************************************************************************
The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers,
which was available to all those who subscribed to the
printed magazine, International Viewpoints.
************************************************************************

Are absolutes unattainable?
by Phil Spickler
24 Nov 1999


Greetings, O fellow seekers of wisdom and extra cash for the holidays!
      Over the years, from the pen of L. Ron Hubbard and other
theoreticians, came the mention of dynamics beyond 1 through 8, and I seem to
remember mention of Aesthetics as a dynamic, and possibly Justice.  But the
only dynamic beyond 8 that is for certain, and possibly true in all
universes, in all places and in all times, is the one called Money, which I
believe is somewhere up around dynamic 200 (butI'm not sure about that).

      There may be a few beingnesses somewhere in some universe for whom
Money is not a right item, but I think I can safely say they are at the very
least what we used to call "out of valence," which was just another way of
saying they weren't being themselves.

     I first heard the expression "Absolutes are unattainable" somewhere
along my non-existent Scientology time track, and having once studied
philosophy whilst idling away my life at university, it struck someone that
that statement sounded suspiciously like an absolute.  Thus I have spent the
last 150,000 lifetimes attempting to prove or disprove this theorem, namely,
the quest for an absolute.  I haven't given up on this idea yet, but to date,
as long as I'm willing to abide by the rules of existence, so far -- no
absolutes.   And unhappily, this has proved to be the case for that
ever-popular state called Clear; so we can't award all the previous Clears
certificates that say "Clear Forever" and have that be true.

       We do have some other certs, though, that might make pleasant
Christmas gifts, such as "Former Clear," followed by your name, or "Has Been
Clear," followed by the number of times someone or other has been, or "Made
it But Couldn't Hang Onto It" Clear cert.  And then of course for some folks
there's a cert called "Want To Be Clear and Will Never Give Up Trying."   The
way some folks talk on this list who claim there's no realistic definition
for the state, well, if that's correct, that makes it very difficult to have
Clear or clearing as an objective or object of any given activity.

      Coming back to absolutes for a moment, I don't think it's fair to use
Scientology Axiom 1 or its definition as an absolute, because it's not of the
manifest universe; or if it is, and you wish to attain the state that has no
mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time, but has the
ability to postulate and to perceive, well,  you just go right ahead, if
that's your idea of having fun.  So even if that really is ultimate truth,
and even if it is attainable, well, in fact, it isn't something you have to
attain because give or take a few lies, that's really what you are and always
have been and always will be, and for goodness sakes, please don't confuse
that with being a Spiritual Being, 'cause all the spiritual beings I've ever
run into have had some motion, some mass, and lots of location in space or
time, and they've certainly done some of that business of postulating and
perceiving, otherwise they wouldn't be around to talk about it.

      Leaving this look at absolutes for just a moment to say a few more
words about identity technology, the one I'm most familiar with being NOTS:
one of the funniest things I came across many years ago, which may not be
true for anything or anyone else, was running into identities who had
identities, and then finding that some of these identities had identities
and, well, -- you can get the idea.  It produced some pretty dramatic motions
on an old Hubbard electrometer and was good for many minutes of sustained
laughter, and it seemed to  provide a certain bit of cognitiveness about just
how far you could go if you wanted to spend most of your earthly existence
fooling around with entities.   This is definitely not recommended, since the
beingness one assumes in order to attract entities or find that one has them,
the beingness that thinks "Gee --- I'd better do something about all these
identities so that I can be more myself and what I really AM" -- well, that's
the beingness that you really want to do something for, because then you
won't have to spend the next 5- or 6,000 lifetimes fooling around with
entities.

     Now mind you, this is the beingness that will swear on a stack of
Bibles that it is the REAL and ONLY YOU, that it is a spiritual being that
always has been, is now and always will be, and that it is absolutely
discreet, which is to say individual, and it won't even lay claim to having
been fathered or mothered by the Axiom 1 Static.  Now here comes the tricky
part of all this, 'cause what you're now going to do is take whoever or
whatever that is, with all that certainty, and for that matter anyone else
that makes a similar claim, and you're going to step outside of whoever or
whatever that is and give it a tremendous amount of acknowledgment for what
it claims to be.  If you really do this well and compassionately, at some
point it will simply cease to exist as that beingness or identity, and
possibly just go into a state of undifferentiated theta, or basic truth.  You
may have to, at some point, give it a little bit of a nudge by asking it what
it was before it became a spiritual being, and then stand back as it goes
blasting off or just simply ceases to exist in an explosion of very good
indicators.

      And of course you want to clean up anybody else that's asserting what
they are, because you're in the process of unmocking sort of the last-ditch
stand of beingnesses that might now or in the future lay claim to having
anything that might be called a case.  You may well ask, "Well, who's doing
this operation on these guys?"  And my answer would be, "Just go ahead and do
it, and when you finish the action, you'll have the biggest answer to that
question you ever hoped for."

       There have been a few responses to the notion of running enough
Dianetics or NOTS to the point where somebody's physical body would vanish
completely.  We're not just talking about becoming transparent to theta
perceptions, we're talking about the complete vanishment in three universes
of the human body as a result.  This may be attainable -- I don't know.  It
may also be unattainable.  I'm not positive as to why anyone would want that
result, but I hope those that would seek it will please say a few words about
the result and why it's so attractive.  Anyone who answers will not be
criticized or put down for the notion -- I'm simply seeking more information
and better understanding.

       Many moons ago, whether it was good tech or bad, we tended to treat
anyone who really desired to get rid of something as a problem in Havingness,
and would seek to remedy Havingness of whatever was so undesirable in a
number of different ways, which I shall attempt to discuss in another posting.

      A final thought about general notions of auditing and what it may or
may not be able to handle is: in the beginning (the beginning I refer to is
roughly 1950), you wanted to get the guy to be able to confront and become
willing to experience bigger and bigger unpleasantnesses on a gradient, and
so we went from locks to secondaries to engrams, and as the years rolled by,
the whole track, with locks, secondaries and engrams, and implants, and
implant GPMs, and real goals.  And all along the way you were trying to raise
the being's tolerance for force and impact so as to increase the individual's
willingness and ability to confront, handle and use and experience force in
that universe called the physical universe, and presumably reach a point of
pan-determinism beyond the use of force.  This was a good idea, this gradient
scale of improving the chap's willingness to confront and experience all the
things that had been postulated as "must never happen again," 'cause this
really opened up the being's willingness to experience Life, which is filled
with all kinds of good and bad things.

      Anyway, whether you're talking about the subject matter of OT III or
the big entity-handle of NOTS, or just about any condition that is amenable
to auditing or processing or whatever you want to call it, you are, as a
fundamental outcome, wishing for the person to become more and more willing
to create and to experience Life: QED.

      Abandon Hope, all ye who enter here -- we who are about to die salute
you!
     -- Phil