Home > Scientology philosophy, Thoughts > Life, The Universe & Everything

Life, The Universe & Everything

There are several very basic questions I have not gotten answered in Scientology, even as I have reached the other side of the Bridge delivered by the CoS. Some of these are:

  • What is the nature of the Cause as described in the first of the Factors; “Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.” (this is before the decision to BE comes into play)?
  • How does a thetan with his own universe get to know about the MEST (physical) universe?
  • What is the power of “consideration” in contrast to “postulates” or “opinions” as mentioned in Axiom #2; “The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.”?

It seems to me that one has to perceive this with utmost simplicity to reach the truth. And so I will play ball with the readers of this forum to see if my ideas hold water.

This post can be seen as a continuation of my article on free will. So, before you reply, please read the article. Here goes:

There is a basic Cause of all. This is what Buddhism calls Nirvana. It contains no individuality as the decision “to BE” comes from this Cause and does not reside within it. This Cause is pure potential.

From this Cause then comes decisions “to BE”, each with it’s own set of Factors from #2 and up, each with it’s own universe. The thetan basically is his own universe with all its considerations. Individual thetans has the power of Consideration, where Opinion is a lower harmonic of consideration and Postulate is a form of Consideration. Consideration is the basic ability of a thetan.

For every cycle of action, there is the sequence of BE-DO-HAVE and thus each cycle of action carries with it a full set of the basic factors, giving rise to the fractal structure of universes.

And because all thetans have a basic common Cause, each have a link to the others, hence a basic knowingness of the others and the ability to agree upon a common game field, called the physical universe (MEST).

A thetan in his own universe can consider (create) anything. Without limit. A taste of this is given when the body sleeps and the thetan dreams.

As the thetan agrees to participate in the common game called MEST, he takes on a massive amount of agreement. It is much like any other game, like soccer – to participate, one must abide by the rules. A thetan in the common game is bound by the agreements of this game. Hence he cannot simply lift an object by pure consideration unless he solicits agreement by everyone else in the game (or at least those he wants to show it to) – or unless it is somehow allowed by the rules. This may explain the lack of displayed OT abilities. It may also explain magic (someone found a buried allowance for certain magic to be displayed, or a loophole in the rules).

A thetan in the common game is very much at effect simply because of the agreement to the rules. The thatan can become even more effect by agreeing further to other’s considerations (taking them on as one’s own) within the game or by the elements in the game itself (agreement with MEST as covered in the article on free will). Layers upon layers of considerations results in lower levels being masked by higher levels and can then be referred to as “unconscious considerations”.

There is a gradient scale of free will that shows how much the thetan is in agreement. For a thetan to rise on this scale, he must get a solution on his level of agreement. A druggie, heavily into agreement with MEST and other’s considerations (same thing) needs a very physical solution in order to accept its workability. A thetan high on the scale need the simplest of solutions – like what is described here by Alan Watts (first half of the video):

A thetan is only bound by his own considerations and can only be hurt or become effect by his own considerations. So, resolving a thetan’s own considerations is the only solution there is. And this is why placebo works – an effect the medical societies should embrace wholeheartedly. Any solution works only to the degree that one can lure the thetan into considering that it will work. This is why any religion can work, or psychotherapy, or psychiatry, or healing, or mediation, or looking at a blue stone for 15 years, or simply anything as long as the thetan considers it will work. This is why I fully respect the workability of any religion. Some techniques reach the level of agreement of more people than other techniques. Scientology reaches many. The workability is enforced by the thetan’s perception of the value of the solution. If the solution includes much suffering, monetary cost, secrecy or scarcity it will often be seen as more valuable and hence has a better potential of getting some thetans to accept it as workable.

As any solution can work, and it will work the best if it strikes at the level of free will exercised by the thetan, there is a scale of solutions from the most physical to the very light. At the most physical levels, we have solutions such as band aid, surgery, medicine, vitamines and up through various therapies and rituals to tackling the results of the thetan’s most intimate considerations – referred to as “case” in Scientology. But above that is addressing the thetan’s considerations directly. It puzzles me why this level is not addressed on the Bridge.

Instead of addressing the thetan’s charge or case, one could address his considerations about it to release his free will. His considerations is after all the only thing that anchors him to this charge or case. Making him simply look at his own considerations layer after layer should bring him to whatever level he wants. This is what gives hope for the simplest of approaches like the KHTK by Vinaire.

I am writing this to test my ideas about Life, Universe and Everything. And any input would be very welcome.

I should add that 42 (the number of eyes on two dice… “God does play dice”) is not the answer. Cantor was closer… the answer is “0”. I leave it to you to figure out this last paragraph πŸ™‚

Advertisements
  1. Nigel Benjamin
    2010-06-05 at 01:29

    I’m sorry, but you know that this is all rubbish, right?It is based on a premise that makes no sense by itself.It’s self fulfilling gobbledygook.I prefer to think much further out of the box than the one you have paid a lot of money to be put in.Sorry….it has always been 42, or there abouts.”0″ is almost 42 on the scale of things.Or try “9”,or “5” is good too.

    • 2010-06-05 at 15:29

      I understand that you do not understand this. Try again.

      • Nigel Benjamin
        2010-06-05 at 21:07

        Typical response.LOL

  2. 2010-06-05 at 02:08

    This is a beautiful article. Each time I read it I get more out of it. “Looking out” at this level is meditation in its purity. Buddha originated the idea of “seeing things as they are.” The KHTK approach is based on this idea. Scientology works the best when it uses this idea. Thank you for giving exposure to the KHTK approach.

    • 2010-06-05 at 11:52

      You are very welcome. It is simplicity in the purest – hence a path to truth.

  3. 2010-06-05 at 10:36

    Hi Geir,

    If you add a link to the IFA http://internationalfreezone.net I can add a link to your site on ten websites.

    Much arc

    mike
    IFA

  4. LO
    2010-06-05 at 12:27

    Geir,

    Beautiful essay !
    It puzzles me on that sentence:
    “It puzzles me how this level is not addressed on the Bridge.”
    I don’t understand what definition of the word “how” you are using here.
    Do you mean why ?
    As per my understanding auditing is only adressing the considerations a thetan has about life, even when only running ned at the end one always changes a certain consideration one had about something.
    In the fifties LRH tested all kind of auditing also exactly what you are talking about. He found out then that the wins were not stable and researched further.
    It could be that I don’t understand what you’re talking about.

    • 2010-06-05 at 15:28

      I will change the “how” to a “why”. Thanks.

      What is not addressed on the Bridge is directly as-is’ing of considerations – but rather going through a lot of mechanics to get to the considerations on a via.

      • LO
        2010-06-06 at 10:48

        I got it !

        This wasn’t the case til about 1982 and when Lrh was around. The programms were always tailored to the individual, not a rote procedure for everyone, directly to his considerations.
        I’ve seen the first NOTs completions of 1978 (all declared sps now), there are Universes beetween them and the completions of today when one listens to the wins.
        Before 1982 mostly any auditing I’d were directly adressing my considerations.
        Then it changed drastically, the OT’s were forbidden to tell their wins.
        After I did my OT IV and became a target of the finance police I heard (through a thin wall) my C/S shouting at my D of P, telling him what he thinks about me and how I should be handled.
        Since then I didn’t do one more step on the bridge just ocassionally some review to find out if times have changed and the auditor wants to audit the pc in front of him or doing some rote procedures.
        After reading your essay I’m so happy about of not having continued to go up the bridge and getting GAT and getting overrunned with that funny definition of F/N and all other little alterations.
        Just for fun. grab youself a good auditor and let him give you the “grand tour”, you will be amazed.
        Sorry, I can’t help if this a little bit evaluative but I wanted to speak my mind.
        I’m in doubt if I should press the submit comment. Ok I do it !

        • 2010-06-06 at 13:09

          πŸ™‚

          What I am really looking for is a type of process like “Look at your consideration without thinking”. No vias, just as-is’ing the consideration itself. No mechanics. No addressing of charge or mass or situations or thinkingness. At all.

          • LO
            2010-06-08 at 10:39

            This would be powerful !
            You are OT 8 and propapably would work for you as no more stimulus response !
            perhaps Ot9 and 10 or the rest of the levels if they exist.

            • 2010-06-08 at 11:12

              If they exist…

      • irchristo
        2011-02-11 at 19:26

        Very excellent work Geir.
        “Directly as-ising of considerations” would require one to know what their considerations were. You so aptly wrote, ‘Layers upon layers of considerations results in lower levels being masked by higher levels and can then be referred to as β€œunconscious considerations”.’ This thought is very well put together by you. Trying not to sound A=A=A, it is yet my belief that any consideration is as valid as any other consideration. Only when a thetan has had some degree of difficulty with a consideration does he then begin to “fester” charge around that consideration. Can it be that without a a trail of static charge that a consideration cannot be located at all and thereby the need to address these layers upon layers of “mechanics to get to these considerations on a via?”
        I am quite interested in your view on this as it has been a curiosity of my own for a long time.

        • 2011-02-17 at 22:09

          I believe this can be handled by looking at the consideration relating to why the consideration cannot be handled directly.

          • Chris Thompson
            2011-02-18 at 12:25

            Yes-yes, but . . .
            1. Would the statement of this consideration be something like,”I must know about something before I can know about it”?
            2. This seemingly illogical statement then can only be solved by rising to Tone 40 which takes us out of this game of figuring things out.

          • Chris Thompson
            2011-02-18 at 12:45

            . . . and
            3. Computations have in them considerations but not vice versa. “handling” all of one’s considerations takes us up to an altitude, . . . oh, I see.
            4. Considering the fractal construct of the universe, I do consider there are “cooler” games above what we do here on earth. Enjoying the hell out of any game one is playing would be the immediate rational goal of this Scientolog-ical activity. That is a bit hard for me to do though, look UP very high. Mostly I look up and enjoy the serenity of that beingness but then consider (or is it a computation?) that I must come back down to the playing of the game.
            3. For instance, just now as I write to you I pause and get the idea of being higher toned. This pops me “just out” into that tingling-larger-than-livingness feeling of exteriorization. Then remembering I want to write about this to you I “go back in” to type. This is hard to write about in a satisfying way. Please write and say if this is meaningful to you.

          • Chris Thompson
            2011-02-28 at 02:19

            Ok,
            1. Tell me about the type of consideration which you cannot as-is.
            2. Tell me about the type of consideration which you can as-is.
            3. Tell me about the type of consideration that you can approach directly.
            4. Tell me about the type of consideration which is unapproachable.

            Do you mean something something like this? Possibly are we talking about some implanting type commands “not to look” that can hold a consideration in place or otherwise make it unapproachable or unknowable?
            Or do we need the attitude shift of “getting off it” as described in your video “teachings on the true nature of self”?

            • 2011-03-27 at 00:21

              I would avoid the “tell me” and rather ask the person to look at.

  5. Toby Zuckerman
    2010-06-05 at 13:46

    Hi Geir,
    In my opinion, you are spot on! Years ago (before I was in $cientology, I attended Oprah Winfry’s TV show. She was hosting Yuri Geller (a mystic/magician). He told the audience to take out an old key which we didn’t really need anymore. He said we were all to look at our keys and concentrate. On the count of 3, the keys would miraclously bend. To my astonishment, on the count of 3, my key bent in half with very little physical effort, only intention, on my part. I was shocked! After the show, I asked Mr. Geller, “How do I bend it back?” and he was unable to give me an answer. Now, of course, I understand the mechanism. It was the group’s intention that bent all our keys. Individually, we did not have the strength or power of intention to bend them back. Thanks for reminding me of this simple truth.
    Toby

  6. Gary York
    2010-06-05 at 16:33

    Geir,

    You might want to have a look at this page: http://www.lightlink.com/theproof/ where, “Homer Wilson Smith,” of ACT fame, advances his Machine Certainty Theorem, often referred to as, “The Proof.”

    It seems to boil down to:

  7. Gary York
    2010-06-05 at 16:36

    (this thing doesn’t really like tabs, does it.)

    -continued from above.-

    1. It is impossible for a machine to know things with perfect certainty,
    2. You can.
    3. Therefore, you are not a machine.

    Best,

    G.

  8. 2010-06-06 at 23:16

    Hi Geir,

    What is your ultimate goal? To escape this universe? To live in your own personal universe? To exist peacefully forever into the future? To have all thetans finally escape this tough MEST universe?

    These are honest questions from a guy who dumped two decades and a lot of money into Scientology, only to discover that trained, veteran OT’s are apparently quite able to be tricked by a madman named Miscavige.

    Sorry to say that the whole thing is beginning to look like one big joke to me, despite the obvious genius of LRH.

    I’m confused. Was LRH honestly trying to help? Or was he just trying to make a buck?

    Thanks for any help you can offer as an OT VIII.

    • 2010-06-07 at 05:52

      My ultimate goal is to play cool games. Much like what people are longing for when they go to the movies πŸ™‚

      As for LRH’s intentions, I believe it would have been far easier for him to make more money doing something other than Scientology. There is simply too much effort per buck on his part.

      • 2010-06-07 at 08:22

        Actually, I will expand on that; To enjoy the hell out of any game I am playing. Including this one.

        • irchristo
          2011-02-11 at 19:30

          Agree with this Geir.
          Enjoying the game one is playing is not dependent on the game but on one’s ability to enjoy.

  9. OTVIII... For now!
    2010-06-07 at 09:54

    Great article Geir.

    I found Idenics by John Galusha and Mike Goldstein to have an incredible workablilty in the area of considerations. After all, that’s all there is!

    I am still running New Era Dianetics on pcs and I find there is just too much effort in handling all this garbage for little result. I mean there are results, but I think that this could be handled without stumbling for hours down chains of engrams. I believe considerations can be handled directly. No doubt. I spent far too much time and money getting to a point where I still have the exact things I got into Scientology to handle Huh? Oh! That must mean I am out-ethics I guess and should get a thorough sec check ooops! that didn’t work… What else can we try hmmmmmmm.

    What was interesting to me at this level was that I could do one Idenics session and blow something that has been with me the last 20 years… Over the phone!!!

    Thanks for your insights Geir and I hope to meet you some day πŸ™‚

    • 2010-06-07 at 10:16

      The problem I see with Idenics is that the tech seems to be proprietary. All such tech should be free.

    • 2010-06-07 at 10:17

      I hope we meet, too πŸ™‚

  10. Overdriver
    2010-06-07 at 10:12

    Dear Geir, it is really miraculous… πŸ™‚ from a couple of days I was seriously thinking to ask you about this thing which you’ve just answered… πŸ™‚ It is what you write, was not answered for you in Scientology… πŸ™‚
    But the name of the level is Truth Revealed. So what was revealed if not this? πŸ™‚
    Even below, at OT III the awareness characteristics says “Source”. What Source? If not this? πŸ™‚
    I do not know. Maybe the Bridge was changed or there is no answer for this in Scientology in the first place and I seriously beleive in this later explanation.
    Nirvana is really not the thing LRH described… πŸ™‚ He also speaks about Buddhism and Yoga but he never mentions specifics. There is no reason to speak about Buddhism as such does not exist πŸ™‚ I mean there are different lineages, traditions… πŸ™‚ These are for different people. So there is no meaning to speak about Buddhism in this context. This is just too broad. On the other hand it is very easy to explain the differances but I do not know an instance where LRH does this, so he probably knows very little of Buddhism as such or he does not want us to look at it… Why? πŸ™‚ Nirvana is not nothingness as he describes. And probably not a trap if we choose the right one… πŸ™‚ Yoga has many schools as well. Which yoga is dangerous and exactly why? πŸ™‚ We does not get an answer just a general warning. It is not correct I would say.
    LRH was probably a man like Crowley or Helena Blawatsky. These people had this kind of “obsession” to deal with the spirit. And they wanted some power as well. We’ve had self help gurus of the USA. Hubbard was one of them getting into the realm of spirituality. He made money from Scientology because this was his “life-style”. Probably that fitted for him more than running an oil-company or a bank. (I just wrote these last words because of one of your comments above.)
    And probably he had discoveries. But who will sort out his fancy ideas from the valuable discoveries? All I can see that people who were seriously doing Scientology before were going mad or kind of mad. Maybe that was a reason that the Bridge was altered if it was altered. To prevent people going mad like Bill Robertson and others did.
    I’ve just seen the videos of Pierre Ethier Class XII auditor on YouTube. It is in itself strange that a Class XII leaves but he remains loyal to LRH and at the same time I can’t see he would have any kind of solution… for the secrets of the MEST or to any other universes.
    But as far as I know, on the L’s one gets into “contact” with the theta universe… Do you have experience about this?
    But getting back to the “answer” πŸ™‚
    There are intellectual answers for sure. But we can’t do too much with intellectual answers. We need gnostic wisdom, experience, realisation.
    And while we are in a dualistic state, connected to a body, there is no experience for most of us. And when I’ve realised this a couple of weeks ago I wanted to ask you about this. And now I’ve got the answer. Miracle πŸ™‚
    Would be good to exchange ideas personally πŸ™‚

    • 2010-06-07 at 10:23

      That’s the smiliest post in a long time πŸ™‚

      I have my own idea as to what LRH was referring to when OT II has the awareness characteristic of “Source” beside it. And I know what truth is revealed on OT VIII. But this does not mean that all truth is revealed there – by far, or that source is completely handled or even fully understood on OT III. As for the Ls, I haven’t done them yet.

      As for the idea about theta and MEST, check out the discussions over at scnforum.org

      • Overdriver
        2010-06-07 at 10:38

        For Source I would expect an awareness about the Source of this universe. And similarly Truth would mean to me seeing trough the fibre which creates this illusion or dream in which we all human and spiritual beings are.
        scnforum is a bit “untransparent” for me. Are there any thread which you would especiallly advise?

        • 2010-06-07 at 11:15

          The Life, Universe & Everything-thread is a good start.

          The problem with one/two-word labels beside a confidential level is that people get just about any expectation. My advise is to never have expectations in life – they are overrated πŸ™‚

      • Overdriver
        2010-06-07 at 20:05

        And do you think that the Truth revealed on OT VIII is a real one? πŸ™‚ And which you can’t find anywhere else?

        • 2010-06-07 at 20:44

          Yes.

          • Overdriver
            2010-06-09 at 07:34

            Good for you to know these secrets πŸ™‚ I’ve found recently some truth and I’ve never found those wisdoms in Scientology earlier. I’m not convinced that the truth in Scientology are not self-invented. There are great, workable models, like the ARC triangle. But take a clooser look. Affinity is in close relation how close you want to be to somebody. Now, it is a nice sentence but can you decide the distance in numbers, meters? Certainly not. So this is a nice sentence but it lacks the preciseness that I would expect in regard to a kind of a mathematic formula.
            There are also some Sci-fi and Lovecroft style expressions that can be found in the Fishman affidavit which may or may not be true.
            LRH said he was researching. So he stated in Book I that similarities key in engrams. Later he stated that it is out-ethics. You can never know what he find out later…
            He also stated that OT III is safe but I had to find out that it was not uncommon that people went berserk on that level.
            I consider there are too much uncertanties in Scientology. And the fact that I know a handful of people who are doing good on higher levels does not validate Scientology for me.
            I would be very interested how I would regard some higher-lever Eastern practices in case I would be further up on the Bridge. Right now I have the experience that these give similar experiences than auditing although I feel these Eastern “processes” much complete and harmonic. Like if you would compare the smell of a rose and a parfume. Rose would be appealing.

            • 2010-06-09 at 07:47

              I would not expect truths about non-physical elements to be quantifiable in physical measurements. Just sayin’

              One should also realize that Scientology developed over the years, and so it is only natural that LRH would find more underlying causes for various phenomena.

              As for the Fishman affidavit, I know for a fact that what he passes for OT VIII is pure BS – it’s been referred to as his “poison pill”, a fairly accurate description.

              • Chris Thompson
                2011-02-28 at 02:22

                Do you feel it is important to keep the OT levels secret?

              • 2011-03-27 at 00:20

                No.

  11. mind-master
    2010-06-07 at 18:21

    Hello Geir

    There is a practice called Spiritolgie, which directly adresses considerations.

    The processes are the same as in Scientology.
    I practised it for some time, but not for now.

    In an article, “God Defined”, the german author (A. Buttler) describes the factors, his view of god derived from the factors.

    The article is online at
    http://www.spiritologie.eu/index.php?id=43&L=1%3Fiframe%3Dtrue

    You can also read the whole book online, which is easy readable.
    Very interesting imho. I would like to hear your view about it.

    Mind-Master

    • 2010-06-07 at 19:08

      It’s an interesting attempt at marrying the Factors and the Bible.

      The writing is a bit too emotional IMHO.

      • mind-master
        2010-06-07 at 19:29

        Yes, the Bible … God created man as his image, as the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”..

        But what do you think of the idea, that at the beginning there was a single thetan, which copied himself, so to say created other thetans, with the same abilities, but also with inherent unconsiousness ?
        It would also explain somewhat of your mentioned “link between each other”.

        • 2010-06-07 at 19:43

          I do not hold the view of a hierarchy of thetans.

          • mind-master
            2010-06-07 at 19:59

            I see you did not understand the article..there is no mention of a hierachy..

            • 2010-06-07 at 20:45

              There is splitting – this is what I mean by hierarchy.

              • mind-master
                2010-06-07 at 20:54

                So you don’t think a thetan can create annother thetan ?

              • 2010-06-07 at 20:55

                That is undecided.

          • Chris Thompson
            2011-01-05 at 22:57

            Yes, neither do I think there is a single thetan which copied himself…etc.,.

          • irchristo
            2011-02-11 at 19:35

            Agree, no matter the hierarchy within games we find ourselves playing.

        • Overdriver
          2010-06-07 at 20:00

          All beings have Buddha Nature. This is quite a precise expression and maybe a good starting point for finding the truth for yourself.

          • mind-master
            2010-06-07 at 20:55

            What you mean with Buddha Nature ?

            • Overdriver
              2010-06-09 at 07:01

              I really do not want to be mystical about it but the truth is that it is something you have to work on it personally and find out for yourself. But actually there is (almost) everything in the sentence. People need different explanations and practices according to their understanding and state and I am not the right one to find out what explanation you need right now. For this reason there are different schools in Buddhism. Ask for it and sooner or later you will find the right one for you.

  12. 2010-06-08 at 05:34

    Geir,

    I appreciate your answer about loving this game, similar to seeing a movie. I can think with that.

    Another question: The church pushes the responsibility for clearing the planet very heavily on all of our soldiers. Do you still have planetary clearing as a goal? While you may be enjoying the game yourself, so many people are suffering terribly around the world. Do you have plans to tackle this?

    • 2010-06-08 at 05:54

      I do have plans to tackle this.

  13. 2010-06-08 at 06:35

    Excellent!

    Lastly, I am intrigued by your article above. I’m an artist, living in Seattle, where the economy sucks. Right now, I’m reading an art-coaching book by a person who tells the reader to coach themself by mocking up an actual conversation between your normal self and your higher self. Your normal self asks a question about a problem you are having with your art, your income, etc. And then, your higher self, your “coach”, gives an answer.

    My question is, as an OT VIII, do you have any views on being able to separate our lower MEST-oriented, reactive self, from our higher, theta self? In other words, how do you see yourself now that you are up the Bridge? As one? Or as two (higher and lower)?

    Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions Geir!
    ARC,
    IO

    • 2010-06-08 at 06:53

      I am more One every day πŸ™‚

      I see myself in relation to my own considerations – which are superimposed on the considerations of others (the MEST universe) and vica versa to create the game called life.

      • Chris Thompson
        2011-01-05 at 23:13

        Yes. This seems right to me.

  14. 2010-06-08 at 07:09

    I get that!

    Last question for the night. It’s midnight here and I’m off to bed soon.

    In your estimation, knowing the current state of man on planet earth……do you feel that with Scientology techniques and education, a person will have a better chance of a happy future track? Or, according to Alan Watts, should we just simply “know” and be happy, even though our bodies die and we get amnesia and have to start all over again lifetime after lifetime, in complete ignorance?

    • 2010-06-08 at 09:09

      I think each and every one should get to learn to appreciate the game they are playing – and enjoy it immensely. And then there are always more interesting games to play and that can be achieved through Scientology techniques – unless one is of the “easy kind” that can simply “get off it” πŸ™‚

      • Chris Thompson
        2011-01-05 at 23:15

        Yes, enjoy right now. Appreciation and enjoyment of one’s current game.

  15. 2010-06-08 at 07:26

    p.s. I’m 42! Does that mean I’m really zero?
    πŸ™‚

    • 2010-06-08 at 09:07

      Yes, and next year, you’ll be -1 πŸ™‚

  16. LO
    2010-06-08 at 11:38

    This thread is so interesting and there is so much truth here.
    I’m not OT 8 and haven’t studied all of Scientology but I would like to state my own understanding of the questions arised here.
    In his essay Geir states the exact purpose that Budha, Christ or LRH had in Mind and in fact any person walking on this planet.
    I’ve this purpose and hope I’ll achieve it on day (or one life). There is something I learned the hard way. I was always very proud of being very literate in Scientology philosophy, and sometimes really arrogant about it when I looked at my Scientology friends and this got me in lots of troubles, as I lots of times was demonstrating to my friends that Lrh meant something else not the funny things they were doing.
    The end of the story was when my wife came back after having done half of the briefing course and told me things about the supreme being, things about how thetans came into being and lots of other stuff, I thought that have nothing to do with Scientology, that she studied on that course. My first reaction was I don’t believe that you studied those data, it has nothing to do with Scientology, you have Mu’s on it. She was very patient with me and what I learned is that there is a lot of what LRH discovered that I don’t know of and have to learn and find out.

    She told me stories about how much fun they had on the SHSBC when new students that were OT8s had to study certain lectures. They were observing them, seeing how pale, confused and schocked they became on those tapes but were winning at the end.
    Must have been very funny. If you want I’ll find out the names of the tapes, but it will take some weeks (shit I can’t google it, we have to move forward).
    Why doesn’t the C.O.S not produce Class VIs and Class VIIIs anymore in huge Quantities ?
    Why did they destroy in 1994 all the the translated tapes of the Briefing course and class8 course (Swedish, German, French, Italian and propably many other languages)in AOSH DK ?
    Why isn’t there any single Class IX (Not’s)auditor on the planet which also is a class VI, VII and class VIII ?
    How come that somebody can become a class IX without doing the levels before it ?
    This stinks, looks like quickie training.
    Propably those people would be dangerous as they would produce very powerful beings that would throw out DM in a Millisecond. Beings that are directly audited on their considerations and would handle the planet.
    So my answer to the question is to become a class 8 (if possible class 12),do all the available OT-Levels (what is on the rest of it ?) and then ask myself the question again.
    I hope I didn’t offend anybody with my comment.
    I just love this thread. Life is Life !
    You don’t know how many truth there is in the genesis (per my wife Lrh says nearly the same thing)and in most Religions.
    But the simplicity of it is nearly unconfrontable for homo Sapiens. Perhaps he must first become homo novis (in the fullest sense of the word)to understand or at all ask the question as Geir did in this thread.
    IMHO

    Love you all !

    LO

  17. 2010-06-08 at 16:34

    Geir,

    You have stated that you were quite shy and introverted before Scientology. Would it be fair to say that you were not enjoying the game before Scientology?

    At what point did you start enjoying the game and being yourself?

    • 2010-06-08 at 16:55

      I enjoyed the games I played even before Scientology – but they were much more narrow than the games I am able to play today. I enjoyed maths, astrophysics, particle physics etc. I still do. But after Scientology I also enjoy art, music, people, giving speeches and managing companies etc. Life is a much larger playing field – and I am much more myself. It’s a gradient scale.

  18. 2010-06-08 at 17:42

    Awesome!!!

    I am near the bottom of the Bridge. I’m an artist and musician.

    If I get some more auditing, maybe I’ll start enjoying Math, Astrophysics, Particle Physics, etc! πŸ™‚

    Also, if you want to get an idea of what goes on at a Class V Org in Seattle, please feel free to read my 4 articles at Scientology-Cult under “Idle Org”. They are brief and direct observations/experiences I’ve had during the onslaught of fund-raising and recruitment pressure.

    Thanks for the comm Geir!
    ARC,
    Idle Org πŸ™‚

    • 2010-06-08 at 17:43

      You are very welcome. I’ll read the article.

    • Chris Thompson
      2011-01-05 at 23:33

      Hi Idle Org,
      I felt compelled to comm with you about your comment that you are “near the bottom of the Bridge.” I really want to say that you are an intelligent being with awareness and curiosity and potential whether or not there is ever any “Bridge.” You know what you know and that may not be such a little bit as your comment implies. You may know a great lot. If you relax your admiration for people who are “up the Bridge” or any other badge of status that we award to people who have attained a “level” it is my thought that if you simply smile inwardly and with a good heart proclaim “I am who I want to be. I am capable, competent, and I can do what I want to do. I can live a life of quality sufficient to please myself.” Then feel the mantle of responsibility comfortably settle upon your own shoulders. Now you have permission to ask the questions of yourself that you want answered. You can perceive the truth that you want “revealed.” You can live and breath and experience and you can be happy and satisfied with the meals that life provides. The desperate yearning we feel in our hearts when we feel the “truth is out there” can be quenched when we reveal that the “truth is in here!” (touching both your head and your sternum). Gurus are helpful and they all tell you to “know yourself.” As LRH said, “All the truth you ever find lies within you.”

  19. 2010-06-09 at 05:14

    Well,

    Seeing as how nobody else is jumping in right now, I will use my free will and my definitely-favored metaphysical theory and add a little more comm. For adding more comm is my free will. Or….is it simply a sequential act on a pre-programmed purely physical destiny which I deny, preferring the metaphysical, personal-responsibility theory? Hmmmm…..

    Stephen Hawking may be bright and he may prefer physical theory, but, obnose the man’s condition. Not good.

    I wrote an article called “The Group Postulate”. If you have a chance to read that one on the Scientology-cult site, it is my personal favorite. In my view, it aligns perfectly with the metaphysical theory, which, to me, isn’t a theory. It’s cold hard fact. But, it can’t be proven by physical means, so….. Hmmmmm. πŸ™‚

    In your view, Geir, do you find that a group postulate has more power than an individual postulate? Power in numbers? That sort of thing? And if so, how can it be fully utilized to handle the DM problem?

    IO

    • 2010-06-09 at 06:44

      Agreement has power. A group postulate can be extremely convincing. Witness the physical universe πŸ˜‰

  20. 2010-06-09 at 07:15

    I’d guess you’re a metaphysical kind of guy. πŸ™‚

    • 2010-06-09 at 07:24

      You’re a good guesser πŸ˜‰

  21. El Diablo
    2010-06-25 at 13:41

    Was reviewing some of your older entries and have been facinated with this one.

    A few questions: Would I be right to assume that your understanding/a Hubbardarian view of the universe is strongly anti-material? And does it also posit that MEST (the physical) is secondary, or dependent upon the reality collectively constructed by thetans? (sorry if my terminology is clumsy – feel free to correct).

    I’d also like to put my own personal thoughts on the nature of reality so you know where I’m coming from: I’m a realist (in the philosophical sense). I believe in an independent physical universe – what you’d call MEST. However, I also subscribe the the notion of epistemic relativism – that our personal realities are necessarily constructed, and hence there are “multiple realities” (which analogous to “if it’s true for you it’s true”). There is much more I could say on this, but this is the extremely quick and dirty version.

    On what you’ve written about the limitlessness of the reality a thetan can create (I hope I’ve read that right), I wonder if this is truly possible. In particular, my mind goes to my favored interpretation of quantum mechanics (Transactional Interpretation), which posits that a light-source emits waves which both forward and backward in time, as does the point at which it’s recieved…and the way these waves cancel each other out accounts for the observed behavior of light (like how it acts like a wave and a particle at the same time). Also, unlike other interpretations, it posits that the “collapse of the wavefunction” is atemporal (like outside of the time-dimension) and is occuring along the entire transaction.

    What makes this interesting is that it’s one of the few quantum theories that is realist (like, is based on a theory about how the physical world actually is)…but truly IMAGINING…really being able to construct this reality in one’s head, is close to impossible. It seems to me that we’re firmly bound in the time dimension at least cognitively (Although I should note that I don’t strictly believe in “time” – since I think that only the present truly exists, and the past is a construct emerging from and embedded in our present brain-state). So if this interpretation is actually correct, what then of the thetan-reality? Can a thetan have an ontological knowledge (which I *think* would be called “beingness” in the Scientology lingo) of a reality where light moves both forward AND backwards in time…where things occur outside of the temporal dimension?

    This interpretation is an elegant solution to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics…much like Copernicanism was an elegant solution to the observed movements of the “celestial bodies” (planets & sun), but can a Scientological construction of the universe accommodate it within it’s metaphysics? And if not, can it provide – or at least accommodate – an alternative viable account of the observed behavior of light?

    Anyhow, these are just some thoughts on this, and if I’m misinterpretted anything Scientological I welcome correction. Sorry ’bout all the science talk, but mind-bendy physics and metaphysics seem to go hand-in-hand.

    • 2010-06-25 at 13:54

      Very nice post.

      You may want to read my Subjective
      Collapse Theory
      for an insight in how I view reality.

      I don’t speak for Scientology in that article. I am more focused on my
      view on realities than any -ology’s views on it.

      Scientology and my own view coincide when I state that the physical
      reality is a consensus reality and nothing else. It is created.

      • Chris Thompson
        2011-01-06 at 00:40

        Hi Geir,
        your “subjective collapse theory” link is broken but I would enjoy reading it. Help?
        Respectfully,
        Chris

  22. El Diablo
    2010-06-25 at 15:51

    Oh, wow, interesting stuff! Thanks for that. I also looked up your article on free will and since I’m rather agnostic on the issue (outside of my operational-assumption, that we have it), it’s certainly getting me thinking. πŸ™‚

    I do highly recommend John Cramer’s “Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, which covers much of the same philosophical and theoretical ground as you have in your article about “subjective collapse theory”…well at least it crops up more than a few times, with TI being put forward as an alternative which does not *necessitate* the conscious observer in waveform collapse.

    Also, it seems my understanding of the MEST universe as dependent (or perhaps better described as “emergent”) from the collective thetan construction of it, is more or less a correct reading. Obviously not my view, but I do get it.

    I did mention that I do believe also in “constructed realities”…and was introduced to a rather facinating form of analysis that you may be interested in: Actor-network-theory and Material Semiotics…it’s a rather novel way of understanding “knowledge” without recourse to notions of “absolute truth”. It assumes a material world, but remains completely agnostic (in-fact completely uninterested) about the metaphysics which might underlie it. It’s a methodology which is ultimately descriptive…looking at both the material, symbolic, sentient, and non-sentient “actors”, as interracting with one another within a network. My description is extremely clumsy – and even in like-approaches there is hetrogeneity – so I direct you to this paper by John Law (2007) if you’re interested.

    Okay, it’s like almost 2am, I should stop crapping on…I hope some of this peaks your interest…and the linkage from you will no doubt be getting some repeat traffic from me!

    • 2010-06-25 at 15:59

      Good stuff. Thanks for the pointers πŸ™‚

  23. El Diablo
    2010-06-25 at 15:52

    Whoops stupid me accidently same-linked in those urls: John Law’s paper is actually here.

  24. 2010-06-26 at 04:57

    Hi Geir,

    A very interesting article. Thank you for posting it.

    I spent perhaps 20 years reading and rereading the basic books of LRH many many times and have discovered much by way of cognitions and realizations that have enabled me to step back, as it were, and see the big picture on this planet and chart, for myself, a course of action to help raise the tone of the planet.

    As well as educating people and training more auditors, it is raising the tone of the planet overall that will eventually key out and Clear more people faster and this will eventuate a better world despite attempts to the contrary.

    Indeed the more others resist this activity the closer they will come to it.

    • Chris Thompson
      2011-02-19 at 01:21

      Yes, high toned activity and raising the tone of people is important.

  25. Overdriver
    2010-07-01 at 08:27

    “Before the beginning…” Before???
    Seemingly it is not easy to describe that πŸ™‚

    • irchristo
      2011-02-11 at 19:49

      Overdriver says: 2010-07-01 at 08:27 | #74 Reply | Quote
      β€œBefore the beginning…” Before???
      Seemingly it is not easy to describe that…
      Hi this is Chris here… You are so right! This one is dear to my heart and one that keeps me thinking all the time! The fractal signature of the universe makes it seem that there is a beginning-beginning. I find that even though we have mocked up quite a bit of illusion and consume almost every kilowatt of our power holding it still, each moment of life is the moment of beginning and just before that you are alone with yourself and your decision. And your decision in the beginning and forever is TO BE. I mean this very literally. This is not mystical. It is a more correct description of the way things are than what you and I have been educated into thinking as the way things are. I’m wide open to discussion on this.

    • irchristo
      2011-02-11 at 19:53

      I mis-wrote “the fractal signature of the universe makes it seem that there is a beginning-beginning”… not quite what I meant. I’m really trying to say that the fractal signature of the universe shows us that each moment there is a new beginning everywhere. It is a very hopeful and beautiful thought that I am trying to communicate.

  26. Chris Thompson
    2011-02-19 at 01:35

    It seems to me a reason to believe that there was no “beginning.” Either that or every beginning moment is a new beginning.”Before the beginning” for me is a way of talking about creating. LRH said the “apparent cycle of action” was to create-survive-destroy but the actual cycle of action is create-create-create. How does this dove-tail with your thoughts.

    • 2011-03-27 at 00:25

      I believe there is no beginning – except that every moment is its own beginning – that every moment is a full universe creation, at the rate of the Planck time (5*10^-44 seconds).

  27. Chris Thompson
    2011-02-28 at 01:25

    Geir, what definition of “nature” are you thinking when you ask what is the nature of the Cause? Would you say a little more about this?

    • 2011-03-27 at 00:22

      I want to get to the bottom of creation – the exactness of it, what exactly happens that collapses the wave function, that creates, that perceives.

      • 2011-03-28 at 00:38

        Hi Geir,
        Do you have an Admin Scale that might bring this about? Are you happy with the progress that you are making and do you want to share? Do you need help?
        – Your friend, Chris

        • 2011-04-18 at 21:15

          I realized that the quest for a passionate Goal is currently ranking as Purpose on my Admin Scale. And by this, I have momentum :9

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: