Whole Track Question.

[teadreamer]

Slightly off thread in that it is information not from Scientology or auditing, and I haven't googled or checked it on Wikipedia but I remember once hearing that a young child of about seven who lived in India, kept telling his parents that he use to have a different name, remembered dying and said that his real family lived in another village.
The parents at first brushed it off as imagination, but eventually followed up the data and upon taking the child to the village he mentioned, it became obvious that the child had been telling the truth all the time. The previous mother and the child recognized each other immediately if I remember rightly.

[uniquemand]

Which people? You quoted me but I'm certainly not amongst them.

Hmm... You got me. *Some people*. Often people who want to discredit the gains people have from Scientology sessions. I think this makes them feel right while making others wrong.

That's probably one of the more useful approaches.

Huzzah for agreement.

Everything?

Yes. :rolls eyes:

[uniquemand]

I learned from this thread and I thank EVERYONE who commented so far.

I hope more people will share their insights. They are so much better then
"Churches" PR!

I did have some "whole track" in my "auditing experience" (answering to Mr. Div6)

To elaborate:

1. I had a Cog of sorts, F/N, VGI's during one of my first metered rudiments (thanks to E/S, of course), something about me being a bad-ass brick-head, Marine-type, Space Soldier/Captain. Some amazing shit.

2. I F/Ned on being in Qual (as an SO terminal) on Apollo and being an OT III at least then, which I think is Bullshit. Supposedly, I died on Apollo last life time. I really don't think so.

3. F/N may be "comfort", yet not truth.

P.S. I also delivered thousands hours of auditing.
But nothing too advanced. Just NED and everything below.

IMO, F/N represents detachment. Needle reactions, IMO, represent introverted attention for whatever reasons (all that really matters is that attention went "in", and is kinda stuck there, doing stuff to the person that doesn't relate analytically to "out").

[uniquemand]

Kinda, but that's sort of contrary to the whole "Imaginary Incidents" handling that is applied in scientology to those imagining things or "dubbing in" incidents.

It's an interesting conundrum, no?

Another interesting thing to consider (at least to me) is that the present is an imaginary incident (what people are calling "reality"). After all, we do not track every particle in the universe around us, we cannot track all the interactions, we cannot compute all of the relationships between every entity within our perception, and yet we construct a memory, and present perception, IMO, is essentially a memory instantly after it's formation that we seem to accept as what is real.

I put it to you that all incidents are imaginary, though some have more obvious referents in "public space".

[Mark A. Baker]

Okay. This is where we disagree. I think Hubbard makes a lot of unnecessary contradictions and confusions about this when it's just a function of the brain. ...

Well one of my general rules is that on matters relating to the sciences hubbard didn't know what he was talking about.

... This indicates that as we age, our memories become encoded according to language. Those that aren't encoded by language are lost.

Corollary: Memories earlier than infanthood could not be coded according to senses not yet used, i.e., sight, so would be lost. ...

Since the exact manner in which memory information is stored is uncertain, the precise function of specific brain structures in accessing memory is therefore also not completely understood. What is clear is the apparent ability to access & retain memory is affected by the physical function of the brain and that that alters with age.

One model, one which you apparently accept as true, is that the brain has the primary functions of coding, decoding, & storage of information as memory. An alternate model might be that the brain serves as an interface to an as yet not understood 'memory storage' capacity, i.e. a form of input/output device rather than the actual locus of data storage. Ideas of reincarnation, morphic resonance, the universe as holographic data, and the Buddhist conception of skandharas might be said to be consistent with something like the latter model.

... "Ambiguous subjective mental phenomena" is much more accurate than the term "whole track memories". Let's call them Amsubmepha, then. They aren't memories such as the brain produces so I prefer not confusing the two terms or referring to ambiguous subjective mental phenomena as something as accurate or concise as a memory. ...

And that is a reasonable approach to take. It does require acceptance of a specific type of memory model. It is a plausible model, but not the only possible one.


Mark A. Baker

[uniquemand]

Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about. I had a PC on R3R who kept ending up in the same "basic" on every chain. It was OT III, period.

The ED was OT III, as was the CS, another auditor & me. Did this very perceptive person pick it up from us? I don't know.

Later that PC routed onto OTIII and came to me and said " Now I know what I was running on R3R and baffled about

So, yeah, I have had what I consider an honest-to-God prolonged experience with a lower level PC running OT III and no plausible explanation.

Plausible explanation ? I had another PC that got in his wife's OT III material and tried to run it in R3R with me. That came a cropper.

Back to other PC, who many years later ( also ) left the " church ". Best explaination given to me " Maybe I picked it up from you guys from hanging around with ya'll ".

Oh, same PC ( here is where you get to label me crazy ) on R3R I could damn near every time see the chain the PC was going to run before the PC started down it.

Was I putting it there and the PC picking it up or was the PC putting it there and I picking it up?

And that, by far, was NOT the only PC that ever happened with...just the most.

It's quite likely that many of us have assembled our views of the dim past from our movies and pop culture, whether science fiction, fantasy, religion, history, etc. Jung speculated about a preconscious world of symbols and archetypes, but even without that, we have a literary, video, audio and other recorded senses library that we acquire as we master language and the symbol systems that record that data. To the extent that we are all part of the same system (we couldn't communicate if we were not), we should all have access to common myths and memes. That we copy them is not in question. The questions seems to be whether the recorded event has or had reality at any point. My answer is NO. The relevant question is whether or not the event is pertinent in the story that we are telling ourselves and each other, rather than whether it was real.

http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_black...and_temes.html

[Mark A. Baker]

... The questions seems to be whether the recorded event has or had reality at any point. My answer is NO. ...

Not an unreasonable approach but an answer that is ultimately the result of a personal belief.

... The relevant question is whether or not the event is pertinent in the story that we are telling ourselves and each other, rather than whether it was real. ...

And I'd agree the answer to that, for the most part, is no. Yet that doesn't mean that at least some such events may have a basis in truth.


Mark A. Baker

[paradox]

....

One model, one which you apparently accept as true, is that the brain has the primary functions of coding, decoding, & storage of information as memory. An alternate model might be that the brain serves as an interface to an as yet not understood 'memory storage' capacity, i.e. a form of input/output device rather than the actual locus of data storage. Ideas of reincarnation, morphic resonance, the universe as holographic data, and the Buddhist conception of skandharas might be said to be consistent with something like the latter model.

....

Mark A. Baker

[Caliwog]

One model, one which you apparently accept as true, is that the brain has the primary functions of coding, decoding, & storage of information as memory. An alternate model might be that the brain serves as an interface to an as yet not understood 'memory storage' capacity, i.e. a form of input/output device rather than the actual locus of data storage

A Scientologist I know once told me the mind is not the computer; rather, it is the keyboard and monitor.

An elegant way to put it, even if he was wrong.

[Rmack]

Mimsey,

Here's a great link The Forgotten Technology.

This is W. T. Wallington, a contractor, who is building stone henge all by himself - several of these blocks weigh tons+. You can see him moving garage-sized sheds, etc.

This is how the pyramids and other structures were built, IMHO. No spaceships, no "beams", no advanced races and aliens and technologies.

Very cool stuff on that site.

Guanoloco, did you see my post about this?

How do you link your own post? Oh well, here's a cut and paste;



'I listened to a lecture from a scientist that did a study on the Great Pyramid's interior stones. According to this scientist, several experts in geology confirmed her hypothesis that the stones were actually a sophisticated concrete mixture.

There are hieroglyphs that depict workers heading up and down a pyramid with basket backpacks. For a long time, Egyptologists assumed that was just a record of the mortar being brought up, and they just haven't found the images showing how they raised huge, heavy stones. But, what if that was it? All they would have needed was portable, reusable molds, and an army of workers bringing up the makings one basket at a time. Doable with bronze age tech, no aliens or magic required.

In support of this theory is a site in Florida called the Coral Castle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle

The guy who built these strange structures claimed to have discovered the secret of the Great Pyramid. He reportedly wouldn't allow anyone to watch him work, and took the 'secret' to his grave. Of course, the woo-woos gathered, starting rumors of levitation devices or magic powers. However, he left behind nothing but standard masonry equipment that is used in making concrete.

I suspect that he was telling the truth, and his secret was a very effective concrete formula similar to what was used to make the stones of the Pyramids. So effective that it takes an expert and microscopic examination to tell the difference."



Using the techniques you linked to would have been good enough for Stonehenge, but would have been extremely time consuming using them to raise the huge blocks of the pyramids up hundreds of feet.

However, It's certain that the pyramid builders didn't mold the blocks in place. They probably made them close to where they would be set, either on the level they were building, or the one just below, then after removing the molds to be used again, and fine tuning them to remove any mold marks or imperfections, they used the techniques from that site to move them to their final positions.