Duplication

understandingBy Calvin Duffield

Doesn’t it seem strange, that ‘this’ discovery, by the ol’ man, demonstrably remains probably and singularly, the most un-inspected, unsuspected and troublesome, of all datums? Not just scientologically, but affecting ALL of our joint existence, across every spectrum of life?

Putting it another way…. isn’t the concept of “as-isness” just another term for ‘duplication”?

I would go as far as to say — that every single ARCX experienced by anyone, involves MIS-duplication, of either A, R, or C, of one kind or another. Hardly surprising, is it?

So naturally, it goes without saying, that any WELL trained auditor, of course, should recognize this instantly, but it it is one of those strangely ‘flighty’ datums, that seems to evaporate, just when it’s inclusion, would obviate sooooo much unnecessary communication and Dev -T and often resulting ARCX’es.

For an in-depth look at this, let’s peruse The AXIOMS of DUPLICATION, as given by Ron in the book of basics — “0-8″

But lets begin with Scn AXIOM 28 (the exact formula of communication)

AXIOM 28: “COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM A SOURCE POINT, ACROSS A DISTANCE, TO A RECEIPT POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT POINT, A DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING, OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE RECEIPT POINT. (please note that ‘duplication’ PRECEDES understanding!)

The AXIOMS of DUPLICATION.(item VIII of The Axioms of S.O.P. 8-C) p.141.

FUNDAMENTAL: The basic action of existence is duplication.
LOGIC: All operating principles of life may be derived from duplication..

AXIOM: Communication is as exact as it approaches duplication.

AXIOM: Unwillingness to be cause, is monitored by unwillingness to be duplicated.

AXIOM: Unwillingness to be an effect is monitored by an unwillingness to duplicate.

AXIOM: An inability to remain in a geographical position, brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.

AXIOM: An enforced fixation in a geographical position, brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.

AXIOM: Inability to duplicate on any dynamic is the primary degeneration of the thetan.

AXIOM:Perception depends upon duplication.

AXIOM: Communication depends upon duplication.

AXIOM: In the MEST universe, the single crime is duplication.

FORMULA VIII: The primary ability and willingness of the thetan to duplicate must be rehabilitated by handling desires, enforcements and inhibitions relating to it on all dynamics.

There you have it folks; The ‘magic wand’, that people are searching for, that can make their problems “as-is”, or disappear!

Just “too simple” to grasp, evidently! doooo-pli–cate! 🙂

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “Duplication

  1. I spent 22 years in Scientology most of it in the sea org and much of it working with LRH. After my resignation and subsequent declare in 1986 I carried on studying spirituality. As a result of the discovery of quantum physics by such luminaries as Einstein and others like him the Science of Spirituality was created based on the discoveries of quantum physics. Much new information was discovered about the human spirit and the creation of the universe since LRH passed on.

    If LRH were still with us he would have, undoubtedly, taken cognizance of these new discoveries and incorporated it into his material. Of course Miscavige does not have the brain to do that.

    Based on current findings in science the following axiom would have been revised by LRH and probably a few more;

    “AXIOM: Inability to duplicate on any dynamic is the primary degeneration of the thetan”

    A Thetan can never and will never ever degenerate. It is impossible.

    Travers

    • True that, Travers true that. Thank you for that.

      But there are thetans that have the identity of a degenerate. They mock it up as an identity.

      • It isn’t always unattractive either. I’ve known some degenerates that were quite charming.

    • Correct Travers.

      Though he sure can mock up ‘degeneration’, pretty well! Checking out the apathy level on ‘skid row’ , demonstrates this quite adequately.

      Taking ‘the awareness levels’ (as plotted on the grade chart), certainly suggests ‘degeneration’ , to be an actual decent of the thetan into ‘sub awareness’ zones. Is this not another valid indicator?

      The nothingness unit, (you, me, us) of course has/have to ‘consider’, or postulate their condition, or agree with a condition foisted on them, which he / she, may then accept as ‘reality’. OR NOT!

      Indeed, it is obvious to me, that aberration, or case, is so convincingly ‘real’ to an enormous number of people.. (including many who consider themselves degraded). So the sole purpose of Auditing, was to assist people to extricate themselves from ‘case’, by looking for, finding and handling those items found. (including notions of ‘degradation’.)

      Thank you, Travers.

    • How would you phrase “degeneration of the thetan?” Would it be “responsible for the accumulation of effects of those conditions of existence other than as-is-ness which by itself results in aberrative force within the thetan’s universe which then impinges adversely upon him resulting in his own degradation, in his consideration, of his beingness and abilities?”

      The function of language is to attempt to bring about a duplication and understanding of the central notion, idea, consideration, view, perspective, condition, emotion, awareness, intuition, inspiration – I could go on, with the help of a thesaurus and Scn text, but it seems that “responsibility” would a good word to include here. One wishes to bring about a sense of awareness and responsibility, and not necessarily cover absolutely every possible nuance (impossible to do – someone will always think of something left out if they want to).

      When you say a thetan can never degenerate, I take it that you are referring to his potential. That’s a positive view. But he can reduce his own abilities – instantly, at will, and bring about his own degeneration.

      If a thetan has power of consideration over his own beingness, in the sense that he can determine or opine as regards his abilities, and can thus limit himself at will to abilities below his present potentials, then, especially over long periods of time of practicing such willful reduction in abilities, is he not in fact degenerating himself, in that he is not exercising his potential?

      When a thetan begins to recover his abilities, and revise his considerations as regards himself and his relationships to and with others, is he not then faced with a perhaps lengthy process of gradually un-degenerating? His functionality (abilities) improves, his beingness improves, and his havingness improves. There are many examples of reductions of abilities I can think of (“I’m not good at math,” “I’m not a people-person,” “I’d be lost without my cellphone,” “I really am not ‘anybody’ and so I should not create energy”), which may hang around with a being even after those are no longer true in respect of his potential. They were made, as considerations, many of them, in small and large ways. Would those not be adequately described as “degeneration?”

      If one could effectively and exactly duplicate one’s full potential as a thetan, then I suppose one could say no degeneration is present, but actually getting from a “here” to a “there” implies that there must be some difference between those two conditions. In describing the former, lesser condition, why not use the word “degeneration?”

      Here is an example of degeneration of things: One thing I object to in blogs is moderation policy which allows purely negative comments. People who DO want to talk come to the logical conclusion that the blog is just random, and so they do not post, and do not discuss, and those who resolve to post anyway spend half of their time “beating trolls” in useless arguments and rebuttals of faulty logic, or in simply being disgusted. Would you say that a blog can never degenerate?

      • Hey, Carcha. Very thorough elaboration there. Thanks for that.

        BTW, nice to see you over here in South Africa. it’s been a good while since we chatted and I think you may find this blog one of the friendlier ones around, based on the central purpose: “Getting Back in Comm”.

        Kind regards,

        — Calvin.

  2. Nicely written and cheerfully presented. And I do see your point very well if everything you quoted was true for everyone, but my own experience with people tells me it is not always so.

    AXIOM 28: “COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM A SOURCE POINT, ACROSS A DISTANCE, TO A RECEIPT POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT POINT, A DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING, OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE RECEIPT POINT. (please note that ‘duplication’ PRECEDES understanding!)

    THIS: “WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT POINT, A DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING,”

    This is relative to a person’s purpose. If the person has good purpose and clean intentions, they do want to increase understanding.

    But if a person has hidden agendas, reasons to make less of you or discount you, reasons to betray you, reasons to con or confuse or mislead you, they do not have the intention of increasing understanding. So I find this axiom relative and variable which means to me, it is not an axiom. It is a potential condition.

    A person of ill will can have the intention OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT POINT,

    AN ARCX with them self or some else.

    A false picture of a current scene.

    A confusion. An upset. A wrong item. A wrong indication. And a host of other toxic phenomena.

    On the other hand, they can also do it at receipt point. YOU can have the purpose of being understood, and you may not be able to create understanding in other if they have no willingness to understand or duplicate you. Because it serves some other purpose of theirs to NOT understand you.

    Duplication is possible based upon purpose and willingness.

    Perhaps you run across people from time to time who “sum you up” with a sentence or an evaluation, and you wonder that they have seen or heard you because they are so far off base.

    They don’t “get you”. Although you have done nothing to make yourself misunderstood. Ot they take you in a way you never meant to be taken. They say they “understand you completely” and you wonder why they are tripping.

    I know the above is stated as an axiom and in the best of conditions it can be very true. But I don’t see it as an axiom myself.

    • P.S. A good current example, if you haven’t seen Tony Ortega’s blog today, the Church filed their most recent papers against Monique Rathbun in an attempt to make five years of the domestic terrorism they put her through look like business as usual.

      They have page after page after page of communication. The purpose of all of it is to deny cause or responsibility, mislead and misdirect, avoid responsibility , con the representatives in the legal system. There is purpose NOT to be understood in fact, they want to avoid it. It’s a false report. False report = treason.

      Blatant loud and screaming treason all over the Texas court system no shame or remorse, I mean he is totally out loud with it. The pride of the Sea Org, David Miscavige.

      And here is where willingness comes in, confronting evil is a form of being able to duplicate. WE, can duplicate his communication, and see the attempt to decrease understanding.

      People do not always communicate with good intentions to bring about a higher understanding.

      Many people communicate with the purpose to restimulate someone else and invalidate others and nothing more.

      And this is what you are running into when the more you speak, the worse things get between you and someone else. Purpose is senior to mechanics.

      • Aha, TO . more of this is good! 🙂

        Here’s some more gasoline to exacerbate the fire around this topic:

        It really is irrelevant as to whether ‘the intention’ to achieve a duplication and understanding, is motivated by Good OR Bad!

        The formula of Communication, (AXIOM 28), works regardless.

        That is precisely “How David Miscavige Does It”

      • Oracle: “People do not always communicate with good intentions to bring about a higher understanding. Many people communicate with the purpose to restimulate someone else and invalidate others and nothing more. And this is what you are running into when the more you speak, the worse things get between you and someone else. Purpose is senior to mechanics.” That is part of the situation. The current culture is part of it and not just Scientology. It is what corrupted Hubbard and Scientology itself. This is Karma lumbering its way forward. It is entropy.

        ________________________________

    • Interesting stuff, Oracle. However, I do see Axiom 28 as an Axiom. It speaks about Communication in its fullest sense. As it falls away from that, as willingness becomes different, as purpose becomes otherwise – according to your description, it falls away from true and full Communication.

      • I understand what you saying, and I can see your viewpoint. But then invisible standards that I can not see such as what is synthetic communication and what is real, one has to take into consideration. And an axiom is supposed to be a general truth.

    • This the minimum calibre of scrutiny and evaluation that every datum in scn needs.

      Every scn datum needs to be evaluated against every other datum of comparable magnitude in the known universe.

    • “Oracle: “Nicely written and cheerfully presented. And I do see your point very well if everything you quoted was true for everyone, but my own experience with people tells me it is not always so.”

      Duplication shall not occur to the degree a person is using a filter.

      Mindfulness helps handle such filters.

  3. It’s interesting you have this article today. I was just this morning sitting on my patio having the first cup of coffee under the Highveld morning sun and my mind turned – as it always seems to do – to matters scientological. Primarily, I have recently had three comm cycles with still-ins, and all three were absolute nonsense. From this observation rapidly evolved another: I frequently still bump into still-ins and every time I have this inward groan of annoyance – I know I’m about to become the effect of a bunch of circuitry. I don’t believe I’ve ever perfected the tone 40, “OK – I’m going now!!” Believe it or not, I’d never previously looked at it like this.
    I don’t have the type of 2WC sensible exchange of interesting ideas with them that I have with indies, exes or non-scn folk. I just don’t. Every time I comm with a still-in, they volubly outpour justifications about GAT2 – and before that it was Ideal Orgs, or something. They are always telling me how remarkably well they’re doing, the wins from objectives, their third purif, etc, etc, are just too incredible for words (though that never stops the flow of words) and they’ll soon be making a lot of money (maybe…). It always seems like over-the-top enthusiasm for scn, excessive explanations, when what I really want to talk about is rugby, or music or what the heck – girls! But no, it’s scn, scn, scn till my eyes glaze over. It’s a bit of “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (Shakespeare). BTW, bearing in mind some of the touchy posters this blog is now attracting, I don’t mean any disrespect to scn – it’s the RCS version I’m referring to.
    I believe back of all the crap these people know there’s something wrong but they’re just not prepared to duplicate it. Seems like I’m agreeing with what Oracle says: “And this is what you are running into when the more you speak, the worse things get between you and someone else. Purpose is senior to mechanics.”

    • Nice to be duplicated! Laughter!

      Hubbard said the definition of an OT is making things go right. I thought, wow so if someone pulls of a bank heist, he is being OT! Laughter!

      I think being OT is being able to confront inconvenient truths. And Lawd knows David Miscavige and what he has done is an inconvenient truth. This is when people work at knowing how not to know. When they do not want to know about it. It is just more convenient to look away.

      I know what you mean about the circuits, it was a blow down for me to hear someone else say it!

    • So true, Maven. I experience similar, the only conversation an “in” seems to be able to have is as you’ve stated in your comment. It IS as though, “She doth protest too much!”
      .
      A particular “in” friend of mine knows nothing outside of the Scn bubble. It’s scary.

      • Or more truthfully, has no INTERESTS outside the Scn bubble. If I try to talk about anything else, he either just stares or vaguely nods – but cannot offer any two-way comm on the subject.

    • It just occurred to me that there are many versions of scn.

      Hubbard had a few.

      DM has a few.

      Others have a few.

      I have at least one.

      Then there is the true scn.

      The scn that contains the true and real bridge. The bridge that actually bona fidely achieves the goals that are all claimed in the existing versions.

      Of which it could all be summed up in the words; to make a Homo Novus.

      A Homo Illiminous.

      Someone with the characteristics of Jesus.

      At least of what is alleged of who Jesus was and what his character and abilities were.

      Every scn I have met so far is still somewhere near the bottom of the scale.

      The true quality of a person is not determined by valences and on good roads and good weather and how much BS they can blog.

      The true quality of a person is determined by (such factors) whether or not he is a asshole or and a bitch, or a PTS behind the facade, of which will come to the surface in times of conflict and adversity.

      Everyone I have met so far is.

      Another factor that determines the quality of a person is; can he handle truth, and how well does he handle it?

      Can he recognize truth when he encounters it?
      Is he on a perpetual path of continuosly seeking out more and more and higher and higher truths?

      This is part of the Hubbard chart of Human evaluation and an expansion of it.

      Another is: in times of adversity, and extended periods of adversity and conflict and bad roads and bad weather, is the person part of the problem or part of the solution? Is he or she an asset or a liability?

      There are a lot more factors that determine the quality of a person.

      Dio

  4. As for the rest:

    FUNDAMENTAL: The basic action of existence is duplication.

    I can see that. It’s just something I would have thought or said myself.

    LOGIC: All operating principles of life may be derived from duplication.

    Empathy causes one to have principles, I can see that. You have to be able to duplicate to have empathy. This makes sense from a certain view.

    AXIOM: Communication is as exact as it approaches duplication.

    Unsure about this.

    AXIOM: Unwillingness to be cause, is monitored by unwillingness to be duplicated.

    This makes a lot of sense to me.

    AXIOM: Unwillingness to be an effect is monitored by an unwillingness to duplicate.

    Can’t think with this one. I’m unwilling to get smacked in the face, doesn’t mean I am unwilling to duplicate.

    AXIOM: An inability to remain in a geographical position, brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.

    Strongly disagree with this. This sounds like he saying a being is subject to geography.

    AXIOM: An enforced fixation in a geographical position, brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.

    I can’t say I agree with this.

    AXIOM: Inability to duplicate on any dynamic is the primary degeneration of the thetan.

    Sounds like a scary warning or a threat to me. I tend to reject things like this.

    AXIOM:Perception depends upon duplication.

    I 100% agree with this.

    AXIOM: Communication depends upon duplication.

    Somewhat agree. I can see his point.

    AXIOM: In the MEST universe, the single crime is duplication.

    This is the third time Hubbard has mentioned universe crimes. One was “being broke”, one was “being there and communicating”. I disagreed with the other two but I can really his point on this one. I just would not describe it as the single crime. There are plenty of people that get very pissed off if you duplicate what they are saying though.

    FORMULA VIII: The primary ability and willingness of the thetan to duplicate must be rehabilitated by handling desires, enforcements and inhibitions relating to it on all dynamics.

    I agree with enforcement and inhibition. I do not see desire as aberrated though. And he has it at the top of the CDEI scale, yet suggests here it is an abbe ration, so he seemed to have two different views.

    • Okay,To. G-o-t-c-h-a! 🙂

      Perhaps the following may put a little more clarity in the Axioms?

      LOGIC: All operating principles of life are derived from duplication.

      Why would that principle exclude all OTHER life, than human?
      Getting into the viewpoint of ANY other life form, whether animal, vegetable, cellular, DNA, or any entity, regarded as having ‘life’, requires the ability, or capacity, to ‘duplicate’ (or replicate), in order to carry through an ‘intention’.

      Aren’t abnormalities, or birth defects in a life organism, merely a mis-duplication, or aberration, of the core ‘message’, perhaps in the DNA?

      AXIOM: Communication is as exact as it approaches duplication.
      — Did the message get through, exactly as intended? (In any situation, any time, with / between ANY life form and /or MEST?

      AXIOM: Unwillingness to be an effect is monitored by an unwillingness to duplicate.

      Examples;
      1) Father to teen son; “Please turn the volume down on that racket!!!”
      2) Aggravated rider on stubborn mule: “Whack! Whack!” “C’mon you useless apology for a horse gone wrong!! Giddyuppppp!” Whack! Whack!
      3) Intolerant teacher to slow pupil! “You’re so STUPID”. “What do I have to do to get through to you? (can look at this sit. both ways, BTW)
      4) Protagonists in ANY given argument: Neither side willing to become effect of the other’s comm. They just talk AT one another! If either side actually UNDERSTOOD what was happening, (through first duplicating it!), that would / could as-is the actual ARGUEment ! 🙂

      AXIOM. An enforced fixation in a geographical position, brings about an unwillingness to duplicate..
      — Mother to young kids sitting at the dinner table: “You’re NOT leaving the table, until you eat all your vegetables! Think of all those starving children in Ethiopia!!”

      AXIOM: Inability to duplicate on any dynamic is the primary degeneration of the thetan.

      This IS scary TO. What do you think has happened to fill our mental institutions to bursting point??? (corollary:The ability and willingness to duplicate, would certainly help anyone avoid becoming an inmate, mate 🙂 )

      Gotta fly now to get back to work!… pick up with you later.

      Cheers.

    • Hey TO, picking up where we left off!

      AXIOM: In the MEST universe, the single crime is duplication.

      Looking at this one, as I always tried to do, (shifting over to see things from the Ol’ man’s angle), one is immediately struck by that fundamental cornerstone of successful auditing:

      — AXIOM 20. BRINGING THE STATIC TO CREATE A PERFECT DUPLICATE CAUSES THE VANISHMENT OF ANY EXISTENCE OR PART THEREOF.

      (Btw, this AXIOM 20, is just one of the full 58 Axioms of Scn, that really need to be ‘duplicated and understood’ if one is to gain the full benefit possible through the practice of ‘standard’ auditing.. And as it certainly wouldn’t do any harm, to brush up on one’s copy of these axioms. They really can blow a lot of charge, that can prevent one ‘getting’ (duplicating) their simple truth.

      Anyway, if you agree that MEST, persists, because it avoids as-isness, then it could be seen as ‘a crime’ to “AS-IS” “IT”, YEZZ? 🙂

      Indeed don’t those with criminal intent, or even just unsavory dealings, and communications, see you as the ‘one’ committing the ‘crime’ – by shining the spotlight on them? (So what is considered a ‘crime’, can easily be assigned to the ‘other’, soley due to the fact that one is affected by the actions of the other.) DM does this routinely, of course.

      FORMULA VIII: The primary ability and willingness of the thetan to duplicate
      must be rehabilitated by handling desires, enforcements and inhibitions relating to it on all dynamics.

      — Okay, what if our pc DESIRES to eat human flesh, or gets a kick out pushing people out of moving trains, or, or. You get my drift?
      Clearly, their would be a need to ‘handle’ ‘his desires’.( if you can call them that). To each his OWN( (desires!?*). That’s what’s ‘real’ for him hey?

      And people want to knock out auditing? Why not also call for a ban on water?, Or demand that someone has to ‘switch off the sunLIGHT’

      Pu-lease!

      • Auditing is conversation. That is all it is. To me. I just bring the conversation into the auditing room. I don’t think people can stop that so easily.

        The things you mention as desires above, I have never categorized as desires but rather purposes. These kind of activities lay down in the enforce band on the CDEI scale.

        But see, this is just how different people have different takes. So creating a “standard and uniform Scientologist” I think, is an unattainable goal.

  5. I’m new to posting here, but this is a fascinating thread.

    The first serious disagreement I had with anything in Scientology was the concept of “as-isness”. It came up in an early auditing session and I think I drove my auditor crazy … I just couldn’t get it. Had it been presented to me as “complete and accurate duplication” I’d have had no problem. So point very well made, Calvin!

    The Oracle makes a very good point too: there are times when “duplication” is, in fact, a mis-duplication. I’ve seen this in action, have been the target of it as a tool to create black PR, and can attest that it works: a person can bring another down by intentionally “mis-duplicating” what’s been originated. One of those who are still in (ex-GO) is an expert at this. I know there are many others who’ve got it down well, too, but he happens to be someone I had to deal with personally, and who caused me a great deal of unnecessary angst.

    As for the Axioms, there are two that caught my attention in the above posts:

    AXIOM: An enforced fixation in a geographical position, brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.

    To some degree, this flies in the face of the definition of power: “the ability to hold a position in space”. One would have to assume the view of being effect for “enforced fixation” to occur.

    AXIOM: Perception depends upon duplication.

    I suggest it works the other way around (or maybe there needs to be another axiom): I believe duplication depends upon perception. If I’d had the ability to perceive the intentional mis-duplications of what I’d said or written by the ex-GO guy, I’d have been able to deal with him more effectively (and accurately). The ability to perceive hidden agendas is one I hadn’t developed, and is certainly an ability that can’t be achieved while still in Scientology. If the OT8s could perceive and duplicate hidden agendas, DM and his ilk would never have come to power.

    Again, great thread.

  6. Duplication, too simple to grasp. Evidently.

    Firstly, the plural of datum is data. It is not “datums”.

    The other mistake which immediately jumps out at me is the quote you have mis-duplicated.
    Read it again. In present time. Your version don’t make sense.

    Quoting Calvin:”AXIOM 28: “COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM A SOURCE POINT, ACROSS A DISTANCE, TO A RECEIPT POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT POINT, A DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING, OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE RECEIPT POINT. (please note that ‘duplication’ PRECEDES understanding!)”

    Its the last part which is incorrect, it should read: OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE POINT. (not receipt point).

      • Sure Calvin.

        Whilst on the subject of communication, lets look into telepathy and see how Hubbards theories pan out here.

        I think axiom 28 falls short of explaining telepathy.
        Firstly due to his insistence that an impulse needs to be projected across or through distance/space.A person who is practicing omni-presence is able to occupy all space and able to communicate without the via of the physical universe.

        Telepathy is communication – a more efficient form of duplication as it deals with spiritual/life force or in scientologeese – theta.

        By indoctrinating students to “be there” in TRs and “comfortably confront” will destroy any vetiges of co-beingness, co-harmony and co-presence which latently exist. Although confront is not used in this axiom, it is very present and drilled in scientology and is considered fundamental to scientology communication.

        With this in mind, where would you place confront on the tone scale?
        Where would you put omni-presence?

        Which one of these two attributes would assist duplication, the end result of communication.

        An Old Timer.

      • Uh -uh, Old Timer. This time your ‘bad’.(giveaway!) Aside from your snide comments, along with those of BV Orts, (Yes I’m watching you too, and note your penchant for correction of others. Nothing new to me. As a goodwill gesture though, on my part, why not come and join me for a grand tour in our local Ghetto. I’ll guarantee it will REALLY bring you to ‘present time’
        quickly! And cause you to thank your lucky stars you can afford the luxury of dishing out your venom in the safety of a blog…. oh, if you Do decide to take up the offer, remember to bring a change of underwear…. please. )

        Remember, There are actually other (better ) games to play. You just need a real wake up call to realize that.

        My invitation stands. (yawn)

      • Nice one Calvin.

        I thought we were going to discuss the highest form of communication, telepathy, including your views on how you interpret Hubbard explainations of it.

        Instead you choose to threaten me.

        As to correcting the error in your post, someone here needed to do so. If you cannot quote Hubbard correctly, how can you honestly say that you really duplicated his subject and putting forward a dissertation based upon an misquoted axiom as well. REALLY!

        If OSA read this blog, they will possible feel vindicated in believing that you left the church due M/Us.

      • Racingintheblood39,
        .
        Wow. Your threatening message is noted.
        .
        And what’s it about? A “correction” by two people over the use of the non existent word: “Datums,” which, by the way, was never part of Scientology until high school dropout Miscavige took over in the 1980s.
        .
        One of the things that reduces the effectiveness of Scientologists when dealing with the public is the improper use of the English language. Those who spent years under Miscavige are most prone to this habit.
        .
        I’m still amazed by the threats in your message, Racingintheblood39. IMO, you become angry too easily: another trait that Miscavige-era Scientologists have.

      • Hi, Old Timer,

        You wrote: “Telepathy is communication – a more efficient form of duplication as it deals with spiritual/life force or in scientologeese – theta.
        By indoctrinating students to ‘be there’ in TRs and ‘comfortably confront’ will destroy any vestiges of co-beingness, co-harmony and co-presence which latently exist.”

        I have given thought to these topics too. It’s true that TRs 0-4 relate to communication in the physical universe and that those particular drills include the component of confront. However, in OT-TR-0 there is no confront involved – the student is to simply “BE there and not do anything else but BE there.”

        In addition, there are drills that specifically drill telepathy – such as upper indoc TRs, where a student drills putting an intention into an ashtray (TR-8) and then into the coach (TR-9) – who has to “get” the intention (in that sense, even the coach is drilling telepathic communication).

        There are also other drills for auditors and solo auditors that get the student to put a question into an exact location – wide or narrow, small or large (TR-8Q). The OT levels from OTIII to OTVII are all audited by means of telepathy.

        As for knowing (rather than communicating) through “co-beingness, co-harmony and co-presence,” those, I believe, would have to be above 40.0 on the tone scale. Here’s a relevant Axiom, relating to a scale that includes “co-existence” at the top:

        “AXIOM 25. . AFFINITY IS A SCALE OF ATTITUDES WHICH FALLS AWAY FROM THE CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC, THROUGH THE INTERPOSITIONS OF DISTANCE AND ENERGY, TO CREATE IDENTITY, DOWN TO CLOSE PROXIMITY BUT MYSTERY.

        “By the practice of Is-ness (Beingness) and Not-is-ness (refusal to Be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication…”

      • Marildi: “However, in OT-TR-0 there is no confront involved – the student is to simply “BE there and not do anything else but BE there.””

        CONFRONT (Tech Dict.) 1 . an action of being able to face. (HCOB 4 Jan 73) 2 . the ability to be there comfortably and perceive. (HCOB 2 Jun 71 I) 3. confront itself is a result and an end product. It itself isn’t a doingness, it’s an ability. (SH Spec 21, 6106C27) 4. (verb) to face without flinching or avoiding. (HCOB 4 Jan 73)

        In my opinion all these definitions of CONFRONT apply to OT TR0, where one is confronting mental objects.

        ________________________________

      • Why is Old Timer being ‘attacked’ when he offers valid input?
        .
        I agree, where does telepathy come into it? And confront? He poses two interesting questions…

      • Hi Marildi,
        I am rushed for time so this will be short, although your comments do deserve a more though viewing.

        The axiom you posted shows that Hubbard had an understanding of affinity affecting communication. As the being descends away from co-harmony with the static, affinity decreases per the tone scale.

        Now, where is confront on the tone scale and what is confront. Answer these questions first. I see confront very low as opposed to co-harmony ( or omni-)

        The Training Routines were designed on a gradient and OT TRO is the first. Yet it deals with confront as the student sits 3 feet away from his twin, facing one another, eyes closed. This could be seen as confront on a gradient. The next TR, same procedure except eyes open, a little more confront.

        Shouting at ashtrays and calling it telepathy training is a concept I cannot “grok” although Axiom 25 validates co-harmony then why shout at MEST as in TRs.

        Interesting topic this scientology,Thanks for your comments Marildi.

      • Old timer, you are right. I see now that OT-TR-0 does involve confront.

        You also wrote: “Now, where is confront on the tone scale and what is confront. Answer these questions first. I see confront very low as opposed to co-harmony (or omni-)”

        I assume you saw where Vinaire posted the definition of CONFRONT from the tech dictionary. As for where it lies on the tone scale, I would say it isn’t necessarily “very low” – depending where the person’s Communication lies, since confront is a component of Communication.

        On the Chart of Human Evaluation there is column for Communication (along with columns for Affinity and Reality as well), which describes how the how communication varies depending on the tone level. So I suppose that confront, as part of communication, can be anywhere on the whole Tone Scale too.

        With regard to “co-harmony (or omni-),” I see it as being above the tone scale (or perhaps more correctly “outside” the tone scale), based on Axiom 25:

        “Affinity is a scale of attitudes WHICH FALLS AWAY from the co-existence of static through the interpositions of distance and energy, to create IDENTITY…”

        That Axiom also seems to align with the first three points of The Factors:

        1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.
        2. In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.
        3. The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.

        My understanding of the above is that there exists “a Cause” – or theta/Static – which decides TO BE and then assumes a viewpoint, bringing a thetan into being. There can also be, per Ron, a decision “NOT TO BE.” Thus, when people talk about experiencing “oneness” with all others, I get the idea that those were times they made a decision NOT TO BE, and at that point they no longer were individuated or had individuality. Obviously, they can also decide again TO BE. What are your thoughts?

        Oh, and as regards TR 8, the purpose of shouting is for the student to learn that it has nothing to do with intention,

        I agree with you – scientology is an interesting topic!

  7. Good stuff Calvin.

    It’s refreshing to hear something about the tech that isn’t dangerous.
    I’ve had some great wins just being duplicated by an auditor or just a friend.
    The funny thing is that a person can as-is the mass about something just by duplicating it or seeing it as is, that is quite something.
    I have had the experience of trying to tell one person something and it not going well and I didn’t feel any better. Then I talk to another person and they totally get me and I see it the way it really is and the whole thing blows. That is always cool.

    • An examination of the old Kabbalstic tetragrammaton – the four “letters” of the “name” (or expression) of God (or life sources) – might provide an additional frame of reference, and perhaps enhanced understanding.
      .
      Scientology’s Four Conditions of Existence (as-is-ness, alter-is-ness, Is-ness, Not-Is-ness) is an innovative re-working of the old Tetragrammaton, just as its “The Factors” and many of its scales are a re-working from the same area of ancient knowledge.

      • Hi B.V.
        One of the things I liked about LRH is that he made a lot of things understandable and wrote in plain English. Trying to get some of these ideas when written by pedantic people or in ancient tongues is not so easy for a layman like myself.

      • Hi Tony,
        .
        It’s not always easy but, IMO, it’s worth doing.
        .
        From my experience, very few Scientologists truly understand Scientology’s Four Conditions of Existence. Likewise, Scientologists tend to be in awe of Scientology’s ‘The Factors’ and unaware of its antecedent, of which it is a re-write. The same with many of its scales.
        .
        Recognizing the actual origins of Scientology enhances one’s understanding of Scientology.
        .
        Stereo is better than tunnel vision.

      • I’m not sure but I do think that LRH gave credit to the Vedic Hymns as being somewhat the source for some of what he wrote.
        Also in one of the Dianetics editions, LRH credited many thinking men such as Will Durant and many philosophers.

      • Tony wrote:

        One of the things I liked about LRH is that he made a lot of things understandable and wrote in plain English. Trying to get some of these ideas when written by pedantic people or in ancient tongues is not so easy for a layman like myself.”

        My brother-in-law told me the same thing.

        And it’s true.

        L Ron Hubbard brought a lot of esoteric spiritual ideas into American English, and got way ahead of the market on eastern religions in the 60’s, 70’s, and even the 80’s.

        But in the mean time, don’t you think there are more advanced and less exploitative alternatives available for people than Scientology?

        Take a look around the internet: how can scientology possibly compete in an open, non-cult environment?

        Alanzo

      • Oh please Alanzo, another comm ev. It goes on and on and we need not wonder why . Inspector Javert from Les Miserableness. The prosecutor of all prosecutors. Prosecuting as a purpose. Prosecuting and prosecuting and prosecuting and prosecuting brother can you ever give it a break? Your purpose is to prosecute. Have a win. You found things wrong. We hear you!

      • Hi Tony,
        .
        Yes, LRH mentioned the Vedas during the lectures in Phoenix, Arizona in 1954. He even gave the date when they “were introduced into the societies of Earth in about 8212 B.C.”, prefacing the statement with “As I recall,” which implied his intimate involvement with their arrival.
        .
        I liked the Phoenix lectures very much. (Once upon a time there was a book called ‘The Phoenix Lectures’ which had been put together by old timer and LRH 1950s book editor John Sanborn.)
        .
        Years later, upon reviewing the book/lectures, I recognized that the lectures had been given shortly after LRH had decided to use what – in his letter to Helen O’Brien – he had called the “religion angle” and make Scientology a “Church.”
        .
        I also recognized that LRH’s greatest inspiration at that time was not the respectable Vedas but the less than respectable occult writings of Aleister Crowley. Crowley’s system, besides not being “respectable,” was also not a religion, so he wasn’t mentioned.
        .
        And I also later learned that the list of great thinkers at the beginnings of the books ‘Science of Survival’ and ‘Scientology 8-0008’ were placed there by 1950s book editor John Sanborn, and had been placed there to give the books “respectability” and “gravitas.” The lists were not entirely accurate and were highly embellished.
        .
        IMO, the examination of the *actual* sources of Dianetics and Scientology enhances one’s understanding of these subjects.

    • Thanks Tony! Absolutely. It’s really crazy to see how far people will go in order to REFUSE to duplicate. The amount of effort it takes to avoid doing so tells me one thing. They are NOT being there — in present time! 🙂

      • “It’s really crazy to see how far people will go in order to REFUSE to duplicate. The amount of effort it takes to avoid doing so tells me one thing. They are NOT being there — in present time!

        Actually, I’m not sure you have spent the time sitting and meditating on what present time actually is, and what is actually sitting there experiencing present time.

        If you had, you would not have written what you wrote to Tony, and you would have been much more expansive in your understanding of what “being in present time” really is.

        It is not any kind of ideology.

        But LRH processes WERE some of the most effective processes I have ever done to introduce me to present time – as a skillful goal that anyone should try to achieve.

        So, it’s great to see you writing stuff here because you really are very cheerful.

        Alanzo

  8. “Duplication” or “as-isness” can be applied all the time through MINDFULNESS.

    Mindfulness is attentiveness. The function of mindfulness is to bring clarity to what is being perceived. The basic approach is:

    “Observe things as they are.”

    When one sees something that is inconsistent and does not make sense, then there is a lack of clarity that is preventing one from understanding the true nature of things. The perception is either incomplete or distorted in some way. Mindfulness helps one straighten out the perception.

    The brain encounters a pattern of nerve impulses and interprets them as sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, etc. This is consciousness. The mind then converts this consciousness (awareness of input) into meaningful perception. The process of this conversion is learned as a child grows to be an adult. There is learning through muscle coordination and body orientation. Further learning takes place through observation, use of language and mental orientation.

    Mindfulness is looking at the perceptions non-judgmentally, noticing incompleteness and distortions, and straightening them out on a continual basis. The scientific method proceeds from mindfulness.

    In the application of mindfulness no past learning is sacrosanct.

    All ideas, beliefs, assumptions, viewpoints, and feelings, associated with an observed inconsistency, are subject to critical examination for what they are.

    The examination continues until the factor generating the inconsistency is discovered.
    .

  9. “AXIOM: Communication depends upon duplication.”

    I shall say that communication improves with absence of filters.

    Duplication will make communication worse when filters are present. All Scientologists duplicate each other on wogs being ignorant. That would make a wog like Einstein quite ignorant in their eyes.

    • “All Scientologists duplicate each other on wogs being ignorant.”
      This a quite a generality and a falsehood.
      I’m a Scientologist and I for one don’t consider “wogs” ignorant – especially Einstein.
      A wog is someone who isn’t even trying. This word does not mean any non Scientologist. Einstein would not be a wog himself since he was searching for answers.
      DM’s robots seem to fit the definition of wog in my mind.

      • The point I was making was that communication improves with absence of filters. Filters consist of prejuce, bias, fixed ideas, etc.

        There are many people who are biased against blacks, women or homosexuals.

        So, if two people agree with each other on some prejudice, does that improve communication between them? A Scientologist may say yes. But to me it would simply be contagion of aberration.
        .

  10. Interesting post Calvin, this Axiom,
    “AXIOM: An enforced fixation in a geographical position, brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.”
    Probably obvious, but it brings to my mind component parts of an engram. During the receipt of an engram the being is very stuck at the geographical place it is occurring and the fact that the engram is not duplicated is why he is stuck with it from that time on, until through auditing he can duplicate, or as-is, the circumstances of it. Date/Locate is another use of this Axiom. Both very powerful methods of bringing clarity to the being.
    Whats interesting is the use of the word “unwillingness” suggesting the being receiving the engram is actually at cause as to whether he duplicates what is happening or not. And I think we all know he actually is at cause.
    Ive been in Scientology quite a while, but its only recently that the genius of the Axioms and Factors are starting to sink in. Thanks for posting!

  11. Well said, that duplication is “one of those strangely ‘flighty’ datums, that seems to evaporate”.
    Of course, since perfect duplication is as-is-ness. Anyone cogniting on a truth is going to be left with a “nothing”.

    LRH covered this paradox in the Phoenix lectures, saying that if the audience followed him exactly without any alter-is or arbitrary terminology they’d have nothing solid to remember.

  12. Note: The latest copy of the O.S.A. “dead agent The Oracle” “back lines secretive email” was just sent to me.

    For the record, the entire time I was involved in Scientology I was assigned a lower condition twice, twice in twenty years, that included six years of being in the Sea Org. I was assigned the condition of liability by my senior when I said I wanted to get trained, as I had not been allowed to study in three years and she thought I had “other fish to fry” beyond my post duty because I wanted some training.

    I was assigned a lower condition when I took a six month unauthorized vacation. They considered it a blow. Me too! I was never declared for walking off the Flag Land Base and taking a six month holiday on my own terms with out asking anyone for permission.

    No, I am not C/S 22 case. In fact I have always described as a “Cadillac P.C.”. You have been lied to. The person saying this has never audited me or seen my P.C. folders.

    No, I have never been involved with mysticism and never said anywhere I co wrote the Dianetcs book, this is a false report. 100%.

    Notice the author if you have received one, seems to have an extensive file on me. In fact, a dossier!

    I suggest if you are thrown into confusion in any capacity, to want to KNOW more just ask, “Have you told me everything about you and The Oracle?”

    Ask the sender, “Who has audited you in the Independent Movement?”

    Have you ever been declared suppressive while ON TECH LINES?

    Have you ever had enturbulation reports written on you?

    If you want to get down and dirty with K,S.W. look for stats!

    “How long were you in and what check sheets did you complete while you were in?

    What classed auditor are you? Did the Church EVER put you on the front lines to audit public for money? ”

    Were you tech trained in an academy or on the RPF? What check sheets have you completed?

    Or, can I contact The Oracle and ask her how she knows you?

  13. Hey, I don’t duplicate this very well. I have a duplicity syndrome.

    I can make duplicates though.

    He says ding-bat-esque. I duplicate. But I don’t understand.

    Oh well, I’ll stick to the comm formula. Duplication is just a weigh station on the wayside of communication. Or is it the lee side? Whey is bad for you though. Why? Well, hey, whey is just a weigh station on the leeside of a nice warm roll. A roll you say? Yep. A roll. As long as the roll is made of bread, that is. Capisce?

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