Roland (roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net) wrote:
>>      Yes but -17 on the tone scale as a real thetan is way saner than
>> 3.0 as a made of meat meatball who is wondering what is going on and
>> can't see the demons in his face.

>Sod the Tone Scale. This was just an off-the-top-of-the-head idea of
>Hubbard's. What the hell did he know?

    I happen to find the tone scale very real to me, if it was
off the top of his head, then I should have a head like that.

    OK sod the tone scale.  Point is civilized homo sap is a quiet
baboon in a baboon cage compared to an angry thetan dealing with
the devil.

>Your choice. I prefer the situation you left.

    I accept that.

>>     OK, I agree, stable data.  But people have to be able to observe
>> changes.  Internal subjective changes happen first, they just aren't
>> observable except through testimonial.

>I've got no disagreemnet with that. It's just that the *fundamental*
>assumptions of Clearing should be tested to destruction (IMO) such that
>when a person embarks on creating Rundowns and what have you they know
>what the are doing, as well as the poepl about to receive these
>Rundowns.

     Well how do you suggest we test them, except by extrapolating
processes from them, and then auditing like hell with those processes
until we either do or do not get a result?

     If you won't submit as experimental guinea pig, then we need to
find other subjects.

>>      God I was wrong about you, you aren't a meatball at all, you are
>> a god damn fruit cake new age crystal gazer.

>But I am not a Kooscake, I hope.

     No Roland, you are quite lucid, and able to talk with.

     Not a meatball at all, and quite calm in fact, I approve deeply
if anyone gives a shit.

>I do see your point. Maybe I am too much of a "nanny state" person for
>you. That would be understandable. If I strat to go mad then I want
>somebody to grab hold of me and electric shock me or whathaveyou to make
>me sane again. In other words I want sonmeone to rescue be from the
>Abyss if I seriously lose my way. I trust the ordinary "meatball" public
>to do this.

     OK, it is your option to trust the meatball public to do this,
maybe I should move to England forthwith, because if you come over
here, they will shock you and drug you and lock you up until you don't
exist any more, and then cut your brain out.

     Maybe England is more spiritually aware.

>I believe we live only once as the ordinary point of view. I don't bump
>into many of my dead relatives. Therefore, from an ordinary point of
>view, there is no life after death. I am happy to be proven wrong about
>this but it is up to the person who makes the "extra-ordinary claim" (in
>the sense of being beyond the ordinary and observed) to prove their
>point. 

     It is not up to them to do anything, they are free to claim
anything they wish and are under no burden of proof to anyone.

     Anyhow for me, no claim is made that OT powers or past lives
exist, only that the virtual dream theory is an alternate respectable
theory to explain existence, and from it one can derive the
possibility that consciousness is not the body, and therefore has
lived before and might have great dream powers.

     It is a theory, leading to predictions, leading to
experimentation in the grandest of scientific tradition.

     Further I would assert that OT powers and such do not and can not
exist in the normal meatball theory of existence, namely the
consciousness arose out of MEST, and therefore that theory will never
give rise to predictions of OT powers, nor to theoretical mechanisms
by which they might be attained.

     I further assert that the ONLY theory that gives any possibility
of OT powers and past lives is one that raises the conscious unit
senior to mest, in others words MEST arose from consciousness, not the
other way around, and I also assert that a little thought about the
ramifications of that theory lead to all kinds of predictions and
experiments and routes towards attaining the OT powers that are
implied.

     *YOU* have to understand please that if OT powers exist, the
meatball theory of existence, that consciousness arose from MEST, is
*WRONG*.  Then we can start looking at the alternate theory, that MEST
or the apparency thereof arose from consciousness, and start to make
productive headway out of finding out how either to get OT powers for
the first time, or recover them.

     Notice that if we had OT powers and lost them, then it is
reasonable to hypothesize that maybe our OT powers were used to NOT
have OT powers, and probably those OT powers we used to not have OT
powers are still active now IN PRESENT TIME, keeping us still unable
to use our OT powers.

     Thus the view that we don't have OT powers and need to get them
may be semantically misleading if we are using them to keep ourselves
limited in present time.

     So an address to what OT powers we are using to not have OT
powers, and *WHY* we are doing this, might go an awful long ways
towards unraveling the ball of yarn, wouldn't you say?
 
>>      Every one of them is completely and totally wrong, just as
>> everyone of them was wrong when they believed the Earth was flat and in
>> the center of the universe.

>But having been put to that test then the results have been stupendous.
>We have had people on the moon and probes on Venus/Mars and what have
>you.

     This is true I admit this.

     However the accomplishments of man in the realm of physical
science, in no way denies the possible truth of the virtual dream
theory.  It might only mean that although man is figuring out the
implied mechanics of the projected dream, he is still clueless about
how the dream is projected or that it even is a virtual dream in the
first place.

     Please admit this.

     The dreamball theory is not silly, it is on equal par to the
meatball theory, and there are no convincing reasons presently to
choose one or the other.
 
     Meatballs say consciousness arose out of mest, dreamballs say
that mest arises out of consciousness.  Which now is the
'extra-ordinary theory', eh?

    Upon whom is the burden of proof?

>>      Checking one's own reality against others is fine, but handing
>> over the final adjudication and veto to other's reality is nuts and is
>> a service fac safe solution and serious out integrity situation.

>But deciding what you want to achive out of a spiritual venture and
>sticking to it might at least save you from insanity.

     Having tried to climb Mount Everest say, and almost falling into
the abyss of ice, one might be inclined to not do it alone, seek help,
professional help, guidance from sherpas, climbers etc, but one would
not tend to seek the advice of the common man, particularly those who
didn't believe the mountain existed, nor those who had never climbed
one, nor those who had religious biases against climbing mountains,
nor those who had financial vested interests in the rest of us
remaining valley bound.

     That rules out everyone but Free Zoners, Roland :)
 
>I know what you mean, but if the public say Koos is nuts then they are
>right, 

     I don't get this.  What the public says has nothing too do with
truth.  Majority opinion is not a priori true.

     Majority opinion can in fact be counted upon to be wrong, as only
the few at any time have the wisdom to see beyond it and carry men to
the next level of education and evolution upwards.

>If there is a true path to spiritual evolution then it will be crossed
>in short stages - not by a leap.

     I don't know.  Maybe for most.  For some its more like a rocket
ride.  The pioneers, the spiritual frontiersmen.

     For the rest, they don't want a rocket ride, they want a well
marked trail, which is what happened in the Church.

     Probably those looking to buy a well marked trail, should subject
the purveyor to stringent burdens of proof before they put their money
and sanity down, but there are ontological and political problems with
the kind of proof that some people require.

     I wouldn't go moving any marbles for anyone, no matter how much
money they had.

     Homer