*Pilot'sPosts Z21
*
*Co-existence of Static *
From Post 53 -- April 1999
We are not here to dissolve everything into nothingness.
The true Nirvana is a creative state rather than a passive one.
At basic we are balancing the nothingness with a richness of
creation.
Having everything locked down into a single agreed upon reality
inhibits free creation and therefore reduces the richness. It is
therefore abhorrent to a being and as he rises upscale, he
objects to it more rather than less.
But what is wrong is not the creations themselves but the locked
down singleness of the realities available.
There could be many realities, some shared, some overlapping,
some independent, and all visited by choice.
Imagine an Internet with many websites. There is communication
and interaction, and yet each is free to create as he chooses,
and if he really likes someone else's creation, perhaps he
copies it and if he dislikes it, perhaps he shuns it, but there
is room for anything and everything.
And then one day there is a virus, and everybody's system is
permanently locked onto the same site. Of course they will fight
amongst each other because each one's creations affects the
others. There can be no true freedom because freedom will be at
odds with responsibility.
Consider what would happen if everyone became a god. One person
would wish for rain and another would wish for sunshine. It just
doesn't work if all are locked into a single reality.
And yet it is also a failure for each of us to go off into a
totally isolated personal universe, for then we loose the
communication and interaction that are so desirable to us all.
What should happen is a fanning out of multiple realities.
When some want rain and some want sunlight, then each occurs and
the multitude of beings individually choose which they want to
agree with.
Many realities but not isolated, except when someone is in the
mood for that.
In such a scenario, each individual can be a god with the power
to make any postulate stick, at least as far as physical reality
goes. The tradeoff is that he cannot make anything stick as far
as trying to enforce or demand anything from another being,
because they are gods too.
If Joe wants to visit Bill, he has to put up with Bill's
postulate for a tacky lime green sky with orange pokadots. Or he
can change the sky and see if Bill will come along with him, but
if Bill chooses to keep the pokadots while Joe insists on a blue
sky, then they will find themselves in different realities and
no longer talking to each other.
Think of a radio with endless stations and you can tune in to
whatever you feel like. But a particular announcer, whom you
might like, is currently playing music that you don't care for.
Its up to you whether you stick with him or try another station.
That is total freedom. You can have anything you want, no matter
how outlandish.
Joe can even mockup a copy of Bill and give him a better taste
in sky colors. But it wouldn't be the real Bill, just Joe
talking to a puppet he mocked up.
What Joe can't have is control over Bill. He can ask for Bill's
agreement on something, but he can't force it.
Each and every one of us decided at some point that we had a
right to control others and enforce agreement. That postulate is
a two edged sword and you see the results around you now. If you
hadn't made it, you wouldn't be here.
And its a hard one to let go of completely. Deep down, you know
that some madman will come at you swinging a sabre and you are
not confident that you could shift realities and just let him
hack up his own mocked up copy of you. And with everything
locked down to one reality, he would hack up the agreed upon
copy and you would end up walking around in your own universe
with everybody else out of comm.
And so we need to loosen the realities first and let go on a
gradient.
Control Mest all you want, but avoid controlling people whenever
possible. Instead work by means of communication and shared
postulates and encourage as much individual beingness as possible.
LRH's brilliance was in inspiring enthusiasm; people turned over
their lives for the sake of the tech. He erred greatly when he
installed strong controls in the late 60s. The controls were
unnecessary, he already had the enthusiastic willing hands.
As soon as the organization began to enforce agreement instead
of simply continuing to train and asking people to do their
best, it backfired and the org began to spiral down from high
theta towards dramatization and solidity.
Control MEST, not people. And as far as auditing and CCHs and
other helpful forms of "control", don't look on it as control,
because if you make that your purpose it will backfire. It is
educational guidance, like holding a child's hand and helping
them cross the street safely for the first time. The idea is not
to override their will but to steer them through new territory.
The road out is in the direction of less enforced agreement and
less control while increasing communication and affinity.
Note that this requires developing a tolerance for others
disagreeing with you.
You can have a TV set with lots of stations. You can like them
all and yet retain your freedom to shift agreements.
Think how much better that is than having only one station that
only plays the party line.
Best,
