Are delusions useful or necessary.

[degraded being]

This thread comes about as a response to some of Kha Khan's thread: Why do YOU cling to the "Tech?"

I don't want to derail his thread by focussing on one issue.

After scientology - but not as a reaction against scientology - I got the idea that it would be good to get rid of all my delusions - to see the world as it is. I thought it would be good if everyone did this, but didn't push it on anyone.
To me, getting rid of delusions tied in with Eastern ideas as I interpreted them.

I did not pursue this in a very structured way. It was just one purpose or objective in ideas I was thinking about, trying to see the world as it is.

After some years, for some reason I came to think that although I was not free of delusions, I was a lot better at recognizing them in myself and others. I had a sort of ephiphany which was that "People NEED delusions".
I did not get too analytical beyond that. I did not start to think that delusions should just be accepted, more along the lines that you can't just rip away all delusions, because if that was done a person might go nuts. So I just decided that if they were there that was ok, but best to anylyze them, criticize them, investigate them and find out about them, and if they could be gotten rid of it would probably enable a much better view of the world.

I think all the BTs stuff, and the "good" BTs, AKA "spiritual teammates" and "angels" "guides" "entities" or a belief which is strong but cannot define them, are delusions. More so to the degree that they are given autonomy. I suppose there are lots of other things people would call delusions.

The type of delusion I have mentioned gets more popular everyday. I only see two things in it. One is a lack of ability to question things. The other is an unwillingness to question things. The first can be changed by some sort of education. The second often persists despite education.
What are the payoffs? What are the deficits? of delusions.

[HelluvaHoax!]

This thread comes about as a response to some of Kha Khan's thread: Why do YOU cling to the "Tech?"

I don't want to derail his thread by focussing on one issue.

After scientology - but not as a reaction against scientology - I got the idea that it would be good to get rid of all my delusions - to see the world as it is. I thought it would be good if everyone did this, but didn't push it on anyone.
To me, getting rid of delusions tied in with Eastern ideas as I interpreted them.

I did not pursue this in a very structured way. It was just one purpose or objective in ideas I was thinking about, trying to see the world as it is.

After some years, for some reason I came to think that although I was not free of delusions, I was a lot better at recognizing them in myself and others. I had a sort of ephiphany which was that "People NEED delusions".
I did not get too analytical beyond that. I did not start to think that delusions should just be accepted, more along the lines that you can't just rip away all delusions, because if that was done a person might go nuts. So I just decided that if they were there that was ok, but best to anylyze them, criticize them, investigate them and find out about them, and if they could be gotten rid of it would probably enable a much better view of the world.

I think all the BTs stuff, and the "good" BTs, AKA "spiritual teammates" and "angels" "guides" "entities" or a belief which is strong but cannot define them, are delusions. More so to the degree that they are given autonomy. I suppose there are lots of other things people would call delusions.

The type of delusion I have mentioned gets more popular everyday. I only see two things in it. One is a lack of ability to question things. The other is an unwillingness to question things. The first can be changed by some sort of education. The second often persists despite education.
What are the payoffs? What are the deficits? of delusions.

so.......................IS IGNORANCE BLISS???

Example: You are sailing your super-yacht around the world solo but your boat sinks. You eventually make it to a remote island inhabited by the happiest natives one can imagine.

While you try to organize getting back to the world, you live with these people and learn their ways. Everything about their lives is filled with joy. Laughter abounds. There is no war, no insanity. It is the proverbial utopian dream life of no poverty nor suffering.

Eventually you are trusted enough for them to confide their secret knowledge.

They worship the god of the cave. He provides them with everything imaginable and has done so for the past 1000 years.

And when a man or woman becomes of certain age he leads them to an even greater utopian heaven for immortal bliss. This they know with a certainty that is absolute.

One fine day you witness a 30ish man leading a procession to the cave. He is ready to go to nirvana. He waves goodbye and walks in the cave. Everyone smiles and is overjoyed. He disappears into the darkness inside.

One day you wrecklessly decide you want to meet God personally. You venture into the cave and walk for what must be a mile of downwardly twisting tunnels. It grows colder by the minute. Eventually you enter an ice cavern. It is there that you see the face of God, well sort of....

You begin to slip and slide on the icy surface and moments before you fall off a steep ledge you somehow catch yourself. You have very narrowly averted certain death. But as you look down below, there are what looks to be MILLIONS of skeletons piled up of those who perished in an identical icy plunge. Here lies a millennium of natives who "saw the face of God and went to nirvana".

And, the 30ish man who recently entered the cave lies within sight, still alive, but paralyzed from the fall and in agonizing pain. His transcendent journey was only in everyone's imagination. Reality is shocking.

You make your way back from the deep caverns and are faced with a profound conundrum.

Do you tell the happy natives what you have seen?

Or do you leave them in blissful ignorance? (or "delusion" as this excellent thread describes it).

What do you do? (golden age of delusion command?)

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

This thread comes about as a response to some of Kha Khan's thread: Why do YOU cling to the "Tech?"

I don't want to derail his thread by focussing on one issue.

After scientology - but not as a reaction against scientology - I got the idea that it would be good to get rid of all my delusions - to see the world as it is. I thought it would be good if everyone did this, but didn't push it on anyone.
To me, getting rid of delusions tied in with Eastern ideas as I interpreted them.



The problem with this lies in the fact that Scientology was never intended to make one free of delusion, it was intended to replace a person's sense of reality, with L. Ron Hubbard's drug induced delusions and paranoia.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

so.......................IS IGNORANCE BLISS???

Example: You are sailing your super-yacht around the world solo but your boat sinks. You eventually make it to a remote island inhabited by the happiest natives one can imagine.

While you try to organize getting back to the world, you live with these people and learn their ways. Everything about their lives is filled with joy. Laughter abounds. There is no war, no insanity. It is the proverbial utopian dream life of no poverty nor suffering.

Eventually you are trusted enough for them to confide their secret knowledge.

They worship the god of the cave. He provides them with everything imaginable and has done so for the past 1000 years.

And when a man or woman becomes of certain age he leads them to an even greater utopian heaven for immortal bliss. This they know with a certainty that is absolute.

One fine day you witness a 30ish man leading a procession to the cave. He is ready to go to nirvana. He waves goodbye and walks in the cave. Everyone smiles and is overjoyed. He disappears into the darkness inside.

One day you wrecklessly decide you want to meet God personally. You venture into the cave and walk for what must be a mile of downwardly twisting tunnels. It grows colder by the minute. Eventually you enter an ice cavern. It is there that you see the face of God, well sort of....

You begin to slip and slide on the icy surface and moments before you fall off a steep ledge you somehow catch yourself. You have very narrowly averted certain death. But as you look down below, there are what looks to be MILLIONS of skeletons piled up of those who perished in an identical icy plunge. Here lies a millennium of natives who "saw the face of God and went to nirvana".

And, the 30ish man who recently entered the cave lies within sight, still alive, but paralyzed from the fall and in agonizing pain. His transcendent journey was only in everyone's imagination. Reality is shocking.

You make your way back from the deep caverns and are faced with a profound conundrum.

Do you tell the happy natives what you have seen?

Or do you leave them in blissful ignorance? (or "delusion" as this excellent thread describes it).

What do you do? (golden age of delusion command?)

And it was only supposed to be a three-hour tour.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[RolandRB]

This thread comes about as a response to some of Kha Khan's thread: Why do YOU cling to the "Tech?"

I don't want to derail his thread by focussing on one issue.

After scientology - but not as a reaction against scientology - I got the idea that it would be good to get rid of all my delusions - to see the world as it is. I thought it would be good if everyone did this, but didn't push it on anyone.
To me, getting rid of delusions tied in with Eastern ideas as I interpreted them.

I did not pursue this in a very structured way. It was just one purpose or objective in ideas I was thinking about, trying to see the world as it is.

After some years, for some reason I came to think that although I was not free of delusions, I was a lot better at recognizing them in myself and others. I had a sort of ephiphany which was that "People NEED delusions".
I did not get too analytical beyond that. I did not start to think that delusions should just be accepted, more along the lines that you can't just rip away all delusions, because if that was done a person might go nuts. So I just decided that if they were there that was ok, but best to anylyze them, criticize them, investigate them and find out about them, and if they could be gotten rid of it would probably enable a much better view of the world.

I think all the BTs stuff, and the "good" BTs, AKA "spiritual teammates" and "angels" "guides" "entities" or a belief which is strong but cannot define them, are delusions. More so to the degree that they are given autonomy. I suppose there are lots of other things people would call delusions.

The type of delusion I have mentioned gets more popular everyday. I only see two things in it. One is a lack of ability to question things. The other is an unwillingness to question things. The first can be changed by some sort of education. The second often persists despite education.
What are the payoffs? What are the deficits? of delusions.

I'll ask Jesus and see what He thinks.

[Dulloldfart]

Are you an immortal spiritual being deluded into thinking you're a mortal physical being?

Are you a mortal physical being deluded into thinking you're an immortal spiritual being?

Oh, you know for certain. That's nice. HOW?

Paul

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Are you an immortal spiritual being deluded into thinking you're a mortal physical being?

Are you a mortal physical being deluded into thinking you're an immortal spiritual being?

Oh, you know for certain. That's nice. HOW?

Paul

Nobody knows and anyone who claims he or she knows is either batshit crazy or a liar, or as in Hubbard's case ... both. This is one of the very few situations in life which is unambitious, it is purely black and white

[degraded being]

Are you an immortal spiritual being deluded into thinking you're a mortal physical being?

Are you a mortal physical being deluded into thinking you're an immortal spiritual being?

Oh, you know for certain. That's nice. HOW?

Paul

I don't know.

A: "Who's uncle alf talking to, auntie?"
B: "Oh that's just his body thetans dear."
A: "Have I got body thetans auntie?"
B: "When you do your OT 3 you will have, dear"

[michaelangelo]

I know I'm a spiritual being cos uncle ronnie told me.

How to to know you are a Spiritual Being
Close your eyes, Now, think of a cat. Do you see a cat in your mind? Now whose looking at the cat...........

Maybe i'm the cat!

[HelluvaHoax!]

1. Are you an immortal spiritual being deluded into thinking you're a mortal physical being?

2. Are you a mortal physical being deluded into thinking you're an immortal spiritual being?

Oh, you know for certain. That's nice. HOW?

Paul

Shall we complete the triptych? OR.........

3. Are you neither an immortal spiritual being nor a mortal physical being but something entirely different and deluded into thinking those are the only 2 choices?

[michaelangelo]

Shall we complete the triptych? OR.........

3. Are you neither an immortal spiritual being nor a mortal physical being but something entirely different and deluded into thinking those are the only 2 choices?
Maybe I'm a Soul and part of the light that annimates me and all living things.
Just a thought.

[Feral]

There s a difference between delusions and illusions.

'My son is the best little boy in the world' is an illusion I cherish, among many others, some of which, if mentioned wll put me n the doghouse with Mrs. Pattycake.

Are you differentiating here or are they all delusions?

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Shall we complete the triptych? OR.........

3. Are you neither an immortal spiritual being nor a mortal physical being but something entirely different and deluded into thinking those are the only 2 choices?

Oh you mean people who haven't fallen for Hubbard's con game, do not walk around all day in a white lab coats yelling "MAN IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BRAIN !!! ... A BRAIN !!!"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dftaP5eLD0o

[HelluvaHoax!]

I know I'm a spiritual being cos uncle ronnie told me.

How to to know you are a Spiritual Being
Close your eyes, Now, think of a cat. Do you see a cat in your mind? Now whose looking at the cat...........

Maybe i'm the cat!

Great news, there was a transcriptionist error in that "look at a picture of a cat" trick.

Now we have the NEW Golden Age of cool-tech-tricks for use by Registrars:

example:

REG: Close your eyes
(raw meat): "Okay"

REG: Now get a picture of a dollar bill
(raw meat) "I did it."

REG: Thank you! Do you see that dollar bill?
(raw meat) "Yes, I see it."

REG: Alright! Now...who is looking at that dollar bill?
(raw meat) "You are."

[degraded being]

There s a difference between delusions and illusions.

'My son is the best little boy in the world' is an illusion I cherish, among many others, some of which, if mentioned wll put me n the doghouse with Mrs. Pattycake.

Are you differentiating here or are they all delusions?


I am.


Quote: virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/IllusionDelusion.html
"
An illusion is a misleading perception, usually visual. You see something, but you consistently misjudge its length, shape, motion or direction. To avoid further confusion, illusions are distinctly different from hallucinations – which involve sensing something that is not actually present. In contrast, illusions deal with stimuli that are actually present, but they are misinterpreted or hard to interpret.

For example, look at the Müller-Lyer illusion shown to the right. Look at the horizontal lines. Typically the top line will be seen as being longer. However, they are both the same length. If you don't believe me, measure them yourself.

Another illusion involves the Necker cube shown to the left. Are you looking down on a cube from above? Or are you looking up at a cube from below? If you concentrate on the solid dot in the upper left, you will seem to be looking down on the cube. If you concentrate on the open dot in the lower right, it will seem that you are looking up at a cube from underneath it. For most people, as their concentration shifts from dot to dot, the cube seems to "flip-flop" – the front and back sides seem to reverse themselves. For people who are used to seeing things only one way – in this case, usually looking down on a cube – they might find it difficult to get the cube to shift.

"An illusion is a perceptual disturbance,
while a delusion is a belief disturbance."

On the other hand, a delusion is a deeply held false belief that is maintained – even when other information contradicts the belief. The contradictory information is either ignored completely or discounted in some way. Many prejudices rely on stereotypes that apply to a small minority in a group, but these stereotypes become delusional when they are used to judge everyone in that group. Beside race, religion, sex, ethnic group and nationality, occupational and age groups can develop stereotypes. Very few computer experts are "nerds," and only a small minority of athletes are "dumb jocks." Likewise, few teenagers are "delinquents," and only a small percentage of the elderly are "old fogies." However, people – who hold strong prejudices against these groups – will ignore the contradictory information and characterize all or most members of the group with these stereotyped labels.

In their extreme form, delusions and hallucinations are symptoms of people who are psychotic – they cannot clearly distinguish what is real from what is not. With psychotic disorders, hallucinations are most frequently auditory – like hearing voices."

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

There s a difference between delusions and illusions.

'My son is the best little boy in the world' is an illusion I cherish, among many others, some of which, if mentioned wll put me n the doghouse with Mrs. Pattycake.

Are you differentiating here or are they all delusions?

Thinking your son is the best little boy in the world is an illusion, quitting your job because you think he will be the first five year old to win a Nobel Peace Prize in Physics is a delusion.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Oh you mean people who haven't fallen for Hubbard's con game, do not walk around all day in a white lab coats yelling "MAN IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BRAIN !!! ... A BRAIN !!!"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dftaP5eLD0o

OR:

4. Are you a delusional charlatan who claims to be the reincarnated Buddha who came back to make cringe-inducing anti-psych promo movies as Source for a treacherously deceptive money cult masquerading as man's only salvation?

[Feral]

I am.


Quote: virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/IllusionDelusion.html
"
An illusion is a misleading perception, usually visual. You see something, but you consistently misjudge its length, shape, motion or direction. To avoid further confusion, illusions are distinctly different from hallucinations – which involve sensing something that is not actually present. In contrast, illusions deal with stimuli that are actually present, but they are misinterpreted or hard to interpret.

For example, look at the Müller-Lyer illusion shown to the right. Look at the horizontal lines. Typically the top line will be seen as being longer. However, they are both the same length. If you don't believe me, measure them yourself.

Another illusion involves the Necker cube shown to the left. Are you looking down on a cube from above? Or are you looking up at a cube from below? If you concentrate on the solid dot in the upper left, you will seem to be looking down on the cube. If you concentrate on the open dot in the lower right, it will seem that you are looking up at a cube from underneath it. For most people, as their concentration shifts from dot to dot, the cube seems to "flip-flop" – the front and back sides seem to reverse themselves. For people who are used to seeing things only one way – in this case, usually looking down on a cube – they might find it difficult to get the cube to shift.

"An illusion is a perceptual disturbance,
while a delusion is a belief disturbance."

On the other hand, a delusion is a deeply held false belief that is maintained – even when other information contradicts the belief. The contradictory information is either ignored completely or discounted in some way. Many prejudices rely on stereotypes that apply to a small minority in a group, but these stereotypes become delusional when they are used to judge everyone in that group. Beside race, religion, sex, ethnic group and nationality, occupational and age groups can develop stereotypes. Very few computer experts are "nerds," and only a small minority of athletes are "dumb jocks." Likewise, few teenagers are "delinquents," and only a small percentage of the elderly are "old fogies." However, people – who hold strong prejudices against these groups – will ignore the contradictory information and characterize all or most members of the group with these stereotyped labels.

In their extreme form, delusions and hallucinations are symptoms of people who are psychotic – they cannot clearly distinguish what is real from what is not. With psychotic disorders, hallucinations are most frequently auditory – like hearing voices."

You're limiting your def. to optical illusions. I wasn't. So, how do you cover my example DB?

[Shredder]

Hey DB your post re delusion "...One is a lack of ability to question things. The other is an unwillingness to question things..." is a good start.

It was (almost) impossible to grant the space and time to do this ...(question) from 'within' Scientology. Even after my time as a staff member, I was very involved with fundraising and activities in the field. I couldn't seem to do enough (an idea I bought pretty early on) to make any sort of a dent in what seemed to be a bottomless need of the 'impossible'.
I was just too busy trying to do the impossible with the task at hand (related to helping the org) - I took 4 weeks off work to try and get the bulk of this task done - and it was only when I came up for a breather and looked a little ahead to where there was an end to this task, and that I had another goal I could possibly pursue - but it was also org related, shit! I needed to eat, pay rent, pay bills etc not to mention that there was possibly a bridge ahead I was led to believe I could get on...

It took quite some reach from some incredibly brave people, with huge risks involved - including friendships and even family members on the line...that has led me to having the opportunity to step out...with a little help from these very compassionate souls (who are all quite prolific on this board and all that support from others on this board to keep looking) who have stepped out on a limb and do so on a daily basis - and turned their efforts, laid out their stories, their dirty laundry, their deepest darkest thoughts and fears. and they have given freely their findings after a huge investment in Scientology.
Great, and I mean great sacrifices over 10, 20 and even 30 or so years of honest hard earned money and valuable time spent on helping this organisation - putting a hold on time spent with their children, spouses and family.
Now whilst gaining ground again and creating their lives to include their families and in lots of cases, new friends - these guys are actually 'helping others' LOOK...and QUESTION...and actually decide for themselves.
Thank you for such an insightful post, it just reminded me of how fortunate I am to know you guys.

...and thank you Doom, Feral, Carms, Mrs Pattycake, Scoots, Panda and Supra for reaching me and helping me look further - and continue some of those basics like human rights - something I believe Scientologists think they are applying with the Aims of Scn and the Creed of Scn; professing this is their aim and creed - they not just never quite manage to apply but violate - as they are under the delusion of Scientology.

[michaelangelo]

Great news, there was a transcriptionist error in that "look at a picture of a cat" trick.

Now we have the NEW Golden Age of cool-tech-tricks for use by Registrars:

example:

REG: Close your eyes
(raw meat): "Okay"

REG: Now get a picture of a dollar bill
(raw meat) "I did it."

REG: Thank you! Do you see that dollar bill?
(raw meat) "Yes, I see it."

REG: Alright! Now...who is looking at that dollar bill?
(raw meat) "You are."

Yeah and when you open your eyes your wallet has gone.

[degraded being]

You're limiting your def. to optical illusions. I wasn't. So, how do you cover my example DB?



Actually illusion and delusion are so similar IMO that they could be synonymous in certain contexts.

I am not so interested here in lesser degree situations where a person knows they are to some degree seeing through rose tinted spectacles - or other-tinted spectacles.
Or when someone is pretending that a situation or thing that really exists is a bit different than it truly is.

I am more interested in believing something exists when there is no evidence. The fact that it has not been proven to not exist is not sufficient to assert that it absolutely does. And per the dictionary a delusion is often held to be existing when there is good evidence that it doesn't.
I am specifically interested in "entities" as delusions. It can be a matter of degree. They could be an "illusion" for some but become "delusions" maybe without the person noticing the transition.
When BTs and other "entities" are communicated with, it could make illusions become delusions, as the "entities" are given autonomy.
So, there is very probably a fuzzy boundary between illusion and delusion, but this is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Just another passing thought too...when people do a "spinner" on OT levels, well, maybe the idea that illusions or delusions are going to get out of control is part of the cause.
I think that audio delusions are classic with some types of schizophrenia. A disembodied voice speaking to the sufferer. But ain't no expert there.

[degraded being]

Shredder, thanks for that post. And thanks for pointing back to the two things I mentioned in the first post:
That people seem to have delusions because they are either unable or unwilling to question things.

[Doom]

while I do think some of the early basic stuff is workable, I think that if it works then it works but if it dont it dont, simple.
If you have read around you would know that the best way to hide a lie is to package it with some truth, so take some workable stuff from various eastern religons repack them with some cool vocabulary and some BS add some mind control and a bit of programming and you have one hell of a believable story.
I believed, thats why Im here, and one thing that the powers that be in the CofS have become very good at information control, which just adds to the overall "delusion", so you find yourself into the church for the better part of half a million and enjoying the status of being an OT, yet your still an asshole, your kids hate you, your wife wants a divorce and your dog still hates you, and you're in total mystery as to why?; The answer is simple inside the church you are special and you have status, but outside your still an arse.

I guess I have met one too many "high status" people that I really thought were just pricks or up themselves or just plain assholes, only working for that next step up not caring who they have to stand on to get it. Is an Ot level really worth voilating your own integity for or shafting your "best mate"? If you answer the last question "yes" you have my permission to apply R2-45.
(R2-45 is an extreme form of exteriorisation useing a popular type of pistol)

How many times does someone have to violate their own integity before they see it as wrong?:grouch:

Definition of stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results, Einstein:duh:
Definition of stupidity 2 :Poor ability to understand or profit from experience, web definition.:duh:

So when my Wife said no more I was relieved beyond measure, Finally we could enjoy our lifes together.

[RolandRB]

I know I'm a spiritual being cos uncle ronnie told me.

How to to know you are a Spiritual Being
Close your eyes, Now, think of a cat. Do you see a cat in your mind? Now whose looking at the cat...........

Maybe i'm the cat!

That worked for me. L. Ron Fat Turd might have a point there. Who do I write the cheque out to?

[Alanzo]

When I got out of Scientology I felt big hole where my delusions had been. I no longer had a religion, when before I'd had a BIG ONE.

So I've read a little bit of String Theory - not too much - and re-read the Bagvhad Gita and done some Zen Zazen and even some Transcendental Meditation, and now I have a nice little delusion back that I "understand" what immortality is and that I occasionally glimpse beyond this realm and into others.

This new delusion gives me a very good feeling inside.

It also doesn't cost me any money.

I don't try to get anyone else to believe it so I don't lose any friends over it, either.

In fact, I can not think of one negative thing that comes from my new delusion.

In contrast, my old delusions became rapidly unsustainable and I carried them on for WAY too long.

My point: Some delusions have utility.

Others don't.

You can manage your delusions so that you get maximum benefit out of them for very little cost.

Now THAT's what I call a delusion! :thumbsup:

[RolandRB]

When I got out of Scientology I felt big hole where my delusions had been. I no longer had a religion, when before I'd had a BIG ONE.

So I've read a little bit of String Theory - not too much - and re-read the Bagvhad Gita and done some Zen Zazen and even some Transcendental Meditation, and now I have a nice little delusion back that I "understand" what immortality is and that I occasionally glimpse beyond this realm and into others.

This new delusion gives me a very good feeling inside.

It also doesn't cost me any money.

I don't try to get anyone else to believe it so I don't lose any friends over it, either.

In fact, I can not think of one negative thing that comes from my new delusion.

In contrast, my old delusions became rapidly unsustainable and I carried them on for WAY too long.

My point: Some delusions have utility.

Others don't.

You can manage your delusions so that you get maximum benefit out of them for very little cost.

Now THAT's what I call a delusion! :thumbsup:

Can I sell you a Bridge?

[degraded being]

Well, you took me to the next step, after the point I got to years ago. And it is this:

Question: If I had NO delusions would I feel good?
So far my answer is; not necessarily.

And this ties into those other things you were talking about Alanzo, about trance and focus and the good feeling it can give. So delusions can give the endorpin release and the that will reinforce the "content" of the delusions, which could consist of emotions, ideas, physical sensations etc.
Also, this could mean that any idea could become a delusion if the endophin release is strong enough and reinforced, and reocurring often enough.

And. I think people know this through experience so they pre-empt it by expecting certain "significance" as they think about things like spiritual things.
If they dropped all delusion (if it is possible) there may be nothing left but a big fat banal SO WHAT at the end. But if they don't take the risk they won't know. What is here right now - as I try to look with no delusion is not wonderful, full of spiritual "nowness" it's just my ordinary apartment. Doing that in all situations may be a new kind of delusion. It does seem to ease some franticness or bothersome vibes. Ordinariness might be.......whatever, I'm not even on drugs.

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with fantasizing or day dreaming, in fact it's quite useful, relaxing, even fun and therapeutic ... as long as you know you are just fantasizing or day dreaming. Once you start to believing the fantasy is reality is where the problem starts, and in the case of Scientology, developing a sense of arrogance and superiority regarding belief in the reality of your fantasy, is flat out unhealthy if not dangerous.

Hubbard's Upper Levels are not a Religion or Spiritual Philosophy, they are nothing but a con man's extremely lame Science Fiction and if want to dabble in Hubbard's cheesy 1950s science fiction fantasy ... well then have at it, but don't expect people to act as if you are sane when you try to place validity to it.

[Gadfly]

I am more interested in believing something exists when there is no evidence. The fact that it has not been proven to not exist is not sufficient to assert that it absolutely does. And per the dictionary a delusion is often held to be existing when there is good evidence that it doesn't.

Cripes, the entire physical universe, your perception of it and your experience of it most probably is entirely of the nature of a DELUSION. There is no real "evidence" other than you have chosen to have it be so. Proof?

It is like having a dream where it is raining, and someone walks along and wants you to "prove" that it is or isn't raining. In your dream! It can't be done, of course. Where you are now, and how you experience it isn't really much different - other than that you are REALLY CONVINCED that you are here.

In the end Hubbard was right, "what is true for you is what is true for you". I don't mean that in a good way or a bad way, but it correctly shows WHO and WHAT determines what is true, what is seen, and what is experienced by any conscious being. I doubt there is one reader out there who will say, "what is true for me is NOT true for me".

Hubbard didn't measn it as a simple repetition of the same phrase. In alignment with all else he said about postulating, he meant, what is true for you (as the invisible creative source of it all - INNER - SUBJECTIVE) becomes what is true for you (in the world around you, as an experience, as perception - EXTERNAL - OBJECTIVE). Most people miss that entirely.

In other words, in more Vedic terms, what the unmoving, unconditioned Brahma (Self, thetan) postulates as true, becomes true as an entire reality, able to be perceived, experienced and "known".

Everybody has illusions. Everybody has delusions.

Of course, none of this would matter if it weren't for the fact that too many people want and demand that others accept their pet set of illusions and delusions. For me, people can think whatever they choose, BUT stop all of this "think what I think, and do what we say, or else". The Church, as an example of such stupidity, follows that pattern. People have a strange habit of wanting others to accept their illusions and delusions. That is known as "sharing a reality" ("agree" with me, and then we see the same thing in the same way).

Also, if it is true that awareness creates reality in some way, and some of the most up-to-date theoretical physicists are saying exactly THAT, it becomes very interesting where belief fits in. Belief is strong agreement in or with something. But usually belief involves agreeing past the point where you can easily see anything else other than what you believe. Of course, how can anything any person believes REALLY be true? People with very different and contrary beliefs assert VERY different things. Yet each believes exactly in the same way. I find the psychology of belief fascinating - not so much WHAT is being believed in. But HOW people believe, and how they so much have this compulsion to get others to believe the same. That applies as much to the rigid materialist as it does to the starry-eyed New Ager.

Assuming that agreement "does" somehow relate directly to ones experience of reality, sometimes I look at mass movements as attempts to trick enough people into "agreeing" with some set of ideas, so that some "new version" or "reality" unfolds. So that the world and universe around you actually CHANGES. That involves a possible interesting interpretation of the goal of "implants" (if such things could, do or did exist). Get enough beings unconsciously "agreeing" on the same things, and the world and universe will "unfold" accordingly. Do it to all the beings sharing any common "reality", and the implanters could possibly determine everything right down to the "laws of nature".

It is something to think about. If reality is entirely what it is based on each of US, as some of the newest "science" claims, well then how does agreement, belief, unconscious postulates fit in and in some way determine what is seen, felt and experienced? Right down to the "laws of nature".

Consciousness and its exploration will be the final frontier. Because, everything "out there" originated and began "in here". Einstein is entirely correct. What is observed and how it is observed depends entirely on the STATE or CONDITION of the observer (special theory of relativity). Modern physicists are taking the idea further. What is "observed" (the entire universe where you find yourself) is actually CREATED by "the observer" (you). Yes, I know, "out there" and "in here" are arbitrary views. It is probably more likely that we started with a sense of being "out there", and gradually, over a very long period of time, agreed ourselves to "in here".

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

If there were other forms of higher intelligent life such as humans throughout the universe, who felt the physical universe was nothing but a delusion, they could all be classified under the single category of "Extinct" I wonder if the fly I smashed earlier this morning thought my hand was a delusion

[Gadfly]

If there were other forms of higher intelligent life such as humans throughout the universe, who felt the physical universe was nothing but a delusion, they could all be classified under the single category of "Extinct" I wonder if the fly I smashed earlier this morning thought my hand was a delusion

When you BELIEVE it to be true, you experience it as so. You believe in the laws of MEST, and so they appear and directly affect you.

The proof or not of all of this will only occur when serious people actually once and for all investigate this thing called consciousness - on its own level. Not with arguments and cute analogies. It has never been done by any scientific community. Granted such an investigation is not without many formidable hurdles. And the terrain is already greatly muddied with extensive fixed ideas, opinions, biases, ideological slants and deep-seated arguments.

[uniquemand]

This seems to be the Tinkerbell argument. It's true that if you act on your delusions, then they effect reality to the extent that your actions are guided by them.

There is an argument to be made that we do select from possible realities through our intentions and efforts, but in any reality shared with others (including those we are presently ignorant of), our intent is not King. Physical reality has it's own inertia, as well. It may be the creation of another being, or a co-creation, or whatever, or it may be a totally separate physical thing that we had nothing to do with the creation of: doesn't really matter, in terms of how we go about our day.

Serious people are investigating consciousness on its own level. You're right about there being serious hurdles philosophically, technologically, and scientifically with doing this, thus the very slow progress as compared to physical technology.

Your basic assumption that the you can exist independently of "MEST" has never been shown to be true, and I don't share it. Obviously, this can lead to fundamental disagreements. I hope that won't make our discourse antagonistic, it won't from my end. I don't expect to change your "stable data", and I don't expect my own to change without new evidence that I can see for myself, or without my presenting you with evidence that you would accept for yourself.

[AngeloV]

Consciousness and its exploration will be the final frontier. Because, everything "out there" originated and began "in here". Einstein is entirely correct. What is observed and how it is observed depends entirely on the STATE or CONDITION of the observer (special theory of relativity). Modern physicists are taking the idea further. What is "observed" (the entire universe where you find yourself) is actually CREATED by "the observer" (you).

Gadfly, you just shot your credibility in the foot. What you describe above is sort of like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but not really. It is definitely NOT the special theory of relativity. Look it up. And that principle only applies at the sub-atomic level. My car is in the driveway no matter who looks at or for how long and I did not nor could I create it but looking at my driveway 'wishing' for a car.

And modern physicists are not saying that what is observed is created by the observer. That is pure BS.

Don't use science if you don't understand it.

"Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". --Phillip K. Dick

[uniquemand]

It can be confusing. What you perceive of reality is entirely created by you (your "mockup", fed by perceptions and distorted by delusions and errors), but the reality itself is not. We don't see reality. We see our mockup. Our mockup is a MAPPING of reality, but it is not highly accurate. Thus, reality may be very different from what we perceive. To the extent that it IS different, we make errors.

I think it's been shown fairly conclusively that consciousness has a small but measurable effect on quantum level events. On our human scale, it's effects are only indirect.

[justaguy]

While delusions can be useful, they are not necessary. I do my best to live my life without them, and having suffered from quite a few in the past, I'd rather deal with reality than keep what delusions I have left.

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

When you BELIEVE it to be true, you experience it as so. You believe in the laws of MEST, and so they appear and directly affect you.

The proof or not of all of this will only occur when serious people actually once and for all investigate this thing called consciousness - on its own level. Not with arguments and cute analogies. It has never been done by any scientific community. Granted such an investigation is not without many formidable hurdles. And the terrain is already greatly muddied with extensive fixed ideas, opinions, biases, ideological slants and deep-seated arguments.


It's actually even simpler than that, you, I, and everyone else in the universe has a mutual agreement with reality, it is called sanity, and if anyone wants to play with imaginary beings running around in their head that is also a mutual agreement with reality it's called insanity.

[Gadfly]

Your basic assumption that the you can exist independently of "MEST" has never been shown to be true, and I don't share it. Obviously, this can lead to fundamental disagreements. I hope that won't make our discourse antagonistic, it won't from my end. I don't expect to change your "stable data", and I don't expect my own to change without new evidence that I can see for myself, or without my presenting you with evidence that you would accept for yourself.

I don't "do" antagonism.:)

For me, I toss my ideas up on a screen, you look at them, and you see something or you don't. Agree, disagree, I don't care.

I wouldn't call it my "stable data". From everything I have read, from everything I have experienced in auditing, and from many hours of meditation and other "mental techniques", what I try to describe seems "true". It is entirely my current opinion, based on what I have seen.

I am not trying to change your mind about anything. I am just having fun here, for awhile, trying to explain what is not easy to explain.

In a very real sense, a person cannot ever know about the nature of consciousness and how it relates to all that is, UNLESS you go there and experiment. Long and hard. The only folks to have ever done this to any degree have been Hindus and Buddhists. I am not saying that they have a workable path, or that the subjects aren't confusing and often contradictory, BUT these folks HAVE looked at this area, carefully and extensively at times, and in ways most westerners have not even the slightest clue about. Somebody should write out some drills or put together a course. To get one to look at, experiement with, and improve these areas of attention, concentration, awareness, and imagination.

One will not ever have ANY experience at all to base anything upon, unless one does some serious experimenting with ones "attention", "awareness", "imagination", "concentration", etc. Not by THINKING ABOUT these things, or arguing about these things with tired concepts, but by going there and fildding with these things on their own turf.

I have the opinion that trying to have a conversation with a person about these things, with a person who has never gone and carefully looked, is impossible. See, I have looked at the "other side" (not that it is actually the "other" anything). I have a degree in engineering (double major psychology), and I have studied many scientific subjects extensively, such as math (advanced Calculus, advanced differential equations), psychology, psychiatry, politics, physics, economics, biology, genetics, sociology, philosophy, and so forth. I have also read probably more than most on many fringe subjects such as UFOs, aliens, abductions, pyramids, ESP, extensive conspiracy theories, alternative medicine, alternative health, alternative science and alternative archeology. I HAVE carefully looked at, examined and can "understand" a large part of what falls under the "materialistic" bias in modern western reality.

Then I have also, with my engineering and questioning attitude, have studied a tremendous amount in realm of the occult, magick, religion, theosophy, Rosicrucianism, Masonic literature, and on and on. Again, I have checked out these subjects more than most people I ever meet. Scientology is in there somewhere.

Putting it all together leaves me with a slant towards the spirit side. I am aware that I have always had a personal bias in that direction, even before studying all of these things. I am aware that I have an inherent affinity for that "side". But, after extensive experimenting "inside", and I am no where far along this journey, it seems to me that there is something to the view: "spirit first, all else derives from that".

But, I undertand that is how I see it, and that everyone else sees things differently, based on ones unique education, inherent biases, and experiences. I don't have a monopoly on truth, and the older I get, and the more I study and look, the less I feel I truly know and understand.

I have opinions in the matter. Nothing more and nothing less. I have spent time tearing apart my personal beliefs, motivations and "thought processes", so I am fairly aware of what goes on in my mental realm. Again, I suspect more than most. Maybe I am wrong on that. I find it enjoyable to organize my thoughts and write some of this out at times. I have little interest in "argumnets" or "debates". For me, this is primarily a vehicle of expression.

But in the end, wouldn't it be nice if people could calmly discuss these things, without the need to demand acceptance and agreement? THAT is what I have a problem with. The sick human desire and demand for agreement and conformity to some set of ideas, opinions or beliefs.

[Vinaire]

Dictionary defines DELUSION as “a false belief or opinion” as in “delusions of grandeur,” or as “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact.” To delude is “to mislead the mind or judgment of,” or “to deceive.”

So, delusion is the outcome of being mislead and deceived. But the question that arises is, “What is lack of delusion?” “What is the standard against which delusion can be recognized?” From the viewpoint of BRAHMA anything and everything can be regarded as an additive and delusory.

So, I would say that up to a certain point delusion is useful and necessary, and beyond that point it starts to become annoying to others first, and then, maybe, to self.

And that point is different for each person.

Does this answer your question, DB?

.

[Gadfly]

It can be confusing. What you perceive of reality is entirely created by you (your "mockup", fed by perceptions and distorted by delusions and errors), but the reality itself is not. We don't see reality. We see our mockup. Our mockup is a MAPPING of reality, but it is not highly accurate. Thus, reality may be very different from what we perceive. To the extent that it IS different, we make errors.

I think it's been shown fairly conclusively that consciousness has a small but measurable effect on quantum level events. On our human scale, it's effects are only indirect.

Very good distinction. I will try to explain how I currently understand this.

The whole shebang, the universe, external reality exists FOR YOU, because you agree that it does. You are most likely NOT going to start changing the laws of gravity, or any other natural laws, because quad-zillions of other entities also agree it to be exactly what it is! Though there are many strange stories of levitation (violates the law of gravity) throughout history, often involving people in wild ecstasies of religious faith. I wasn't there, so I don't know, but some of these reports seem possible to me.

Anyway, the universe and all the "laws" exist as they do, apparently, because of severe agreement by and among a tremendous number of beings. In a way, as agreement gets tighter and shared by more and more beings, so does the perceived reality get more "solid", less apt to have "rules broken", etc. That is co-creation. Creating by, through and with agreement with MANY MANY others.

To get an idea, close your eyes and mockup a picture of something (NOT a "cat", please). It is flimsy, weak and NOT solid. If there were a way to get and recruit others to see and agree with the picture "in that space", well then it might get a bit more solid and tend to stay a bit longer. The others would co-create it with you. You might then be on your way to creating a shared "playing field".

So, there is a "reality" that is there, due to agreement by and through MANY other aware beings. Now, YOU can jump in if you want, and agree with it all, and it then appears for you. But also, this "reality" is not actually what is seen and experienced through the limited five senses. A simple point there is that all matter is almost entirely "empty space". It "appears" solid, due to the very excited or fast "motion" of atomic particles. But, for the most part what we experience as solid is nothing of the sort.

Also, we only perceive a small segment of the electromagnetic energy spectrum. In a very real sense our physical senses FILTER out a tremendous amount of "what is actually there". And then there are the many ways in which any thinking mind confuses the "map" with the terrain in terms of common errors explained under the subject of General Semantics. So, there are more than a few ways to "incorrectly" see or view what is basically a common "shared" reality (shared set of mutually held agreements).

Theoretically, IF the awareness comes first and initiates all else, then a person can make it all go away for his or herself. You can't make it go away for anyone else, since each person holds it in place by agreeing it is there for them. But, if you allow all agreements to fade away, as can happen in very deep meditation, it can "all go away" FOR YOU. Obviously this is only REALLY TRUE, if you can be left, fully aware, existing, as a unit of awareness, entirely divorced from all that is. I suspect that this should be possible. I could be wrong, of course.

The reason that you can't just come in and start changing raw reality is because it will ONLY appear to you to the degree that you AGREE with the others who agree the same. If you choose not to agree on too many points, you just won't be able to "be here". I am NOT talking about "conscious" agreements, but those subconscious and unconscious agreements that your conscious awareness couldn't ever even pretend to be able to "change" - the nature of space, time, matter and energy.

As a simple example of that, most people are intensely defined by their body and body position. Lay in bed. Get comfortable. Imagine yourself and see and feel yourself as laying in the exact reverse direction (180 degree shift). Most people have a hard time with this. It is HARD to disagree with MEST. Scientology was supposed to be a system to learn to do so - to disagree with MEST. Instead, it tends to lock one even further in MEST. Note: If you do this simple exercise a few times, and get good at it, sometimes you will "pop out". Experiment at your own risk. BUT, the point is that we each have a tremendous amount and intensity of agreements about all sorts of things that we are entirely UNAWARE OF.

Or sit in a chair looking out a window. Imagine that you are outside the window looking in at your body on the chair. You will probably notice that something resists doing this. There can be great difficulty. I suspect that you are in some way bumping up against some agreement in the area. But, don't just picture it, also FEEL that you are out there. Really get the idea that you are in some entirely different body position, and utilize all sensory channels in this imaginative exercise.

[degraded being]

Cripes, the entire physical universe, your perception of it and your experience of it most probably is entirely of the nature of a DELUSION. There is no real "evidence" other than you have chosen to have it be so. Proof?

It is like having a dream where it is raining, and someone walks along and wants you to "prove" that it is or isn't raining. In your dream! It can't be done, of course. Where you are now, and how you experience it isn't really much different - other than that you are REALLY CONVINCED that you are here.

In the end Hubbard was right, "what is true for you is what is true for you". I don't mean that in a good way or a bad way, but it correctly shows WHO and WHAT determines what is true, what is seen, and what is experienced by any conscious being. I doubt there is one reader out there who will say, "what is true for me is NOT true for me".

Hubbard didn't measn it as a simple repetition of the same phrase. In alignment with all else he said about postulating, he meant, what is true for you (as the invisible creative source of it all - INNER - SUBJECTIVE) becomes what is true for you (in the world around you, as an experience, as perception - EXTERNAL - OBJECTIVE). Most people miss that entirely.

In other words, in more Vedic terms, what the unmoving, unconditioned Brahma (Self, thetan) postulates as true, becomes true as an entire reality, able to be perceived, experienced and "known".

Everybody has illusions. Everybody has delusions.

Of course, none of this would matter if it weren't for the fact that too many people want and demand that others accept their pet set of illusions and delusions. For me, people can think whatever they choose, BUT stop all of this "think what I think, and do what we say, or else". The Church, as an example of such stupidity, follows that pattern. People have a strange habit of wanting others to accept their illusions and delusions. That is known as "sharing a reality" ("agree" with me, and then we see the same thing in the same way).

Also, if it is true that awareness creates reality in some way, and some of the most up-to-date theoretical physicists are saying exactly THAT, it becomes very interesting where belief fits in. Belief is strong agreement in or with something. But usually belief involves agreeing past the point where you can easily see anything else other than what you believe. Of course, how can anything any person believes REALLY be true? People with very different and contrary beliefs assert VERY different things. Yet each believes exactly in the same way. I find the psychology of belief fascinating - not so much WHAT is being believed in. But HOW people believe, and how they so much have this compulsion to get others to believe the same. That applies as much to the rigid materialist as it does to the starry-eyed New Ager.

Assuming that agreement "does" somehow relate directly to ones experience of reality, sometimes I look at mass movements as attempts to trick enough people into "agreeing" with some set of ideas, so that some "new version" or "reality" unfolds. So that the world and universe around you actually CHANGES. That involves a possible interesting interpretation of the goal of "implants" (if such things could, do or did exist). Get enough beings unconsciously "agreeing" on the same things, and the world and universe will "unfold" accordingly. Do it to all the beings sharing any common "reality", and the implanters could possibly determine everything right down to the "laws of nature".

It is something to think about. If reality is entirely what it is based on each of US, as some of the newest "science" claims, well then how does agreement, belief, unconscious postulates fit in and in some way determine what is seen, felt and experienced? Right down to the "laws of nature".

Consciousness and its exploration will be the final frontier. Because, everything "out there" originated and began "in here". Einstein is entirely correct. What is observed and how it is observed depends entirely on the STATE or CONDITION of the observer (special theory of relativity). Modern physicists are taking the idea further. What is "observed" (the entire universe where you find yourself) is actually CREATED by "the observer" (you). Yes, I know, "out there" and "in here" are arbitrary views. It is probably more likely that we started with a sense of being "out there", and gradually, over a very long period of time, agreed ourselves to "in here".


Yes, but there are still boundaries. For example I have seen film of "healers" in the phillipines who put their hands into peoples abdomens and removed tumours etc. There was even blood! Two friends of mine went and saw it in person. A lot of people there and from other countries see miracles. The "healers" do not use knives. scapels, or do any stitching. Straight in, get the tumour (with blood swishing around) and out. So, if you have some serious medical problem and you subject yourself to the "miracle", it would be best to know that the spectacle is not just a delusion. It's pretty slick. It looks real. If it's not you could die from lack of proper medical treatment. I think the example mentioned is delusion, carefully staged. A doctor taking out a tumour in a hospital - or diagnosing something other than a tumour may be delusional in a deep philosophical sense. But he is more likely to be trying not to see things that are not there. He probably wants to see what is, as much as possible. He proably asks, "Could I be mistaken?".

If you are a psychiatrist trying to help patients you have to know what is delusion and what isn't.

[uniquemand]

To get an idea, close your eyes and mockup a picture of something (NOT a "cat", please). It is flimsy, weak and NOT solid. If there were a way to get and recruit others to see and agree with the picture "in that space", well then it might get a bit more solid and tend to stay a bit longer. The others would co-create it with you. You might then be on your way to creating a shared "playing field"...

...Theoretically, IF the awareness comes first and initiates all else, then a person can make it all go away for his or herself. You can't make it go away for anyone else, since each person holds it in place by agreeing it is there for them. But, if you allow all agreements to fade away, as can happen in very deep meditation, it can "all go away" FOR YOU. Obviously this is only REALLY TRUE, if you can be left, fully aware, existing, as a unit of awareness, entirely divorced from all that is. I suspect that this should be possible. I could be wrong, of course.

Edited for brevity.

I don't believe that the awareness comes first, and not just to be contrary. If, as you suppose, we are all awareness units who agree with some reality that we co-create, how do you account for our first coming into contact with each other and becoming aware of that reality or of each other? If we weren't already part of the same reality, how would we know it existed to go to? The solipsist argument falls on it's face right there, for me. The fact that we are aware of each other means we are part of a system which connects us. As I see it, our bodies were generated by this system, and give us a common frame of reference. Then, through evolution, we develop a nervous system, because at every step of the game, each increase in ability to detect and respond to our environment feeds back, and those with higher sensitivity and capabilities survive, while those who don't die off. Eventually, we developed very advanced "wet" computers, and they were capable of generating a virtual environment in which we could model the universe around us, make predictions, and be PROACTIVE. We could learn. This virtual space also contains all the identities we've ever modeled, and all of these contents are our ego. To the extent that we think we are any part of these contents, we are not understanding who or what we are. We are NOT conscious entities who live forever. However, we are capable of modeling consciousness, and conceiving eternal life.