Clearing Archive Roboposter
roboposter at lightlink.com
Tue Dec 29 00:06:02 EST 2015
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
Technical Essay # 57 - FAF 24 July 1991
.ce Negative Beings
There is a definition of negative/positive that has been used as a categorization of people.
Particularly it has been used about alien extra-terrestrials involving themselves in the affairs
of this planet.
A negative being would be somebody who acts based on his own or his group's interests
exclusively without regard for others.
A positive being would be somebody who acts based on the greatest good for all concerned,
This applies of course not only to aliens. It is a useful model for looking at people in general.
And also, it gives some clues about pitfalls in spiritual development.
The negative behavior is based on the idea that you can make things right just by taking your
own needs into consideration and going for what you want. You are of course closest to
yourself and you can't expect anybody else to take care of you. You or your group can be full
cause. Anybody else aren't you or your group so it is up to them to take care of their needs. In
the mean time they are fair game when you work on your own purposes. You've got to fight
for your rights and get what you want before anybody else screws you.
The positive way of looking at it would be that we are all theta. Anybody and anything around
you is part of your dynamics. Any part of the universe is tied to any other part. If you don't take
responsibility for the whole you will in the long run hurt yourself. One dynamic can't be
enforced to the exclusion of all other. If you empower others and give others their power of
choice it will benefit both you and them. You don't need to oppose anybody.
The negative way is basically self-determined, win-lose.
The positive is pan-determined, win-win.
The philosophical justifications for each of the patterns probably lies in a basic disagreement
about what beings are.
The negative view would be that the highest level of spiritual development that could be
attained would be you being full cause, that is, in full control of yourself and your
environment. Increasing your personal universe to infinity and decreasing any other
universes to zero.
The positive view would on the other hand be that you can't reach your full potential without
taking everybody else into consideration. Everything else is part of you when looked at from a
higher dynamic or a higher awareness level. You can only be the highest level "you" by
encompassing "others" also.
It basically comes down to the discussion of the origin of beings, what is the eighth dynamic,
are we all one, etc. That is kind of touchy to discuss in that it can easily become a wrong
indication and bring up by-pass charge.
However, let me again risk my good reputation by giving my view.
You are ultimately an infinity of infinities. That includes any possibility of beingness,
doingness, havingness, any viewpoint, any level of awareness, anything that is created,
anything that could be created. You can focus on any part of this. You can become "a single
static being", a "viewpoint" in a "universe", a "hole in the ground", or even a "human". What
you are currently focused on being is probably far from the highest state.
If you insist on being a human being you are excluding yourself from being "full cause over
the universe" and many other things you might think of as OT abilities. A human per definition
has certain limitations. You could even say that as a human you have been "created" by
somebody else, because obviously you don't know yourself how to create bodies out of thin
air. The catch is that who created you as a human is again just you, just at a higher level.
No matter which level you go to you will only find you. Any confusion of identities can be
resolved by assuming a higher awareness level.
At a higher level you are also the source of both "yourself" and "others" on lower levels. That
higher level would be above a need for individuality, in that it can encompass all possible
individuality and be it all at the same time. That is the "before the beginning" of the Factors, or
the "separation from Theta" that many pcs find in the beginning of a track if they haven't been
"All is One", or particularly "We are all One", is rather mis-leading when applied to the current
3-dimensional human reality. Different individuals are obviously different individuals, they are
not the same person. If you thought that you would be me you would be out of valence. And if
you thought you were a spot on the wall or a planet, you would also be having some
The "All is One" concept is however not far off when we look at a higher level. I would rather
call it "All is Infinity" or "All is All" or something like that to avoid confusion, but the idea is
about the same. The truth in the matter is the concept of pan-determinism or of the eighth
dynamic. You would be limiting yourself if you refused to be able to see the totality of
everything. It is just a different focus of attention.
The negative way of being is connected to a refusal to see the whole picture. It is an attempt
to take a part of the picture and enlarge it to become the whole picture. That is an interesting
experiment to see if that is possible, but I am afraid it won't hold in the long run.
It comes down to how one puts something into being. It seems to mostly happen by a 2-pole
system. If you become one thing you at the same time categorize everything else as being
"not you". To become "Flemming" I mark off a certain area of beingness and say "That's me".
The negative view would be that the 'Flemming' bubble is all I am. I could then work on
expanding that to become all that is.
As a matter of fact it isn't all that is. I couldn't do that trick without 'being' the whole thing to
begin with. There would be no 'Flemming' unless there was something to compare it to, the
'Not-Flemming'. It adds up to a whole.
The positive view is that 'Flemming' needs 'Not-Flemming' and it wouldn't serve much
purpose to get rid of the 'Not-Flemming'. It is kind of sawing off the branch you are sitting on.
Refusing to accept the whole situation can give rise to all sorts of case phenomena. As part of
the 'Not-Flemming' there might be all sorts of things and ways of being that I absolutely
despise. "I would never want to be like that", "I want to be as far away as possible from those
kinds of people". That is fine, that makes it possible to play games and to have a varied life.
However, ultimately for the sake of your spiritual development, you would have to be able to
accept and admire anything and everything. Anything or anyone that you can't accept and
admire is something you aren't taking responsibility for and it will come and haunt you sooner
There is nothing particularly wrong with the negative beings. If you assume the positive way
of being you would have to be able to accept and admire also the negative way. But if you
can only see the negative way and that is the only way of doing things, then you've put
yourself in a trap.
Scientologists fall in both categories. The philosophy of Scientology can be interpreted in
different ways. In that Hubbard never really committed to any particular way of looking at the
eighth dynamic the references to these things aren't totally clear.
I would say it is perfectly clear, just by looking at the dynamics. You can't bet everything on
one dynamic and forget about all the others. All the dynamics have to be balanced, and the
optimum behavior is the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.
However, other people interpret things differently. Some people try to go "OT" on just the 1st
dynamic, or just the 3rd dynamic. I would claim that that is a contradiction of terms, but that is
a matter of discussion.
As far as the CofS is concerned, it has turned into almost exclusively the negative view. It
attempts to create negative OTs who only work for their own and their group's (CofS) aims
with utter contempt for everything else. It hasn't always been like that and the practice isn't
particularly justified by the philosophy of Scientology.
As an aside, there are now a great many vectors aligned with positive spiritual development
on this planet. There has been an explosion of activity in the direction of getting people up
the "bridge". It is called all sorts of other things, but if you look closely we are talking about
very similar things. The goal of OT is being quite widely disseminated, not by the CofS but by
a wide variety of different philosophical, self-help, or New Age groups.
These people use different terminologies and frames of reference, but that doesn't have to be
a problem. If you look at the big scheme of things, spiritual development is spiritual
development. Particularly if it is positive. And we still have some of the best tech around to
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 29 00:06:02 EST 2015
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L