ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Keeping Scientology Working and OTIII Evaluations

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by lionheart, Jul 29, 2009.

  1. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    :eyeroll: you're trying to figure out what OTIII on its own is without considering the Tech in its entirety. That won't work. "Attachement" is an incorrect or at least inaccurate proposition. We have to rewind the tape... :coolwink:

    I read your posts about Axioms and Factors. It looks to me you're very much into significance. Before attempting to use those to understand the "origins of the Universes" etc - I recommend to look for how those apply to simple things. Then from micro-exempes we can have a look at the macro-exemples. Let's simplify without effort.

    For our exemple let's say a guy (before the beginning) desires a glass of wine in the evening. To get this he has TO BE a driver and in the shop a customer. He gets into his car, assumes the viewpoint of the driver, and looks at the road extending his points to view.

    The road moves, houses at the side of the road and people on the streets appear and dissapear - the action of a dimension point is reaching and withdrawing.

    The viewpoints are never seen (for the purpose of the discussion, as some don't consider such a no-thing like a spirit does exist, we say the car has tinted glasses) - and the most desirable particle is admiration.

    So the guy sees some hot women on the street. He's not seen, his car is, he comes closer so they can see. (as if that worked with great women) Anyway the point here is - the viewpoint to be seen might become the points to view, the dimension points. Some people use their car to show an identity (they are their car), for others it's just an object to go from A to B. I put it here as it might be of interest if we develop this in order to understand III.

    In "the basic on BTs" Hubbard explains how a viewpoint gets stuck to another. In our exemple above - the guy on his way back is involved in a car accident with another driver. "That one makes a picture of being collided with. Other Bts get stuck to the picture".

    What is the nature of that picture? How can a picture make a thetan stick to it? In Dianetics 55! Hubbard writes, from memory, if 12 people saw the same accident we would have 12 different stories. Why?
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2009
  2. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    If it was only one mock-up, lol!

    OTIII, amongst many niceties, gives the ability to mock up and unmock any bank. Then one gets an unshakable inner silence one doesn't need to do anything about as it's stable, no invading thoughts from God knows where, no thoughts/ideas/ridges persisting in one's space in and around the body. It's fun.

    The rest concerns the thetan, and that is on other levels.
  3. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    There is validation and invalidation of data.

    There is validation and invalidation of viewpoint.

    Oh! What a minefield!

  4. Pierrot

    Pierrot Patron with Honors

    Knowledge is about certainty, rather than data.

    When one has certainty in all universes relative to one, one is at Source.

    To gain certainty all one has to do is to start to look.
  5. SchwimmelPuckel

    SchwimmelPuckel Genuine Meatball

    Ok.. I'm gonna be an atavistic ass and 'dublicate' this like it was some Hubbardian scripture..

    So.. When all those folks, back then, had 'certainty' that the Earth was flat.. It really was flat!!? - And they were at source.. They were the source of much buhaha when someone told 'em that the Earth was round anyway... Hmm..

    In fact.. I'd suggest that 'certainty' has a rather treasonous relationship with knowledge.. And that is why doubt and skeptism is more important than 'being sure'..

  6. Delusion is about certainty rather than data
  7. Pepin

    Pepin Patron with Honors

    Well said!!

    And indeed, those attempting to pick apart OTIII without first hand observation are missing the big Why??
  8. Pepin

    Pepin Patron with Honors

    That is a great example because:
    Most folks today BELIEVE they ae a body and the affect of life, the affect of planets etc...

    IF the truth is we are spiritual beings at cause over everything whether we like it or not, then indeed todays people are like those who believed the earth was flat.
  9. I'll ask you this again , and maybe you'll fill us in this time.

    where are you coming up with ... "Most folks today BELIEVE they are a body"?

    when you keep repeating this, you sound just like the loons who created this ad.

    Typical Casualties of Hubbard's Tech
  10. SchwimmelPuckel

    SchwimmelPuckel Genuine Meatball

    Hmm.. I sense we're off on a tangent.. But that happens a lot here.. :D - Free association.. As opposed to 'dublication'...

    Well, about people believing they are 'bodies'.. Actually I've never met anyone who believes that.. I've heard Hubbard claim that modern science says so, and for that reason he wanted us all to have a hissyfit over the alleged deadly insult... As I 'heard' Hubbard yelled: "I am NOT a brain!!!" at a lecture.. And he threw a real brain to the floor with a resounding wet smack for effect!

    Actually science is aware that humans are 'aware' - They just don't jump to conclusions about a 'spirit'.

    Ordinary folks don't really think they are 'bodies'.. It's simply not a relevant question in everyday existence.. They think of themselves a 'persons'. Each aware of him/her-self as -I-, or -Me-.. That's well enough for 'awareness' and intelligence.

    The 'philosophy' about spirituality.. Well, that could become as important and relevant as TubberWare.. When the field can produce equally useful results.

    Now, I've been known to say that I'm a 'meatball'.. A self-aware and intelligent meatball.. (I HAVE to say it myself since nobody else will!) - Anyway.. My point is: Even if self-awareness goes away when the power is cut from the meat-brain by dying.. We, humans, while being meatballs, would still be 'spiritual' beings in the time we are alive.

    And if we are to be so 'offended' about being meatballs... Then why not be royally pissed at some religions ideas about Gods will and fate? - Those 'religious' ideas really reduces us to unwitting and powerless pawns.

    But why would a meatball care?

  11. NeXTep

    NeXTep Patron with Honors

    Pepin, I think that the belief to be a body is not necessarily attached with the consideration that one is the effect of life. So one can still believe to be spiritual in nature but yet consider not to be at full cause over one's life experience.
  12. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    And, if the "truth" is that we are NOT spiritual beings at cause over everything whether we like it or not, then . . . . . . then what?

    Regardless of what we are or are not, preconceived notions, belief structures and "maps of reality" influence and to some degree even CREATE what we see and how we see it.

    I maintain that "certainty" is a scam. It is a "mental state", like being in love, feeling happy when viewing a sunset, or many of an endless and infinite variety of subjective states.

    There is a place for certainty. That is certainty in ones own ability to do something effectively, whether that involves writing, painting, observing, doing a job, etc. It involves a "demonstration of competence" in some area. "Certaintly" follows naturally once a sufficient degree of demonstration of such competence has occurred.

    The Muslim fanatic ready to self-explode himself on a bus load of school children is VERY "certain" about all sorts of things. So is the moderate Muslim. So are most Christians of all ilk. In fact I would say that the MAJORITY of people are CERTAIN about mostly COMPLETE NONSENSE. What makes YOUR certainty different?:confused2: People sure do postulate realities - just look at the crazy shit so many of them "postulate"! Gods, demons, angels, heavens, hells, sacredness, purity, salvation, sin, and on and on. How much of any of that has ANYTHING to do with any confirmable conditions or reality anywhere (outside of their overactive imaginations)? These people are ALL CERTAIN, and all are most definitely the SOURCE in their universes. To some degree Hubbard was describing the anatomy of lunacy.

    The problem is when someone is "certain" of IDEAS - as in BELIEFS. That, sadly, is what most people ARE certain of. Some set of ideas "makes sense", or "resonates" or "agrees with" them. But, that means nothing.

    Walking a path of certainty is strewn with detours, accidents and road blocks. The dribbling lunatic huddled in the corner of some state psych ward, talking to himself, unaware of anything around him, is "certain" in his own universe, and is "source" for himself. Big deal?

    "Certainty", as something to desire and attain to, is very much overrated.

    The problem with looking, is that most people, being entirely mired in "thinkingness", SEE different things (even when looking at the SAME data).
  13. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    The belief that the 'Man is Mud meatballs anti-spiritualists' are the alternative to Scientology is an essential part of the MindFuck :)

  14. Pepin

    Pepin Patron with Honors

    That is true, however most people around the world believe they are affect and also believe they are a body.
  15. Yep, if you can get yourself to stop feeling sorry for them, it does make for good comedy
  16. SchwimmelPuckel

    SchwimmelPuckel Genuine Meatball

    Now.. That's actually fuckin' offensive Pepin!

    Those people are PERSONS with self awareness and intelligence. You come across like a sanctimonious religious knowitall a-hole with an agenda.. A member of the clergy out to recruit us for the holy war by bringing our 'spirituality' in doubt.

    A guy with a 'just cause'..

    And, as it turns out, 'just causes' are the usual cause for murder, mayhem and hell on earth.

    (No, I'm not pissed or anything.. But it does annoy me that Hubbard can say such drivel as that and have a huge crowd of people becoming 'offended' by being meatballs.. They probably never thought about it before Hubbard told 'em.. An impressive feat of propaganda it is.. A less impressive crowd!)

  17. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Well, dunno who I'd feel sorry for. But, the Scientology position is that you're either a clam or AO. That's close to AO's position too. Which is one reason he irritates me so much; he *validates* Scientology's crap.

  18. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I thought I had covered the point you are making above by saying that these factors apply to a cycle of action however big or small. Please see:

    So, I don't understand the point you are making. Sorry!

  19. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I still think that other entities mocking up banks will influence a person only if that person agrees with those entities, and that agreement would be part of his his own bank.

    So, if a person gets rid of his own bank how can the banks mocked up by other entities influence him?

    I, therefore, think that a person has not gotten rid of his own bank at lower levels. He has only destimulated his bank enough to become aware of his agreements with other entities mocking up banks.

    I believe that CLEAR is just another gradient of release. It is part of nothing more than some marketing strategy.

  20. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    It is not easy to gain that certainty.

    Hinduism says that one simply moves from one gradient of truth to the next gradient of truth.

    There is no absolute truth or certainty.

    At the end of the road is BRAHMA, and that is not data or awareness or certainty, but the complete absence of anything.

    Neti, neti... total detachment.