Response to Communications on other Blogs


Recently I got put on moderation on Geir’s Blog because of the following exchange:


Vinaire: It is interesting to see that people are attracted toward what an “OT 8″ has to say. Here the expectations from an “OT 8″ become a filter.


Isene: Relevance? Or are you just being a jerk?


Vinaire: It is just a consideration from where I sit. Don’t let it upset you.


Isene: Being a jerk it is. I’m somewhat worried about your one-sidedness in life. Enjoy, chill. Get a life, Vin.


Vinaire: Thank you for your considerations. 

[Your comment is awaiting moderation.]


Here a comment on the “expectations from an OT 8 becoming a filter” was taken personally when it was not so intended. This shows a presence of a personal attachment to the status of OT 8. This may have also become a coveted identity.



Here is an example of a modern Scientology OT:

A Scientology OT seems to be fixated on the salvation of the self. He treats self as something that needs to be boosted up, made powerful and glorified. But self is relative, conditioned and impermanent.

“The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha

This fixation on self is one of the problems with Scientology. This is also pertinent to the manipulation of self, as in brainwashing.



I am, therefore, starting this post to overcome that barrier of being put under moderation because of some personal sensitivity. I shall be responding to communications on others blogs using this thread as necessary to avoid distractions.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On February 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

    Looks like KHTK is making the following two words popular among ex-scientologists:


    That is good.


  • vinaire  On February 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

    Marianne Toth:
    Alanzo, You probably read Katageek’s post on MEANING. I see it the way he does. A flower just grows. Doesn’t need to explain to itself how to do that. I have found it very useful to examine how the mind works. In auditing and in studying it got pretty clear. Good stuff. But there is more to Life than just that – as you very well know it. Geir used a phrase-
    the Bridge is standing in mid-air. Perfect description! What the Bridge stands in is more important than the Bridge!


    The air may or may not be important than the bridge, but the above post brings an interesting point into focus.

    Duality, or dichotomy, such as, good-evil, survive-succumb, light-darkness, etc. represent two poles. One of these two poles attracts and the other pole repels. Thus, one tends to get fixed to one or the other pole. That is how fixation starts.

    In the ‘Bridge-chasm’ dichotomy used by Hubbard, ‘Bridge’ attracts and the ‘chasm’ repels. Thus, one gets fixed to the idea of ‘Bridge’.

    As one gets more aware spiritually, the importance of the fixation starts to reduce, and the importance given to the two poles start to come into proper balance. Thus, the fixation goes away and the person feels more free.

    Similar fixation exists in the ‘spiritual-physical’ duality. One finds oneself fixed to the ‘spiritual’ pole if one is religious, or fixed to the ‘physical’ pole if one is scientific. Either fixation is a trap.

    No fixation would be the ideal state.


  • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 6:40 AM


    People make oneself right and others wrong because of the sense of individuality or ego, or… because of viewpoint.

    That means that none of the viewpoint, ego or individuality is complete in itself. Each represents a separation from completeness.

    So, Scientology worships individuality and believes in making that individuality more “able”. Scientology is basically boosting up separation, but for what purpose? This only creates more disharmony.

    What is so attractive about separation, individuality, ego, or viewpoint?


    • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 6:45 AM

      The most vocal people on Geir’s blog, including Geir himself, seem to be broadcasting their version of reality, and trying to suppress the version of reality, which differs from their own by invalidating it.

      This is disharmony of, for and by the thetans, it seems. 😀


    • Chris Thompson  On February 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM

      Vin: What is so attractive about separation, individuality, ego, or viewpoint?

      Chris: It seems that all illusion is in the direction of crystalization of stability; making things hold still; pretending that structures have some natural long-term duration.

    • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 1:22 PM

      Stable datum is necessary only when there is confusion.

      What is the ultimate confusion?


      • Chris Thompson  On February 21, 2013 at 10:21 PM

        Vinaire: Stable datum is necessary only when there is confusion. What is the ultimate confusion?

        Chris: knock-knock joke again. Ok. What is the ultimate confusion? (muscles sore tonight from wheelbarrowing all afternoon!)

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 5:45 AM

          May be the ultimate confusion is NOTHING… storm in a tea cup. 🙂


        • Chris Thompson  On February 22, 2013 at 10:29 AM

          Vinaire: May be the ultimate confusion is NOTHING.

          Chris: Hmmm, interesting. For sure it’s the ultimate conjecture! Shame on you, you know that’s unknowable!

          Seriously, even the word “conjecture” breaks down over “nothing.” (Starting to sound like ‘who’s on first?’) Nothing can’t even be conjectured about as by definition there cannot be incomplete data about it, there can only be no data about it. Only unknowable is unknowable if that, but we just don’t know!

          I think about the giant intellects who built the knowledge base on which we operate. When banged up against impossibly wrong ideas about the world, I know they moved forward resolving inconsistencies resulting in epiphanies.

          Kurt Godel is teaching me. Teaching me day after day that the universe is incomplete and in our mortal state, so are we. The idea that there is unknowable seems to demonstrate that to me. Godel teaches me that we live in a system and that by definition this system is incomplete. We can have consistent science within this universe but it will never resolve what it points to outside this universe.

          I’ve changed my mind about unknowable. We should use it sparingly and reverently and not misuse it or abuse it or take it lightly. We should never say it flippantly! Once again: NOTHING IS UNKNOWABLE; and EVERYTHING IS KNOWABLE.

          Now say it! Say this is axiomatic. hahaha

        • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 1:32 PM

          Ha ha ha! You got it, my friend. 🙂

          And I got it too. That is the joke of all jokes.

          This is like hiding in broad daylight.


  • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 9:01 PM

    In response to Spyros:

    If one is concerned about the misuse of Scientology in the Church of Scientology, then one should also be concerned about the misuse of Scientology on Geir’s blog.

    There is plenty of misuse there in terms of deliberate evaluation and invalidation.


  • vinaire  On February 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM

    In response to Spyros:

    To me, ‘spiritual’ is not something mysterious or subjective.. It is simply the software on which human beings run.


  • vinaire  On February 19, 2013 at 5:24 PM

    In response to the situation between Chris and Marildi:

    Nobody should be trying to determine the path for another. In their enthusiasm with their own wins, or conditioning, Scientologists try hard to determine the path for others by evaluating for them, and invalidating them if they disagree. This is as far from granting of beingness as one can get.

    I see Marildi doing that and Chris reacting to it.

    Granting beingness means seeing things as they are. You allow others to be what they are. You do not try to modify other people’s behavior to what you think they should be like. The ideal scene would be to help others work on what they see as inconsistencies. These may not be the same inconsistencies that you see.

    Proselytizing others, as Christians and Scientologists love to do, goes against granting of beingness. Instead one should simply follow one’s own belief and be a worthy example of one’s faith. If others see it and like it on their own accord then provide them with the knowledge they seek. But no knowledge should be enforced, especially by making others wrong for thinking differently.


  • vinaire  On February 19, 2013 at 6:19 PM

    In response to debate on criticism of Scientology:

    I think that every worthwhile subject is worthy of criticism. This debate seems to be about whether Scientology should be criticized or not. Who is worthy of criticizing it and who is not? To me it is a waste of time.

    What would be worthwhile is to pick out an inconsistency with respect to Scientology and discuss it non-judgmentally. If it is not an inconsistency for somebody then it could be explained.

    Trouble comes when the discussion moves from the subject to secondary issues, such as people’s training, qualifications, intentions, etc. The discussion is then derailed.


  • vinaire  On February 19, 2013 at 6:46 PM

    A look at a statement:

    “Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.”

    I agree with Alanzo that this is a false statement. It is actually obvious when one looks at people around one non-judgmentally.

    This statement basically serves to introvert a person looking at how he caused what happened to him. It causes him to dig into his mind unnecessarily. It goes against the 12 STEPS OF MINDFULNESS.

    Also this statement sounds absolute. What is missing here is the definition of a person. A person is basically “an isolated group of considerations that are tightly interrelated.” Such considerations simply operate like a very sophisticated computer program in response to inputs. There is no perceptible cause.

    The whole range of reactive to analytic is simply the aspects of this program. There are no separate Reactive and Analytic minds as theorized in Dianetics and Scientology. The whole gradient from extremely reactive to extremely analytic depends on how the considerations are interrelated.

    There is no entity beyond this programming that acts as the “Cause”. Any idea of self is part of this programming.


  • vinaire  On February 19, 2013 at 9:27 PM

    Being extremely logical does not necessarily translate as being intelligent.

    It may translate as being nit-picking to extreme..


  • vinaire  On February 20, 2013 at 5:57 AM

    On the state of Clear in Scientology

    If a person has no control on the State of Clear then it is not a State of Clear.


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 6:04 AM

    This is in response to Spyros:

    Individuality in SCN is only 1st Dynamic. According to LRH one IS all 8 Dynamics. If one allowed his 1st to hinder ARC with all the rest, it wouldn’t be alligned with SCN philosophy. I understand there can be misunderstanding/misapplication of the philosophical principles –that is very common.

    I’m not implying the only reason one would misunderstand/misapply is a misunderstood word. There is something above that, and that is what one duplicates in this universe (others would say ‘in his mind’). I know people that have read similar stuff as myself have understood completely different things, as they combine them with different ideas that they have. So, I cannot claim that I am right over them. But I’m certain that SCN was not meant to empower ego nor the group (such as in the case of the SO, that was more important than all). It is a balanced thing. All dynamics are equally important.


    When we talk about individuality of Scientology Axiom #1, we are talking about a much more basic concept of discreteness, rather than the concept of First Dynamic.

    It is digital versus continuous. That is the dichotomy being looked at here. It is the digital popping out of something continuous. It is the appearance of a manifestation. It is what creates separation and space.

    Scientology Axiom #1 institutionalizes this discreteness as being fundamental. I question that. It is just one half of a dichotomy, which is being assumed by Hubbard as the basis of everything.

    This is a false assumption.


    • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 6:10 AM

      NOTE: Chris, you may direct Spyros on Geir’s Blog to the response above. Let’s see what he comes up with.


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 6:20 AM

    In response to Maria:

    Marildi, you wanted the reference for the materials on responsibility. It is from Advanced Procedures and Axioms, the 14th Act:

    “DEFINITION: Responsibility is the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics.

    “There is no compromise with full responsibility. It lies above 20.0 on the tone scale and is descended from in order to effect randomity but is descended from with the full knowledge of its assumptions. It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions on every dynamic and in every sphere as one’s own. It includes such “disrelated” data as the death of an individual one has never met on a highway on which one has never traveled at the hands of a stranger no matter how culpable. One does not send to find for whom the bell tolls without full willingness to have tolled it and to have caused the cause of its tolling.

    There is a scale of responsibility between full responsibility and full other responsibility where the former is above 20.0 and the latter is at 0.0. Complete negation of responsibility is complete admission of being under the complete control of the environment. Assumption of full responsibility is a statement of control of the environment and persons within it without necessity of control.”


    Here responsibility is being perceived from a perception point that is beyond the filter of SURVIVAL and its dynamics.

    This is not the responsibility from the viewpoint of an individual (first dynamic). The individual of first dynamic is an aspect of the filter of survival.


    • Marianne Toth  On March 1, 2013 at 3:58 PM

      True. The definition could also be the definition for what happens in nondual perceiving. (with no filter)

  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM

    Looks like GPM addresses two opposites. The ultimate in two opposites are the basic dichotomies, such as, Good-Evil, Survive-Succumb, One-Many, Digital-Continuous, etc.


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 3:03 PM

    In response to Maria:

    How does one forsake individuality? That doesn’t make sense. Individuality does not disappear when one agrees with another completely. There is simply a larger individuality. When two drops merge, there is a larger drop. The individuality is still there.

    So, I wonder what Hubbard’s idea of individuality is. Is individuality some unique consideration that one forsakes? Or is individuality something with a boundary, which keeps it separate.

    To me, individuality is like a doughnot hole as described in PERCEPTION & KNOWLEDGE. Here the doughnut is a system of tightly knit considerations. Two doughnuts may merge into a larger doughnut. A universe is probably an all encompassing doughnut called EXISTENCE.

    The only way the individuality can be forsaken is by dissolving the doughnut (the system of closely knit considerations) altogether.

    Hubbard seems to be looking at individuality as a unique doughnut of a certain color and size. To him losing that color and size would be the forsaking the individuality. Individuality does not exist outside of MEST.

    This is where Hubbard fails to understand Buddha and the concept of Nirvana. Nirvana is not some single source. Nirvana is the dissolution of that doughnut. Individuality is a mirage to start with. It is the doughnut hole.

    If there are a lot of individualities, it means there are lot of doughnut holes. Individuality is not lost when they merge into each other or with the universe. There is simply a larger doughnut, and a larger doughnut hole.

    All that auditing is doing is resolving the inconsistencies within that system of tightly knit considerations. It loosens and simplifies those considerations until they are ultimately dissolved completely. This does not happen when one is tightly holding on to a consideration of individuality.


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 5:16 PM

    in response to Maria:

    Of course, there is neither one no many sources of life. Individualities are just clumps of considerations that dissolve individually without affecting other clumps What they dissolve into is unknowable, or Brahma, which has no attributes or characteristics.

    Auditing, when taken all the way should serve to dissolve the tightly knit considerations, which give the impression of individuality. However, auditing seems to stop at a point where the clump of considerations is happily consistent within itself.

    It is consistent but not complete. 🙂


  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 5:51 PM

    in response to Maria:

    ” It is notable that he considered existence as a human being to be a great boon and opportunity for liberation.”


    Apparently, life evolves until intelligence enters at the upper echelon of this evolution. It is like the development of a mental-physical system to a point that it can start influencing itself. Human existence is that state. It is the result of millions of years of evolution.

    A macromolecule has the capability of supporting very primitive computing circuits. As these macromolecules combine, the circuits multiply and the computing capability evolves. At first this computing capability is reactive; but as the structure improves, more sophisticated computing abilities emerge. There must come a point where the computations start influencing the structure itself. This would be the point where life emerges out of chemical reactions.

    So, the first phase of evolution seems to be from inanimate to self-animated structure. In the second phase of the evolution, the computing ability as well as the structure evolves much more rapidly. Whatever level the computing ability is at, it is influencing the structure toward supporting more sophisticated computations.

    A breakthrough seems to occur at the level of mammals where where the computations become able to spot and resolve inconsistencies beyond individual and in the communal existence.

    Further computing abilities seems to emerge at human level where the computations seem to venture into the dimension of abstraction and are able to model and address inconsistencies at deeper levels.


    To summarize, the basis of evolution appear to be spotting and resolving of inconsistencies. This has been going on from the inanimate level of simple chemical reactions to the emergence of life as a self-motivated structure, to the emergence of self-motivated social life, to the scientific intelligence capable of modeling at higher and higher abstract levels. Inconsistencies may now be resolved at much deeper levels. That is what seems to be happening.


  • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 5:23 PM

    In response to Marildi

    Marianne, here are the definitions from the Tech Dict. I’ll try to find a reference that adds more to these.

    STATIC, 1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time,and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero.(5410CM06) …


    Per the above definition, the static is ‘something’. It is zero only in terms of MEST. It is not zero in terms of something else and that would be consideration. So, the static is a consideration.

    How does the consideration of Static come about?

    This is the same age old question. “Who created God?” Hubbard simply said, “God created the physical universe. God is not physical.” This does not add anything new at the fundamental level. It also does not answer the fundamental questions.

    Hubbard simply provided a new covering, but no fundamental answers.


  • vinaire  On February 22, 2013 at 10:10 PM

    On Geir’s site I am still under moderation. On

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    2013-02-23 AT 02:35
    What makes you most irritable?



    I guess I irritate the hell out of him. Well his irritation is directly proportional to his ego. He is resisting like hell to the idea of “Unknowable”. Ha ha.

    Geir is responsible for his condition. He may blame me for it though.


    • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 7:23 AM

      Finally Geir responded to my question as follows:

      Arrogance, intolerance and insistence that others are wrong.


      To me a highly developed person would be very patient with such follies in others. A person who is getting irritated is being controlled by the other person. Such a person is reacting and blaming the other person for his own condition.

      This is the kind of non-confront, or inability to handle, which has brought about the concepts of SP/PTSs in Scientology.

      There are no SPs and PTSs. There are only behaviors that the technology of Scientology is unable to handle. Scientology is not as workable as it is made out to be.

      Anybody can pick low hanging fruits. What Scientology has produced as results, is nothing new. Such results are being produced in abundance in the east through Vipassana meditation and similar technologies. What Scientology has done is to apply PR technology and make a lot of money out of promoting such results. But these are low hanging fruits.

      But when when the push comes to shove, Scientology can only respond by declaring people to be SPs and PTSs. This is simply an admission of failure by Scientology in my eyes.

      So, Geir, in feeling irritated by Vinaire, and repeatedly putting “Vinaire” on vacation on his blog, is simply admitting his inability to deal with Vinaire and his ideas.


      NOTE: My responses to Geir on his blog are continued to be moderated. It is not because I am obnoxious. It is simply because Geir feels that his “OT 8 status” might be unmocked by my responses.


  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 5:55 AM

    In response to Chris

    Al: crickets

    Chris: If only you could go back in time and re-do the Tony Hitchman interview. What would that look like?


    The idea of STATIC replaces GOD in Scientology. “Who created STATIC?” is unanswered. In Hubbard’s view there are many STATICS with each STATIC being the essence of each individual (THETAN). Hubbard talks about “co-existence of Static” as a level where all individualities exist together. He heavily resists the idea of the individualities being formed out of some single reality.

    There may not be some prior “single reality” such as GOD, which is an idea based on the assumption that there must be a prior Cause. But Hubbard subscribes to that assumption as recorded in his FACTOR # 1.

    Essentially, Hubbard is saying that each individual is his own God but we don’t know how that God comes about. Hubbard doesn’t want to look beyond this point. This makes Scientology POLYTHEISTIC.

    This is like saying that each “Doughnut Hole” has been there forever.


    • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2013 at 10:51 AM

      Yesterday I was thinking how LRH, even in a theatrical scene with total control over the interview questions, Tony Hitchman, etc., still comes across so smarmy and condescending that when watching himself, it must have been apparent to him. Thus this interview in my opinion was an important reason why LRH made firm policy to never ever give interviews to the press. He blamed the press for the way in which he comes across. I did a quick google to find the complete Hitchman interview and only posted that clip because it was what I found. I wasn’t really trying to show LRH’s opinion of God — even in this short clip, he is disingenuous.

      In 1991, When David Miscavige blatantly violated this policy by giving the Nightline interview to Ted Koppel , I was gobsmacked! That was the first time I remember being jolted into wondering about the firm foundation of Scientology leadership. I thought, “That’s a ‘know-best’.”

      LRH never had the nerve to do this and David Miscavige shouldn’t have either. DM’s responses to Ted Koppel are so lame and inconsistent that in retrospect, I imagine that I can see him channeling LRH.

      • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 11:06 AM

        I see the same characteristics in how Geir runs his blog. He cannot stomach any criticism or disagreement. He is disingenuous and loves strutting like a peacock. He is vary controlling of communications on his blog. All the “discussions” there are so lame that I have lost my interest in that blog.

        I am going to stop following that blog and focus on KHTK research.


  • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 6:15 AM

    The principle of ARC in Scientology is inconsistent because it postulates a “co-existence of Static” as its ultimate.

    What does “coexistence of Static” mean. It seems to mean two different individualities co-existing. For this differentiation to be there space must exist. Thus, in Hubbard’s model, space never goes to zero because no merging takes place.

    Hubbard is basically saying that two drops of water can co-exist without merging into each other.

    Self-contradiction? Inconsistency?


    • Chris Thompson  On February 23, 2013 at 11:12 AM

      Kurt Godel keeps teaching me. And here’s one beauty of it. Hubbard’s construct can be perfectly consistent within itself. I think that consistency is self defining. One only gets into trouble when they try to apply it to a world view outside its own world view, the world view of Hubbard. Take a look at this statement and see how that looks to you.

      • vinaire  On February 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

        It is like eating the apple in the Garden of Eden. 🙂


%d bloggers like this: