost always cheerful, cooperative, and exterior! I am not three feet behind the head or body. I am all around it and definitely in it too. I am at the perceived center of the universe. That a human body happens to be there right now is but a matter of perception. AllThatIs is right here. How exterior is that?"

Fascinating. For me the same really. However I have a long track of
handling the problems given me by compulsive exteriorisation.

I solved them to a degree.


"Being "three feet behind" is, itself, a hidden standard."

Perhaps you can explain more.

For me it was a fact. When around 6 years old I observed the whole room
moving back. I had then no data on this phenomena and my mum didn't either.

What's compulsive exteriorisation?

 

[Terril park]

1) See all the extant definitions for ext.

2) Sit in the Hubbard universe as I was when I wrote that. I find it plain as day.

3) It's classic 8C stuff. Start with SOP-8C. EP of that process is ext.

4) Gladly. See the other definitions of ext. first.

Went ext before scn. No 8C. Will check this out.


Thanks.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

What's compulsive exteriorisation?

not of one's own determinism, doing it regularly like a drinker must have booze.

one night in Tarzana. I went to dive into my friend's pool. As I hit the water, I realized that the pool wasn't heated. I was out of my body instantly. I swam to the other side and got out. I didn't go near my body for hours - it was so cold.

 

[Terril park]

What's compulsive exteriorisation?

When I was six years old everything in the room moved further away.
My Mum couldn't understand my problem. Took 8 years to get full control of this phenomenon. Then could do so at will.

However in WW2 she in a panic moment watched herself hide behind a wall
when a V1 dropped locally. From an exterior viewpoint.

 

[JackStraw]

yep

same kid who has run the Bay to Breakers (12K) since she was 6

same kid that picked apricots from the top of the fruit ladder at 10 months

same kid who worked steadily since she was 4 with SAG and AFTRA cards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPncP1VPSss

same kid who was auditing at 15 (first time this life) at ACW's Dallas center and gave a Class Vl the best session of his life

same kid who won the junior division of the Tevis, the world's toughest endurance horse race (100 miles across the Sierras in 24 hours or less)

same kid who has worked as marketing director of Shanghai's largest law firm (300 lawyers), and gotten better pay than some of the lawyers

same kid, who skis well, and has since she was 2

same kid who rode across Mongolia on horseback

same kid who speaks English, French, Italian, Mandarin, Arabic, Persian, Spanish, and Swahili. Has been known to travel.

same kid, who goes surfing

same kid who rented Infineon Raceway with friends from work for a day

same kid that is close to an instructor rating in scuba

same kid who finished Stanford grad school last June

same kid who created a deal with Visa for partnering with Kiva for micro loans to Americans. Ads to start running soon.

also, as a post script, has gotten and given auditing most of her life. Not Standard Tech, mind you, or Scientology, but all the basics, CCHs, prep checks, 2 way comm, Knowledgism, etc. her mom and I have audited her. Jack Straw has audited her. He was really good. She grew up knowing personally a lot of very fine auditors.

Chance are good (say 100%) that she was a Class Vlll in her last lifetime and a firecracker then. Jus' sayin'.

Her sister's movie, "Unstoppable" premieres today. You all go see it.

The same "kid" I audited a couple years ago?!?

I'm sure we all understand a father's pride, but I can attest: this is one formidable young lady!

Jack

 

[Terril park]

The same "kid" I audited a couple years ago?!?

I'm sure we all understand a father's pride, but I can attest: this is one formidable young lady!

Jack

Having met Ed I know he is VERY proud of her. As many have commented,
they wish Ed would be their future father.

 

[Hatshepsut]

In my usual style, I will state my case with no ill will towards another's.

Exterior, yes, we discussed that. Alan contributed as did Enid Vien. I might have as well. I do not remember.

dynamism.org/articles/timeless.html

If you put all these references together you will likely find some crossover and some new stuff from each. LaMont's writing was always supportive of LRH and he leans closely to those references. ACW and Enid branched out on their own and added greatly to the knowledge and experience base. "Three feet behind" will work for some peeps and others will be led astray.

As for "being three feet in back of," on the outset this looks like a correct perspective especially when comparing that to pan-determinism and the subject of 8C. Yet, I find this concept lacking as it too closely relates to domination. The damnedest situation I ever experienced was working with Int. Management and even my own OEC trained staff and the field(!) where everyone seemed to be jockeying for that coveted position of control "three feet behind" my head. And not a damned one of those people could have done my job. How's that for potential 8C? Not too good, huh? Talk about the feeling or perception of BT's and clusters, well there it was right in PT.

As for me personally, I had a very tough time "going exterior." Objective processes drug on and on. Why? I am almost always cheerful, cooperative, and exterior! I am not three feet behind the head or body. I am all around it and definitely in it too. I am at the perceived center of the universe. That a human body happens to be there right now is but a matter of perception. AllThatIs is right here. How exterior is that?

To paraphrase Hubbard from some forgotten PL talking of "doing what one is doing while one is doing it," when being a human being, BE A HUMAN BEING.

A being is "exterior" to anything it is looking at or otherwise perceiving. People are always asking to prove this exterior state. To that I say, "Okay. First tell me what you have going on that will prove to me that you are interior." It helps in figuring out their reference points and hidden standards.

Being "three feet behind" is, itself, a hidden standard. Not to invalidate your perceptions at all. I just think that we might not be speaking the same language when it comes to this subject.

I was in contact with Enid Vien in 2002. I got some info packets and a book or two. I enjoyed reading what she had to say about Psychic Storms. I bought Mood Swings. I always had to laugh as she sort of had herself mocked up as medievel witchy. I noticed online earlier this week that you had written a piece up for publication in one of her books.

To paraphrase Hubbard from some forgotten PL talking of "doing what one is doing while one is doing it," when being a human being, BE A HUMAN BEING.

One of the fundamental cognitions, for me, was that What I was doing was WHAT I was DOING. Everything was just NOW..in present time. 'I' existed as a SIMPLE being in the NOW and was the only reason WHY for anything. The idea of having a past became bogus. :confused2: And this was not a big release either. It was just a condition of existence. Its like when coming off of objectives when reality looks so flimsy. "See the thetan pick up the paper. See the thetan walk over to the door. No more this or that. Just IS. Now that's exterior when you can't point to a this or that because you're not located anywhere, your new viewpoint is just an IS.

A being is "exterior" to anything it is looking at or otherwise perceiving. People are always asking to prove this exterior state. To that I say, "Okay. First tell me what you have going on that will prove to me that you are interior." It helps in figuring out their reference points and hidden standards.

That's really novel!!

 

[Hatshepsut]

Something amusing for a Saturday night. Who in our age group hasn't taken a date to see a Woody Allen pic on a Sat night.

Wikiquotes
from Woody Allen films

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

Can we actually "know" the universe? My God, it's hard enough finding your way around in Chinatown.

Marriage? That's for life! It's like cement!

What's New, Pussycat? (1965)

I think crime pays. The hours are good, you meet a lot of interesting people, you travel a lot.

Take the Money and Run (1969)

Allen: That's quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn't it?
Woman: Yes, it is.
Allen: What does it say to you?
Woman: It restates the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless, bleak straitjacket in a black, absurd cosmos.
Allen: What are you doing Saturday night?
Woman: Committing suicide.
Allen: What about Friday night?

Stardust Memories (1980)

Sex alleviates tension. Love causes it.

A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982)

Millions of books written on every conceivable subject by all these great minds and in the end, none of them knows anything more about the big questions of life than I do ... I read Socrates. This guy knocked off little Greek boys. What the Hell's he got to teach me? And Nietzsche, with his theory of eternal recurrence. He said that the life we lived we're gonna live over again the exact same way for eternity. Great. That means I'll have to sit through the Ice Capades again. It's not worth it. And Freud, another great pessimist. I was in analysis for years and nothing happened. My poor analyst got so frustrated, the guy finally put in a salad bar. Maybe the poets are right. Maybe love is the only answer

Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

More funny stuff in this piece http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Woody_Allen

 

[Hatshepsut]

One of the fundamental cognitions, for me, was that What I was doing was What I was DOING. Everything was just NOW..in present time. 'I' existed as a SIMPLE being in the NOW and was the only reason WHY for anything. The idea of having a past became bogus. :confused2: And this was not a big release either. It was just a condition of existence. Its like when coming off of objectives when reality looks so flimsy. "See the thetan pick up the paper. See the thetan walk over to the door. No more this or that. Just IS. Now that's exterior when you can't point to a this or that because you're not located anywhere, your new viewpoint is just an IS.

Kinda makes ya wanna justify living each day to its fullest like it could be your last

From NINE Somebody posted the clips from NINE (Daniel Day Lewis, Fergie, Kate Hudson, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_5_lzags3I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foqgaD6-ERI

The Italians seem to handle time a bit differntly and appreciate the passing moments differently. Nes pas?

Oh what the hell, here's the rest of the dames!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT0zb47bR50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsiBdK9wE3A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C8FaCsEiPA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOtm81u7ZxQ

 

[paradox]

One of the fundamental cognitions, for me, was that What I was doing was What I was DOING. Everything was just NOW..in present time. 'I' existed as a SIMPLE being in the NOW and was the only reason WHY for anything. The idea of having a past became bogus. :confused2: And this was not a big release either. It was just a condition of existence. Its like when coming off of objectives when reality looks so flimsy. "See the thetan pick up the paper. See the thetan walk over to the door. No more this or that. Just IS. Now that's exterior when you can't point to a this or that because you're not located anywhere, your new viewpoint is just an IS.

I'll see that and raise you a couple

A being is "exterior" to anything it is looking at or otherwise perceiving. People are always asking to prove this exterior state. To that I say, "Okay. First tell me what you have going on that will prove to me that you are interior." It helps in figuring out their reference points and hidden standards.

That's really novel!!

When I see the party lines on "exteriorization" it sounds more and more to me like varying degrees of psychological dissociation. :confused2:

This, below, from Alan Watts speaks much more directly--to me at least-- of healthy actuality, simplicity, and wise comprehension than any kind of tech-speak.

Most people think when they open their eyes and look around that what they are seeing is outside. It seems, doesn't it, that you are behind your eyes. And that behind the eyes there is a blank that you can't see at all. You turn around and you see something else in front of you. But behind the eyes there seems to be something that has no color. It isn't dark, it isn't light. It's there from a tactile standpoint, you can feel it with your fingers although you don't get inside it. But what is that behind your eyes, you see?

Well, actually when you look out there and see all these people and things sitting around, that's how it feels inside your head. The color of this room is back here in the nervous system where the optical nerves are at the back of the head. It's in there. It's what you're experiencing. What you see out here is a neurological experience. Now if that hits you, and you feel sensuously that that's so, you may think then therefore the external world is all inside my skull. But you've got to correct that with the thought that your skull is also in the external world. So you suddenly begin to feel, "Well, wow, what kind of a situation is this? It's inside me and I'm inside it, and it's inside me and I'm inside it." But that's the way it is.

This is what you could call *transaction*, rather than interaction, between the individual and the world. Just like, for example, in buying and selling there cannot be an act of buying unless there is, simultaneously, an act of selling and vice versa. So the relationship between the organism and the environment is transactional. The environment grows the organism and, in turn, the organism creates the environment. The organism turns the sun into light but it requires there to be an environment containing a sun for there to be an organism at all. And the answer to it is simply they're all one process. It isn't that organisms, by chance, came into this world. Put it rather that this world is the sort of environment which grows organisms. It was that way from the beginning.

Alan Watts
excerpted from Out of Your Mind, "The Road to Here"

“Really, the fundamental, ultimate mystery -- the only thing you need to know to understand the deepest metaphysical secrets -- is this: that for every outside there is an inside and for every inside there is an outside, and although they are different, they go together.”

--- Alan Watts