What's new

Why doesn't OT3 use the Valence Tech?

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
<...snip, solely for breivity>
I haven't requested a "demonstration of OT ability," but the description of the abilities of an "OT 8" (per the old 'Grade Chart') will do:

"Ability to be at cause knowingly and at will over thought, life, form, matter, energy, space and time, subjective and objective."
...<snip>
Fair enough. I was really just curious about what would be an acceptable demonstration for the purpose of qualifying "OT" ability. It's a question that occurs to me almost every time I read something along the lines of "there are no OTs" etc and I just decided to ask this time.

I don't personally use the false standards laid in by Hubbard to judge these things.

I think the CofS PR line about OT8 abilities is purely an exercise in PR (probably derived from a survey or some such) and I've commented before that I don't think you'll ever hear an OT8 actually claim to have that stated ability.

I don't completely discount the possibility of this ability being achievable, anything is possible, but I do discount the possibility of it EVER be achieved by slavishly following the path laid out on Hubbard's Bridge.

Thanks for the answer and the additional data.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I don't personally use the false standards laid in by Hubbard to judge these things.

I think the CofS PR line about OT8 abilities is purely an exercise in PR (probably derived from a survey or some such) and I've commented before that I don't think you'll ever hear an OT8 actually claim to have that stated ability.

What makes it a 'false standard'? It's Ron's word; it's Ron's definition. Ron set the standard.

Where confusion comes in is that one ususally expects a 'word' to have a real-world referent. But, it doesn't necessarily need to be. I could say, 'A Frumdiddle is a 3 mile tall purple ostrich that eats albanian truffels'. It's a perfectly good word. It's a perfectly good definition. But, it's a word without a referent. Same with 'OTVIII'.

Compounding the confusion though is that Scientology offers an 'OTVIII' course, which, admittedly, they claim 'makes OTs'. It's hogwash, but, it doesn't change the validity of the word or definition or make it any more 'real'.

But, since it's *Ron's* word, Scientologists operate on the basis of it actually being a real thing.

I could do the same with Frumdiddle. 'Well, since I can't find any 3 mile tall purple ostriches, and, I don't want to waste a perfectly good word, I'll call my desk calendar a Frumdiddle. And, god help any skeptic who says Frumdiddles don't exist...

Zinj
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, Ron's twist on it was that we were all separate anyway and then got gathered together and exploded apart!

The polarity of separation and oneness is just another apparancy of the dichotomous universe.

Opposites are all illusions. If the so-called "opposites" are discharged against each other, the major innaccuracy of Hubbard's so-called "thetans" is exposed.

This is a fundamental paradox, that cannot be intellectually "understood". Separate and One. Yet Neither Separate Nor One. This can be groked by discharging the polarity.

I am separate
I am One

Cycled backwards and forwards can produce remarkable results. :happydance:



Good one, LH. You're on to it.
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
Anything is possible, I guess.

Like everyone; I'd seen plenty of movies, read a lot of books, heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, atomic testing was the order of the day and I'd obviously spent some time thinking about all things nuclear.

I'd undoubtedly heard/read something Hubbardian about explosions by that point in my scn career.

Your conclusion about what might have occurred in the pre-Clear DofP interview is flawed but I see how you arrived at it from what I'd written. I only realised the true nature of the DofP Interview after the fact of doing OT3 myself, there was no hint or evaluation about Upper Levels, nor any mention of them, in the interview. It was all just Case Data gathering as far as I was concerned at the time.

I'm not asserting anything about OT3 with my personal revelations, I'm simply stating what I experienced.

It has always struck me as a VERY curious thing that, assuming the whole Xenu thing is an invented Hubb-crock, why did I choose the metaphor I used ("I feel like I'm sitting on a volcano, waiting to blow up!") to describe my feelings? It's certainly not an expression that is part of my normal metaphor-repertoire. My choice of words in that report to the C/S was certainly the subject of much mirth in the AO Tech area.

Perhaps I picked the concept up telepathically from someone who'd already done OT3? Oh, wait a minute, that won't fly; there are no OT Powerz!

Perhaps a BT told me about it? Oh, wait a minute, that won't fly; there are no BTs!

Perhaps I was covertly implanted with the data so that I'd later believe it was true? Oh, wait a minute, that won't fly; these things are secret and must never be revealed before OT3!

Perhaps it's just a simple coincidence? Yeah, that'll do! :)

Perhaps it was because the volcano metaphor was suggested by the cover of DMSMH? :melodramatic:
 
Did those LRH postulates stick for you Veda?

Too bad there wasn't anyone there to prep-check the dude on these "self-determined" changes. It might have saved us all a lot of grief.


I just wish he would blow his charge so we could all stop hearing the continual dramatization. :melodramatic:


Mark A. Baker
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
What makes it a 'false standard'? It's Ron's word; it's Ron's definition. Ron set the standard.
<...snip>
Zinj
Zinj, I asked Veda what would constitute adequate proof of "OT" abilities to him and he gave me back Hubbard's (or CofS') standards.

I was hoping for something a little more Veda-specific.

It seems, to me, somewhat disingenuous to refute all things Hubbardian when it comes to "OT" and yet use Hubbard's standard as a measuring stick of it.

I don't accept Hubbard's postulated standards as a yardstick of whether or not a Being can/does operate independently of the body, nor to judge the quality of that operating.

It's just my opinion on the matter as of now. :)
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Yes, Ron's twist on it was that we were all separate anyway and then got gathered together and exploded apart!

The polarity of separation and oneness is just another apparancy of the dichotomous universe.

Opposites are all illusions. If the so-called "opposites" are discharged against each other, the major innaccuracy of Hubbard's so-called "thetans" is exposed.

This is a fundamental paradox, that cannot be intellectually "understood". Separate and One. Yet Neither Separate Nor One. This can be groked by discharging the polarity.

I am separate
I am One

Cycled backwards and forwards can produce remarkable results. :happydance:

So, how would one run this dichotemy?

Use postulate processing maybe?

Get the idea of all being one.

Change that idea as closely as you can to all being separate?
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_field Link by Dulloldfart

This is D-Y-N-O-M-I-T-E!! :happydance:

On the subject of morphic and morphogentic fields...one is localized and one is not. Interesting. I guess maybe its like the difference between the body blueprint that actually grows the fetus in uterine and the concept of the fourth dynamic oversoul or group mind. Pondering these _ I wonder which one could be closest to our concept of the OT III material.
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Crusader
[B said:
Panda Termint
[B said:
;

It has always struck me as a VERY curious thing that, assuming the whole Xenu thing is an invented Hubb-crock, why did I choose the metaphor I used ("I feel like I'm sitting on a volcano, waiting to blow up!") to describe my feelings?

I watched an old tech film that has been taken off the market since 1982. ( It was filmed in 1980) In it the pc's case was cracked by the auditor's willingness to pick up on the terms being used by the individual who went into a dive. It was a PTS handling video with David Mayo. In it the young woman was a celeb who had gone to a family reunion attended by a psychiatrist acquaintance from her childhood. Later the case went into a rollercoaster. Listless depression and anxiety. There were suppressed memories of a childhood molestation. By paying attention to the particular use of words by the pc and the actions and avoidances, the C/S got the right clue as to what was going on with this case.

Last week, while reading Pierre Ethier's account of Lisa McPhereson, I noticed he pointed out what she was originating in her handlings and the words she chose to express her feelings. He cited that paying attention to exact expressions told him where she was stuck in an unflat L-11.

I had to do a D of P also to account for my descriptions for the downturn in my life. I actually was asked outright if someone had given me the confidential NOTs data. I was totally clueless. I was asked by a Miami D of P and by Flag auditors and at the AAC. Nope. Nothing.. The downturn = I'd gotten an auditor who'd had an issue with me from past existences. And Boy oh Boy. My haughtiness restimulated unconscious reactive intentions to destroy me on his part. Tracing the beams I was being knocked around by to where he was living in the Miami area was my only clue that it was him. My describing implantology from past existences, one after another, all involving the auditor as purp ..lead to the Suppressed Person Rundown.
I think a trained listener (auditor) can get to the basic of things by really hearing the words..
Unfortunately asking someone to LOCATE A TIME WHEN __X___ DID SOMETHING to you is NOT the same as asking; IS THERE AN INCIDENT OF ____X____doing something. Thus, the entire rundown missed. Wasted plane ticket. Wasted money. Wasted time off work, blow from Scn. Such is the importance of paying attention to the wording being used.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
Zinj, I asked Veda what would constitute adequate proof of "OT" abilities to him and he gave me back Hubbard's (or CofS') standards.

I was hoping for something a little more Veda-specific.

It seems, to me, somewhat disingenuous to refute all things Hubbardian when it comes to "OT" and yet use Hubbard's standard as a measuring stick of it.

I don't accept Hubbard's postulated standards as a yardstick of whether or not a Being can/does operate independently of the body, nor to judge the quality of that operating.

It's just my opinion on the matter as of now. :)

Alright, I'll try again.

"Thetan" is a Hubbardism used by Scientologists. I'm not a Scientologist. "Operating Thetan" is another Hubbardism. If I were to describe psychical or paranormal sensitivities or abilities, I'd use another term. If I use a Hubbardism, I also use quotation marks.

There are a few seeming exceptions, and these are ordinary English words, not purely Hubbardisms, such as "auditing," which does have a basic definition, and root meaning of "listen," and means, broadly, "an examination of something." I think this is an excellent term, just as I think that the basic know-how and skills of an "auditor" are worthy of isolating from the rest of Scientology. (And when that happens, it's no longer Scientology, but another subject.) Even then, I usually place the word "auditing" in quotes, when referring to it as counselling.

One of the most linked items I use is the 'Scientological Onion' statement, and its further elaboration in the e-book 'Brainwashing Manual Parallels'. 'Parallels' is kind of a clunky PDF document, it's long, has lengthy End Notes, but no handy electronic Table of Contents that one can click and go to selected places in the doc., yet, it too is based on the 'Scientological Onion' template.

That template, or pattern, recognizes that there is some good in Scientology, used both as a "defense perimeter" outer layer, and as a medium of conveyance of ideas and intentions. Without that positive (or at least neutral) element or medium, Scientology would likely not have had much influence, and we probably wouldn't be discussing it right now.

I've described this in many ways, one being the lacquer & solvent analogy. These two ingredients combined make glue, and glue hardens as the solvent evaporates.

Scientology presents communication as the "universal solvent," and new Scientologists typically will read L. Ron Hubbard's inspirational words, "The simplicity of observation itself, and only itself, is functional and will take Man from the bottom to the top. And the only thing I am trying to get you to do is look."

Then, as that Scientologist continues his involvement with Scientology, the "bait and switch" nature of Scientology (remember the "Onion") kicks in, and he finds that he is encouraged to, selectively, not look. This selective not or un-looking, becomes internalized - becomes part of the person - and thereafter seems the natural way to be.

The "bait and switch" aspect, also becomes internalized, becomes part of the person. Once this happens, it's difficult or almost impossible to explain the basic template of Scientology, as the person IS that template.

A person is introduced to Scientology and is given the Scientology term, "Operating Thetan," along with a definition and description. An 'Operating Thetan' can do things without a body. He can perceive, he can communicate with others, he can move physical objects without a body. In short, he is a god.

Then the "switch" begins, gradually, "gradiently," it begins, and, eventually, the person is presented with a watered down version of "OT," and expected to accept that, and without seeing any contradiction, without seeing the "bait and switch."

And this is repeated throughout the truth-coated and truth-lubricated subject of Scientology.
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
I just wish he would blow his charge so we could all stop hearing the continual dramatization. :melodramatic:


Mark A. Baker

I thought Scientologists admired persistance and the ability to repeat something without deviation? :roflmao:

Veda's message is a vital one especially as new people pass through ESMB all the time and the CofS prevents people from finding out what Veda knows.

Why would a FZ scientologist "wish" to suppress that message? :confused2:

I for one appreciate Veda very much, he does a fantastic job of exposing the devious "applied religious philosophy".

Keep up the good work Veda! :thumbsup:
 
I just wish he would blow his charge so we could all stop hearing the continual dramatization. :melodramatic:


Mark A. Baker


This, and similar from DIV 6 is scientology to a "T" and since you are so interested in the "COS" vs "Scientology" M Baker, I mean Scientology as practised in The Church of Scientology:

"If you criticise Scientlogy there is something wrong with you " Isn't that how it goes? (Per - guess who's definition?) Ron Hubbard the founder of scientology and the "church" that delivers it. And per your own definition.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Thanks, Veda.

I was perfectly content to accept your initial answer, my follow-up post was addressed to Zinj who questioned my use of the term "false standard".

I understand perfectly what you're saying regarding Hubbardian language and terms. I have several times described scientology as "the 'science' of inventing terms to describe things which don't exist", a paraphrase of something I stole from Frank Herbert.

I still don't see an answer to my question but perhaps it's null-and-void in your universe because I used the term "OT".

Anyone, what would you consider as satisfactory evidence that a Spiritual Being was actually demonstrating causitive abilities independent of the body?
 

RogerB

Crusader
Nice Write-up Hats!

[B said:
Panda Termint
[B said:
;

I watched an old tech film that has been taken off the market since 1982. ( It was filmed in 1980) In it the pc's case was cracked by the auditor's willingness to pick up on the terms being used by the individual who went into a dive. It was a PTS handling video with David Mayo. In it the young woman was a celeb who had gone to a family reunion attended by a psychiatrist acquaintance from her childhood. Later the case went into a rollercoaster. Listless depression and anxiety. There were suppressed memories of a childhood molestation. By paying attention to the particular use of words by the pc and the actions and avoidances, the C/S got the right clue as to what was going on with this case.

Last week, while reading Pierre Ethier's account of Lisa McPhereson, I noticed he pointed out what she was originating in her handlings and the words she chose to express her feelings. He cited that paying attention to exact expressions told him where she was stuck in an unflat L-11.

I had to do a D of P also to account for my descriptions for the downturn in my life. I actually was asked outright if someone had given me the confidential NOTs data. I was totally clueless. I was asked by a Miami D of P and by Flag auditors and at the AAC. Nope. Nothing.. The downturn = I'd gotten an auditor who'd had an issue with me from past existences. And Boy oh Boy. My haughtiness restimulated unconscious reactive intentions to destroy me on his part. Tracing the beams I was being knocked around by to where he was living in the Miami area was my only clue that it was him. My describing implantology from past existences, one after another, all involving the auditor as purp ..lead to the Suppressed Person Rundown.
I think a trained listener (auditor) can get to the basic of things by really hearing the words..
Unfortunately asking someone to LOCATE A TIME WHEN __X___ DID SOMETHING to you is NOT the same as asking; IS THERE AN INCIDENT OF ____X____doing something. Thus, the entire rundown missed. Wasted plane ticket. Wasted money. Wasted time off work, blow from Scn. Such is the importance of paying attention to the wording being used.

Nice, exact, well articulated write-up Hats!

I particularly liked the way you used your spiritual perception to locate and then recognize what was occurring between you and "beamer" from Miami. :clap:

And you are very right on the point that auditors too often not only don't hear/pay attention to what the PC is articulating in session, they sure as hell do not often enough duplicate the significance of the concept behind the words used. (Words being merely sound symbols representing concepts.) :duh:

Grokking what the PC is actually articulating is of paramount importance in session. :yes:

Rog
 
Top