Truth is a variable, Perception is everything

Joe Van Staden3

        Joe Van Staden

 

IN TELLING THE STORY OF SCIENTOLOGY

TRUTH IS A VARIABLE, PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING

 

Perhaps at this juncture in the unfolding saga of Scientology it will be useful to pause for a moment, stand back and view developments from a different angle – a wider perspective – so to speak.

 

BACKGROUND

Whatever one’s position – in, out, in-between or never in – two issues seem to be at the heart of the matter; freedom and truth.  Some out or never in will tell you that the C of S undermines individual freedom.  Those still in will argue that without Scientology there can be no freedom – the Scientology Bridge is the only way to real freedom.  As for the truth, just about everyone with a point of view on the matter will believe that the way they see it is the way it is.

 

The thing about both freedom and truth is that both are contextual, both have meaning, relevance and value only within the context defined in terms of the prevailing mindset.  Neither is a constant.  By changing the context within which freedom and truth are defined the notion of what is freedom and what is truth also changes.   For instance, to most out of the C of S it is probably obvious that there can be no real freedom without the freedom of choice.  On the other hand, within the context of how C of S management operates freedom of choice is seen as potential “counter intention”.

Any claim to “THE TRUTH” coincides with awareness being confined to a closed system – a context that recognizes only what’s “within” and excludes all “without”.   Beyond context there is no such thing as the truth, there is only creation.  The only truth we live by, experience and respond to is the truth determined by how we see our world, which in turn is the interpretation – a creation – of the mind (mindset).

“It all depends on how we look at things, and not on how they are themselves”.  Carl Jung.

A study of human perspective can be found by Google’ing  “Confirmation Bias”.  It is pointed out that not even the most meticulous scientific approach can escape the inherent bias of the human mind.  This is reflected in the words of two founders of the “New Science”

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning”.  Werner Heisenberg.

“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world”.  Albert Einstein.

When it really comes down to it, our need or desire to know is more about orientation than about finding “the truth”.  The function of the mind and mindset in particular is to facilitate orientation in and ever changing world.   Whatever information enters the mind is filtered in accordance with how the mind is set.   And that is how we arrive at our truths – truths; the purpose of which is to provide a reality within which we can have a sense of self, focus, function and create.

Some will argue that there are irrefutable truths beyond the limitations of any particular context (mindset) – the laws of nature for instance.  Here is the thing; the laws of nature only have meaning, relevance and value (truth) within the context of time – a context defined in terms of a past, present and future.  However, time is not a constant as is increasingly confirmed by science, not to mention the observations and experiences of philosophers and many inquiring minds throughout the ages.

By changing how time is perceived and experienced we change the context within which the laws of nature are real.  For instance, seeing time as an infinite now within which all possibilities are contained side by side – where there is no past, present and future – where no reality is designated to precede or follow another – where there is no predetermined sequence of events – no beginnings and endings – no cause and effect; the reality of nature’s laws, as we know it, become meaningless.  Defined time – consecutive moments – is the result of the infinite now having collapsed into past, present and future on which depends our sense of self – a particular cycle of life – a beginning and an end.

The appearance of the primal spark of existence out of no-when and no-where – out of the infinite now – is not a once-off cosmic event; it is an ongoing “occurrence”.   Existence is constantly created newly from one moment to the next, which amounts to the constant creation of new truths.  The reality (truth) currently being experienced is one of an infinite number of possibilities, existing side by side within the infinite now.  Reality is a possibility that has been energized, turned into a probability and then transformed into reality.

Nothing is as it seems.  There is much going on around us we don’t see. The physical eye, for instance, is incapable of identifying certain phenomena of the physical world.   As for the “mind’s eye”, it can see far more but is kept in check by a mindset; the priority of which is orientation.   Consequently, unless information received concurs with the prevailing mindset it is altered or simply blocked out.

In the final analysis it’s not a case of “the truth shall set you free” but a case of; a functional mindset will keep you “in touch” in an ever changing world.   Since a key factor of staying on top in the game of life is the extent to which we are “in touch”, the question is; how in touch – in present time – are the various points of view related to the Scientology saga?    As I see it, some of the many viewpoints of those “out” are more in touch than others.  As far as the perspective of those still in the C of S is concerned (management in particular), I believe they are seriously out of present time – out of touch with the world they profess to be saving.  In short; the prevailing C of S mindset is dysfunctional.

 

THE SCIENTOLOGY SAGA FROM A BIRDS EYE VIEW 

The idea behind the Scientology Bridge corresponds in some ways with the natural human inclination to rise to a wider perspective – to reach higher levels of awareness.  From the instant consciousness (theta) assumes an oriented “location” in terms of time space, meaning, relevance and value, which coincides with the moment of conception, it begins a climb up a metaphorical ladder to a wider perspective of existence

Consciousness develops through various stages up the ladder, for instance, from embryo, adolescent to adult and so on.  Each rung up the ladder (each stage in our lives) is experienced as a different reality defined in terms of its own particular truths.  Should consciousness fail to let go of truths no longer relevant (rungs that have served their purpose) and not reach for new truths (the next rung up) it ceases to progress toward a wider perspective.  The most significant consequence of which is; physical, intellectual, emotional and/or spiritual stagnation – an inability to experience higher levels of awareness.

Whatever the current attitude of anyone who has ever been involved in Scientology, it seems reasonable to assume that when they first made contact with the subject they must have seen an opportunity to become more than they are.  Regardless of whether they abandoned the bridge of Scientology at some point or not, at least the lower end of the bridge served to raise them a rung or more up the metaphorical ladder to a wider perspective.  In most cases I would say, Scientology changed the way they looked at and saw the world.

That it was Scientology that served to facilitate a shift in the individual’s worldview is not as significant as the fact that a shift occurred.  It can not be ruled out that he or she may have found a different teaching or philosophy amongst many others suited to their progress up the metaphorical ladder to a wider perspective.  The point is; they picked Scientology as the medium through which to “grow”.

The consequences of disowning the truths – the rungs – that initially facilitated a shift in perspective are debatable.  (There is a difference between letting go of a truth and disowning it – the former tends to be proactive and the latter reactive).  Nonetheless, in some cases, denial of what was once a truth relied on for orientation can amount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as they say.  Significant insights can go down the drain by “forgetting” how one arrived at one’s current position on the ladder – insights that may be of value when moving on.

It is not improbable that in terms of typical human physical, intellectual, emotional and/or spiritual endeavors up the ladder the individual or group will, at some point, come up against a ceiling – a block to further vertical progress. On those occasions when a break through seems impossible a common solution is to then go for “horizontal progress”, which amounts to holding on to the same truths but “packaged” differently with new labels.  In this “sideways” alternative we find the reason why humanity is unable to break the cycle of perpetual war and other seemingly irresolvable issues. It’s a case of doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.

It would appear that this is where the C of S has been at for some time now.  The crop of church OT’s going up the bridge have hit that ceiling and the tech guys in the church don’t have a clue how to break through.  Actually the C of S hasn’t come close to producing anything like an OT as described in Scientology materials.  So what do they do?  They go sideways and around in circles, revamping the basics and other procedures hoping for a different outcome.

Coming up against that ceiling is not an uncommon experience when in pursuit of happiness, success or love.  And as is self evident, many breakthroughs are made.  But what about the quest for truly higher states of consciousness, a state of significant mastery over one’s destiny – a state of awareness beyond typical human orientation?   Is that possible?   Personally I believe it is.   Whether anyone has made a complete breakthrough in this regard I can’t say.  But this I do know, there are people, some more than others, who have had a glimpse of what lay beyond the ceiling.

On the point of what is probably the most inhibitive factor in advancing beyond the ceiling, blocking the advance to higher levels of consciousness, there seems to be consensus amongst thousands of “explorers” around the world and throughout history.  The ceiling is actually a state of mind.  Long story short; any breakthrough anyone has ever made in a particular sphere of activity was preceded by a shift in mindset.   A shift in mindset coincides with a shift in our sense of self.  In other words, becoming progressively more aware depends on the ability to periodically let go of our sense of self – to let go of a truth (a rung) – that is no longer relevant.  Isn’t this after all what an auditor is supposed to bring about when addressing valences, stuck points on the time-track, “inappropriate” viewpoints etc?

With regard to the C of S’s inability to move beyond that ceiling; instead of “liberating” the individual from a fixed sense of self, identity, me, I, ego, the bridge has become a measure of status, thereby doing the opposite.  Metaphorically speaking; the C of S’s bridge has become a process of freezing H2O (theta), turning steam (free theta) into ice (solid theta).  In glorifying the self the individual believes he is, and thereby fixing him within a context – an orientation – determined by C of S doctrine, we truly have a prison of belief.

Amongst the many reasons put forward for the beginning of the end for the C of S I back the notion that it began at the point when the individual’s innate nature of creation began to be significantly by-passed by C of S doctrine.  Initially, reaching for the work of LRH included freedom of choice – the data was owned and we weren’t required to compromise our soul in its application.  With time we allowed our freedom of choice to be replaced by an “other determinism” – church doctrine.

It is my opinion that some people, not all by any means, who call for Miscavige’s blood are pissed off because they allowed themselves to compromise their “soul” and be humiliated.  Particularly, since it was at the hands of a twit like DM.

It may be hard to believe that there was a time on staff and in the SO when the spirit of play was often more prevalent than the burden of saving the planet – when people had a sense that they were involved in an adventure and not in a do or die struggle for survival.  This was before individual freedom of choice along with real ownership of the material and personal creation were labeled as suppressive tendencies.

Personally, I wouldn’t change my years on staff and as an SO member for anything.  As for my relationship with LRH; it was an extraordinary education to say the least.  The word robust comes to mind.   Being in close proximity to the old man for long periods of time, as was the case when captain of the flagship, required certain attitudinal adjustments.  Such as; don’t take things too seriously, which I never did in spite of being fired several times as captain.   I should add; it was never long before I was reinstated.

On one occasion after having been fired and put in a low condition by LRH, I decided to make full use of my luck.  Being relieved of my duties as captain I could now spend some evenings with my buddies in the bosun’s cabin drinking beer and getting acquainted with some of the latest female recruits from LA.  But what about the master at arms, did he not make sure I complied with the harsh conditions of my condition?   Suffice it to say, he tried but failed miserably.

On this occasion LRH lost his patience with me ambling my way up the conditions.  Everyday he sent a messenger to “product officer” me through the conditions.   When I finally reached emergency I was told “the commodore wants to see you”.  As I entered his office he said “your holiday is over” and reinstated me as captain.

The SO experience was never and still isn’t the same from one person to the next.  Those who did not lose sight of the game being played – those who remained in touch with their own sense of value and worth – the experience turned out to be more of an adventure than a grim duty.  I doubt if anyone in the SO today will think of their involvement in terms of an adventure.

Why was my time in the SO more fun than pain, more laughter than grief, experienced more as freedom than a trap?   Was it because I was lucky, because of divine intervention, a guardian angel or because I had friends in high places?   I have a suspicion that it was at least partly due to me not compromising my personal integrity to a point I would not easily be able to live with myself, which in a way amounted to not taking things too seriously.

For instance, when ordered by LRH to comm-ev my entire crew I refused.   On more than one occasion I intervened to correct the old man’s navigational decisions at the risk of having my head bitten off or worse.  For instance, we were approaching Tunis in Tunisia; visibility was limited by an eerie haze.  On the bridge was LRH who had the con and several other officers.  I had been fired as captain the day before, so took up position outside on the bridge wing.

Now, the entrance to Tunis is through a channel demarcated by two rows of buoys.  Go outside the buoys and the ship runs aground.   So here I am peering out into nowhere when I notice that we are actually outside the channel.  I go up to the officer of the watch and tell him he had better inform the commodore to change course.  Well, the officer went pale – imagine telling LRH he was wrong,   Anyway he wouldn’t do it so I walked up to LRH and said, “excuse me sir but we are entering Tunis on a wrong course”   His response was a loud “WHAT” in my face followed immediately by dashing into the chart room to check the course and order a change.  As expected, I was reinstated as captain the next day.

Ex- Scientologists are often asked; if it was so bad in, why didn’t you just leave?   As reflected in the answers by those questioned, it was never that simple or easy.   Nonetheless, there are many who just up and left when they had had enough.  In my case, when last on the Apollo, I decided the game was no longer what I had originally signed up for; the adventure had become a somber crusade.  Even though I had just completed a project for LRH compiling all the internships up to class 12 auditor, with which he was very pleased, I made it clear I was going back to South Africa.  In spite of the pressure on me to stay I left.

(See note below from LRH handed to me as I walked down the gangplank for the last time).              .

Yes, the old man could be a real SOB at times, but the idea that he gave nothing of value to the world is ludicrous.  As I see it, the image one has of LRH is one of perception – an image shaped by the prevailing mindset.  The truth of who LRH actually was is a variable, and considering the scope of the old man’s activities, we are looking at a diverse range of truths.   Anyway, this is pretty much the case with most of our assumptions about other people.

As for the philosophy and technology of L Ron Hubbard, even the most outspoken critics of Scientology who were once in and actually applied the technology, are hesitant to condemn its workability outright.  Regardless of what one thinks of the upper OT levels, the value of some procedures at the lower end of the bridge are easily confirmed   Take one of the simplest procedures, like hand squeezes for instance, of which I have done plenty.   Whether it was applied to a passed-out drunk, someone having an epileptic fit or someone knocked out, invariably in less than a minute they “returned” opened their eyes staring at me.  Getting someone out of a deep depression or heavy grief takes longer, but it works.  Yet, simple as it may seem, the procedure is unlikely to be effective unless the one applying it has had some auditor training.  The procedure only works to the degree that the practitioner’s TR’s are in – thank you to the genius of LRH.  So, my suggestion to those who are out and have totally written off the years they have been involved; don’t through the baby out with the bathwater.

People who outright condemn Scientology without ever having experienced it and Scientologists in general, in or out, have something in common.   Both sides believe they have “the truth”.  Personally I believe many critics will be surprised at what they find should they take a closer look at the subject.

Moreover, it has been my experience for quite some time that there are truths beyond the truths of Scientology and that many Scientologists will be surprised at what they find should they care to look.

They may find the shift in perspective required to break through the ceiling they are currently up against.

Joe van Staden.

 

The below letter was handed to Joe as he walked down the gangplank for the last timeJVS Letter from LRH

Advertisements

58 thoughts on “Truth is a variable, Perception is everything

  1. So much interesting stuff here.
    Something just jumped out and hit me about the parting and how it was handled:
    No make wrong from LRH. No sign of an endless routing form and sec check. No declare and disconnection in evidence. And the billion year contract?

    If thus was in 1971 I guess the boss still had this shit together. Thank you for a job well done and services rendered.

    • He had his shit together most certainly, Andrew, and it’s kind of you to make the observation. During my brief stay on the Apollo 73-74, LRH was astoundingly calm and collected. From my observation:
      1) he worked as many hours as anyone else. I took very little sleep on post, but could see that LRH took just as few hours as myself, with many hours working on his own during the night;
      2) managing to stay afloat during the oil shortage – a huge concern at the time;
      3) constantly harassed by staff as he came on deck, especially Int Managers firing, ‘solve this problem for me, Sir’ type of questions, close staff, and wild-cat Messengers (man, they were crazy – sometimes he had to shout);
      4) managing the ship, supervising the Apollo AllStars, planning sailing courses, writing ship hats, navigation and seamanship data, including radio and foreign-language comms, weather-forecasting, senior staff problems, writing for the OODs, keeping his in-tray empty;
      5) running the GO, and monitoring WW stats, initiating programs;
      6) monitoring the WW political scene, as outside forces were ramping up their covert ops on him and Scientology, the AMA and psyche groups – yet he still managed to sneak in and out of the US to personally handle sits;
      7) churn out mind-bogglingly brilliant and incredibly innovative tech in HCOB’s and HCOPL’s such as Word-Clearing, Data Series, Purif;
      8) research and pilot tech in the face of robotism, literalism, out-R, fawning, and at times incredulous staff, and run his own case (still on the Mk VI);
      9) turn out for social events like marriages, birthdays, parties, find time for his family;
      10) lectures, briefings, interviews and socialising with guests, including at least on one occasion one of his old-time writing associates;
      11) take time out to ride one of his many motorbikes ashore;
      12) CS folders;
      13) with all these strands, plan the future of Scn and accommodate the relentless expansion of orgs and success of his ideas.

      And that’s just what I knew as a lowly FSO crew member. Now that we have more information, there was also the problem with org plants and the RV program.

      Not the least of LRH’s problems was attempting to obtain both duplication and comprehension of his despatches to the GO, who without MSH on the lines, were running rampant behind his back, returning good roads and fair weather replies when local GO stats were far from that, especially in the UK. I still believe to this day, that the attack on Paulette Cooper was a personal mission by a certain GO St Hiller, attempting to ingratiate herself to LRH; on the one hand, sending him misleading reports, and on the other, using his ethics advices as a shield for her own horrible personality. And yes, I’m violating some shuns, but when did LRH while still on lines make such a catastrophic blunder? He had tougher opponents than Ms Cooper, who let’s face it was just a poorly-informed chancer with no other credit to her name before or since than her brush with Scientology. How on Earth was Paulette Cooper given the status of enemy of Scientology, when she was ostensibly a nobody out to make a quick buck? LRH would have spotted that immediately, accorded her every civility, and wished her on her way, as he did with the Granada interview.

      Factor in good old-fashioned admin (Chinese-style) org in-fighting and jockeying for position amongst the senior execs, Scn promotion and recruitment with the out-dating Personality Test and Letter Registrar system, changes to the Org Board and Bridge.

      But above all else, far and away LRH’s abiding preoccupation would have been how to get more auditors trained and auditing. Sod the CoS, sod the ships, sod the governments and assorted anti’s, SP’s, PTS’s, wogs, DB’s, cases, bank – who cares, really? I’m sure he didn’t, as he often said.

      Just get out there and audit, for Pete’s sake!

      Without a doubt, LRH was steady and sure of what he was doing, and used what he had to appeal to as many people and viewpoints as possible.

      Finally, there is one glaring omission: what did LRH make for himself out of all this effort?

      Richard Kaminski
      Independent Scientologist UK

      • Poet13c (Richard), I’m with Trekker – thanks very much for writing this.

        I’ve come to understand that “reality” is truly what is agreed upon and thus is a co-creation. For example, one of the things critics of LRH and scientology claim is that the materials and the tech are based on LRH’s supposed intention to brainwash. To the contrary, in my observation, the only way a type of brainwashing occurs in scientology is when there exists group agreement based on some MU or false datum, rather than when individuals consult their own understanding.

        And here’s the ironic thing – in many instances, the critics of basic scientology (not the CoS) have managed to create their own group agreements, which then become an “everybody knows” regarding this or that about LRH or scientology. Their assertions have become accepted as “real”, especially by people who have been exposed to them over and over.

        I believe we really do co-create the universe. So thank you again for the creation your input forwards, because that creation will help preserve what is actually of great value.

      • Yes Marildi, it’s those pesky uninspected agreements we make that can trip us up, things we take for granted. One of the beauties of Scientology is its simplicity, but the lower we go on the Tone Scale, the more complex and arduous it becomes until eventually, it becomes impossible, too far-fetched, even dangerous to try. But we’re here in the fortunate position of having something easy to learn which brings a positive result even with minimal study and training.

        Let’s go, LOL!

  2. One of the best articles on the subject I have read in a while. Thank you Joe van Staden. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about truth and perception.

  3. Dear Joe ,

    Your analysis of “Truth” as related to “mindsets” is truly exceptional. I really love your so well balanced way to look at all the viewpoints regarding the subject of Scn and LRH. It seems to me that you’ve grown so much beyond Scn.

    It has always been my conviction , that if more Scientologists would have kept their personal integrity in when all the oppressive changes started to occur, we would probably not be in the mess we find ourselves in right now. Your experiences are incredible inspirational , and even liberating , specially about the letter that LRH handed to you as you was on your way out of the ship. That he took the time to just do that , says a lot about him ; and I am very grateful that you had such a kind detail to show it to us. It certaintly helped me to see things from a different perspective, thank you. There is something truly unique about you South Africans.

    My blessings to you , shipmate.

    ARC,
    PETER

  4. Dear Joe,
    Tami and I had the honor to meet you and talk to you at the “indie” event in Jo’burg on 8th Feb.
    The truths that you write will have ever-lasting impact.
    Without freedom of thought and power of choice one cannot break the ceiling to hightened personal awareness. And thus, Scientology, the quest for spiritual freedom, the road to a higher level of consciousness, cannot be practiced in tyranny or under authority. Scientology can only be practiced by brave individuals, such as yourself, maintaining at all times their personal integrity.
    Thank you for sharing with us your wisdom and experiences with Ron.
    Love, Dani

  5. Wow, awesome article – and much food for thought!

    Joe, you wrote: “In other words, becoming progressively more aware depends on the ability to periodically let go of our sense of self – to let go of a truth (a rung) – that is no longer relevant. Isn’t this after all what an auditor is supposed to bring about when addressing valences, stuck points on the time-track, ‘inappropriate’ viewpoints etc?”

    Yes, that’s what an auditor is supposed to bring about. This is why I always thought LRH’s basic aim was to give beings the very ability you described – the ability to become progressively more aware. As you indicate – that ability is part and parcel of the tech itself.

    On top of it, LRH specifically stated that 50% of the available gains in scientology come from training. How many of us took that seriously? Training was to give us the anatomy of traps – in other words, the freedom needed to become progressively more aware. He wrote the following:

    ————————————–
    “Auditing skill is a discipline in living and a know-how of the parts of life which is in itself something new in the universe. Even OTs don’t have auditing skill since there have never been any auditors behind them.

    “There is such a thing as learning. There are such things as data.

    “The fact is, that a cleared Zulu is a cleared Zulu. A cleared advertising man is a cleared advertising man. A cleared Zulu is not a cleared advertising man.

    “Now a Zulu uncleared has scant chance of becoming an advertising man. But a cleared Zulu would probably be able to become one rapidly. And there’s the difference.

    “Being clear gives one the POTENTIAL of being and makes the being rather easy, and fun. Further, being cleared makes it possible to CONTINUE to be something. There’s nothing wrong with being clear. A person ought to be. The state is so valuable several hundreds of millions of people in the past 2,500 years have concentrated on nothing else.

    “But how about getting clear and staying clear forever? The auditor alone with his data well learned could manage that…

    “Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps. Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe…

    “There are eight dynamics.

    “You cannot stay clear unless you solve things by the equation of the optimum solution: The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. Failing to so solve things dug you in to where you were in the first place.

    “Scientology got you out.

    “Stay out by knowing Scientology well.“
    —————————————-

    (from the Ability article, “Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training?” [1958, ca. late March])

    • Additionally, at the top level on the Chart of Human Evaluation, under the “Reality” column, LRH wrote this:

      “Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality.
      Changes reality.”

  6. I recall in lectures “perceptions of Truth” that he states Truth is a relative thing.  Datums of comparable magnitude, gradients and logics must be used.

  7. Great Article. It is marvelous to read an insightful and thoughtfully written overview of spiritual quest and Scientology’s encounter with the ‘ceiling’.
    It’s funny how the foremost goal of the church, and any real or imagined progress toward that goal is so rarely discussed from the birds-eye level.
    I was a Scientologist for 3 decades, and I worked at the highest levels of Sea Org. My departure came shortly after my lingering doubts developed into a meticulous review of Scientology. When I presented myself to the MAA with a Leaving Staff Routing Form, I was asked why I wanted to route out. I told the MAA that Scientology had reached a dead end as a philosophy and practice, that the Scientology ‘bridge’ was not much more than a pier, that the Scientology philosophy would never develop any further with its ‘KSW’ attitude, and that I was going to strike out on my own rather than be stuck at the dock.
    The MAA most likely thought that I was loaded with overts or looney.
    In the year and a half since I left, I have not broken through the ceiling…but… I will let you know if I do. At least I now have the freedom to try whatever looks promising. As you stated, the biggest barrier is one’s mind-set. Letting go of things that one identifies with brings about more expansive states.
    Thank you for your post Joe.

    • This is my view on breaking through that ceiling. Or one might say; my view on what “OT” actually amounts to. As implied, breaking through that ceiling is a case of letting go of the self we think we are and its related truths. This idea can be scary since not having a sense of self, a sense of identity, me, I, ego is associated with oblivion – death. But that’s the view from a typical human perspective. Growing in awareness is a gradient with occasional quantum leaps – it is the ability to increasingly assume different points of view and experience different realities at will. As the ability to let go of fixed viewpoints grow so we move into the primal sense of existence, which is beyond any particular viewpoint, sense of self or identity. And even though this state is not easily put into words, it is experienced from time to time, even if only momentarily, by many around the world daily. It is referred to in many eastern religions as the Ecstasy of Unity.

      Who am I? This is probably one of the most frequently asked questions by anyone on a quest to unravel the mysteries of life and the universe. Yet, there is no final answer. Whatever answer we come up with it will be one of an infinite number of possible selves, existing side by side within the infinite now. Each possible self, when realized, serves as an expression of consciousness in one of as many realities.

      “Life is not about finding yourself, life is about creating yourself”. George Bernard Shaw.

      • This concept you have expressed, of getting closer to the ‘primal sense of existence’ by increasing one’s ability to assume different points of view makes perfect sense. It also begs the question of how does one do that?

        The answer of course is that we do this all the time (to some degree) by simply having a conversation and taking another’s view, or looking out at the environment and perceiving what is there, or meditating or getting auditing or any of a great many activities that tend to relax one’s grip on the ego. Most people naturally expand their awareness when enough interest is directed outward. So, maybe the real question is, “How is one most easily and effectively interested in everything?”

        A person’s interest (and attention) in this media and marketing driven society is generally on a ‘Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride’. Every news story, ad, movie and TV show has been created to yank attention onto a target, usually by striking a cord that resonates with the biggest worries of the ego. The more one resists this mad trip, the more one’s interest wanes. The more one savors the sensations of having his emotions played, the more his interest becomes fixed to the player. We desire to expand our interest, but remain swaddled by repeated caresses to the ego.

        Then maybe one day we step back, read a spiritual book, experience a sense of the infinite, have a revelation and think…enough of this, I want out! I know there is more to existence! Show me the exit!

        And perhaps there actually is an exit somewhere, a door that merely needs to be opened to pass through the ceiling and into a realm of infinite possibility.
        Or perhaps it only happens on a gradient, by assuming wider and wider viewpoints, until one can be all possible viewpoints.

        If there is a door, then I think that the door will open when one has correctly viewed and categorized the most fundamental concepts of existence into a pyramid of knowledge – a pyramid with the most fundamental of fundamental concepts at the top, and below the top is formed a pattern of rational and logical sequencing of the next most fundamental concepts, and so on. The understanding of the pyramid would unravel any mystery, such as the origin and nature of space and time, consciousness, and human experience. Such a pyramid of knowledge is the dream of idealistic philosophers, physicists and mathematicians.

        So there you have two envisioned methods for ‘passing through the ceiling’. One is a gradient of wider viewpoints, and the other is a door which has a pyramid shaped key.

  8. Beautiful post Joe,THANK YOU. I think many of us are at the ceiling looking diligently at the different trap doors that life offers………. For better heights.

    • You are most welcome Mike !

      I really liked your “Phalanx” idea , by the way (with minor modifications). It seems that many really missed the point of it , but I did got it. Anyway, I have a similar idea which would put Scn and the CofS in almost all the biggest media channels of this planet, but I don’t know if scientologists are ready , though. If they were , the changes would be beyond anyone’s expectations. We would do in one year what would take a decade or more. But I guess it is my hat to so get them ready.

      Thanks for your comm. South Africa feels like home to me ; I feel strangely attracted to it , and its people, I have been able to realize, has this unique free mind and intense approach to livingness , that it is hard to fail to notice it. I might have an unknown connection to it all.

      Take care. My best wishes to you.

      ARC, PETER

  9. Thanks for a wonderful article Joe. I love these articles that make one think. And look at things from different points of view. Such a refreshing change from inside the bubble where one DARE not question the word of the THE almighty (Miscavige)…….. and then of course the KSW fundamentalists. That policy IMO spelled the end of the road for taking Scientology “beyond the ceiling”.

  10. Interesting viewpoints Joe.

    Ceilings are part of a mind-set too I guess.

    If you hit a ceiling, thinking laterally would take you out the window, so you can get a good look at what building you are in.

    Exercising awareness processes from out there might be a good plan.

    • I agree, being exterior to a situation provides a clearer perspective on circumstance. As I see it, being exterior is about being minimally caught up in a particular identity that gets in the way of gaining a different perspective. In Scientology when reference is made to being exterior it is invariably about the Being, being outside the physical body. Yet unless one can first and foremost let go of the persona – sense of self – associated with the physical body proactive exteriorization from the body is unlikely.

  11. Maybe the bridge has come to an end in Scientology. But that is only because of the shortsightedness of the head of the organisation or should I say stupidity. The man is obviously not a leader how can he be when he is creating a world full of enemies. No there is more to the bridge. Scientists, philosophers thinkers and writers are all involved in research and playing their part in creating a bridge or lengthening the old.

    Quantum Physics has given us the tools to continue with the bridge. The statement or thought that the bridge has ended says ultimate’s exist which in fact they do not.

    The original message of LRH was about spirituality and spirituality is a vast subject and there is no ultimate.

  12. Dear Joe,

    This really struck a chord. I personally love hearing other people’s stories and philosophical points of reference – however wild and crazy they may seem to others, especially when you can feel and hear the authenticity in what they are saying and expressing

    In science, theory is the best possible status any idea can have. Question more. Nothing becomes a fact in science – things just get more and more probably true as they are studied more. The current scene with $cientology – enforces a dogmatic static stance – to put it bluntly – wage a war on consciousness and individual sovereignty.

    In such stifling environment, with no encouragement to question more, the possibility for an open free thinking innovative forum as this is not possible. This is thus a ‘soft place to fall’ – where people can get together without man made divisional illusions without being pulled and banned or shunned.

    As you say: ‘Coming up against that ceiling is not an uncommon experience when in pursuit of happiness, success or love. “It all depends on how we look at things, and not on how they are themselves”. Carl Jung. A study of human perspective.

    This past week I perceived the ceiling (metaphorically speaking) to be made of glass – with a glimpse of a collective consciousness – beyond the ceiling – where a shocked and awed community tapped into.

    For a week now we have experienced the most relentless, devastating fires, and awful weather conditions. Hottest in 100 years and gale force winds fanning the flames. I have no adequate words to describe an entire community rising to higher levels of existence as one – to face the rivers of fire head on, with a spirit of utmost generosity – which our African brothers and sisters refer to as ‘ubuntu’. Carl Jung describes a ‘Collective un-Conscious’ where we can tap into to access information. To keep it brief – all I can say is the collective ‘unconscious’ was awesomely hyper conscious. 😉

    I love to hear from ‘old timers’– to tap into such shared wisdoms and adventures.

    Thank you very much Joe.

    • Re your reference to the collective un-conscious; this is a most interesting subject. In some of my writings I refer to it as an all pervasive omnipresent consciousness. Rupert Sheldrake talks of Morphic resonance, Mary Mc Taggart in her book calls it The Field and there are other names by which this “all connecting force is known”. Being aware of it makes it amazing to observe.

    • Jane, you put it very nicely how the people in Cape Town came together to put out the fire. This is a wonderful way to show our connection & care for each other. The church practices disconnection which is a joke and an impossible event as we are all connected. Separation is an impossible event in this universe.

  13. Dear Theta Clear (Peter)

    It has been my opinion, for some time…… that…… (and i feel it will not be long now) that the talking will have to abate somewhat, and the rescue (doingness) will have to start….. once again……as whether we like it or not the people of planet earth have been stuck too long on this so called ceiling and are exhibiting real bad states of nuttiness.

    Your idea/s could well be the catalyst/s (adventure/s) needed

    ML

    Mike Moretti

    • Thanks for the comm Mike,

      Yes , the ceiling must be gone through indeed ; this “waiting(ness)” is no longer self-supportive. The time is approaching , I am afraid , for an event that has been talked about for centuries from different philosophies and ancient religions as well. An event that will forever change our definition of “Humans” , and that will thoroughly alter our culture and how Humans view existence.

      The time for conflics and silly arguments must stop , and a new emphasis should be placed on recovering a Truth which is a common denominator to all “mindsets” and to all “relativeness”. A Truth that truly leads to discovering our true potentials, and a full rehabilitation of them. There are “relative truths” relative to “mindsets” as Joe described in his article ; but there are also some Truths relative to all of us in relation to the MEST universe and to all life. W/out those “Senior Truths” , or let’s just call them “Qs” (above “logics” which are junior to them) , “Total Freedom” wouldn’t be possible at all. I mean, it is only logical to assume so. W/out a “starting point” , a “Basic Consideration” upon which all other life manifestions are depended upon , there is no life ; no Game. I believe these Qs can be recovered and fully understood. That’s my hat if life (not in “Human” life) ; to find them.

      Finding those Qs , would make it possible to render the biggest “Theta Trap” of all , the body (the final “Wall Of Fire”) , completely ineffective, and future implanting nearly impossible.

      But first Ethics must be put in on a planetary basis , starting with the eradication of the biggest cult of all times : The Church Of Scientology. For that target , words spoken in blogs are no longer enough. It takes an strategy that has as a pre-requisiste , the willingness to confront any attacks and plus-randomity. The willingness to fight for our Human Rights and “Rights of a Thetan” , w/out any consideration for safety and personal security ; but with the Code Of Honor fully in. Scientologists are among the smartest people on Earth, but they have also been rendered just too timid and “careful” instead of “carefree”. We love our “security” too much ; a life free of “problems” and general entheta. There is nothing to be gain by “waiting for something to happen” ; by attempting to keep a comfortable “status quo”. “Courage” requires fighting agains all odds, head-on with Honor and Integrity.

      We must give up our desires to just live a “normal” live away from trouble, as only in confronting evil directly and with determination , can any true and lasting freedom be found. It is all well to ponder philosophic , and to dwell in “should have been(s)” , and “shouldn’t be(s)”. But changes are effected by coordinated strategies which has specific targets to be met , and by fully getting each target done ; not by thinking pretty thoughts.

      I have a few of them which I will fully post soon enough. But I can’t do it alone. I am fully willing to give my life for others ; but that’s never effective , as others self-determinisms are not taken into account ; not a very workabke scene, I am afraid. We ALL need to make some sacrifices , and lose our “comfort zone”. The time is now. Whether we become happy slaves or not in a VERY near future, will fully depend on our own attitudes towards our self-esteem, self-respect, and towards our own Code Of Honor.

      ARC, PETER

      • Peter, with reference to the notion of Q’s – senior truths – I believe the most relevant truth (rung) humanity needs to reach for and grab hold of at this time is: Consciousness (theta) is creation. Strictly speaking, consciousness does not create it is creation. Long story short; becoming conscious of anything is synonymous with its creation. To some extent this datum has entered the consciousness of quantum physicists in their exploration of the sub-atomic realm. Certain phenomena only come into existence once observed.

        On the other hand the truths (rungs) we need to let go of are those embedded in “material realism”. Several truths outlining the mechanistic and materialistic nature of our universe have served their purpose. Your reference to our attempts to keep a comfortable “status quo”; as far as I am concerned, is our insistence to hold on to material values.

        The following is an extract from a document I am currently working on.

        Is there an answer to the negative human condition of which we are reminded daily?

        A functional mindset depends on the appropriate balance of information and intuition – logic and feelings – head and heart. This keeps us “in touch”. On the other hand, a dysfunctional mindset denotes an imbalance, putting us “out of touch” with ever changing circumstances. The current state of the human condition is too much head – too much reliance on material realism at the expense of heart (compassion).

        Assume for a moment that a large section of humanity around the world, from all walks of life, did indeed shift toward more heart orientation. Imagine people being more considerate in their dealings with others. Everywhere we go we are surrounded by friendly faces of people who are really interested in the well being of others. Everyone we meet is less judgmental, less self-centered, more giving and less taking. Every time we make eye-contact we get a warm spontaneous smile. Now compare this “fantasy” with modern technology’s unprecedented progress continuing unabated into the future, ensuring a constant flow of amazing clever gadgets. The question is; which of the two scenarios is potentially more likely to “heal” our world at this juncture? It’s true that we are fantasizing in the scenario of humanity overflowing with compassion and empathy. But, it is only a fantasy because of our current materialistic orientation and lack of contact with our subtle “adjacent” existence.

        It may be weird to think that a shift in mindset, how we look at our world, is essentially the only “magic” required to change conditions for the better, but that’s only because the idea has not fully entered conventional wisdom – at least not yet.

  14. Wow Joe! Wow! You really came through to me! Loved reading your article,you have beautiful mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. Thanks Joe. You put a real perspective to the scientology experience and to Hubbard.Yes, there is a ceiling to breakthrough.

  16. Joe, it seems that you have achieved what LRH stated here:

    “You’re only trying to free him up to a point where he can recognize that he can have freedom. And after that, all the freedom he gets will be given to him by himself. But you get him up to a security where he knows he can have freedom, and he’s on his own. I mean, you can’t go any further with a thetan.” (2nd ACC, 19B OF 9 DEC 53 “BODIES” 1/2)

    For anyone interested, here’s a link to the transcript:
    http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Tapes%20in%20order/5311c17%2002nd%20ACC/txt/5312c09%202ACC19B%20Bodies%20Part%201.txt

  17. To fully appreciate the notion that truth is a variable it should be added that regardless of how high we climb up the ladder to wider perspectives – new truths – an ultimate truth will always be beyond reach. Why? Consciousness is creation and having reached the ultimate truth – the unifying principle of everything – consciousness will simply create new truths. In other words this mythological ladder leading to the truth of everything is extended again and again for ever.

    Sections of the ladder (several rungs at a time so to speak) may be experienced as specific life cycles in which there are truths denoting a beginning, truths denoting duration and truths denoting an end (birth, life and death). During this cycle survival is experienced as the fundamental dynamic. However, when taking the infinite nature of the entire ladder into consideration survival becomes meaningless and is replaced by constant creation and renewal. Consciousness located in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value (a particular sense of self) is concerned with survival. Consciousness beyond such orientation is an expression of constant creation and renewal

    I believe the first step in moving forward and taking action to improve conditions is to own our consciousness – own our creation – own our reality; in other words, take responsibility for our part in the creation of existing conditions. Once that has become a common feature of prevailing mindsets the rest will fall into place effortlessly.

    • Joe, eloquently stated once again.

      Another thing I believe we should be cognizant of is that the universe is a CO-creation. Quantum physics supports that, and many individuals are aware of the fact that their own thoughts go out into the universe and become part of it – in other words, they add to its creation and thus affect all other beings.

      I have experienced this myself on a rare occasion – it’s a perception, a knowingness. I simply knew that my thought was received by one and all – this was the specific way I experienced it. It may be more accurate to say that the energy pattern of my created thought became part of the evolving universe.

      Thanks again for all your thoughts. 🙂

  18. Hi Joe

    I very much enjoyed reading your write up, however you left out one position that a person can hold with regard to Scientology, that is BOTH IN and OUT. That is how I categorise my position. I never decided to be OUT of Scientology so from my perspective I am still IN the Church. However because “THE CHURCH” has declared me a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON and also EXPELLED me from ‘the church’ their reality is I am OUT. This has been the situation between me and the church for the past 40 years. My only terminal is the C.J.C. and every so often I get in com. in an attempt to resolve this ongoing difficulty. The stumbling block is Steps A to E. I maintain I cannot complete them without compromising my integrity, they cannot shift their position because of the literal interpretation of policy.

    I wonder if there are any other folk out there who are in a similar position to me, if so let’s get together to practice LOVE and UNDERSTANDING rather than “throw the baby out with the bathwater” which is the solution where nobody wins, and I understood SCIENTOLOGY IS THE GAME WHERE EVERYONE WINS.

    Love with Understanding
    Pip Threlfall

  19. Joe you are a star….. and Peter I agree with you that Scientologists are among the smartest people of earth.

    THE INTUITIVE MIND IS A SACRED GIFT, AND THE RATIONAL MIND IS A FAITHFUL SERVANT . WE HAVE CREATED A SOCIETY THAT HONORS THE SERVANT, AND HAS FORGOTTEN THE GIFT.

    ALBERT EINSTEIN

    • Yes, they indeed are ,Mike.

      I have been able to find out that no matter how much ex-cientologists (and I am one of them , by the way , even though that I mostly use Scn principles in my life) try to disconnect themselves from the subject of Scn , they really never can ; they (we) never really do. We can protest all we want about the obvious injustices and fanatical-fundamentalist policies , and about the many Human Rights violations that they caused ; but we always remain drawn to the subject. Why ? Because Scn is a common denominator to life ; it basic principles and axioms at least.

      Even the Anti-Scientoly(ists) (not the Anti-Scientologists , but ex(es) that feels bitter towards the subject) remain “attached” to it somehow. They never lose their adquired “awareness” of the comm and the Comm Formula. They never lose the awarenes of the O/W mechanism, and the notion that we are somehow realated in authorship to the things that happen to us. They never lose the awareness of spiritual existence as opposed to just being a Mest body. They never lose sight of a road that leads to higher spiritual awareness and abilities. It could be said that once a Scientologists, always a Scientologists , even if unconsciously and unwittingly so.

      The reason is because there are a lot of fundamental truths in Scn , even if many times mixed with lots of arbitraries as well. But if we can just sift through those impurities , a great wisdom remains at the bottom of the barrel. Axioms and fundamentals that can guide us through new paths and revelations.

      Scientologists , ex(es) , and Anti-Scn(ists) who were former Scientologists, are frequently VERY different from supporters of other philosophies. There is something rather unique about them. That’s why we always try to “Get Back In Comm”.

      ARC, PETER

      • Hi Peter
        I agree with you in fact there is no such person as an ex-Scientologist, the very idea is an oxymoron.

        There are only Scientologists, non-Scientologists and ARC BROKEN SCIENTOLOGISTS.
        A Scientologist’s trump card is DONT DISCONNECT, that is why this blog is so valuable. To disconnect has to be a coping mechanism, a temporary fix until enough awareness has surfaced to HANDLE hence “GET BACK IN COMM.”

        Love with understanding
        Pip

  20. The reason my response to Paul Burkhart’s comments is placed here is because there was no space beneath his the actual comments. Anyway Paul, I can really relate to what you covered and would like to respond to one point you made in particular. You say:
    “If there is a door, then I think that the door will open when one has correctly viewed and categorized the most fundamental concepts of existence into a pyramid of knowledge – a pyramid with the most fundamental of fundamental concepts at the top, and below the top is formed a pattern of rational and logical sequencing of the next most fundamental concepts, and so on. The understanding of the pyramid would unravel any mystery, such as the origin and nature of space and time, consciousness, and human experience. Such a pyramid of knowledge is the dream of idealistic philosophers, physicists and mathematicians”.
    I agree, and have come up with a model, although not in the shape of a pyramid the idea is along similar lines. It’s a scale going from the most fundamental of fundamental concepts at the top down through levels of lesser fundamental concepts, so to speak. Let’s for the sake of clarification assume this scale goes from 10 down to 0 – 10 being the top and 0 the bottom. Our current level of consciousness can be placed somewhere on the scale, every level having different characteristics. (Some comparison can be made to the emotional tone scale but the scale of consciousness is essentially very different).
    Let’s assume our consciousness level is 5, for instance, that would mean the world we perceive and everything in it will be a manifestation of level 5 characteristics. Our life experience will be in line with level 5 reality. Whatever condition we are aware of, be it objective or subjective will be level 5 in nature. Should who or what we think we are drop or go up a level, our perspective, life experience and reality changes accordingly.
    To answer the question of what can be expected toward the top end of the scale and bottom end; here is a closer look at the scale itself. .
    Consider the phenomenon of H2O being transformed from steam to water and then to ice as the temperature drops. In a way, this transformation from steam to ice may be equated as steam collapsing through various stages of solidity into ice, yet remaining H2O throughout. .

    In science there are various theories regarding waves and particles. A comment by Stephen Hawking on the subject is revealing. He says, ‘Waves and particles are concepts created by humans which aren’t necessarily concepts which nature is obliged to respect by making all phenomena fall into one category or the other’. Nonetheless, the concept of waves and particles is conveniently descriptive of certain phenomena. For instance, the idea of a wave collapsing into a particle, works well to make the point of something insubstantial and beyond containment collapsing into something much more solid and locatable.

    Using these two analogies – steam collapsing into ice and a wave collapsing into a particle – imagine “pure consciousness” collapsing into a point of view – a particular identity, a sense of self, a fixed location, me, I, ego

    Analogues to pure white light passing through a prism to reflect a spectrum of many colors, pure consciousness (pure theta) passes through a timeless instant of creation (the infinite now) to become a spectrum of conscious expression.

    At the top end of the scale consciousness is completely un-oriented, beyond measure. It is not oriented in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value – it is typically considered a nothingness. As consciousness collapses down the levels it becomes increasingly more oriented – more measurable in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value – it becomes increasingly contextualized. The instant un-oriented consciousness is measured or defined in any way it is no longer un-oriented, it becomes oriented consciousness.

    Note; consciousness being excessively oriented is not the same as being well oriented. Being excesively oriented denotes being pinned down by all kinds of physical, mental and emotional baggage – ice-like characteristics – an inability to express full potential – a dysfunctional mindset out of touch. Being minimally oriented describes physical, mental and emotional flexibility – steam-like characteristics – the ability to function and operate optimally – a functional mindset.

    The reality being experienced mirrors the level we are at on the scale. This means every condition of existence such as time, space, energy, thought, feelings, awareness, communication, love etc. are all subject to transformation and change in accordance with the characteristics of the various scale levels.

    For instance; TIME AND SPACE: Toward the top end of the scale, defined time and space, and consequently cause and effect, begin to fade and lose relevance.

    Higher upscale time no longer separates cause from effect or a beginning from an end, to the same extent as lower downscale. Neither are we separated from any other location in space by a specific distance such as ten kilometers or ten thousand light-years. .

    We are connected to past events and distant places in a way hard to fully comprehend from a typical human oriented perspective. (This phenomenon of undefined time and space is observable at sub-atomic level where particles separated by light years interact with each other as if not separated by time and space at all). Toward the top end of the scale, the past, present and future are far less defined than lower down. Our attention span becomes wider as we ascend the scale – as we approach the infinite now.

    Within the context of typical human experience, such as a tennis match for instance, let’s say the champion is at level 5 on the scale and the wannabe at level 4. The champion, being higher up scale is less fixed in a particular time frame than his opponent. What the champion experiences as happening now (in the present), the wannabe sees in terms of past and future. The wannabe’s view, due to his narrower attention span, is that nothing can be done about the past and the future is a mystery.

    On the other hand, the champion is capable of using what the wannabe has given up on and capable of anticipating what the wannabe can only guess at. The champion is simply more in touch with the constantly changing nature of the game due to his wider attention span. In other words, the champ has a wider sense of now, he is closer to the infinite now – he has a wider perspective of proceedings than the wannabe.

    In terms of the bigger picture it’s not a case of level 6 is better than level 3. Experiencing the spectrum of consciousness, up and down, is about consciousness giving expression to consciousness. The idea that heaven is above and hell below, simply reflects a particular mindset. There are times when consciousness would want to descend and times when consciousness would want to ascend. Consciousness descends lower down scale by accumulating physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual “baggage” thus collapsing into more orientation. Consciousness ascends to higher levels by letting go of physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual “baggage” thus un-collapsing into less orientation.

    Auditing or any other intervention is potentially as workable as it accommodates what the pc, client or customer actually wants, which is invariably in line with where the individual is on the scale.

    • Joe,
      Those are some very thought-provoking descriptions of the scale – how consciousness collapses into different levels, different points of view, becoming more ‘oriented’ as one descends. So, at the top of the scale, we start with a totally ‘pure’ form of consciousness. I imagine this to be a total oneness, a somewhat strange concept of there being nothing in the universe but one entity. An entity without features, without size or location in space or location in time. It is, as you say, similar to nothing, but is actually more similar to the concept of infinity all balled up into a single thing, because it holds the potential of everything.

      You could even say that it is a something that is lacking in Difference. Once a thing is imagined or given Difference, then it is no longer perceived as part of the Singular, it is perceived as a part of the Different. Singular is the undivided. Different is the creation of distinction between things.

      Perhaps this is the most fundamental of fundamental concepts. The concept of Singular is at the top (a sort of background or playing field for everything else) and Difference is the next concept down the scale.

      So, we just need to fill in the rest of the details of the scale, wrapping our wits around level 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, concepts, using our ‘level 5’ awareness.

      I would really like to understand the origin of space and time, as those concepts seem to be at the foundation of everything material. Using the scale with Singular/Difference at the top, how do we get from Difference to Space and Time?

      We have this concept of Difference as the act of separating things from a whole. The activity of separating things out has the effect of making the separated things seem to be ‘over there’, away from the whole, away from singular. At least that’s how my level 5 awareness views it. Perhaps this action of granting Difference is the genesis of space.

      When ‘things’ are separated out, these ‘things’ may be a separation of broad concepts, or general patterns, rather than individual objects or particles. Patterns can have patterns within themselves that subtly change the overall pattern as it progresses ‘away’ from its origin. An increment of change can be viewed as an ‘instant’. Perhaps somewhere in this is the genesis of time.

      A particular track of pattern change can be grouped as an Association. This is like following a line of changes from ‘instant’ to ‘instant’. This gives a part of a pattern (call it an Association) persistence in time. Associations then have space/time locations. A space/time location is a viewpoint. And here is where the idea of consciousness collapsing into a viewpoint comes into play. The overall pure consciousness (the Singular) knows everything because it is everything. But with Difference, and Associations, Singular could focus ‘know’ to come from a viewpoint rather than the total know of the Singular. This is then Perception. This is Identification. And perhaps this is the genesis of Individuals.

      At the level 5 form of consciousness, it might work like this. Life forms with advanced brains can be uniquely Identified with. Complex brains create patterns and associations in a way that mimics actual giving of Difference. By assumption of the viewpoint of an advanced brain and focusing know to the perceptions and memory and predictions in a brain’s patterns, Singular arrives at a very decentralized, time and space dependent viewpoint. A sort of resonance is accomplished by giving real Difference with one hand and perceiving via brain patterns that mimic with the other hand. This feedback or resonance, gives us the sense of moving through patterns of difference in ‘present time’. Without this resonance, one could perceive infinite past time tracks and future time tracks as a whole of related patterns. The resonance is needed to focus on a particular point on the pattern and to gently shift location with each wave of the resonance. This is how we experience the ‘illusion’ of present time.

      The activity of a brain operates at scale of 1-200 cycles per second and a complex cloud of neural firings sets the scale of the resonance which drives our perceived travel across the overall patterns of time. Our perception of ‘present time’ is generally a fraction of a second because this perception is tied up with the brain’s mimic of the overall patterns of difference. The brain generates its ‘mimic’ patterns at a rate of 1-200 cycles per second. We move our perception of the ‘real’ patterns according to the clock speed of this brain created resonance.

      For example, Bill’s viewpoint is located at position ‘A’ in physical time. His brain creates a mimic of that position which includes a projection of what the next position will be, let’s say position ‘B’ out of the many possible futures from ‘A’. Using that projection, Bill shifts viewpoint to position ‘B’ in physical time, which involves some granting of difference. The granting of difference is done primarily on an automatic ‘unconscious’ basis. Bill’s brain creates a mimic of the position at ‘B’ and a projection to possible future ‘C’, and so on. It’s a resonance of brain mimic against pattern position, shift position, mimic new position, shift position, etc.

      In this sense, Time is a sequence of viewpoints across a pattern. And as we know from Einstein, time is personal.

      I seriously enjoy this sort of theorizing, and you seem to be on a closely aligned track of thinking. I am happy to continue posting is this blog, but it may be better to switch to another line of comm. My email is (REDACTED – PAUL, we don’t publish email addresses on the blog – this is to protect you from being “spammed” as has happened to many in the past – we have sent Joe your email address via email – Blog Admin)

    • This reply to Pip might fall not directly under his comment. I couldn’t get it to be so located.

      ” A Scientologist’s trump card is DONT DISCONNECT, that is why this blog is so valuable. To disconnect has to be a coping mechanism, a temporary fix until enough awareness has surfaced to HANDLE hence “GET BACK IN COMM.”

      That’s a VERY interesting viewpoint , Pip ; and very true as well. Thanks for the comm.

      ARC, PETER

      • Thank you Peter I very much enjoy your posts. I was expelled from the CofS some 35 years ago, but I have never chosen to disconnect from them. I do from time to time write to the C.J.C with the intention of sorting out our differences but the stumbling block is always steps A to E. As a ChristianScientologist I will continue to love the CofS and also to understand them. I like to see the word UNDERSTANDING to mean “the ability to STAND UNDER” which is in line with my family motto WILLING EFFECT IS TOTAL CAUSE.

        Love with understanding
        Pip

  21. Dear Joe
    Dear Joe

    Would it than, be wrong to say that the most fundamental of fundamental concepts would be for an individual to fully duplicate (100%) that :-

    1) LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

    Followed by
    Axioms 2 to 10 ?

    Followed by
    Axioms 11 to 58 ?

    BUT …….. as one is looking from the ceiling up (so to speak) …… MAYBE to come to grips with

    Axioms 58 to 11 …….. first

    Followed by
    Axioms 10 to 2

    Arriving at
    Axiom 1 ……. ??????!!!!

    • Mike, there are also the Q’s. I think those are what LRH would have called “the most fundamental of fundamentals”, according to this quote from a 1952 lecture:

      “This data I’m giving you now on the Axioms falls into three categories. The first is what we’re going to call the Q list. There’s nothing in mathematics even vaguely approaching this, but Q means the top level from which we are now working – the top level from which we’re now working; the highest echelon from which all other things are derived.

      “Knowledge is a pyramid, and knowledge as a pyramid gets itself a common denominator which evaluates all other data below it. At this point of this pyramid, this top point, we have what could be called a Q, and it could be also called a common denominator. It is in common to every other datum in this pyramid full of data.

      “Now, at any level of this pyramid – any level – we have a greater complexity of knowledge. At any level in this pyramid, as we descend down the line from that common denominator, we find it less and less able to be recognized – this common denominator – in the data. It’s less and less obvious what its common denominator is, but that doesn’t make that common denominator any less a common denominator or any less workable.

      “And the Q from which we’re operating now evaluates all the data in the material universe. That’s a small statement, but I’ll make it bigger: The Q we’re operating from now evaluates all the data in any universe, and it’s not near high enough as a Q. There’s a higher Q than this, and I’m fishing for it now. Have it one of these days and what do you know, we’ll have a simpler pyramid.

      “… Typical in the evolution of a science is to go on and get more complex and more complex and never dream for a moment that you’d better look for a simplicity.”

      (from the lecture “INTRODUCTION: THE Q LIST AND BEGINNING OF LOGICS” 10 November 1952)

      • THE Qs (Prelogics) from *Scientology 0-8*:

        Q1 The common denominator of all life impulses is self-determinism.

        Q2 Self-determinism may be defined as the location of matter and energy in space and time, as well as a creation of time and space in which to locate matter and energy.

        Q3 The identification of the source of that which places matter and energy and originates space and time is not necessary to the resolution of this problem at this time.

        Q4 Universes are created by the application of self-determinism on eight dynamics.

        Q5 Self-determinism, applied, will create, conserve, alter and possibly destroy universes.

      • Great stuff Marildi. I refer in particular to the statement – “Typical in the evolution of a science is to go on and get more complex and more complex and never dream for a moment that you’d better look for a simplicity.”

        Here is my two pence worth on the matter. The more oriented we become, the more “stuff” we have to work through to get answers. To achieve understanding lower down scale is a much more complex endeavor. (This is in reference to the scale of consciousness in my response to a comment by Paul Burkhart).

        Imagine two people each given a puzzle to complete. Both puzzles depict the same scene – a map on which X marks the spot of hidden treasure. At some point while assembling the puzzle it will become clear where X is located and how to get there. The idea is that whoever is first to get the answer to X’s location is entitled to claim the treasure. There is a catch however. Puzzle A consists of 500 pieces and puzzle B of only 5 pieces. In other words, in order to get the location of X doing puzzle A is going to require far more time and work compared to doing puzzle B.

        In terms of a competition to determine who gets the treasure the odds are clearly stacked against the competitor doing puzzle A. The point is that our life experience toward the bottom end of the scale (the bottom of the pyramid) can be compared to being handed puzzle A with 500 pieces. To gain understanding at this level requires making a multitude of viewpoints and variables (puzzle pieces) fit. Many differing issues require alignment to get the answer – a multitude of dots need to be connected to discover the location of X.

        Around the middle of the scale life experience can be compared to taking on puzzles of between a 100 and 200 pieces. Getting to understand how things work – getting to discover the location of X – is much easier. The prevailing mindset at this level is less encumbered by excessive orientation – excessive information. .

        At the top end of the scale, where only 5 or so pieces constitute the puzzle of life – where we are closer to the infinite now – recognizing the location of X may take hardly any time at all. Intuition becomes more relevant to understanding than thinking toward the top end of the scale – toward the top of the pyramid.

        Joe.

      • Joe: “At the top end of the scale, where only 5 or so pieces constitute the puzzle of life – where we are closer to the infinite now – recognizing the location of X may take hardly any time at all. Intuition becomes more relevant to understanding than thinking toward the top end of the scale – toward the top of the pyramid.”

        My thought is that both paths and their respective methods – the 5-piece puzzle or the 500-piece puzzle – are equally workable because the guy who pursued the 500-piece route in order to know “X” would learn it well before he put all the pieces together.

        You probably remember the study tape “Training: Duplication” where LRH explains why it is that learning the truth (relative truth) about some subject (any subject, actually) is a road to having judgment – not only judgment in the subject being studied, but judgment in general (even about women, he jokingly says in one part 🙂 ). Here’s a quote from that 1962 study lecture:

        —————————————
        “Of course it’s [judgment is] most rapidly restored on such a track by teaching the person the exact truth of something. There is the truth of something, he is able to duplicate the truth of something after many travails, and this truth of something is immediately pursued by the understanding of that something he has been taught. You understand that that is a stage; he’s still dependent on you for the understanding of what’s been taught.

        “And your next stage up is a realization, which he reached at a sudden step up the line on his own bootstraps, so to speak. He regained an ability to understand, and so then he himself could realize. That’s the route that you’re taking. That route has total self-determinism and other-determinism and, of course, therefore, pan-determinism all mixed up in it, all at one fell swoop.

        “The person becomes pan-determined over the data. The person does not only understand why they learned the data but why the data was taught to them, and understand and REALIZE – of course, the realization includes the independent truth of the datum regardless of having been taught the datum. And with that, of course, a person has reached a high peak of the ability to judge something. A person then has judgment. There’s no other route that I know of. I mean if this is not a perfect route, all right, so it isn’t a perfect route. There is no perfect route.

        “Perhaps there is a perfect route, but there is no perfect route to hand at the moment if this is not a perfect route.”
        —————————————–
        (“Training: Duplication”, 24 Jan 62)

        The main factor as to which route works best for a given individual is probably which one appeals to that individual. This is my two pence worth. 🙂

    • Throughout the ages attempts have been made to identify and label that fundamental of fundamentals, ranging from God to the unifying field. In some cases it has been referred to as indescribable – some religions have opted to leave it nameless. The thing is, as I see it, the moment the indescribable is described it is no longer indescribable, which initiates the collapse into something “lesser” than what it actually is. It becomes measurable and locatable in terms of related benchmarks. For instance, to say that life is basically a static is a description of a somethingness, which depends for its meaning relevance and value on comparing it to something active, dynamic or moving. In other words the concept static can not stand on its own without comparison to something else. Hence it can’t be a fundamental of fundamentals. Even referring to the “ultimate source” as a nothingness leaves much to be desired.

      At this point I believe a quote from D T Suzuki is appropriate: “The contradiction so puzzling to the ordinary way of thinking comes from the fact that we have to use language to communicate our inner experience, which in its very nature transcends linguistics.”

      Personally I don’t believe we are likely to ever adequately express the “ultimate source” in terms of words, logic or thinking. We will get closer through intuition and feelings, which means moving up a few levels in consciousness through various forms of telepathy, and states of “connectedness” beyond the experience of typical human orientation. Language, words and symbols are the result of higher states of “contact” having collapsed down to more solid levels of contact.

      The dilemma is; to get a sense of that fundamental of fundamentals we need to go beyond thinking – symbols and language. Language is a form of communication that has collapsed down through various levels of “connectedness”. We are more likely to “feel God” than think “IT”.

      So, to answer your question: As I see it, the statement that life is basically a static is true – has meaning, relevance and value – only within the context in which it is defined. There are possibilities beyond that context.

      Joe.

    • Hi Mike Moretti

      I like your question. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC is the most basic fundamental concept in Scientology. Physicists would agree that there is nothing in the known universe that is not in motion, which would pre-suppose that a TRUE STATIC could not exist in M.E.S.T.

      To fully duplicate “a static” one would have to BECOME a static, but that is impossible because STATIC precedes BECOMING. So the only solution to the problem lies with THE TRUE STATIC which is the 8th dynamic, which we call GOD.

      So by definition GOD has NO MASS, NO MOTION, NO WAVELENGTH, NO LOCATION in space or in time. However God does have the ability to postulate and to perceive. This being the case God could postulate himself into the physical universe and perceive himself in the physical universe. Logically that would be possible.

      The bible declares that is exactly what He has done.

      “IN THE BEGINNING (that could also be translated before the beginning) WAS THE WORD (static) AND THE WORD WAS WITH (co-existence of static) GOD (theta) AND THE WORD (theta) WAS GOD (static-theta) AND THE WORD (theta) BECAME FLESH (a thetan) AND DWELT AMONG US (M.E.S.T.) This person which the bible is referring to is JESUS THE CHRIST.

      So to break through “The ceiling” that every Scientologist will eventually encounter is not only being able to understand what STATIC is but ACTUALLY SURRENDERING TO HIM.

      Love with ARC
      Pip

  22. Re your last comment, my response is brief but perhaps, if you are interested, we can stay in touch by e-mail. BIC was kind enough to pass my e-mail address on to Paul Burkhart and his to me. Anyway back to your most recent comment.

    In one of my responses I imply that a higher level on the scale of consciousness isn’t necessarily better than lower down. It depends on what the individual wants at the time, it may be required that he go downscale (become more oriented) or go upscale (become less oriented). For instance, Jack wants to become an accomplished pianist. To begin with he isn’t oriented as a pianist at all. Yet to achieve his goal he needs to get involved in lessons, certain disciplines and make certain sacrifices. In other words, he needs to become more oriented as far as playing the piano is concerned. As Jack becomes increasingly more proficient at playing the piano he begins to rise up through the various levels of consciousness – becoming less and less oriented in that regard.

    Eventually he becomes the accomplished pianist he set out to be. This is when he is also minimally oriented on the subject of playing the piano – he owns his talent – he no longer learns he creates. Jack has achieved mastery. As we approach mastery in any sphere of existence there is less and less to learn, we increasingly create all data and phenomena concerned. . . . .

    Joe.

    • “It depends on what the individual wants at the time, it may be required that he go downscale (become more oriented) or go upscale (become less oriented).”

      Joe, what you wrote above is similar to what Dr. Noel Huntley wrote in an article titled “The ‘Left-Brain’ Problem”. I think Huntley is a former scientologist as, for one thing, I found out about his writings from Caspar de Rijk’s website. But the main reason I believe he has a scientology background is because of his ideas. He’s written a number of books and articles that range from physics to religion.

      Below is an excerpt from his article “The ‘Left-Brain’ Problem” in which he talks about “consciousness within consciousness”. I’ll post the link too, if you want to take a look at the whole article.
      —————————————-
      “The whole of our educational system is formulated to create maximum left-brain development and to downgrade all right-brain activity. Over-intellectualisation of art or music will impair the right brain’s aesthetic appreciation. Religions take on a form in which the God concept is external. Objectivity of one’s God will ensure absence of contact and enlightenment.
      […]

      “The new education, plus clearing of negative patterns of information and behaviour, will enable the individual to understand true causes and see beyond the illusions or surface of reality. The withinness (to which Jesus referred) will be understood as opposed to a reality consisting only of the external world.

      “There will be a proper grasp of the notion of consciousness within consciousness, for example, the lower-self (human personality) is within the soul consciousness, which is within still higher levels, and so on to the God concept. There is only apparent separation of consciousness through structure on the lower levels—these are inner, internal fractals.”
      —————————————–
      http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/New_Education.htm

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