What's new

Theta's Conquest Over MEST

Vinaire

Sponsor
You've got it backwards. There has to be space in which things can appear before there can be things in that space. That's what makes spacetime so interesting.

I didn't specify any sequence. Any sequence would actually be an additive.

.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Back-tracking a little here (sorry for the dreadful gag) I wonder is anyone acquainted with Crowley's "Magick in Theory and Practice"?

In Chapter Seven there is a sub-section (VI) titled "The Magical Memory" which seems to comment upon the issues being discussed here....as to whether the "absolute reality" of past-life events is necessary to obtaining case-gain by viewing them. Crowley suggests that it isn't; a wholly imaginary incident still serves as a useful paradigm in unravelling an issue an individual may find troublesome in present time.

To me, this runs counter to my grasp of the pricinple of locating past-life charge....but then, since I'm not in fact the Pope, I may well be quite wrong.

The section in question is too long to quote here in its entirety, but perhaps this snippet epitomises the gist? Earlier in the text, Crowley has referred to a past life of his as a Roman named "Marius de Aquila":

"Far be it from any apologist for Magick to insist upon the objective validity of these concatenations! It would be childish to cling to the belief that Marius de Aquila actually existed; it matters no more than it matters to the mathematicians whether the use of the symbol X [to the power] 22 involves the 'reality' of 22 dimensions of space. The Master Therion does not care a scrap of yesterday's newspaper whether he was Marius de Aquila, or whether there ever was such a person.....what matters is this: True or false, he has found a symbolic form which has enabled him to govern himself to the best advantage."

To me, this looks like a similar proposition. Being aware of Hubbard's acquaintance with Crowley's work, one is prompted to wonder ...especially about the OT3 story for example. Was it ever meant to be taken as literally true, or, in the presence of some "presumed cognition" about the nature of the track, just as a paradigm...a working model?

Yours faithfully,

:confused2: UK.

Crowley wrote of governing himself [bolded]. However, what if someone wished to govern over others? A similar method could be used, and it does, then, become a bit complicated and messy.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=73071&postcount=5

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=72944&postcount=3

In Scientology, the OT 3 story is taken very seriously. It was meant to be taken literally and seriously. This issue is confused by PR efforts, ranging from "Xenu who?" to "Oh, that's a metaphor." Putting aside the inevitable Scientological attempts at smoke blowing and mirror tilting, perhaps the two links, and links within links (above) will be of some use.

Therapists involved with past life regression have commented that benefit (relief) could sometimes be obtained by recalling (what appear to be) imaginary incidents. This is probably true, however, the notion, in Scientology, of the "time track," demands address of that time track, and command of one's time track (able to travel on it) is regarded as a valuable ability.

(OT 3 - per Scientology theory - is mainly about others' ["BT's"] time tracks, and the supposed residue of the Xenu drama, and of the supposed earlier Incident One of 4 quadrillion years ago. See Implantology.)

Crowley also, with his "Magickal Memory," wrote of remembering his past lives, and also his (this lifetime) birth. In the above Crowley quote, from 'Magick in Theory and Practice', Crowley is dismissing the importance of his own memories, asserting (in effect) that it is the numerological and symbolic power derived from those "memories" (as part of a Magickal ritual) that really only matters.

So, Crowley is of two opinions.

You ask good questions. Hope the links help.
 
Therapists involved with past life regression have commented that benefit (relief) could sometimes be obtained by recalling (what appear to be) imaginary incidents.

Yes. For the most part they define as imaginary any incident which from the therapist's OWN frame of reference "could not possibly have taken place". In short they are evaluating for the pc.

Why should the "therapist's reality" be taken as reflecting the "truth" and the "pc's reality" evaluated for conformance?

Who is to be audited? The pc? Or, the therapist?


This is probably true, however, the notion, in Scientology, of the "time track," demands address of that time track, and command of one's time track (able to travel on it) is regarded as a valuable ability.


The notion in scientology of the "time track" is an obvious extension on the general concept of past lives. It provides a context for interpreting incidents which a pc may experience as real but which do not conform to what is known about his life this lifetime.

Similarly, concepts of earlier universes, other universes & lifeforms, other non-spatial realities, etc., may come up in session with associated "charge".

The auditors job is to run out the charge.

It is not a part of the auditor's job to tell the pc "that did not happen", "that is not true", or other invalidation. Neither is it a part of the auditor's job to tell the pc that "that is how I remember it also", or "you got that right, mate".



(OT 3 - per Scientology theory - is mainly about others' ["BT's"] time tracks, and the supposed residue of the Xenu drama, and of the supposed earlier Incident One of 4 quadrillion years ago. See Implantology.)

All of which puts the scope of auditing of III on the entity that has the incident in restimulation. It is not necessary for an auditor to believe, agree, or evaluate. All they need do is audit.

The conclusions drawn by an auditor later about such sessions, while on his own time, are his own.


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
For many, the book 'Self Analysis' has been used as a lead-in to further involvement with Scientology. Having read this book (or other Dianetic or Scientology books), and having (naive or deceitful) Scientologists, intoning, "What is true for you is true for you," and having their attention directed to a long and impressive-looking "Grade Chart," which would seem to promise "more of the same but even better," many have decided to join Scientology.

"Join us!" the (naive or deceitful) Scentologists will say, "You've had a sampling of what's to come, and it only gets better."

Of course, as is now widely recognized, Scientology is a "bait and switch operation," and "what you see" is - ultimately - not "what you get."

Unfortunately, for those sucked deeply into the Scientology vortex, none of that matters. "Join us!" they will say. "Join us!"

It's a bit like a 1950s Science fiction B-movie, when little Billy comes home from school, only to find that Mommy and Daddy now have tiny electrodes planted in their necks, and insist that little Billy, "Join us."

Soon the Postman arrives with that day's mail, he looks down at little Billy and says, "Join us, Billy. It's wonderful."

Billy, thank goodness, senses something is wrong and scurries off to find his pal, the professor at the big telescope observatory on the hill. The Professor doesn't yet have a tiny electrode in his neck, and - well, that's when I got up and left the room to make some popcorn...

Anyway, I guess the fact of deceptive lead-ins to bizarre or unwholesome situations is just one of those freaky things that one must learn to tolerate, while at the same time doing ones best to alert others.

Back to the book, 'Self Analysis'. Originally it had two versions, the American, which used recall of actual incidents, and the British, which used "creative processing" or "mock ups." So, instead of "recall" one would ask, "mock up." (So I'm told, as I've not seen it.)

(So, the area of "recall" [actual memory], and of "mocking up" [imagination], is an interesting one and worthy of being discussed; and no doubt, Scientology's contradiction-packed and loose-end-rich "mental-healing-layer" [which most "tech people" think IS Scientology] will make for a spirited discussion.)

I've used the "recall version" on "PCs" (persons receiving auditing), including on one person who insisted (and this was outside $cientology), that, before we did his Dianetics and Lower Grades, which was what he mainly wanted, that we explore - in depth - his favorite book, 'Self Analysis', and - per his request - we did so, and with an e-meter, "running" every list of "recall questions," and every "perceptic," (loosely, "sense") that there was. Being, myself, still fairly naive at the time, I simply used my "Class V Auditor" know-how on this simple book, only deviating from its format several times to run a few items "Dianetically," (which sends back more of the person's attention to the incident), and I also addressed some "ARC breaks" from the person's past, that came up, with Scientology procedures, rather than using the suggested methods from the back of the 'Self Analysis' book.

By the time we were done, this person was probably 2/3rds of the way through any auditing he would ever need, and his 'Objectives', 'Dianetics', and 'Lower Grades' (remember, I'm still fairly naive myself), went smoothly and with positive results.

As, by then, having studied, and explored, the materials called "NOTs," we even addressed what would be called "NOTs phenomena," and the "PC" had a sampling of what is was like to "audit" a "BT," with me acting as the across the auditing table guide and C/S, while he audited a "BT" that had suddenly popped up during a session - So this was a fairly extensive "ride" for this person, through the land of Scientology auditing Tech, with the exception being what is sometimes called, "Implantology" (or "Xenu-ology") which even then, I sensed was something alien (no joke intended) to what actual auditing was.

Wisely, IMO, I had kept this person from entering the Scientological "hamster wheel," or entering into the labyrinthine world of Hubbardian significance.

After this, I did the same, or similar, on several other people, and then knew it was time to do what I really didn't want to do, but knew I had to do: Look at that "other stuff."

Even then, as naive as I was, I knew that there was a large chunk of Scientology that I'd not yet examined, notably the extensive confidential writings, by Hubbard, on persuasion, manipulation, propaganda, spying, infiltration, and covert attack, of which "Scientology Intelligence Tech" is a part.

I also was slowly becoming aware of accounts, by newly free (ex)-Scientologists, of their experiences with Hubbard and Scientology, and of other things, so it was a time of transition and learning.

Around the same time, I had a big part of my personal library shipped to me from my home, thousands of miles away and, amongst Tolstoy, Upton Sinclair, Ayn Rand, Ouspensky, Castaneda, Suzuki, and a host of others, stumbled across a copy of an odd booklet that I had purchased at the "Org" years earlier - at an even more naive stage - and that booklet was titled, 'A Synthesis on the Russian Textbook on Pychopolitics'.

I had never seriously examined this booklet, which I had regarded as little more than a fringe novelty, and with the boxes of (1977 FBI raid) "Scientology Intelligence Tech"-related photocopies, and other curious things available to me, and with previously unreachable people, such as old time "squirrel" Jack Horner, former Senior C/S International David Mayo, and even L. Ron Hubbard Jr., available for consultation and discussion, I knew that my days as a happily naive "Class V Auditor" were drawing to a close.

So, here I am, in 2008, arguing about Hubbard's megalomania and drug-induced cosmology and his Xenu-sci-fi-story "upper levels," with a Xenu-Bridge PR man, who says, "What's true for you," and "Charge off (meaning Tone Arm motion) is charge off," like a chatty Kathy doll.

It's a strange world.

The topics of memory, of past lives, of therapy, of what's known as the paranormal, are naturally complex and challenging to explore. The dishonest nature of Scientology's inner regions make that exploration more difficult than it need be.

Despite the corrupt and twisted nature of Scientology's enlightenment-coated (and it is an interesting enlightenment-coating) booby-trapped (and the trap is interesting too, but not much fun) "philosophy," "Tech" and "Bridge," most of those who've passed through its gates, and out the other side, are honest and, although their opinions vary (naturally), can be counted on to present them frankly and honestly. And that's appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I've used the "recall version" on "PCs" (persons receiving auditing), including on one person who insisted (and this was outside $cientology), that, before we did his Dianetics and Lower Grades, which was what he mainly wanted, that we explore - in depth - his favorite book, 'Self Analysis', and - per his request - we did so, and with an e-meter, "running" every list of "recall questions," and every "perceptic," (loosely, "sense") that there was. Being, myself, still fairly naive at the time, I simply used my "Class V Auditor" know-how on this simple book, only deviating from its format several times to run a few items "Dianetically," (which sends back more of the person's attention to the incident), and I also addressed some "ARC breaks" from the person's past, that came up, with Scientology procedures, rather than using the suggested methods from the back of the 'Self Analysis' book.

By the time we were done, this person was probably 2/3rds of the way through any auditing he would ever need, and his 'Objectives', 'Dianetics', and 'Lower Grades' (remember, I'm still fairly naive myself), went smoothly and with positive results.

Sounds like an excellent result.



As, by then, having studied, and explored, the materials called "NOTs," we even addressed what would be called "NOTs phenomena," and the "PC" had a sampling of what is was like to "audit" a "BT," with me acting as the across the auditing table guide and C/S, while he audited a "BT" that had suddenly popped up during a session - So this was a fairly extensive "ride" for this person, through the land of Scientology auditing Tech,

Ditto.



with the exception being what is sometimes called, "Implantology" (or "Xenu-ology") which even then, I sensed was something alien (no joke intended) to what actual auditing was.

Wisely, IMO, I had kept this person from entering the Scientological "hamster wheel," or entering into the labyrinthine world of Hubbardian significance.

It is certainly wise to avoid undue "significance" and similarly wise to not waste time doing that in which you have no interest.




So, here I am, in 2008, arguing about Hubbard's megalomania and drug-induced cosmology and his Xenu-bad-sci-fi-story/mental processes, with a Xenu-Bridge PR man, who says, "What's true for you," and "Charge off (meaning Tone Arm motion) is charge off," like a chatty Kathy doll.

The only arguments you are having are the ones you create for your self, Veda.

Without your continual attempts to "oppterm" others through name calling & ad hominems you would discover the possiblity for a new "game". :)



It's a strange world.

The topics of memory, of past lives, of therapy, of what's known as the paranormal, are naturally complex and challenging to explore.

Or else so incredibly "simple" as to defy human cognition. :whistling:



The dishonest nature of Scientology's inner regions make that exploration more difficult than it need be.

That is one view.

There is certainly a great deal about institutional scientology which serves as an active obstruction to enhanced understanding. There are also conflicts & contradictions in Hubbard's statements about the tech which can unnecessarily complicate attempts to increase understanding, especially when these are "enforced" by unthinking agents.



Mark A. Baker
 

asagai

Patron Meritorious
It is not a part of the auditor's job to tell the pc "that did not happen", "that is not true", or other invalidation. Neither is it a part of the auditor's job to tell the pc that "that is how I remember it also", or "you got that right, mate".

Mark A. Baker

How does this theory sit with you as regards early "research" done by LRH while audited by Mary Sue?

April 1952 http://www.skeptictank.org/essaycos.htm

LRH is fishing for data from his "track" and He and MSH are using the meter as a "truth detector"

" MSH: Bang! Needle is dropping.

LRH: ... who have been beaten by entheta beings.

MSH: Bang!

LRH: And the battleground is too rough and these things have mutinied so let's put 'em all in one place and lock 'em on to earth. They gotta stay on earth 'til we get 'em straightened out. They'll send somebody down here sooner or later and he'll straighten them out.

MSH: You're getting drops in needle on all this material. "


....

"LRH: Big experiment on religion.

MSH: Is that when Christianity came into being?

LRH: That's an entheta operation. No drop?

MSH: Slight. "


This is the quality of "research" that led to technical "discoveries" that form the core of Scn cosmology and Hubbard's Upper Levels that are delivered by the "cult" (Judge Latey)
 
How does this theory sit with you as regards early "research" done by LRH while audited by Mary Sue?

......

This is the quality of "research" that led to technical "discoveries" that form the core of Scn cosmology and Hubbard's Upper Levels that are delivered by the "cult" (Judge Latey)

Actually it's only a small part of the whole effort and not even an especially representative one at that. Nor should you get tooo caught up in Hubbard's insistence that HE was the source of the tech and that no one else made SUBSTANTIVE contributions. Both statements are, to put it politely, incorrect.

But don't take my word for it. Go ask Alan (on this board). He is familiar with much of "who" contributed "what" & how it came about. He's a fountain of knowledge on such matters and has already posted snippets relating to such.

There were numerous others who contributed to these efforts. There are discussions of what actually occurred and how it became part of the tech both on the internet & circulating privately. Some who contributed are still alive. Some of them are still willing to discuss those early days and early practices.

What LRH lacked in methodology, was made up by access to a ready pool of auditors and pcs willing & able to try variations of piloted processes & programs. This resulted in an iterative & evolutionary approach to development which is known to be an efficient technique for evolving technologies rapidly. It's an approach that has been adopted with great success in the area of information sciences in recent decades.


Mark A. Baker
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
.....what matters is this: True or false, he has found a symbolic form which has enabled him to govern himself to the best advantage."

"symbolic form", I like that.

In other words something does not even have to be true for someone to work, it just has to work.

Methinks thou hast just thrown another wrench into the machinery that the LRH hath attempted to insist upon for mankind's usage.

But your idea sounds better. I for one place importance on imaginary incidents and imagery, especially if it gets the job done.

Rd00
 

asagai

Patron Meritorious
Mark, you seemed to wander off the subject. I know that many others contributed to lower level Scio tech. That isn't what I was talking about.

But Upper Level tech, expecially OTIII was solely devloped by LRH. In fact that is one of the things that differentiates Upper Levels compared to lower levels. They were solely LRH's version of "truth" from his "research".

I was highlighting the MSH/LRH squirrelling from 1952 when the meter was used as a truth detector. As you can see this Hubard "research" was laying the basis of OTIII and beyond, using squirrelling and code breaks.

I just wondered how you squared the actions of the Hubbard duo with your statements like "It is not a part of the auditor's job to tell the PC ... 'you got that right, mate' " which is almost exactly what MSH was doing in this squirrel session from 1952. It seems to be an example of Hubbard "research" that became his Upper Levels and I wondered if you thought this upper level "research" was flakey.

I wasn't referring to the contributions by others. I was referring to Hubbard's contribution that is the cosmology of Scn and seems to have been developed using the emeter as a truth detector.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
The basic truth seems to be that there is CHANGE.

The notions that one "improved" or that one "got worse" may be classed as subjective, but one may say with some certainty that there is a change in viewpoint.

All that one can be certain of is that there is CHANGE. And so there is TIME. And so there is ENERGY.

Energy, as it condenses, appears as MASS.

And because there is TIME, ENERGY and MASS, there has to be SPACE in which for them to appear.

.

Or merely the *APPARANCY* of space.

There is space.

Whether one likes it or not.

It is there.

It is the subjectivty that is within one's mind that brings the victory.

Rd00
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Scientology Tech Discussion

Nigel: "You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. You’re on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder."

DiBergi: "Why don’t you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?"

Nigel (after taking a moment to let this sink in): "These go to 11."

Zinj
 
Mark, you seemed to wander off the subject. I know that many others contributed to lower level Scio tech. That isn't what I was talking about.


No, I'm not wandering. I've a different perspective from yours as to what the "history of research" is.

Okay. Here's my view. I don't personally care for the term "lower level" as I consider it inaccurate and evaluative. Similarly, with the term "OT levels" or "upper levels". I prefer thinking in terms of "fundamentals" of auditing or "foundations" versus perhaps "extended application".

However, "lower level" is what is widely used by LRH & others and for the present I'm stuck with it.

There is auditing tech which lays out HOW to audit, repair, rehab, & C/S. To some extent this includes ideas on things which might be specifically addressed in an auditing session. Many of these suggestions of "what to audit" stem from material that came up in auditing sessions for individuals going back to the earliest times in the '50s. Obvious instances of "what to audit" include: drugs, serfacs, moral codes (HRD), valences/entities/OT case.



But Upper Level tech, expecially OTIII was solely devloped by LRH. In fact that is one of the things that differentiates Upper Levels compared to lower levels. They were solely LRH's version of "truth" from his "research".


HOW LRH came up with what was subsequently packaged as the "upper levels", I don't know. He did NOT do it alone, nor was MSH his only associate in that work.

Obvious counterexample, David Mayo's work on NOTS. It is also clear that the "upper levels" incorporates stuff from the earliest, most freewheeling days of scientology "research". This is especially so with the "original OT" levels (still available in the freezone). Many different individuals contributed to this body of data. Thus the early research data, methods, & contributors are important aspects of what became the "upper levels".

The question of who made the contributions is hard to reconstruct since the actual records were left in Co$ custody and their official story is "Ron did it by himself". That is of course hogwash.


Now I personally have never maintained that the "upper levels" represent the "truth" about the physical universe. Hubbard may well have. He certainly gave plentiful evidence for drawing that conclusion.

The important question with regard to the "upper levels" is not: did Hubbard develope them exclusively? It is not: are the "upper levels" everything they are hyped to be? Nor, is it: do the represent "THE TRUTH"?

The key question is: is there value in doing them?

I along with many others maintain that under the right conditions there is considerable value in doing so. I go so far as to state that the areas addressed in the scientology upper levels are not unique to scientology. Other spiritual traditions have been aware to varying degrees of the phenomena throughout history.



I just wondered how you squared the actions of the Hubbard duo with your statements like "It is not a part of the auditor's job to tell the PC ... 'you got that right, mate' " which is almost exactly what MSH was doing in this squirrel session from 1952. It seems to be an example of Hubbard "research" that became his Upper Levels and I wondered if you thought this upper level "research" was flakey.


Since you are asking my opinion, I will give it: it looks like major auditor code breaks, pc not in session, and serious mutual out-rudiments to me. Although I'm not a techie. :)

I have noticed numerous reports from old time scientologists that MSH was not a "strong tech terminal" (putting it mildly). As for LRH and his tendency to dominate juniors, I can highly recommend several of the recent posts by Dart Smohen.

The idea of Hubbard being at times "out tech" and "out code" with regard to his auditing is not a "new" or "devastating" concept to me. I've listened to some of his demo tapes & heard numerous tales of those who worked with him or were audited by him. He could screw up. Occasionally, he would admit it. Often his "presence" was sufficient to salvage the session for the pc even when the session itself was riddled with problems.

Should have been crammed & repaired a great deal more than he was. It often didn't happen either because he was "RON" or because he wouldn't let it happen.



I wasn't referring to the contributions by others. I was referring to Hubbard's contribution that is the cosmology of Scn and seems to have been developed using the emeter as a truth detector.


It may be the "cosmology of the Co$" but since the fundamental texts of scientology eschew ANY doctrine or dogma I am completely comfortable in denying that it constitutes the "cosmology of Scn".

The only way to press that "cosmology" point is to accept the validity of it as a part of a "hidden data line". Such hidden data lines were rife in the Co$ but, by being hidden, they were manifestly "out-tech" and therefore defensible as invalid. [That's my position & I'm sticking to it. :thumbsup: ]

It's not my cosmology. It is not the cosmology of the majority of OTs whom I have met. But then most of us left the Co$ decades ago. We aren't especially prone to go into agreement with the Co$ "Party Line".



Mark A. Baker
 

Moonchild

Patron with Honors
Nigel: "You see, most blokes will be playing at 10. You’re on 10, all the way up, all the way up...Where can you go from there? Nowhere. What we do, is if we need that extra push over the cliff...Eleven. One louder."

DiBergi: "Why don’t you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?"

Nigel (after taking a moment to let this sink in): "These go to 11."

Zinj


Ah...but, do you see? You need to listen to it in "Dobly" for it to make sense....

Ahem! Sorry....
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Ah...but, do you see? You need to listen to it in "Dobly" for it to make sense....

Ahem! Sorry....

To be fair, Eurotrash like Spinaltap are used to 220 volt while the colonies use 110.

So, 11 in American should translate to 22 in Euro. That's just logic!

Quite obviously 11 is more than 10, so, I don't understand what the issue is.

Thank you Ron!

Zinj
 
Top