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

[lkwdblds]

An ex scio could sure blow charge that way!

Instead, stand on a woggy curb at dawn and facing the rising sun, scream:

Thank You Ron!

Zinj

Can you imagine the charge an ex Scio could blow by doing that! Hey, here's a novel concept. Ron hooked us in, took all our money, squeezed us for those 100 hour work weeks for $10 to $50 a week, all the while invalidating us and belittleing us and then threw us out with our declares ALL ON PURPOSE AS PART OF HIS GRAND SCHEME.

HIS GRAND SCHEME WOULD HAVE CONSISTED OF US RECONNECTING IN GROUPS SUCH AS ESMB, FIGURING OUT WHAT RON HAD DONE TO US AND THEN REORGANIZING THE CHURCH TO REFLECT MORE SANITY AND WHEN HIS OLD CHURCH FINALLY CLOSED UP SHOP, THE GROUP OF DEDICATED DECLARED ESMB MEMBERS WOULD TAKE OVER AND TAKE RON'S NAME AND THE NAME SCIENTOLOGY TO NEW HEIGHTS UNDER A NEW AND MORE SANE BANNER!

By the way, I do not think there is any chance of this being true in even the slightest way, but it sure is fun to speculate about.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

This is a Classic post Carmelo!

take a celebrity, The Govenator, for example. Some people like to live their life through his eyes. How many people do you know, who say, "I'll be back" like Arnold?

I do it as well as many of my acquaintences and friends. Equally popular is the phrase, "Hasta la vista, Baby!" with the word Baby being drawn out to a long word and being emphasized. Another one is when talking about California, using the prononciation "Kal E fornia". The state, a completely blue or Democrat state, voted for the Republican, Arnold, just to show how much living through celeb's eyes can influence human behavior.

I had a PC once, who became an alcoholic for 40 plus years due to his seeing a James Bond movie, and wanting to be swave (sic) and debonair. That was the basic. When he found that, he was able to quit drinking.

Football, baseball, basketball, Hollywood stars all set the pace for others to imitate.

This has worked out very well for society with Ghetto kids having someone to aspire to and feeling that they can leave the ghetto. Also, it has helped draw the races close together. Just look what Michael Jordan did for racial relations in Chicago during his hayday as a basketball player. Look at the effect Oprah has had for years breaking down racial stereotypes

Breaking down the walls between us, removing the individuation, allws us to see others' viewpoints easier. With certain lovers, you can "be" them and they "be /experience" you.

Sitting, creating a safe space with another, enjoying each other, can be most intimate ie. experiencing their feelings, emotions, thoughts, without censorship. Knowing them.

The optimum state for me is being able to do that with others or not, as I see fit.

The whole post has a Godlike quality to it, especially that last sentence, "to do it or not as you see fit." How God like is that? - Totally at cause.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

I'm not familiar with these tech.

You are going 4th density:

http://www.worldtrans.org/lyssa/density.html

I have written an article on that. Will appear in Ivy. For non Ivy members, it's available backchannel.



.

I checked out your link, it appears very interesting. Without knowing it, or probably you do, you answered the question I put forth in my two posts yesterday about doing what C of S says and developing the individual personality to an extreme capability, as a sort of God in its own right, or to let go of the concepts of self, "I" and personality and reintegrate with a yet higher division where whole become one and the same with self. Of course, what you quoted makes no qualms about the answer to my question. As expected, "whole becomes one and the same with self" is the prefered answer.

If Carmelo's post is density 4, then I am playing around at density 4 as well and I am making an effort to enter density 5, aided by my lengthy participation on Vinnaire's Oh!God!! thread. To rate some of the institutions in society, I would list them as follows:
Western Society: Bouncing between Density 1, 2, 3 more at 2 than 1 or 3.
Western Universities: Total Density 2. A rare professor may delve into Density 3 on occasion.
Western Religions: Density 3
Vedic Religions: Dimension 4
Scientology under Hubbard: Density 4 but a dichotomy. The entire emphasis was on a group Identity and the rank and file individual was nothing while Hubbard was a Diety. The stated goal of the "Bridge" was to make more Hubbard like Diety's to rule over this and other Universes.
Scientology under DM: Lost somewhere in Density 2. The product called the "Bridge" is merely used as a product to sell so as to obtain money but management has watered it down so it does not lead anywhere and they know this. There is a heavy emphasis on MEST, the individual is valued less than MEST, less than nothing. Only the individual's money and ability to generate stats for management have any importance.
Corporations which produce a valuable product, i,e, auto companies: Density 3
Industrious individuals such as Thomas Edison. Density 4
Great Philosophers from history: Dinsity 4, may approach Density 5.
Great Musicians and Music Two classical composers are Density 5 and touch Density 6 in my view, J.S. Bach and my personal icon, W.A. Mozart. What is so unique about these two is that their music is detached from their egos. It is pure music which almost has a life of its own, nothing of the composers is relected in the music itself, the music is presented without ego just for its intrinsic beauty. Hearing the same pieces over and over throughout a lifetime, I never tire of it and always hear something new each time I listen. Debussy's piece "Claire de Lune" has this same characteristic. Beethoven is every bit as great a composer as the other two but injects his own personality heavely into the music and thus his music is not designed to reach Density 6 although in the "Ode to Joy" in his 9th and last symphony, he may have reached it. Another composer, way up in Density 5 is Chopin. Good poplular music, jazz, shows such as Evita, Rock and Roll bands and legends such as Sinatra can reach Division 4 easily and on into Division 5, someone like Elton John seems to have this ability along with Simon and Garfunkel at least as far as my tastes go.

The more one learns, the more one finds out there is more to learn. I am not ready to give up my ego and personality yet. I was dealt a strange hand, a good memory and an above average analytical mind. My charisma, carrier wave, or intrensic vibration, were weak, low end, bush league and did not lead to my being popular and sought after. I was content to play in the "minor leagues" of life just being forthright and honest and making a go of the hand I was dealt. Carmelo more than anyone, shook me up and got me to want to play in the major leagues. I have been trying to crank up my charisma, make my carrier wave more aesthetic and bring the weaker areas of my personality up to snuff meanwhile, in so doing, I am expanding the stronger parts of my personality, mind and memory to higher levels, I am having the time of my life luxuriating in this attempt at a makeover and I am going to continue wining at this game in divison 4 for quite a while longer and make up for having major league potential and wasting it down in the bush leagues of life for so many decades. IT WOULD BE TOO BIG A LOSS OF HAVINGNESS, (for want of a better term) to give up my personality at this stage, my TA is moving and therefore I should do nothing. Moving up to Density 5 through 7. I am not ready yet, I am having too much fun on Density 4. Pehaps later.
Lakey

 

[RogerB]

A process for you Lakey . . .

We touched on Spiritual Team Mates a couple of days ago and it was a pretty hot button. I offered a win in this area from a touch assist I received about 6 years ago. By chance the guy who gave the assist was an OT III and had good vibes and I came up with a cognition or epiphany which was OT oriented and that was, "Come on guys, we are all in this together!" Refering to keeping my body and heart functions working well. It seemed as if there was a team, someone regulating the heartbeat, several participating in the blood pressure readings, some monitoring the regularity of the beat etc. My eyes were closed but when the auditor moved his finger towards my body I could "see" it and feel as if there was an entire organization at work which was in charge of my heart.

I know now that Alan has done a lot of work on this concept which I experienced but I have not yet studied any of his work. I plan on finding out more about it when I go to his ranch in Texas in March for his memorial service. I just wanted to do a little post on just my own personal experiences with spiritual teams and have other people tell their experiences. This should increase the awareness of this topic and when Roger and others who do have tech on this area, a larger audience will be set up to read what they have to say.

AN EX SCIO LOOKS AT SPIRITUAL TEAMS FROM A NON TRAINED POINT OF VIEW

Think back to when you were a small kid, perhaps 4 or 5 years old. I'll bet many of you believed you had at least one Guardian Angel looking out for your interests in life. Didn't there seem to be a small team of beings that only you could see who gave you tips on what to do, what to avoid doing, what team would win a ballgame, etc.?

Do you remember those comic books or the comics in the newspaper which had a little angels and a little devils, each speaking into a kids ear trying to convince the kid to do one thing or another?

IS THE GOAL IN LIFE TO MERGE BACK INTO A DIVINE ONENESS OR DEVELOP INDIVIDUALITY?
Eastern religions, the Vedic religions, seem to seek the melting away of personality and merging back into whence you came. Traditional Western Religions seem to feel, you have just one life and one body but you "have" something else that survives body death and that something is judged by God and the person is either rewarded or punished in the after life.

SCIENTOLOGY'S APPROACH - Scientology, though promoting in its introductory lecture and materials that it is a close relative of Buddhism, pulls a surprise as you go up the "Bridge" and as the beginning levels start to transition to the upper levels, around the state of Clear, you are suddenly told, much to your surprise, that Spiritual Beings are individuals and the trick is to separate or exorcise those things which are not actually the individual so that the individual can know exactly who he is not and then find exactly who he is. When this is achieved the idea is that the individual can then do drills to increase his OT abilities and then become virtually a God himself and run his own Universe.

THE TWO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A GOD AND INDIVIDUAL SPIRITS: When all is said and done, the differences between one individual and GOD condense down to two things, at least in my opinion.
#1. A spirit can be both Cause and Effect and alternates between the two.
God can ONLY be Cause. By definition God can never be effect.
#2. A spirit views through one viewpoint which he assumes.
God views through an infinite number of viewpoints.
When you look at things this way, Mankind is surprisingly Godlike since there are only two differences between Man and God, albeit those differences can be rather large. God can never be at effect point which is a huge difference and God views through all viewpoints versus basically one for man which is also huge. So though only two differences they are very large. (Of course God can pretend to be at effect point if that is desired.)

HOW CAN MANKIND BECOME MORE GODLY?
Well, the first thing that can be done and some of the more aware people do it is to view things through more than just their own viewpoint. You can stand in the other person's shoes and though not actually viewing from there, you can simulate viewing from there. In theory you could actually achieve this if you can obtain a CO EXISTENCE OF STATIC between two or more beings. You can also attempt to see things through the viewpoint of animals, insects,fish, and plant life. The more viewpoints you can manage, the closer to God that you become.

As to point #1, Cause and Effect, while one is runing a body, he has to be operating part of the time at effect, simply if he is hungry and has to obtain food, he or she is definitely acting at effect. Therefore, to have any chance of never being at effect, one would have to shed his body and yet still be extremely aware and perceptive.

ENTER ONE'S SPIRITUAL TEAM - A spiritual team right away makes one more Godlike because multiple viewpoints are established. A person thus sees things from many points of view and perspectives. If the team is functioning well, it also will keep a person more at cause and less at effect because the team is exterior and has perception greater than what the person can see with his body's sensory organs. Signals are routinely given by the team to not do harmful things and to do things which will work out well and this keeps the person more at cause.

Scientology never has, to my knowledge offered any technology which acknowledges or attempts to enhance one's Spiritual Team. Quite to the contrary, in the C of S, every entity which is not the thetan is run to a blow and this process can take as much as 7 to 10 years. The idea is to leave only the individual personality, itself, stripped bare. The theory is then what I stated above, the individual personality left intact is given information and then drilled and is supposed to achieve various OT abilities. Back in 2003, when I had my big win on a Touch Assist, I realized that these spirits which I was addressing should not be run out to a blow but should be brought up tone to help them run my body better. I was aware enough and looked deep enough at that time to see that these entities needed to remain part of the team but I was not sharp enough or capable of looking deep enough to connect the dots that runing out everything, which is not you but is in your space, to a blow just might not be the correct approach in 100% of the cases 100% of the time.

SUMMARY: Look around you for that Guardian Angel who used to be your secrete friend and confidant when you were a toddler and see if you can relocate her and if so reconnect your communication line and acknowledge how she helped you all those years ago and then start working with her again, just like in the old days, because all that time which transpired is after all only a mocked up thing based on agreements, strip the mock up away and it is just you and your Guardian Angel just as it has always been and when you reconnect with her, you will automatically become more Godlike.
Lakey

Bit short of time here today . . . just finished balancing my investment accounts which I do each Saturday morning, and need to eat and then set up for the football games today . . . so here is a quick response to the above.

There is a lot that I could write on the above, but I'm not partial to "intellectualizing" nor rumination and running "think-about or symbolizingness" exercises on life. I tend to go in and contact it directly by processing it That way one gets to experience it, to live it and thus to know it.

The trick, of course, is to realize that there are gradients and degrees of knowledge along with degrees of relative truth. One does not attain absolute truth in an instant . . . and certainly not by doing "think-abouts."

So, Lakey, here is a process for you. It's one that is in the back of Alan's book: "Who or What is Man? Who or What are You?" The book deals with the spiritual teammate phenomena.

The Process is run repetitive to a win. And note, it is a process that may need to be run a number of times, each to a win, with each win taking you and your team to a higher level


The Process: ask, "From where could you communicate to a Spiritual Being?"

You can do this solo. You simply ask yourself the question and write your answers out fully on a sheet of paper. Writing your answer out fully on paper facilitates the discharge of the case and its charge . . . you simply spill it out into the physical universe onto the paper (Like some folks do with their keyboards when putting stuff up here on ESMB)

AS regards your body you can run:
"From where could a spiritual Being communicate to a bodily cell?"
Note the wording "a spiritual Being" . . . . be open to the possibility that you as well as any other spiritual Being as well as any member of your Spiritual Team can pop with an answer on this . . . and as any do, you will thus become more aware of them, more in comm with them and be upgrading your relationships with such

You can also run this process with any bodily part or system being the "target to be upgraded" . . . that is, if you're having strife with a bodily organ, substitute that organ for "bodily cell."

The process works because it does and exercises several things:
It puts you at knowing cause over assuming a position and relationship with the target area (cells, bodily organ or other spiritual Beings)
It recovers to you your knowing control of your spiritual Life-Force in relation to your body or other Beings and your application of that Life-Force. Etc., etc. Basically it blows all the charge and hung-up shit one may have in the way of your optimum handling of the body or relationships with other Beings.

And note the wording of the process: "From where could . . . . ."

Worth doing a big dictionary clean-up on that concept to be sure you get it all. Too many people limit their understanding of what it means to answering with responses like: "from being a . . ." "from thinking or feeling a . . . " etc. That does work, slowly and to an extent: but compare this . . . .

"From where" implies from what source did it emanate; at or from what location, etc.

Running the process with that understanding of it, you will recover and empower your ability and power to assume a chosen spiritual position in the game of existence

Try it, you'll like it

PS: if you want the background on that process look up "Formula Ten" in around June/July 1959 in the HCOBs.

Rog

 

[hbeer]

The more one learns, the more one finds out there is more to learn. I am not ready to give up my ego and personality yet. I was dealt a strange hand, a good memory and an above average analytical mind. My charisma, carrier wave, or intrensic vibration, were weak, low end, bush league and did not lead to my being popular and sought after. I was content to play in the "minor leagues" of life just being forthright and honest and making a go of the hand I was dealt. Carmelo more than anyone, shook me up and got me to want to play in the major leagues. I have been trying to crank up my charisma, make my carrier wave more aesthetic and bring the weaker areas of my personality up to snuff meanwhile, in so doing, I am expanding the stronger parts of my personality, mind and memory to higher levels, I am having the time of my life luxuriating in this attempt at a makeover and I am going to continue wining at this game in dimension 4 for quite a while longer and make up for having major league potential and wasting it down in the bush leagues of life for so many decades. IT WOULD BE TOO BIG A LOSS OF HAVINGNESS, (for want of a better term) to give up my personality at this stage, my TA is moving and therefore I should do nothing. Moving up to Dimension 5 through 7. I am not ready yet, I am having too much fun on Dimension 4. Pehaps later.
Lakey

Wow, lots of evolution here!

However, loss of personality is NOT part of going 4th density. It says "group identity WITHOUT loss of ego identity".

As I see it, the boundaries between individuals are melting, they are perceiving each other very intensely and so they are motivated to co-create, because the other person's joy feels like my own joy and makes more of my own joy (also their pain).

Scientology was more a "Borg" type of 3rd density group, where people were moved from above (other-determined). The guru was most separated from his disciples. In 4th density the group members are first self-determined and then grow together into pan-determinism. My humble opinion

The article explains it in detail.



.

 

[Enthetan]

There is no other attempt at anything like a Celebrity Centre history. One reference mentions that LRH spelled out the need to get celebrities into Scientology in 1955 and that is it.

Besides the PR value, somebody else on ESMB noted that celebs have "access" value, in the sense of being able to create access to senior people in politics and industry. A movie star who calls up a senator and offers an appearance at a fund-raiser in exchange for the opportunity to talk to the senator about a certain matter involving Scientology, is probably going to get that meeting.

 

[lkwdblds]

I think you misread a line!

Wow, lots of evolution here!

However, loss of personality is NOT part of going 4th density. It says "group identity WITHOUT loss of ego identity".

Heidrun, I really think you misduplicated what I said just above your comment. I said I am having too much fun in the 4th density to think of moving up to the 5th density at this time. I consider that I was playing at density 3 most of my life and recently moved into density 4 and that is where I plan on staying for awhile. Your remarks about loss of personality NOT being part of going 4th density precisely my point! Somehow you have 4th and 5th mixed up vis a vis my comments so your comment to me is non sequitur.

As I see it, the boundaries between individuals are melting, they are perceiving each other very intensely and so they are motivated to co-create, because the other person's joy feels like my own joy and makes more of my own joy (also their pain).

Scientology was more a "Borg" type of 3rd density group, where people were moved from above (other-determined). The guru was most separated from his disciples. In 4th density the group members are first self-determined and then grow together into pan-determinism. My humble opinion

The article explains it in detail.


.

Great analysis and verbal formulation of what Scientology was about under LRH. What it is now, is hard to formulate. Do you have a capsule description for DM's version of Scientology?
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Good Point

Besides the PR value, somebody else on ESMB noted that celebs have "access" value, in the sense of being able to create access to senior people in politics and industry. A movie star who calls up a senator and offers an appearance at a fund-raiser in exchange for the opportunity to talk to the senator about a certain matter involving Scientology, is probably going to get that meeting.

Yes, of course that person who said that makes an excellent point. I do not quite see the connection to the quote of mine which you posted but it is a good point nevertheless. Thanks for making it!
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Two comments, a question and a thank you!

QUOTE=RogerB;361240]Bit short of time here today . . . just finished balancing my investment accounts which I do each Saturday morning, and need to eat and then set up for the football games today . . . so here is a quick response to the above.

There is a lot that I could write on the above, but I'm not partial to "intellectualizing" nor rumination and running "think-about or symbolizingness" exercises on life. I tend to go in and contact it directly by processing it That way one gets to experience it, to live it and thus to know it.

The trick, of course, is to realize that there are gradients and degrees of knowledge along with degrees of relative truth. One does not attain absolute truth in an instant . . . and certainly not by doing "think-abouts."

So, Lakey, here is a process for you. It's one that is in the back of Alan's book: "Who or What is Man? Who or What are You?" The book deals with the spiritual teammate phenomena.

The Process is run repetitive to a win. And note, it is a process that may need to be run a number of times, each to a win, with each win taking you and your team to a higher level


The Process: ask, "From where could you communicate to a Spiritual Being?"

You can do this solo. You simply ask yourself the question and write your answers out fully on a sheet of paper. Writing your answer out fully on paper facilitates the discharge of the case and its charge . . . you simply spill it out into the physical universe onto the paper (Like some folks do with their keyboards when putting stuff up here on ESMB)

AS regards your body you can run:
"From where could a spiritual Being communicate to a bodily cell?"
Note the wording "a spiritual Being" . . . . be open to the possibility that you as well as any other spiritual Being as well as any member of your Spiritual Team can pop with an answer on this . . . and as any do, you will thus become more aware of them, more in comm with them and be upgrading your relationships with such

You can also run this process with any bodily part or system being the "target to be upgraded" . . . that is, if you're having strife with a bodily organ, substitute that organ for "bodily cell."

The process works because it does and exercises several things:
It puts you at knowing cause over assuming a position and relationship with the target area (cells, bodily organ or other spiritual Beings)
It recovers to you your knowing control of your spiritual Life-Force in relation to your body or other Beings and your application of that Life-Force. Etc., etc. Basically it blows all the charge and hung-up shit one may have in the way of your optimum handling of the body or relationships with other Beings.

And note the wording of the process: "From where could . . . . ."

Worth doing a big dictionary clean-up on that concept to be sure you get it all. Too many people limit their understanding of what it means to answering with responses like: "from being a . . ." "from thinking or feeling a . . . " etc. That does work, slowly and to an extent: but compare this . . . .

"From where" implies from what source did it emanate; at or from what location, etc.

Running the process with that understanding of it, you will recover and empower your ability and power to assume a chosen spiritual position in the game of existence

Try it, you'll like it

PS: if you want the background on that process look up "Formula Ten" in around June/July 1959 in the HCOBs.

Rog[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the lengthy post Rog, just a question and Four comments.

QUESTION - Are these processes just for me personally or do you offer them up to all who read this thread? Since you did not Private Message me but instead put them up on the thread, I believe you meant the processes for all of the readers of this thread. Is this true?

COMMENT I - I am the originator and host of this thread and I try and wear that hat in a professional manner. A lot of what I do is done mainly to stir up interest on this thread so as to get us more viewers and replies. After big days Wednesday and Thursday, over 1000 views on Thursday alone, Friday tanked and not much happened the entire day. I wanted to stir things up a bit and remembered that the spurt of activity which started Wednesday was kicked off when Spiritual Teams were discussed so I decided to discuss it again in more depth.

COMMENT II - Not being an expert in the field, I made that known and even in the title of my little article, I stressed that I was a layman, and I mentioned that those, really in the know such as yourself will be along soon to really get into the subject with a lot more authoriy. Part of my plan was to get the viewers more familiar with the topic in general so that when those in the know posted on the subject, the viewers would be prepared.

COMMENT III - A lot of what I do here is "shtick" like a stand up comic would do in a Catskill Mountain resort. I never lie and always try and give as much truth as I can and I freely admitted that I am not an expert in this field. Nevertheless, in re-reading my article on Spiritual Teams, it reads quite well to me. The quality of the article, even though I admit I am no expert in this field is better than perhaps 80% of what I've read on the internet. By the way, I patterned my various analyses (such as on viewpoints) on what Vinaire was doing on the Oh!God!! thread. There is a major difference though, he was raised as a Hindu and also had studied deeply into mathematics and physics at MIT, these credentials gave him more certainty in making the assertions he did. Though I have a background in math and physics as well, my studies were not nearly as well grounded as his and I have almost no grounding in Vedic religions. Therefore, I am more of a "dabbler" in the area of theories and models of the Universe. I just try out various angles for fun, sort of like WORKING A PUZZLE IN THE MORNING NEWSPAPER. My analyses are put up more for entertainment than as theories. They are meant as food for thought - any comments would be appreciated

LAST COMMENT - I happen to have some time tonight and plan on runing those processes on myself and will report back to you and the board how it went. Thanks so much for giving me those processes to run on myself. I ran two of Roger's processes on myself yesterday, "From where could you communicate to a Spritual Being" and "From where could a spiritual being communicate to a body cell?" I now see that I should have run "Who or what is Man" and "Who or what are you?"m first so I will take those up this morning and then rerun the two I did yesterday over again. It is fun to run these on oneself but it did drain me of quite a bit of energy while I was runing them. Writing everything down longhand is tedious but I see why it has to be done. The last auditing I ever got, other than assists was back in 1993 at AOLA on the Disagreement Rundown, run by Denise Mulkey. I had gone sixteen and one half years without any auditing, after 23 years of continuosly being audited. Very interesting to resume auditing yesterday.
Lakey

 

[hbeer]

Hi Lakey,


sorry for misduplicating you. I got it now!

Great analysis and verbal formulation of what Scientology was about under LRH. What it is now, is hard to formulate. Do you have a capsule description for DM's version of Scientology?
Lakey

Yes - one in a long row of ambitious creations that fell prey to entropy.

Definition of "entropy" (quoted from my upcoming Ivy article): Entropy is the more scientific word for decay, or for order devolving back into chaos. The law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics, stating in many scientific terms “that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials” – quote from www.entropylaw.com) could also be called the “law of disorder”.



We have seen the same thing over and over: when Christianity, the religion of love, burned witches and committed countless atrocities in the crusades; or when Marxism, a philosophy designed to remove social injustice, filled mass graves with corpses; and many more such things.

If you have a creation, it is like a circus artist's juggling ball first thrown into the air. Gravity will pull at it ever after. The circus artist's skill now consists of keeping all his balls in the air.

Now the same is true for any creation. If its creator (or group of co-creators) don't continually upgrade it against the pull of entropy, it will rot away into something ugly and stinking.

We can discuss forever about the specifics of what happened in each of these movements, but in the big picture they all fell prey to entropy.




.

 

[Anonycat]

Welcome & Thank you sharing this amazing story. I'm looking forward to hearing more from you!

 

[RogerB]

Thanks for the lengthy post Rog, just a question and Four comments.

QUESTION - Are these processes just for me personally or do you offer them up to all who read this thread? Since you did not Private Message me but instead put them up on the thread, I believe you meant the processes for all of the readers of this thread. Is this true?

It was placed here in public for anyone to use who cares to.

COMMENT I - I am the originator and host of this thread and I try and wear that hat in a professional manner. A lot of what I do is done mainly to stir up interest on this thread so as to get us more viewers and replies. After big days Wednesday and Thursday, over 1000 views on Thursday alone, Friday tanked and not much happened the entire day. I wanted to stir things up a bit and remembered that the spurt of activity which started Wednesday was kicked off when Spiritual Teams were discussed so I decided to discuss it again in more depth.

COMMENT II - Not being an expert in the field, I made that known and even in the title of my little article, I stressed that I was a layman, and I mentioned that those, really in the know such as yourself will be along soon to really get into the subject with a lot more authoriy. Part of my plan was to get the viewers more familiar with the topic in general so that when those in the know posted on the subject, the viewers would be prepared.

COMMENT III - A lot of what I do here is "shtick" like a stand up comic would do in a Catskill Mountain resort. I never lie and always try and give as much truth as I can and I freely admitted that I am not an expert in this field. Nevertheless, in re-reading my article on Spiritual Teams, it reads quite well to me. The quality of the article, even though I admit I am no expert in this field is better than perhaps 80% of what I've read on the internet. By the way, I patterned my various analyses (such as on viewpoints) on what Vinaire was doing on the Oh!God!! thread. There is a major difference though, he was raised as a Hindu and also had studied deeply into mathematics and physics at MIT, these credentials gave him more certainty in making the assertions he did. Though I have a background in math and physics as well, my studies were not nearly as well grounded as his and I have almost no grounding in Vedic religions. Therefore, I am more of a "dabbler" in the area of theories and models of the Universe. I just try out various angles for fun, sort of like WORKING A PUZZLE IN THE MORNING NEWSPAPER. My analyses are put up more for entertainment than as theories. They are meant as food for thought - any comments would be appreciated

LAST COMMENT - I happen to have some time tonight and plan on runing those processes on myself and will report back to you and the board how it went. Thanks so much for giving me those processes to run on myself. I ran two of Roger's processes on myself yesterday, "From where could you communicate to a Spritual Being" and "From where could a spiritual being communicate to a body cell?" I now see that I should have run "Who or what is Man" and "Who or what are you?"m first so I will take those up this morning and then rerun the two I did yesterday over again.

This colored red above is NOT a process . . . it is the title of a book! I do not recommend running it as a process.

It is fun to run these on oneself but it did drain me of quite a bit of energy while I was runing them. Writing everything down longhand is tedious but I see why it has to be done. The last auditing I ever got, other than assists was back in 1993 at AOLA on the Disagreement Rundown, run by Denise Mulkey. I had gone sixteen and one half years without any auditing, after 23 years of continuosly being audited. Very interesting to resume auditing yesterday.

Lakey

Roger

 

[lkwdblds]

Hi Lakey,


sorry for misduplicating you. I got it now!

So do you have any comment then about me wanting to stay at Density 4 for awhile and enjoy upgrading my personality rather than trying to get rid of it and moving to higher densities?


Yes - one in a long row of ambitious creations that fell prey to entropy.

Definition of "entropy" (quoted from my upcoming Ivy article): Entropy is the more scientific word for decay, or for order devolving back into chaos. The law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics, stating in many scientific terms “that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials” – quote from www.entropylaw.com) could also be called the “law of disorder”.

I studied the concept of entropy when I was taking physics classes, now you are talking the better part of a lifetime ago, say in 1959 and 1960. I remember that the best example of how to remember what it means is to visualize mixing water with some other agents such as lemon juice and sugar, obtaining lemonade. Now there is no way to unmix these ingredients back to their original state and try and reconstitute the pure water, pure lemon juice and pure sugar. If some mechanical filtering system were attempted, so much energy would be expended that the law of entropy would still apply, even if the ingredients were unmixed. The initial mixing takes just pouring and stiring the mix but to unmix you can not unpour and unstir and any effort to attempt this would require so much energy that the entropy of the system would be lowered anyway, just as the law states.

We have seen the same thing over and over: when Christianity, the religion of love, burned witches and committed countless atrocities in the crusades; or when Marxism, a philosophy designed to remove social injustice, filled mass graves with corpses; and many more such things.

Amen, as regards Christianity and Marxism! However, as I pointed out to Leon in a discussion about a week ago, I do not think the same analogy applies when discussing Vedic religions, Buddhism, Shinto, Hind and Taoism. Leon answered and I accepted it but his answer did not satisfy my objection. What is your comment regarding the statement you made above when applied to the Vedic religions?

If you have a creation, it is like a circus artist's juggling ball first thrown into the air. Gravity will pull at it ever after. The circus artist's skill now consists of keeping all his balls in the air.

Absolutely perfect metaphor!!! All earthly life seems to be just a game to see how long you can juggle those balls. Ultimately, just by the body's aging and eventually dying, the balls will fall. If we remembered our past identities when we are reborn, this would be no big thing but we don't remember them so it is a big thing.

Now the same is true for any creation. If its creator (or group of co-creators) don't continually upgrade it against the pull of entropy, it will rot away into something ugly and stinking.

We can discuss forever about the specifics of what happened in each of these movements, but in the big picture they all fell prey to entropy.

Hubbard did an excellent juggling act for quite a while. I believe he came to actually believe the fiction which he created about himself and conceived that he was greater that all the medical and psychiatric organizations and Governments with which he picked fights with. Finally he dropped the ball and the juggling act collapsed. In Hubbard's case, the collapse was so great that the basic tenet's of his religion, which he used to gain new recruits, were not only not practiced any longer in his Organizations but if someone did try and practice them, they were quickly offloaded and declared Suppresive for doing so. I guess Christianity and Marxism have similar failures, not doubt about it.


.

My only encounter with Ivy Magazine is that I read some of Ken Urquhart's articles back in 2005 when I first started researching Scn on the Internet. It sounds like a worthwhile thing to subscribe to. Any comments?
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

What's this all about?

Welcome & Thank you sharing this amazing story. I'm looking forward to hearing more from you!

I do not understand this post. Anonycat, who are you addressing when you say Welcome & Thank you for sharing this amazing story. It can't be me because you as a newcomer would not be welcoming me, who started this long thread so who is your salutation meant for. Could you please clarify.
Thank you!
Lakey

 

[hbeer]

So do you have any comment then about me wanting to stay at Dimension 4 for awhile and enjoy upgrading my personality rather than trying to get rid of it and moving to higher dimensions?


Hi Lakey,


other than that it is of course up to you how long you want to stay in which density (not dimension) ? - Not really. Just generally I believe that if you listen to yourself and follow your feelings AND thinking (these two can sometimes be very unaligned), it will be the right thing to do!


Amen, as regards Christianity and Marxism! However, as I pointed out to Leon in a discussion about a week ago, I do not think the same analogy applies when discussing Vedic religions, Buddhism, Shinto, Hind and Taoism. Leon answered and I accepted it but his answer did not satisfy my objection. What is your comment regarding the statement you made above when applied to the Vedic religions?


I have not studied them enough. For me as an only superficially educated onlooker it appears that a lot of ritual has invaded the more visible of them, like Buddhism and Hinduism. I don't feel comfortable with any kind of ritual, especially when it is becoming very serious. As long it is still fun and lighthearted, OK.


My only encounter with Ivy Magazine is that I read some of Ken Urquhart's articles back in 2005 when I first started researching Scn on the Internet. It sounds like a worthwhile thing to subscribe to. Any comments?
Lakey

Yes, it is a fine magazine, especially because it will carry an article of me in most issues

Also its editor is Rolf Dane, my co-auditor, a brilliant man who is also very creative as a "techfinder". So it is quite close to my heart.

Many LRH anecdotes and precious articles from oldtime Scientologists, new processes, as well as health articles and excursions into neighbouring fields like the "Life between Lives" research done by hypnotherapist Michael Newton.

You can order a free sample here: http://www.ivymag.org/cyberivy/index.htm




.

 

[lkwdblds]

I sent in for my free trial issue of Ivy

Okay, I sent in for my trial subscription of Ivy. I hope it arrives by tomorrow. Once I read it, I am sure I will subscribe and read all the good articles, including yours, or should I say, especially yours.
Lakey

 

[Leon]

Lakey said: "Amen, as regards Christianity and Marxism! However, as I pointed out to Leon in a discussion about a week ago, I do not think the same analogy applies when discussing Vedic religions, Buddhism, Shinto, Hind and Taoism. Leon answered and I accepted it but his answer did not satisfy my objection. What is your comment regarding the statement you made above when applied to the Vedic religions? "

Perhaps you will enlighten us as to how the burning of widows on their husband's funeral pyre, the enforcement of the degrading caste system and laws on all society, the bathing in filthy river water for "spiritual" gain, the substitution of symbols for the real thing, the chanting of endless prayers which do nothing other than put one at effect in life, . . . etc etc etc etc . . . how all these things are NOT psychopathic, vindictive and at polar opposite to the teachings and desires of its original founders.

 

[lkwdblds]

But Leon....

Lakey said: "Amen, as regards Christianity and Marxism! However, as I pointed out to Leon in a discussion about a week ago, I do not think the same analogy applies when discussing Vedic religions, Buddhism, Shinto, Hind and Taoism. Leon answered and I accepted it but his answer did not satisfy my objection. What is your comment regarding the statement you made above when applied to the Vedic religions? "

Perhaps you will enlighten us as to how the burning of widows on their husband's funeral pyre, the enforcement of the degrading caste system and laws on all society, the bathing in filthy river water for "spiritual" gain, the substitution of symbols for the real thing, the chanting of endless prayers which do nothing other than put one at effect in life, . . . etc etc etc etc . . . how all these things are NOT psychopathic, vindictive and at polar opposite to the teachings and desires of its original founders.

Leon, of the items on your list above, I am not familiar with the burning of windows item, and I have insufficient knowledge of most of the other items to even offer an intelligent opinion. I readily concede that quite a few of the items sound bad. I don't know the story of bathing in filthy river water, probably the Ganges River, for spiritual gain. Something like this to me would be a personal choice. If a person was willing to risk contracting a possible infection or disease to undergo what he/she looks upon as a symbolic purifying or cleansing process, it seems to me that is none of my business and I would grant them the freedom to do it. Only if children or some other class of people were FORCED to do it against their wills would I get involved. Same for the chanting of prayers, what may be foolish and primitive to you or me, may help these people and enable them to lead a better life. Who are we to condemn this act.

As I told you before, "I have no Dog in this race". I raised the question to you before and you answered it honestly and to a degree that I repspected the position you were taking for yourself and gladly allow you or others to take the position you believe is correct as you do. Of course, I have no control over your position but all I said to Heidrun is that your answer was not sufficient to satisfy me so that I would also take your point of view. It is sufficient so that my respect for you is not diminished in any way when you follow this point of view but insufficient to satisfy me that I must also take this point of view.

I listen sometimes to the Depak Chopra radio program on the weekends on satellite radio and I find myself agreeing with what he has to say and also with what the guests he brings on have to say. No money is charged for what they say and it seems to me that Depak and his guests are very earnestly trying to share their wisdom with others, for free, to better lives and raise spiritual awareness. I particularly like what they have to say about healing the body through spiritual means.

The only reason I do not fully accept your assertions and accept them the way you do is only that I feel you paint with a little too wide of a brush. I do not feel that what Depak is doing or what Lao Tse did thousands of years ago or what the Shintos do in Japan, etc. should be painted with your brush. That is my only beef, if your brush was narrower and you said "most religions" or "nearly all religions" or "all religions with a few notable exceptions" then I would sign on with you. That would satisfy me.

However, I know you feel very strongly that your assertions are true and would not change them under any case, let alone for just picking up one additional convert. I do not want you to change your assertions, it is okay with me that you believe slightly differently than I do on this point. I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong and that by being exposed to more data that I may become in full agreement with you. Carry on with my blessings! I just do not see any problem whatsoever about two persons being in general agreement on a topic but having slight differences as to matters of degree. That's part of what life is all about, being exposed to various viewpoints and being able to see things from another's point of view. As stated in my post of yesterday, that makes Mankind more "Godlike"
Lakey

 

[RogerB]

OK, Leon, The Time Has Come . . . .

OK Roger, I’m listening again to your Pasadena talk - this time I’m noting down various questions as I come to them which I will then edit and put into a post.


First: You talk of the “Power Split” as being a new discovery. While I do applaud you for no doubt discovering it on your own I must point out that LRH did on many lectures refer to this division of the Tone Scale. In the upper portion the guy is seeking to survive and below 2.0 he is factually seeking to succumb. He even mentions that the actual split is just above 2.0 on the scale and not at 2.0.

He also mentions that the speed with which one descends the scale magnifies its effects on the preclear and he also has handlings for it to run out this source of aberration. You’ll find it in Advanced Proceures and also in Handbook for Preclears. It’s called running the Emotional Curve. Also important is to run out a rise in Tone going from below the split to above it where this rise was brought about by an ally terminal coming onto the scene. For e.g just as you’re all about to die on the battlements and be massacred wholesale the cavalry arrives and saves you all.

What your refer to here is not what I and Alan are referring to when we speak of the "Power Split."

LRH's dissertations on the Tone Scale are a brilliant revelation actually. He was the first to elucidate it. But realize it is based on observing the human condition: it was developed while he researched Dianetics. And yes, he did speak of the fact that above 2.0 on the scale one is survival and below 2.0 one is on succumb. These are all accurate observations on human behavior and attitudes.

What I spoke of and stated in Pasadena is a very, very basic spiritual reversal of polarity and vector wherein the spiritual Being totally reverses itself; it inverts . . . and actually becomes spiritually insane. It switches from loving to hate, from wanting to know to anti-knowing and denial of truth, from wanting to be present with and being present to going absent, from wanting to experience to wanting not to experience et al.

Hubbard never got near this subject, did not delineate it and did not address it. Also to be noted is that part of this insane spiritual "Power Split" flip is the "Furies" phenomena wherein the Being goes into immense and intense hatred of self, towards self and all else in its purview.

Second: 1st tape. 5.42 from the start. You talk of two terminals with complementary postulates - a Causer and a Receiver, which positions they hold alternately, and then you say: “As the game starts to descend down the Tone Scale you start getting stuck . . .” My question is why would they descend down scale? This is not explained. What you describe is perfect comm, both winning at it - so from where the downsliding?

You need to rehear my tape I did not say as you cite in blue above :"talk of two terminals with complementary postulates"

I stated that I, in the game of relating as a causer, created and envisioned the others in the game to be a receiver to my cause. The terminals did not have or are "with" the postulates.

As to your question of why they would downslide . . . surely you jest? Look at life! Virtually nearly all games and relationships in life decline. The unfortunate circumstance is that in our current condition, unless we are wise enough to apply correct tech on a daily basis to clean ourselves up, we accumulate charge, losses, upsets and decline. That is the current condition of humanity! You may as well ask how come and why did we ever descend down scale in the first place!

The answer is that it only takes one, simple, single misalignment of Life-Force or one non-comprehension that is and remains unhandled, and down you go!

Third: Tape 2 near the start. You talk of LRH’s 1st and 2nd postulates and how he at one point places “To not know” as the first postulate. You then give a few examples of what the first postulate should or could be, ending with “To Know”. Clearly one cannot enter the game on a negative postulate, as you explain.

Two points on this. One is that LRH is not consistent with what he gives as first and second (and third) postulates. At different places he gives different items on these and never really reconciles them. Sometimes it is “To not know” as you state, other times it is “To Know”, followed by “To not know” and then “To Know about”. This is how he settled on it in the Know to Mystery Scale so maybe that is his final version. But the lectures prior to that give all sorts of versions on it.

What is missed here by both him and you is that “To Know” is an Effect goal. One is trying to know or understand what is already there, what someone else has created. Basic must must must be on the Cause side of the game and so the first postulate can only be “To Make Known”. This ties in with the tech on the Rock - the first creation of a thetan. See 1958 lectures on this by LRH.

This “To make known” is a postulate for Self made as one presents one’s creation and for which one wants approval/admiration/call it what you will from others. “To know” - or “To appreciate/admire/applaud etc - is the postulate one has for that other terminal in the game as the complement to the first one. However this complementariness precludes the possibility of a game as both vectors are aligned. So one would quite often have “To make not-known” as the opposing postulate. Now we have a clash of postulates, a game, and a potential source of aberration. Fun, fun, fun!

You are in error here, Sir.

Page 116 of the version of "Scientology 0-8" I have in front of me states two Know To Mystery Scales.

The 1953 version first three (top) levels are: Knowingness, Lookingness, Emotingness.

The later expanded K to M Scale is: Native State, Not Know, Know About, Look, Emotion.

These are not postulates. They are states of relative knowingness, or conditions of knowingness . . . though in the case of the later expanded version of the scale, one could posit that the declining states of knowingness were the result of postulates.

You, and anyone who cares to, should read/re-read the relevant PABs . . . they are convoluted, very much so. But in the PAB 64 titled "The First Postulate" he clearly states it to be "Not Know" even if in convoluted terms. What he is discussing in that PAB is a processing approach that assumes the PC is in the Native State but has declined from the purported Native State of total knowingness/total havingness et al due to the "First Postulates" of Not Know, Not Have etc . . . . and the process is to reverse this (first) postulate condition by running the commands: "Tell be something you don't know about (item)"

But more clearly to the point on page 282 of the HCOBs "Certainty (Mag) Vol2, No. 11 (Nov. 1955) he lists:
"NATIVE STATE: A Thetan in his native state has the potential of knowing every thing. If one knows everything he cannot have a game. To have a game one must make a postulate.
"FIRST POSTULATE: I do not know about . . . ."

Well, there is some spurious think-about twoddle in that.

Firstly, LRH states: "A Thetan in his native state has the potential of knowing every thing." Clearly he is stating here that the Thetan does not have total knowledge, but the potential of doing so.

I have personally found this to be true in my own processing. Indeed, what I spoke of in Pasadena referred to (but without me specificly citing it) my having appeared to be a native state condition long, long ago and suddenly becoming aware of something . . . and my instant response was to "want to know about) it" . . . . . other folks I am familiar with wanted to "love" instead of know, others wanted to relate . . . . hey we are all individuals in our choices on the way we reach to others

But, note, had I instead of wanting to know I had postulated or decided I did not want to know or to not know the thing/Being I'd suddenly become of . . . . there would have been no game, no relationship; and I'd have remained in an isolation and all alone

Even LRH in these PABs reveals the "first postulate" as stated by him screws up the game.

But then to go on a state that: "If one knows everything he cannot have a game," is twoddle. Where's the proof of this. This is actually aberrated human type think stuff. It is intellectualizing gone wrong. I have actually processed (run) very early universe games where there was total magical union of infinite love and total knowingness and the infinite exercise of all our powers in the most brilliant and perfect of manner . . . . and the game was sensational and magic . . . until someone or other idiot screwed up So please don't give me that new agie, human think junk that goes along the lines that a) "you can't have a game unless there is unknowingness or b) don't expect "too much" and then you'll never be disappointed . . . and all like kind of new age think That kind of operating paradigm dooms you to failure before you begin! "Don't want anything, then you'll never be disappointed!!!" YUK!

I am afraid I, along with many other good floks, bought LRH twoddle on this point for too long. It appears "reasonable," "logical" and "understandable" and it is intellectually satisfying until you test it! then it fails miserably.

Hubbard backs and forths on his various themes in subsequent PABs, but does not vary his statements as to sequence of postulates. PAB 66 (p.297 HCOB vols) he states: First Postulate NOT-KNOW.

Nowhere in any of the materials on this does he state the first postulate is "to know."

And yes, you are quite correct when you agree with me and state that: "Clearly one cannot enter the game on a negative postulate, as you explain."

You write: "What is missed here by both him and you is that “To Know” is an Effect goal. One is trying to know or understand what is already there, what someone else has created. Basic must must must be on the Cause side of the game and so the first postulate can only be “To Make Known”. This ties in with the tech on the Rock - the first creation of a thetan. See 1958 lectures on this by LRH."

I am not in accord with the idea that wanting "to know" is an effect goal. It might be made to be so if one practices it from the perspective of wanting to make oneself effect of everything one makes contact with . . . . but I have personally found it to be a very causative action, to reach to know. It is the exercise of one's volition and power of choice. What's not causative about that?

At the highest level of spiritual action one can reach to know by duplication of what is present . . . this on a fully knowing, volitional expression of one's power and willingness to be fully present.

I have found this act of duplication to be part and parcel of what empowers the game. It operates above contribution and into the realm of co-creation.

As to the other aspects of what you write above: "Basic must must must be on the Cause side of the game and so the first postulate can only be 'To Make Known'": I say, one can causatively receive and causatively create. This because one chooses to. The issue you are referring to is actually one of vector flow: inflow versus outflow. That is some thing that gets fixed in rather low down on the scale of the game. At the level of perfect duplication, one actually duplicates the cause of the thing . . . this is rather distinct from "duplicating" or experiencing the effects and outcomes only (which, by the way, is why folks get stuck with things . . . they get only the effect but do not duplicate the sourcing of the thing).

In an ideal game one reciprocates as expressions of both "wanting to know" and "wanting to be known." Ideally, the Game Matrix is a stasis of the two with the beings involved reciprocating them. The screw-ups occur when someone jams in one of them

Fourth: Tape 4 at about 7 minutes in (a minor point): You talk about the one-way flow that TRs supposedly run on a student. But students do twin with other students - I think this would more than adequately balance up the flows here. But I have never in my life ever come across anyone who suffered from an over long one-way flow on TRs so I reckon it can’t be too much of a problem.

Hey, you trying to nit-pick on me now?

Of course they exchange places as students and coaches . . . . but nowhere does either get to drill the action of knowingly receiving the emanations of another. It just is not in the tech.

The point I am making is not that anyone suffers from doing the drills the way they have been . . . the point I'm making is that the training action of having an auditor in training do the drill of "knowingly receiving the emanations of another" is not done, it's missing! . . . . and the reason I make this point is that there are too many robotic processors that have been produced with whom one goes into session and with whom one has difficulty getting the charge off . . . that is, one's charge jams in their presence; they cause a jammed flow! They sit there being "not effect of the PC!" And so, being stuck in "not being effect" they are reactively jamming the PC's flows . . . . and if you've never had it happen is session, then you're a lucky man . . . . but you can read of it having occurred to many on ESMB.

All in all though a lovely and entertaining talk for which I thank you.

Cheers

OK, Leon, I feel caught up now. And so to the footy game and a good stiff brandy!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

What your refer to here is not what I and Alan are referring to when we speak of the "Power Split."

LRH's dissertations on the Tone Scale are a brilliant revelation actually. He was the first to elucidate it. But realize it is based on observing the human condition: it was developed while he researched Dianetics. And yes, he did speak of the fact that above 2.0 on the scale one is survival and below 2.0 one is on succumb. These are all accurate observations on human behavior and attitudes.

One minor point. Since your lecture Roger I've taken to viewing "2.0" as the new zero. Since the numbers Hubbard originally assigned appear to be something of an arbitrary and since with the number system the point of polarity reversal is zero, I just consider that it makes more sense to map the point of actual reversal to zero rather than simply rely on Hubbard's numbering convention.

I also liked your point on "knowing everthing being a 'no-game' condition is twaddle". Hubbard had some strong, personal, not necessarily 'healthy' considerations on the subject and nature of games. It seems clear to me he enjoyed conflict for the sake of conflict.


Mark A. Baker