Path: nwrddc02.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!newsfeed4.cidera.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!proxad.net!opentransit.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news2.kpn.net!news.kpn.net!nslave.kpnqwest.net!nloc.kpnqwest.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!newsfeed.Austria.EU.net!newsfeed.kpnqwest.at!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news
Date: 17 Jan 2002 22:21:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20020117222100.13032.qmail@nym.alias.net>
From: Ralph Dorian <r_dorian@nym.alias.net>
Subject: Another apple from the tree of knowledge (OSA only) :)))
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 3754
Xref: cyclone1.gnilink.net alt.religion.scientology:91583
X-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:21:34 EST (nwrddc02.gnilink.net)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hello Sten.

I haven't yet received confirmation the current interview segment
has been posted. How many remailers do you guys have now,
anyway?

Well, that's ok. We'll find out by trial and error.

On the other hand, you could just post it for me, if it hasn't
gone out already.

You want to give the rest of OSA a chance, don't you?


==========================
Intended audience:

Captain David Miscavige
OSA and RTC personnel (who must obtain authorization from their
superiors)



=========================================


Day Nine of 1999's Summer Interview with Ralph Dorian.



Location: aboard ship, Sea of Cortes.

===
KL: {smiling} Ok. {smiling broadly} My first question for today
is about what you asked me to do yesterday, after we stopped
taping.

RD: {blinks, curious} What was that?

___
KL: You don't remember?

RD: Oh yes . . . of course. The imagination exercise.

How did that go?

___
KL: Whenever I had some spare attention, I did it.

(For readers, I kept imagining how I'd look feeling satisfied,
first just for a few moments, then days and weeks into the
future.)

RD: And? Did you believe it?

___
KL: Well at first I couldn't . . . I went back to feeling
disheartened because I couldn't really believe it. But after a
while, I started feeling silly for feeling that way.

RD: You mean, towards the end of session yesterday . . .

___
KL: Right.

After a while it didn't seem so far out, you know? I started
coming up with _reasons_ for feeling good. Like, how can you
feel you've lost something when you never really had it in the
first place? The most religious person on Earth has never met
God . . .

RD: That's true.

___
KL: They can't show they're a spirit. So there isn't really
anything to be lost.

After contemplating that for a while I actually saw myself
transcending . . . you know, losing my attachment to . . . you
know, "all that" . . . and feeling just fine about it.

RD: Is that so. {satisfied smile} It's always fascinating what a
little forward-looking imagination can do . . .

You say you had a question . . .

___
KL: Is what I did part of Scientology?

RD: What you did matches what every Scientologist does at some
point . . . in general form if not content.

___
KL: Really?

RD: They anticipate improvement.

___
KL: But not for the same reasons . . .

RD: {laughs} Well, no. Obviously we don't reward Scientologists
for letting go of superstition. On the contrary, we reward them
for embracing it.

___
KL: Were you giving me a reward?

RD: {smiles, eyes show hint of discomfort} I don't think there's
any need for you to regard it that way.

___
KL: Well . . . if you _were_ rewarding me --- let's just take
this hypothetically --- what would it be for?

RD: For toughing it out. How's that? You have to be tough to
face the facts of Life. Your behavior has been honest, but
exemplary. I'm used to people doing anything to maintain their
illusions . . . lie, cheat, betray, kill . . . nothing's barred.
They're greedy. They do whatever it takes.

It's a refreshing pleasure to meet another human being that puts
value on objective truth. They're out there but they're few and
far between.

___
KL: {laughs happily} Ok . . . I don't mind that at all.

RD: You may be tested again you know . . .

___
KL: I'm ready.

RD: You do look very satisfied.

___
KL: It's amazing it came true. I just saw it happening, then it
did . . .

RD: Yes. {pause}

___
KL: What part of Scientology were you giving me?

RD: The hope at the end of the fantasy. It's most basic,
positive message.

___
KL: Which is what? "You will be satisfied". . . ?

RD: That's the message of _all_ religions K---, not just
Scientology. "Through God, through a deity of some kind, plus
the means to manipulate that deity --- the religious 'Tech', as
it were --- you're in control of your fate."

That's all yearning wants, really . . .

___
KL: . . . is satisfaction.

RD: Yes. Exactly.

{pause}

___
KL: What's the deity in Scientology?

RD: Interesting question . . . because the tech is worshiped in
Scientology.

___
KL: It can't be the tech?

RD: It can get a little confusing.

Traditionally, it's the deity that's manipulated _through_
worship. Who's being manipulated in Scientology? Not the tech.
That remains the same. It's really the Thetan that's the target
of manipulation. Then the Thetan is supposed to turn around and
control the person's fate.

___
KL: But the Thetan is supposed to be who they are. {pause}
Right?

RD: Yet it qualifies as Scientology's deity. It's just like
traditional gods: a fictional character assumed to have
potentially unlimited power over fate.

___
KL: What's strange . . . well, maybe it's kind of ironic . . .
here I am feeling good about _losing_ my attachment to religion.
Isn't that kind of odd?

RD: No, not at all . . . not if you define attachment to religion
as needing a multitude of others to help convince you to believe.
Religion is needing agreement. That's why you join. Most people
need tens, hundreds, thousands . . . even millions of others to
do it for them. Some aren't satisfied unless they can recruit
the entire human population . . . all to quell their doubts. But
for the time being, you've convinced yourself on your own. That
shows you have talent.

___
KL: I don't believe in a deity. What am I convincing myself to
believe?

RD: That in the future, you'll be satisfied.

___
KL: {surprise} That's it? It sounds so simple.

RD: That's the very core of religion. Religion feeds the hope of
controlling fate by promising control of the controller of fate.
That's its primary purpose. That's why people want it. What
would people do if they were in control of their fate? They'd
make themselves satisfied, emotionally speaking.

___
KL: Happy.

RD: Yes.

Generally, the fewer people you need to convince you a hopeful,
happy story is true, the less you need religion . . . the less
your need to proselytize.

___
KL: Some religions are clearly very _desperate_ for members . . .

RD: Because they doubt. They can't get that satisfaction if they
doubt. As a remedy, they seek repetition of opinion. Over and
over and over again. Enough times, maybe they'll keep believing.
Repetition is an element . . . or one of the factors, behind
belief.

___
KL: One of the factors . . . ok. {pause, writing}

It's interesting, Ralph {glancing up} . . . that you can give
someone the basic message of religion, and have them really get
it . . . but not in a way that seems at all religious.

RD: {Irreverently} No one gives a damn about God . . .

___
KL: {laughs} . . .

RD: . . . not really. {smiling} Scientologists don't even care
about their precious "Thetan" . . . EXCEPT that it's used as a
vehicle that gets them to satisfaction. They care because
they're doubtful; if they're doubtful, they're dissatisfied.
This is so broadly and generally true you can actually measure
the natural dissatisfaction of a people by looking at how
devoutly religious it is. The more "religious", the more confused
and dissatisfied it would be, absent the help of its fellow
believers.

___
KL: What about people like you? Or Hubbard for instance? What
do you care about?

RD: {modest, eyes down} As you can see from being with me for
this past week, we are normal human beings . . . more or less.

___
KL: More or less . . .

RD: Except we are expected to have reached some kind of
superlative . . . "transcended" --- to use your word --- the
common craving for group agreement.

Moses, Jesus, Mohammed . . . and Hubbard, were advertisements for
the satisfaction that supposedly awaits their followers. They
had to look the part. But to look the part one really as to feel
it, at least at some point. At least for a while.

___
KL: What did they do?

RD: Perhaps they simply anticipated it, then found their
justifications later.

___
KL: You mean like what I did?

RD: As you did, yes. The basic action was likely the same. They
anticipated satisfaction. This was their "heaven". They may
have used a different word but they're referring to the same
thing.

___
KL: Do you anticipate satisfaction?

RD: I have some hopes for the long run. Unfortunately,
Christianity does still stand in their way to some degree.
However . . . there's a fair to middling chance the Christian
monotheists will reach disillusionment before they're able to
completely disfigure humanity and desecrate the environment.
Yes, I am hopeful.

___
KL: What about Hubbard?

RD: Hubbard . . . ah, yes. What carried him along for several
years was the thought of taking command of the entire field of
mental health . . .

___
KL: That was his heaven?

RD: Well there's more.

___
KL: Ok . . .

RD: Hubbard was of Northern European descent. As is typical for
such people, without constant restimulation of their sense of
satisfaction they quickly default into dissatisfaction. {pauses}
(Perhaps I shouldn't use that word . . . "rehabilitation" is the
word Scientologists understand.) Anyway, as I recall, after the
first five years in public, Hubbard's state of satisfaction came
to be in constant need of rehabilitation. One unspoken reason
for the "tech" was to get Hubbard looking satisfied with a
minimum of help. We knew if he looked satisfied he'd attract
followers. That was really the most important thing because it
implied he had something others didn't. Fortunately there was
the power of training and editing. The necessary stimuli could
be rehearsed until they're second nature; then, with careful
selection, they can be captured, copied, and used over and over.

In the fifties, while he was still looking relatively contented,
most of the rehearsed material was put on tape. Thousands of
pictures were taken. Out of these came a few handfuls of classic
Hubbard-as-self-contented-savior shots. Followers look at the
shots and think they see Hubbard. They listen to the tapes and
believe they're hearing an original performance. Nobody's the
wiser.

___
KL: What do you think he had in mind when those pictures were
taken?

RD: The notion of being member to the most highly select group of
writers . . . the writers who found religions. He considered
them the most knowledgeable group on planet Earth. _Highly_
illuminated. It was also the notion of making people gather
around him . . . _hang_ on his every word . . . of being free to
make pronouncements that would be accepted without argument.
Aren't these what every writer wants?

___
KL: Writer's heaven. {smiling} I get the idea.

RD: As I may have said, he broke with us in the mid 1960's . . .

___
KL: Just to make sure, who's "us"?

RD: His co-conspirators.

___
KL: Right . . .

RD: The people that knew what he was doing.

___
KL: Ok . . .

RD: I always felt he paid a price for that.

___
KL: Breaking with you . . . ?

RD: On one hand he lost the concern that his communications would
be discovered thus blowing his personal "cover". On the other,
he became a solitary holder of secrets without anyone to really
confide in. Apparently he took some solace from fiction writing.
He was like any normal human being. He went back again and again
to what gave him the most intense satisfaction.

___
KL: And that was . . . ?

RD: Hubbard was enamored of inspiring devotion . . . with
storytelling. The sad fact is, he fell into a vicious cycle of
needing ever increasing doses [of devotion] to keep himself
satisfied. The more he got, the more tolerance he built.

Drug addicts would be familiar with what happened. I understand
in the end he finally became like a refractory child throwing
tantrums if someone failed to perfectly comply. At that point,
I'm sure, death was a welcome relief. For all concerned.

___
KL: Do you think breaking off with you had anything to do with
it?

RD: {knowing smile} We did tend to keep his head from swelling
too much . . . though I can understand how that got annoying for
him. There he was, being the sole "Source" of all goodness in
one setting, a mere actor in another. He said a clean break
would do us all good, that he had all that he needed, that it
would up security, that it would let him immerse himself further
into his role . . .

___
KL: Maybe he became too immersed . . .?

RD: At one point we were confident he would not become addicted.
He disappointed us.

___
KL: I guess you're glad you weren't Hubbard.

RD: You know I'm content with my choices in life.

___
KL: But Hubbard got all the glory . . .

RD: Were it possible --- it's not --- but were it possible . . .
I'd never trade my neural structure for his.

___
KL: You really think Northern Europeans are so hard to please?

RD: It's not that they're hard to please. It's that their
happiness tends to fade more quickly. At least that's my
experience of them. They often have red, or blond hair. Sun
sensitive skin. What makes them happy one day may not make them
happy the next. Their pleasure buttons go flat just a bit
faster.

___
KL: I know people that are like that emotionally . . . but
without the light coloring.

RD: It's a little prejudice of mine. Perhaps I'm unfairly
generalizing . . . over-generalizing, based on my limited
experience.

All right, I suppose we could say all human beings default to
dissatisfaction more readily than other animals because we're
clearly more innovative. Innovation is born of dissatisfaction.
What I personally believe is that Europeans, and especially the
Northern Europeans are the most quickly dissatisfied among the
human species.

___
KL: You mean the more innovative the more dissatisfied?

RD: No, the other way around. The more dissatisfied, the more
innovative. Pain drives innovation. Only someone dissatisfied
with sitting on the ground would invent chairs. Only someone
dissatisfied with sitting on hard surfaces would invent cushions.

___
KL: What if they just want to make money?

RD: Then they're dissatisfied with their financial status . . .
or status in general, more typically.

___
KL: When you say Northern Europeans, what do you mean? Not the
French. I've always thought of the French as people who enjoy
life.

RD: The Germans and English. Perhaps I'm being unfair. I don't'
want to point the finger at myself. {pause}

Admittedly, Europeans, in general, were the first to explore the
entire world on ships. Why would they do this? . . . what else
but dissatisfaction with where they were at. Europeans were the
first to begin to confront the grim realities of existence
through Science. Why risk disappointment when previous
generations got along just fine on Christian or Pagan fantasy? .
. because, they were _already_ disappointed with their God or
gods. They were _already_ dissatisfied with what they believed.
I'm convinced civilization is simply the collected means of
soothing dissatisfied hearts. Since Europeans have invented most
of civilization's current wherewithal, they must have also been
the most easily dissatisfied.

___
KL: And Hubbard was Northern European.

RD: So were Nat and Bonnie Sloan, Hubbard's teachers. They were
both German. Nat was German American and Bonnie was a German
National who became a U.S. citizen through marriage.

___
KL: It does seem like some people are awfully hard to satisfy.
They get something, then they just get used to it and want
something more.

RD: Civilization is supposed to remedy dissatisfaction. Take away
the trappings of civilization: automobiles, paved roads, prepared
food, plumbing, hot water showers . . . what do you get?
Piercing screams of agony, that's what you get . . . much, much
worse than would ever have been without the comforts of
civilization. We have so many more requirements these days. It
doesn't take much of a loss to make Westerners miserable. In
that sense we're not so different from Hubbard: spoiled rotten .
. vulnerable to the slightest downturn.

___
KL: But why did Hubbard let himself become so vulnerable?
Shouldn't he have known better?

RD: Yes, he should have. Most definitely he should have. As we
should too. But the siren song of fantasy fulfillment is
difficult to resist. Scientologists fall prey to it. Westerners
in general fall prey to it. Though he used it as a weapon, and
*knew* it was a weapon, Hubbard fell prey to it as well.

___
KL: A weapon . . . ?

RD: That's how it was used.

___
KL: So it was like falling on his own sword. Hmm. Poetic
justice I guess, huh?

RD: If you like.

___
KL: Why not you? How can you be so completely non religious, yet
always seem so content with life?

RD: I accept Life as it is. I let it change as it will, as it
can, but don't pine for what I know I cannot have. I admit I am a
precisely determined material object and otherwise do not exist.
{smiling, contentedly}

{pause}

___
KL: It's incredible to see someone so happy with that. You say
it as if it were a wonderful thing to be like a rock . . . or a
piece of wood. {incredulous} Some people would think there's
something terribly wrong with you.

RD: Yet, I have an enduring sense of immortality. Is there
something wrong with that?

___
KL: It's not that there's something wrong with it . . . no. It's
just that . . how can you possibly feel you're immortal without
believing in any God or spirit? I don't believe in God but I
still believe there's something in me that will go on.

RD: There is. {pause}

___
KL: {incredulous} I'd like to hear what you have to say about it.

RD: Take a deep breath K---. Slowly. {waits}

___
KL: {breathes, closing eyes}

RD: Now consider what you just felt.

Did you know that experience is accessible to any living human
being?

___
KL: Sure, it is, but . . .

RD: The same could be said for nearly anything you can feel . . .
on your skin . . . in your body. Joy feels the same from person
to person. Contentment feels just as delicious. Blink your
eyes. {pause} Lick your lips . . . it's very much the same, from
one person to another. This is true for nearly all we can
experience.

___
KL: It couldn't be _exactly_ the same.

RD: Happiness is happiness, no matter who is feeling it.

If experience weren't the same, person to person, we wouldn't be
able to understand one another. I'd say a word, you'd hear it as
something else.

___
KL: That _does_ happen, you know, if people don't speak the same
language.

RD: What I'm saying is, on the level of sight, sound, touch,
smell, taste . . . and the pleasure and pain of emotions, we do
indeed speak the same language.

___
KL: Ok . . . So?

RD: It's not "our" experience K---. It's something we become.
We momentarily _become_ pleasure or pain, or happiness or anger,
or what we see, hear, and smell. Most every brain and body is
structured to become these things. If we're lucky, this will
continue to be so for many thousands of generations into the
future.

___
KL: But not everyone "becomes" what they want.

RD: You're right. Yes. That is the difference between people.
One set of paths inevitably becomes more familiar. Genes and the
environment conspire to make them walk it over and over again.
Yet the other paths are still out there, somewhere.

___
KL: Somewhere, yes, but if you were born ugly I don't think
you're likely to experience what it's like to be a beauty queen.

RD: I agree. Which is why I strongly advocate selective breeding
to raise the chances for satisfying experience.

___
KL: {raises eyebrows, doubtful} Hm-mm.

RD: Think of a life like a bubble in a pot of boiling water. It
forms, it expands as it rises to the surface, it pops. Do we
lament the loss of a bubble under such conditions? {smiles
broadly} Apparently, we do. But why? In reality, there is always
another bubble forming and there is always more of the same
experience awaiting us in the future.

___
KL: I think most people would consider your analogy extremely
insensitive to their individuality. They'd say it's not really
"me", it's someone else. It's another bubble.

RD: They identify with a single bubble.

___
KL: Right.

RD: What I'm saying is that the bubbles' capacity for experience
is very much the same.

___
KL: That's nice, but what does it matter if it's the same if what
does the experiencing vanishes when it pops?

RD: The thing experiencing doesn't "vanish" permanently. It
appears somewhere else. And with all its capacities still
intact.

___
KL: But it's not the same thing experiencing . . .

RD: Isn't it?

___
KL: No. {determined} It's someone else.

RD: How do you know that . . . if what it can experience is the
same? What's the difference?

___
KL: How can you possibly know it's the same?

RD: How can you know it's different?

___
KL: Look at us. We're two _separate_ people. What I experience
is distinct and different from what you experience. {loudly}
It's not the same!

RD: You think what you're feeling has never been felt before?
That it's unique? That it can't be felt by anyone else?

___
KL: No, but I think it's me and me alone that's feeling it.

RD: For the moment, yes. {pause}

___
KL: I'm glad you agree.

RD: But your experience runs through time. Your experience will
change. What's the difference between an experience changing,
and, as you say, "someone else" doing the experiencing?

___
KL: It's someone else.

RD: How are they different?

___
KL: Their memories are different. Their looks are different. They
may have different tastes. Different abilities. The list of
differences could be endless!

RD: Endless, it is not. Not if they're human.

Let's take the memories. Those can be passed on through books
and other media. Looks can be passed on through genetics. Tastes
can be cultured. Abilities can be taught.

___
KL: What about a natural ability?

RD: That can come through genetics.

{pause}

___
KL: I firmly believe there's something that I AM which is purely
and uniquely me!

RD: You want so much to be mortal?

___
KL: No! I just want to be me.

RD: Well, "me" is starting to sound like a cliché.

___
KL: Oh! {angry} You're impossible.

{pause}

RD: I told you that you would be tested. Now you're clinging.
You're clinging to individuality in your search for immortality.
That's the Western way but I believe it will turn to folly in the
long run.

___
KL: How so?

RD: Life is full of tradeoffs. According to the tradition that
began with the Greeks --- which is now integral to our Christian
tradition --- there's body and mind . . . and they are distinctly
different. It's the material world which is holding an otherwise
free "being" on the mortal plane. Therefore, they reason, to
become immortal the mind must relinquish its havingness.

___
KL: What's havingness?

RD: What it cares about.

___
KL: Ok . . .

RD: Western tradition says you can either have the things you
care about . . . or you can separate from the physical plane and
have immortality. Either --- or. What I say is the tradition is
wrong. I say the sacrifice is just _one_ thing: your
individuality, that's it.

___
KL: What if I _like_ my individuality?

RD: Then to that degree you will cling to the Western mind-body
separation fantasy.

___
KL: Yeah? Well . . . {pause} Maybe it's not that easy to get away
from. {pause} I happen to like who I've become.

RD: The Communists --- believe it or not --- took a few small
steps in the right direction.

___
KL: You agree with communism?

RD: They dropped their faith in God, became materialists, and
looked to the larger national/racial/ethnic group for their sense
of immortality. That, I agreed with.

Unfortunately, they also clung to backward Christian ideas of
equality and rewarding downstats and misfits. That's what sunk
them, or that's what sunk the Soviet Union. They couldn't
acquiesce to the harshness of economic Darwinism. China,
however, is dropping the Christian arbitraries and may progress
still further. I've . . .

___
KL: What Christian arbitraries?

RD: Egalitarianism. That people are equally deserving.

___
KL: That's a Christian thing?

RD: It's taken a long, long while to gain the general acceptance
it now has. The first flowering was in the city-state of Athens.
Then it faded for a time only to show up again in the story of
Christ. There it sat for hundreds of years before being drawn
out and elaborated by philosophers like John Locke and Karl Marx.

___
KL: Karl Marx?

RD: It's taken many forms. Marx too, was a pawn of Christian
stories and Christian equality.

___
KL: How so?

RD: He believed in the idea that people should be equal, though
he had his ideas different from Americans on what form the
equality should take.

___
KL: If this is true, why didn't communism show up sooner than it
did?

RD: There are different ways to make people "equal". The idea
has been up against the standards of the time, certainly of Roman
times. The Roman way has changed, but it's taken hundreds of
years.

___
KL: Are "all men created equal"?

RD: No, K---. They are not. {pause} But I haven't changed.
I'm not a Christian. I'm not a Communist. I see nothing wrong
with discrimination. I'm like the Romans.

___
KL: An anachronism?

RD: I resist the temptation. Hundreds of years pass, along comes
the Renaissance and John Locke. He _was_ a Christian. He lends
the idea of equality some justification. The United States
associates it with success. {pause}

Someone once said, "The sole determinant of rightness or
wrongness is success." The U.S. made equality "right". Yet,
that line in their declaration of independence should be read:
"All men are created equal in the eyes of God".

___
KL: But it wasn't written that way.

RD: True. The writers were attempting to avoid the religious
infighting [in Britain] they'd so recently escaped.

___
KL: Why do you say it's "in the eyes of God"?

RD: The first Christian-Lockean principle that gained application
was: "All men, holding property, must be regarded as equal by the
state". That was later expanded, in the 1860's, to: "No person
can own another person as a slave". Next, with the coming of
general civil rights, was: "All _people_ must be regarded as
equal by the state." The current step is: "All people must be
regarded as equal by one another."

___
KL: You seem to be lumping together Christianity, democracy,
human rights . . . and communism? . . . all into one.

RD: Yes. They are each an expression, or an attempt to make
manifest the idea that all human beings are regarded as equal in
the eyes of God.

___
KL: But . . . communism was godless.

RD: It mixed about three parts Christianity with one part
Darwinism. Christianity --- Darwinism --- communism. Karl Marx:
thesis --- antithesis --- synthesis. We could go on to say his
communism started with John Locke's writings. But then, Locke
derived _his_ ideas by contemplating the story of Christ.

___
KL: How can you know that?

RD: Equality in the eyes of the Lord is what Jesus used to
explain why Yahweh didn't punish Rome for its subjugation of the
so-called "chosen people" of Israel.

___
KL: Is that in the Bible?

RD: Not literally. But the lack of divine retribution had been a
thorn in the side of Judaism for a long time. It was a
contradiction, a contradiction of Judaism. Every time the Jews
were conquered the contradiction surfaced, but with the Romans it
didn't just go away. The longer it remained, the more it
demanded an explanation. {pause} Contradictions demand
explanations.

___
KL: Aren't there other explanations?

RD: Yes, but none that works the way that one does. None that
provides hope to so many.

___
KL: What's your opinion of equality?

RD: If you are alive, your traits have been "selected". They
are, at this time, "chosen" for this environment, over and above
those that are no longer with us. If those traits have a long
and happy future ahead of them then surely they must be something
special.

___
KL: So then we're not "created equal" and Locke was completely
wrong.

RD: "Wrong" is different from fantasy. Locke was living in
Christian fantasy. A fantasy can work for quite a long time
before being vetoed by the underlying reality. Especially if it
utilizes an element of Darwinism, as is done in capitalist
economies. American might is based on Darwinism.

___
KL: What's the fantasy?

RD: That individuals deserve equal treatment. That there's such
a thing as human "rights".

___
KL: O-k . . . Whoa . . . I can tell that's a hot topic.

Before we get totally sidetracked though, I want to ask you more
about immortality.

RD: Go ahead.

___
KL: What's the use of that long and happy future for a bunch of
"traits" if there isn't some essential _you_ --- the individual
- - --- enjoying life through them?

RD: {laughs} What is "you"?

___
KL: You're making me wonder. You said individuality is what you
must give up for immortality.

RD: Yes.

___
KL: You also started off this interview telling me I _am_ what I
care about. Doesn't that mean you're saying the same thing as
the Christians? . . . that I too must sacrifice what I care
about?

RD: The individual and the self as I define it are not quite the
same. You can care about a group of millions yet is that "you",
the individual?

___
KL: No.

RD: What is "you", the individual?

___
KL: It's something that . . . well . . . subjectively, I'd say
I'm the one that makes the choices.

RD: Choices . . . all right.

___
KL: Continuity. There you go. How's that? {smiling, proudly}
*There's* an obvious difference between individuals, no matter
how similar they are. You make one twin stay home and let the
other go out and have fun. It _matters_ which is which. One
twin is jealous, the other isn't. They each have their own
continuous line of experience. They can't just switch places.

RD: Very good. You're right. They can't. Separate cause effect
chains are indeed what compartmentalize individuals. The
cause-effect chains they run on are separated in space. As such,
they must make different connections.

___
KL: Maybe that's why people don't like death. They stand to lose
their continuity.

RD: But they lose continuity of consciousness every night . . .

___
KL: It's not the same Ralph. You don't wake up in the morning
not remembering who you are. You don't wake up in a three
kilogram body with everything around you strange and new.

RD: Granted. There's a loss of continuity. But what if your new
body would become an improved body? Through selective breeding
of replacements, you gain everything back you once had, without
the drawbacks.

___
KL: What drawbacks? {smiles, then laughs}

RD: {smiles} Well, for people --- like yourself --- that have
already reached a level of perfection, an improved body would
retain its youth for a longer period.

___
KL: Nice. But death still feels like a major loss.

RD: We need to agree on a definition for "losing". Isn't
something "lost" only if it's never coming back?

___
KL: It's lost if you want it and can't find it.

RD: In death there is no wanting.

___
KL: You don't know that.

RD: There's no wanting because there's no caring. Dead people
aren't moping around miserable somewhere. They aren't in a
"place" at all. They're no-place and no-where . . . the realm of
unactualized, unmanifest possibility. That is, until their
traits filter back, which they will, given enough time. Given
enough time, most of what they were will be returned . . . if it
hasn't already been, in some other location.

___
KL: Return to sender?

RD: {smiles}

___
KL: You make it sound like someone doesn't want them.

RD: That's the way the Buddhists look at it. You have to keep
coming back until you get it right. But I have to disagree with
them. Evolutionary biology says you keep coming back _because_
you got it right. Not because you failed. And contrary to what
[the Buddhists] believe there are no rewards in the realm of
unmanifest possibility. There is no reward for non-beingness.

___
KL: Buddhists believe you come back sequentially. You disagree
with them there too?

RD: Definitely. {pause} Your soul is merely a pattern of
manifestation which can be repeated again and again. {picks up
teacup} This teacup has a soul. It's soul has manifested in
multiple locations.

___
KL: But it's not an alive soul.

RD: Yet it's as alive as any virus. As alive as any prion. It
behaves the same way . . . commandeering our resources to aid in
its reproduction.

___
KL: There must be millions of teacups in the world. That's a lot
of soul.

RD: No, it's a lot of manifestation. I'm sure this one is
relatively unique . . . though as you can see, it has a twin.

___
KL: So you don't believe in a soul that travels from body to
body.

RD: Of course not. The body and its behavior IS the soul,
manifest. There is no separation.

___
KL: Then another copy of my soul could be walking around
somewhere right now.

RD: It's quite possible, though she's probably not a perfect
doppelganger. Near perfect matches happen with identical twins,
but otherwise can take a while to show up.

___
KL: But she could be alive right now.

RD: Yes.

___
KL: So I could shake her hand? . . . go up and give her a hug .
. ?

RD: You could.

___
KL: My reincarnation.

RD: Yes.

___
KL: See, that's why I think it's not _me_ reincarnating, because
it's obviously someone else.

RD: What if she cares about all the same things that you do? In
that case you share the same "self".

___
KL: How can we share the same self if we think independently?

RD: Consider yourself yesterday. Were you thinking
independently?

___
KL: More or less . . .

RD: What about now?

___
KL: I'd like to think so . . .

RD: There you have an instance of the same self thinking
independently in two separate instances. The only difference is
that the separation is time rather than space.

___
KL: But that difference means no continuity. Right? When I die
someday, I'm not going to wake up as her.

RD: Agreed. You won't wake up as her. She will wake up as her.
But it might as well be you because everything else is the same.

___
KL: It might as well be. {long pause}

RD: Yes, it might as well be.

___
KL: Then I "might as well be" someone else that died a thousand
years ago.

RD: If you've got the same body and neural structures, why not?

___
KL: Amazing. I'm a dead person come back to life!

RD: If your life's patterns match what they once were, how can
you disagree? The soul is re-manifested.

___
KL: But I don't remember anything from past lives.

RD: The tradeoff is you get to remake them anew. And there's a
chance you can piece together some old memories. There's even a
slight chance you can piece them together perfectly. Otherwise,
the transfer medium must be something tangible.

___
KL: What's the transfer medium if I piece them together by
chance?

RD: The realm of unmanifest possibility, though it cannot be
considered like a normal "medium" that can be written upon.

___
KL: I need some time to think about these things. Let's take a
break.

RD: How about lunch?

___
KL: Wonderful.


{break}


___
KL: Ok. Repeat what you just said. Just now.

RD: A new life is like waking up into a new day.

___
KL: You said the morning often seems brighter than the afternoon.

RD: Refreshed eyes see the world differently. Same thing with a
child. The child sees the world new again. The "wrong" ideas are
gone and maybe this time she'll get it right.

___
KL: That's not too bad.

RD: There's no good reason to reject the *fact* of physical
reincarnation. The slate is wiped partially clean, but we're set
to rebuild it. The body is new, but it could be improved.

___
KL: I do like hearing this. It's not religion but it still feels
good.

RD: You see, you don't need superstition. In fact, it would be
much better for our souls if the world were entirely rid of it.

___
KL: Why?

RD: Because it's faith in stories that controls decisions.
Nearly every aspect of Western society is affected by Jewish and
Christian superstitions. Since we depend on society for our
future, we too are to that degree ruled by superstition. We're
sharing the First World with a backward, deluded Christian
majority. And they seem quite determined to wreak havoc on our
environment and sculpt our future manifestations into physical
and mental wrecks.

___
KL: They'd never agree they're doing that. They'd say only their
God can create a living being.

RD: Yet that's exactly what they're doing. By keeping people
alive and reproducing with the help of technology, they're making
the future dependent on that technology.

No . . . they don't like to admit it, but creatures do evolve to
fit their surroundings. For that reason, technology is fine up
to a point, but not if a biological fix would work better. For
example, I'd much prefer to be born with lifetime perfect vision
than be dependent on either glasses or contact lenses.

___
KL: What about laser eye surgery?

RD: A better solution is for the cells to make and maintain the
eyes properly. Obviously, there are gene combinations that can
guide just that, at no extra cost. No lasers, no skilled
surgeons needed.

High tech is not necessarily better tech.

___
KL: What's better tech?

RD: All right . . . a good example is clothing. Clothing
improves on known biological solutions since a natural fur coat
takes time to grow. Arctic foxes change coat colors with the
seasons but they still can't match the versatility of the furless
human's wardrobe. Some form of clothing is always easy to make.
Raw materials are ubiquitous and easily obtainable from the
natural environment.

___
KL: High tech is in fashion these days. I notice you don't carry
a cell phone.

RD: If I needed one, I'd carry one. But I don't see the point of
forming another dependency.

___
KL: You're a non conformist. Have I asked you why?

RD: No, you haven't.

___
KL: Why, then?

RD: I don't fall for the same stories others do.

___
KL: Religious stories . . .

RD: All kinds of stories. Why go along with someone else's
fabrication when you can easily see through it . . . and make up
your own?

___
KL: What about true stories? You have to go along with *them*,
don't you?

RD: The word "truth" implies faith, not fact. It is a word
people use to refer to what controls them.

___
KL: The truth controls people?

RD: "True" stories control them. The stories in which they put
their faith control them.

___
KL: In what way?

RD: In every way. {pause}

___
KL: In every way. Ok. Could you explain that?

RD: Well . . . there is a selection process that precedes
behavior. Sometimes it's called "choice". Sometimes it's called
"decision making". Whatever you call it, it's entirely dependent
on stories.

Occasionally you'll find some bloke like myself or L. Ron Hubbard
making up his own stories and pretending he's his own master.
It's like finding a vortex in a river. Lasts for a while, then
vanishes into the larger flow.

The larger flow is what controls the majority. And it maintains
itself because for a story to work, it must be believed. If
you're going to try your hand at fleeting self determinism --- at
being the vortex --- the trick is believing. Most people need a
reward for believing. They also need lots of agreement.
Agreement is persuasive. The more rewarding a faith, the more
there are to persuade, the more readily they believe. Not
surprisingly, you find the majority supporting themselves,
believing the story that makes them feel the best. Their "true"
story controls them, but in a way they readily accept.

An all-time favorite is the story that offers its listeners
"freedom". {smiles}

___
KL: Now you're contradicting yourself. You say a story controls
people . . .

RD: Yes. {pause}

___
KL: Then how . . .

RD: It's terribly ironic. It's one of the great ironies of life.
That we have powerful nations founded on nonsense. The United
States of America is founded on such a story. In fact, freedom
is an illusion born of ignorance.

___
KL: Why's it so popular then?

RD: Ignorance is bliss. {smiles}

___
KL: {laughs} A culture of blissful ignorance.

RD: But what a noble attempt in the field of fantasy
crystallization! They've made it seem so absolutely necessary:
"Live free, or die." Yet, there is no living "free", no matter
how weird and nonconformist you get. It's fascinating to examine
20th century culture from this perspective. It's been a century
of trying to prove we're something we're not. We're not free and
we're not equal, no matter what we do.

___
KL: I'm not saying I agree with you. I'm just asking questions.

RD: Fine.

___
KL: Lets go back to what we were talking about. Is feeling good
always a matter of believing in something?

RD: Yes.

___
KL: Why?

RD: Because "feeling good" is a behavior and behavior is preceded
by decision. To make that decision you have to believe in
something.

___
KL: Why's belief so important?

RD: It's like an access code. You know how you can't get into a
network without an access code?

___
KL: Sure . . .

RD: The brain is the same way. Restimulators come a-knocking but
not all can get in. The filter is belief. Is the restimulator
"real" or just an "illusion"? It's an important question. Of
course, we're also assuming there's something there to be
restimulated. We're assuming ensconced on the network are
stories, [having been] allowed not only entry, but residence as
well.

___
KL: Why were they allowed residence?

RD: They pass the tests of belief.

___
KL: What are these resident stories? Memories? Or what . . . ?

RD: In our heads are networks upon networks [of neurons] each
expecting a certain, distinct kind of stimulation. If a network
of neurons is to recognize and react there has to be a certain
form, duration, and order to its stimulation. It can't be just
anything. Because of this, the brain as a whole can
differentiate between sets of circumstances. For a creature
that's interested in surviving long enough to reproduce, the most
important distinction --- as I've said many times --- is between
good and bad stimulation. The value of stimulation is its
meaning. This assumed meaning isn't *outside* the creature.
It's stored as . . . well, they have various names. Some I've
already mentioned: values, charged memories, narratives,
reward/punishment circuitry . . . expectations. "Expectation" is
I believe the most technically accurate term since it doesn't
imply a separation between internal storyteller and listener.
The expectation is both. It "tells" of events by expecting them.
It "listens" to its story when restimulated into recognition.
When value expectations are restimulated, the body is given a
vital opportunity to act on how its internalized story plays out.
It doesn't act on how the external world plays out . . . it
doesn't know that yet. But it does know how its internal story
plays out. That's what it acts on. It's "right" to the degree
the internal story matches the external one. The action may
start with imagination and expand into emotion, thought, and
increasingly into overt, visible behavior.

___
KL: In other words, we assume we know what to do because we have
an internalized story that describes what's going to happen.

RD: Correct.

___
KL: Gradually, Ralph, this is becoming ever more familiar.

RD: Well good . . . very good.

___
KL: Ok. {pause} So . . . how do we choose what stories to latch
onto if stories are what supposedly control us?

RD: {laughs} You are catching on.

There are several factors controlling belief. Two of them,
actually, though the second could be broken into two.

All right, let's divide this up properly. It's essentially
desire and agreement, but agreement can be broken into repetition
and good sense.

___
KL: Ok. Then it's desire, repetition . . . good sense.

RD: Yes.

The hope of reward drives desire. The mind expects, "If I
believe, I will be rewarded."

___
KL: Isn't hope based on some kind of story?

RD: It's within the story being evaluated. The brain looks at it
and says, "You want in? What do you have to offer me?"

___
KL: Like it's looking for bribes . . . ?

RD: Like a maitre de. He wants some kind of gratuity.

___
KL: Hmm. So we believe what we're bribed to believe . . . or,
what we *want* to believe.

RD: Yes and no. We believe what we want, agreement permitting.

___
KL: Why do we need agreement?

RD: Because not getting it suggests someone's wrong.

___
KL: And that someone could be . . . who? Us?

RD: Lack of agreement is a basis for doubt.

___
KL: Who has to agree?

RD: _We_ do, for one. Our other, resident expectations have to
agree with a new one petitioning for entry. To accept a new
expectation, it has to concur with those already linked up to the
network.

___
KL: You're still talking about the brain, right?

RD: Yes. Perhaps I should have said, "already in the network" . .
the neural network.

___
KL: I don't think anyone's ever seen a network of neurons
petitioning someone for entry into their brain. {smiling}

RD: {laughs} Of course. What's really happening is that the brain
has an opportunity to organize a group of neurons that expect a
certain type of stimulation . . . which from then on will be
subject to RE-stimulation by later similars. The question is,
does the brain want that to happen? If so, it will allow the
expectation to form. That's what I mean when I say an
expectation is "petitioning for entry".

___
KL: Ok.

RD: When something "makes sense", it doesn't disagree with the
mind's resident expectations.

___
KL: What do they do? Take a vote? "Hey guys, should be we let
this one in?"

RD: {smiles} It's a little like that, but some votes carry more
weight. The more certain the expectation, the more weight it
carries.

___
KL: But the more certain it is, the more agreement it's got.
Right?

RD: Usually.

___
KL: What about from other people?

RD: That's the next area of agreement. If they can't find it
within, they look to others for that second opinion. A second
opinion is typically as incontrovertible as the opinion holder is
successful.

___
KL: Success stories . . .

RD: They lead by causing people to ask this question: "If he's
wrong, how come he sounds so satisfied? How come he's winning?
How could a person be winning and wrong??" It doesn't make sense
for a person to be "dead wrong" yet be happily flourishing and
prospering.

___
KL: You just said making sense is agreeing with what we already
know.

RD: That's right. But do you see how we *use* that to decide
whose influence we'll accept?

___
KL: It comes back to what we already know.

RD: We can also seek out authority.

___
KL: Like? Who?

RD: The preference is for a "what" when it comes to authority.
People prefer their authorities to be objective. Perhaps this is
why books have been sought as sources of agreement. They are not
in and of themselves possessed of desire, and are thus thought
- - --- in some way --- to be more objective. Like the dictionary,
for instance.

___
KL: What about the Bible? That's not objective.

RD: It was intended to be. That's why the writers remain
anonymous. They may have had desire, but readers cannot see it
first hand. Or if they do, they're told it's not a human
writer's desire. It's God's desire . . . God's will. This
maintains its authority.

___
KL: Can't we just assume there were writers and that they had
some reason for wanting to write?

RD: The casual reader doesn't see it. We can deduce it, yes.
But if a casual reader can't confirm it with his eyes . . . he
can't be sure.

___
KL: You think they did it that way purposely?

RD: They were obviously intending to manufacture a source of
authoritative, objective agreement that would get others to agree
with them.

___
KL: What if you don't believe in God? Or for that matter, what
if you don't believe in writers? Where do you turn for your
objective view of things?

RD: You turn to that which is least possessed by desire.

___
KL: Least possessed . . .

RD: You run experiments. That's the point of the Scientific
Method: to find the truth through objective agreement, or,
equivalently, agreement from that which is least possessed by
desire.

___
KL: Who or what is "least possessed by desire"?

RD: That can be fairly tricky. Since desire depends on
prediction, it could be anything which can't predict the future.
It could also be anything which can't adjust its behavior on the
basis of a prediction. Or, it could be anything which has
already adjusted its behavior on the basis of a prediction and
sees no reason to adjust it further.

___
KL: So complex, Ralph! Why can't you just say non-living things?

RD: That label doesn't cover it. There's a part of the mind
which is regarded as "unconscious". Yet, it's not really
unconscious because it recognizes and reacts to stimuli. It just
lacks desire. It's the part of the mind which is already "made
up", so to speak.

___
KL: Let me get this straight. If someone's mind is made up, they
don't have desire?

RD: On that particular issue, that's correct. Desire has ceased
to play a role in behavior surrounding that issue.

{pause}

___
KL: Why would desire fade out after the mind had settled on
something?

RD: That's what happens. We can assume it's no longer needed.

___
KL: Aren't there religious people whose minds are made up but
still have lots of desire?

RD: Interesting point. If they do, their minds are _not_ fully
made up on that particular issue.

___
KL: How do you know that?

RD: I know what they're seeking: more people to help "make up"
their mind.

___
KL: What happens when they get those people?

RD: A fully made up mind becomes automatic. Like a computer
program. It simply acts without consideration.

___
KL: Like a robot.

RD: Like a made up mind. A program is already "made up". No
desires, no doubts whatsoever.

___
KL: Can't you have a situation where part of the mind is made up,
but another part wishes it weren't?

RD: Yes you certainly can. But in a fully made up mind, there's
no conflict between the factors that compel belief. There's no
push-pull. The tug of war is over.

___
KL: Do you know anyone whose mind is fully made up?

RD: As I suggested, the human mind is split as to what to
believe. The unconscious mind is "made up", the conscious mind
is not.

___
KL: Then that situation is normal.

RD: The conscious mind wishing the unconscious weren't made up?
Yes, that's a normal situation.

___
KL: Ok. {pause}

You've named two factors: desire and agreement. You said
agreement breaks down further.

RD: It breaks down into good sense and repetition. Good sense
not only concurs with what one already knows, it also causes
other things to make sense . . . in other words, it explains more
mysteries than it creates. It causes other things to concur.

___
KL: What about repetition?

RD: Agreement intensifies with repetition. The more people that
agree, the more persuasive their agreement.

___
KL: True.

RD: The more times something's happened before, the more you
believe it _could_ happen again.

___
KL: Right.

RD: Desire, on the other hand, intensifies through lack. The
longer you've gone without, the more you want. If you went
without water for a few days in the desert out there you'd
probably find yourself believing in mirage oases complete with
shady palm trees and cool springs.

We could reduce desire to importance and lack. The mind asks:
"Is it sine qua non to our survival and successful reproduction?
How long have we gone without? What could we believe in that
might provide us with remedy?"

{pause}

All right. What have we got? . . . importance to survival and
successful reproduction, duration of lack . . . repetition of
opinion, repetition of first hand experience, repetition of
objective evidence, and . . . agreement with previously accepted
assumptions.

There you have it. The factors behind belief.

___
KL: Can you state them more simply?

RD: The desire to believe the story. {pause} How closely the
story agrees with what is already taken for granted. {pause} How
many times the story has repeated. How many others it's convinced
of its authenticity.

___
KL: It comes down to desire, good sense, and repetition of
agreement.

RD: That about says it.

___
KL: Is one factor stronger than the others?

RD: Repetition, because it so readily overrules desire and good
sense. A pattern that initially elicits objections will always
quash them if it endures.

___
KL: What kind of pattern?

RD: A pattern of events. When they repeat, they make believers.
An endlessly reoccurring theme, played out for all to see, is the
most indisputable form an idea can take.

___
KL: Maybe so . . . but it still takes time for ideas to sink in.
This is like a psychology class! Heavy stuff. Let me get up and
stretch my legs a while.


{break}


___
KL: It seems like something's missing.

RD: What?

___
KL: I don't know, it just seems like there's something missing.

RD: What is it?

___
KL: Let's just go over this again. First there are these little
stories inside us called "expectations" or "values" or whatever
you want to call them which tell us where things are going. Then
there are stories going on _outside_ of us which can control us
if we believe them . . .

RD: Restimulators.

___
KL: Restimulators, o-k. Then there are a bunch of factors that
decide what we'll believe in these "restimulators" seemingly
whether we like it or not. But where are we in all this? Which
of those factors you listed is "me"?

RD: Most people would equate the conscious mind with the desire
factor.

___
KL: Ok, now we're getting somewhere. What was missing was free
will. {smiles} I just wanted you to say it.

RD: {smiles} But what's behind the desire factor? . . .
importance and lack. Certain things are important to us . . . we
don't have them. {pause} We desire them. We yearn for them.
{pause} Therefore, we exist.

___
KL: Interesting variation on Descartes there Ralph.

RD: Well, if you compare the two [_I think, therefore I am_ to
_The potential to yearn signals the presence of a living being_]
you'll notice my "variation" is quite different. It explains
quite a lot.

___
KL: Tell me.

RD: Well . . . for example . . . we don't recognize the existence
of a conscious mind in a computer. Why should this be? The
computer obviously thinks. It calculates. But it doesn't want
anything. Not even electricity. Programmers could make it
_look_ like it wants something, but they don't know how to make
it _feel_ like it wants. Not yet anyway. So far, it's one of
Life's secrets . . . hasn't yet been translated into computer
code.

As for ourselves, we do want, obviously. The more we lack, the
more we yearn for what we lack. The more we yearn, the more solid
and "massy" we feel. On the other hand, we feel increasingly
ephemeral --- "spiritual" if you like --- as those yearnings turn
to satisfaction. We spend most of our time in the middle ground.
Too much yearning feels like it's solidifying us into stone, too
little and we're on Cloud Nine, floating away. Just right, and
we're ordinary human beings. {pause} People know what they are.
They know what defines beingness. They just haven't contemplated
the ramifications with language.

___
KL: Go on . . . what are we?

RD: We are desire. We are an emergent property of continuing
interactions, like most everything else in this universe. An
emergent property which depends on a substrate.

The idea of body-mind separation is backed up by the fact that
satisfaction --- what desire wants --- feels *less* solid, more
"clear". Desire wants an end to itself. Yet, on the other hand
it wants perpetual continuation. Terrible conflict we've got
there. The answer comes through fantasy. The conflict resolves
with the mind body separation fantasy.

___
KL: . . . which you're now saying is wrong.

RD: No. It wasn't "wrong" . . . because it worked. It helped us
cover the globe with humans.

It is, however, obsolete. It's outlived its usefulness. With
it, we're now destroying the environment that sustains us.
Body-mind separatists and individualists don't care because
they've devalued the physical world. They don't think it
matters. Or their "soul" won't be around to experience the
consequences. Realists know their gains are short term and
emotional, while their losses may be forever. The death of a
species I take as more significant than the loss of an
individual. About time we faced a bit more reality, don't you
think? To manage Earth properly, we need to get our heads out of
the clouds. The clouds may be pretty, but as we snatch natural
habitats left and right and all resources are devoted exclusively
to overindulged human comfort and convenience, the time has
surely arrived.

___
KL: What if I were to say, ok, I understand what you're saying
- - --- and you're right, we do need to do something about
overpopulation --- but what if I said I just have this sense of
_knowing_ there's something more to us than just atoms and
molecules.

RD: You are something more. You're an emergent property. But
you're still dependent. Separating the mind from the body would
be like separating electricity from electrons. You can separate
the words: electricity --- electrons; spirit --- body . . . but
it doesn't do anything to the actual phenomenon.

___
KL: Doesn't desire have an effect on what happens?

RD: Of course it does. We've just been discussing that.

___
KL: Ok, ok . . . it's one of those factors behind belief. But
can't desire act independently? . . . you know, the way it wants?

RD: Desire _always_ acts the way it wants. That's it's nature.

___
KL: But things don't always turn out the way it wants . . .

RD: It's up against repetition and good sense. When it comes to
garnering faith, a repeating story has the edge.

___
KL: What happens when things *do* work out? Can't we rightly
claim credit?

RD: We can claim it, but how do you know it was desire that did
it when there are two other factors at work?

___
KL: I don't know. It just seems like it. I want to raise my
arm. It goes up. It seems like I did it.

RD: That's part of the natural flow of cause and effect. There's
no "you" to be the source of anything. If there were, it would
violate the laws of conservation of energy.

___
KL: {disappointed} Now, that, I don't like. You're saying I
don't exist.

RD: You can't be solely "cause", you can't be solely "effect".
These are impulses that flow through you. {pause}

It's not such a bad situation.

___
KL: I don't like it.

RD: Let's try this. {takes out some change} Let's flip this
[coin]. You predict it.

___
KL: Heads.

RD: {tosses coin and catches it} Very good! Heads it is. You're
lucky today.

Now. Let me ask you . . . did your desire make that coin fall
the way it did?

{pause}

Did it fall the way it did because you wanted to?

___
KL: No . . .

RD: All right. How, then, can you differentiate between the
[coin] giving you the outcome you want from your body giving you
the outcome you want?

{pause}

___
KL: {pensive}

RD: How can you know they are different?

___
KL: Because I just know that they're different. My actions
aren't like a coin toss.

RD: I didn't ask you that. I asked you how you can differentiate
the coin landing the way you wanted from your body performing as
you want it to.

___
KL: Because there are nerves running to my muscles that make
things happen. When I want to do something, I can do it.

RD: All right.

But how can you be sure there isn't some kind of "line" running
from you to the coin, that made it land the way it did?

___
KL: There isn't.

RD: How can you be absolutely certain?

___
KL: Repetition . . . {smiling}

RD: So you've got a convincing story, have you?

___
KL: Wave my hand in the air. See? No lines. Funny how it always
seems to work that way, Ralph . . .

RD: Are you sure there isn't some other kind of communication
going on? Using waves, for instance? Or some other property of
the Universe that hasn't been discovered . . . ?

___
KL: Ok, fine. {pause} Maybe I can't be . . . one hundred percent
sure. But what I _can_ be sure of is that my body will
outperform that coin. There's no way it's fifty-fifty. Maybe if
I had muscular dystrophy or MS . . . . but if I want myself to do
or say something, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, it's going
to happen.

RD: Pretty good odds. {pause}

What if I told you the natural function of your nervous system is
tilting the odds in favor of your body going along with desires?

___
KL: What do you mean by "tilting the odds"?

RD: It follows the rewards and leaves the punishments. That's
its function. Your nervous system weighs the factors compelling
belief, selects a story, and acts as if that story were true.
Much of the time, these actions should align with your desires,
in which case you'll feel as if you're in control.

___
KL: As if . . . ?

RD: Sometimes they don't.

___
KL: Why not?

RD: Because repetition and good sense have selected the story.
They've overruled your desires.

___
KL: You know very well . . . You know . . . that I have _reasons_
for doing things. A falling coin doesn't.

RD: Oh you do, do you?

___
KL: Yes.

RD: Your muscles are controlled by nerves which are controlled by
lots of other nerves . . . which are controlled by perception. I
assume your reasons are perceptual.

___
KL: They could just as well be in my head . . .

RD: All right, past perception, past reasons . . . being
"considered".

Ok.

{pause}

So what's making your decisions, you or your reasons?

___
KL: Both! It's me evaluating the reasons, then making the
decision.

RD: Are you being persuaded by reason? You just said that you
were.

___
KL: But I don't have to be.

RD: You don't have to be.

___
KL: No. {smiling}

RD: All right.

{pause}

Let us say you are not persuaded by reasons. In that case what
differentiates one of your decisions from the coin toss?

___
KL: {sighs} I *don't* know . . . exactly, but . . .

RD: But you do know when you're controlled by reasons . . .

Who makes your decisions then: you? . . . or your reasons?

___
KL: You know, when you come right down to it, I don't
particularly like being informed of how inconsequential I may be.
{pause} Sometimes I'd frankly like to tell you you're full of
shit, Ralph, but I'm not going to because I'm here to interview
you and I know there's some truth in what you're saying . . . I
sometimes find myself doing things I don't necessarily want to do
. .

RD: You are as consequential as ever. What I'm telling you is
that the you that you think you are is not ultimately
responsible.

___
KL: But I **want** to be responsible!

RD: {laughs} I know how you feel.

___
KL: Well if you know how I feel, why are you telling me this?

RD: Do you need a break? We're doing an interview here.
Remember? You're just asking questions.

___
KL: My God . . . {hurt, long pause}

Can Raoul get us some more of those little sandwiches?

RD: Of course he can.


{break}


___
KL: Ok. Let's start again with this fresh. From the very
beginning. How do a person's decisions come to be?

RD: We need to do some background first.

___
KL: Ok . . .

RD: All right.

The world . . . is made up of chains of cause and effect. But
what's cause and effect? It's just particles telling other
particles how to behave. All particles send commands, all
particles take commands. Commands are obeyed based on how they've
been understood. Particles are extremely predictable in this
regard. They obey mathematical laws. They form patterns.

The quirky thing is, what applies to the particles, also applies
to the aggregations of particles, or . . . objects. They too tell
each other what to do. They send commands. They take commands. As
they do, chains of cause and effect are formed, and the future
becomes the present.

Now, we human beings may be structurally different from water, or
wood, or steel, but we are still made of particles, we are still
physical objects. As such, we still must send commands and we
still must take commands. As living objects, however, we're much
more sensitive and we're far more capable. Not infinitely more
capable, just far more capable. There's a whole range of
commands that are open to us that are not open to non living
systems. We're indulging in them right at this moment.

___
KL: {mildly approving} Yeah . . .

RD: Every type of object has a characteristic command that it
follows under certain conditions. You might call this the
object's "constitutional commandment". The command is issued and
followed simply because of the way the object is constructed, the
result of interactions between it's parts. Water, for instance,
on Earth, in the temperatures in which we find ourselves, is
commanded to find its own level. "Thou shalt find your own level
ye watery substance . . ."

Our constitutional command is different. In our case, it's "Thou
shalt find a way to exist, for ever and ever."

___
KL: The command to survive.

RD: In obeying that command, we, like other objects, behave very
predictably. We are compelled to approach anything we predict
will help us obey the command. We're compelled to avoid
disobedience. And when we don't know what someone or something
will make us do, we . . . may be compelled to find out, likely
because we can't afford not to.

It just so happens that knowledge of our true nature appears to
lead us into disobedience . . . into disobeying our
constitutional command. What I say . . . is that appearances can
be deceiving, and that while it is normal to react with distress
when faced with non-existence and loss of control, it is often
the person with the edge in terms of knowledge that comes out on
top.

When there is knowledge that most people cannot accept --- not
because it is wrong --- but because it is temporarily
distressing, that knowledge is probably well worth embracing. Ok
. . ?

___
KL: Was there ever a time when you were distressed by the things
we've been talking about?

RD: There was once a time, yes. It's a very normal reaction.

___
KL: How did you get over it?

RD: First I had to confront the proof of the complete
impossibility of mind body separation. You've gotten a taste of
that today. After that, it's simply a matter of finding what
kind of immortality we're really after. The fact that we mix our
genes sexually --- losing a percentage of them in the bargain ---
shows it's not about preserving ourselves as static individuals.

___
KL: Isn't there an urge to survive as an individual?

RD: There is, but it's balanced with an urge to destroy that
which is getting in the way . . . in the way of a more valid form
of immortality.

___
KL: More valid than what?

RD: More valid than self preservation. Self sacrifice happens all
the time. When it does, the urge to destroy has won out.

Fortunately, there's re-creation. It's easy and it's cheap.
It's more worthwhile than preservation because it offers new
opportunities. It offers second, third, fourth . . . many more
chances. It offers the chance to grow up in new environments, to
finally find that perfect niche, in the right time, in the right
place. It offers a chance for continuing experience. Look at
me, for instance. Surprises are nearly at an end for me. I
cannot look at the world completely afresh. But physically
reincarnated, I can return to being a young child, over and over.

___
KL: That's nice. But some people would rather avoid going round
and round like that. The Buddhists talk about getting _off_ the
endless cycle of birth and death. And don't the Scientologists
also want "out"?? . . . I remember Hubbard talked about "the road
out" in some of his writings . . .

RD: People that have failed again and again and are convinced the
pattern must continue endlessly . . . it is they who want out.

___
KL: Well? It's understandable then . . .

RD: Of course it's understandable. Their time is best spent
destroying that which is getting in the way . . .

___
KL: What gets in the way?

RD: Lack of fitness.

___
KL: Scientologists are destroying lack of fitness?

RD: Most definitely. They are sacrificing themselves for an
organization that is very good at destroying that which gets in
its way . . . and while doing so, paves the way to a better
future. Normally, only the unfit become Scientologists and only
fools oppose it.

___
KL: Why is it foolish to oppose Scientology?

RD: Getting in the way opens you up to the full force of . . . .
let's call them "techniques of psychological warfare".

Why take the risk when what you're opposing is doing a public
service? It would be like risking your sanity to stop trash
collectors from cleaning the streets.

___
KL: Then why do you sometimes speak so bluntly *against*
Scientology in this interview?

RD: So it can never be said that Scientologists were victims. If
they sacrifice themselves, it is in the interests of a better
future.

___
KL: Scientology isn't the answer . . .

RD: It was, at one point. In a Judeo-Christian world where just
talking about selective breeding gets you ostracized, it was the
best we could do. At least for now, Scientology works. It helps
clean up the garbage.

___
KL: "At least for now." {pause}

RD: Yes.

___
KL: What if you had your way with things?

RD: {smiles} If I had my way . . . {laughs} . . . you really want
to hear that?

___
KL: What would it be like, Ralph?

RD: I'll list some important points.

___
KL: Ok . . .

RD: The world would come to grips with the fact that death is not
something to lament while new and improved life is continuously
being created.

___
KL: That will look like a step backward to some people.

RD: I know. But in fact it's a return to balance . . . and
sanity as well. Imagine someone crying over the loss of a blade
of grass in a meadow . . . how silly that would look.

___
KL: Shouldn't people be taught to be compassionate?

RD: What is compassion if it perpetuates suffering? {pause,
sardonic smile} It's not compassion.

In ancient Rome, there were no murder charges for parents both
agreeing to kill their own child, up to one year of age. That
*is* a compassionate policy . . . for both parents as well as the
defective child.

___
KL: It makes sense only if you believe the child's life isn't
worth anything.

RD: The "worth" of things is determined by their surroundings. A
bad apple is worth something if there are no other apples, or no
other food, for miles around. But what is it worth in a sea of
good apples? {pause} When you say a bad apple has worth, you're
implying the good apples are not being included in your
awareness. {pause} That's one of the hallmarks of the
"compassionate" Christian. He or she prefers to meditate on
misery.

___
KL: What should she meditate on?

RD: Satisfaction. The living, who are satisfied. And I believe
she'd have reason to be satisfied because in my ideal world, her
parents would have been selected for physical and mental health.
Troubled people would be dying off. Extraordinary people, of
various types, would be getting to be a larger share of the
population.

___
KL: And how would that happen?

RD: Breeding and surrogate birth programs would let the happiest,
most robust individuals leave many, many offspring, more than the
women could have naturally. New laws would end the incentives
democracy gives to its minorities. Nations and regions would see
group identities form, or be restored.

___
KL: What incentives does democracy give to minorities?

RD: If gives them dominance and control, if they produce enough
offspring. {pause} Why do you think the population has risen so
quickly since the 1700's? Democracy has consequences. In part,
the goal is more votes.

___
KL: And you would end this incentive?

RD: It needs to be ended. There's a limit to what the food web
can support. Demographics are changing for the wrong reasons.

___
KL: {skeptically} Well I wish you luck on that count . . .

RD: It's just a dream. But it is a dream that makes extremely
good sense given full acceptance of biological, scientific
realities. If we are to be physically reincarnated, wouldn't you
prefer a body that will develop effortlessly to fit its
environment? . . . no health problems, no infirmities . . .?

___
KL: I don't have any health problems . . .

RD: A _longer_ life without health problems . . .

___
KL: Ok . . . Maybe you're right. I admit if I had the choice I
would like to hope the next . . . "me" . . . if we call her that
. . would have things better. I suppose that's what I want for
my children . . .

RD: Just knowing there's less suffering . . . wouldn't that make
things better?

___
KL: It would. But how do you get that? It seems like people
would have to give up so much . . .

RD: Life's always full of tradeoffs. There's nothing that can be
done about that.

___
KL: Maybe so, but who decides who's the loser in the tradeoff?
Like . . . who's to decide who's fit and who's not?

RD: You couldn't impose this kind of thing on a population with
Jewish or Christian beliefs. They'd resist and you'd be forced to
become a tyrant. Tyrants don't last forever . . . eventually
common views would have their way, democracy or no. The only way
things will change is if winners and losers alike realize change
is in their long term self interest.

___
KL: But it's not. Not for the losers.

RD: Isn't it?

___
KL: You're saying they have to shift to your way of seeing
things?

RD: Some of them could have Scientology. That's who it was
designed for.

___
KL: What about the others? . . . the more fortunate ones?

RD: They'd have to stop pinning their hopes on the fanciful
mind-body separation idea . . . [and] shift them instead to the
verifiable fact of physical reincarnation.

___
KL: I think they'll resist. Most people will resist.

RD: I know. But we have reality on our side. One by one,
endless repetition will convince them. There is no reproducible
evidence for a separable metaphysical spirit. On the other hand,
there's scads of evidence that the subjective experience of
similar bodies in identical situations is all but identical.
Similar bodies see the same things, hear the same things, feel
the same things. They react the same way. And when they are
different, how different is it than one individual, compared one
year to the next?

___
KL: I can just hear the response. If they're kind, they'll say
you place no value whatsoever on the individual. If they want to
be really nasty, they'll call you a Nazi.

RD: That's why we have Scientology. Christian society isn't
ready for social Darwinism. They've had it in the economic
sphere for years but they balk when it creeps into the social
arena . . . or if it begins to involve questions of life and
death. Resistance will only give way, I believe, as Christians
see the medical costs of maintaining structurally flawed,
unproductive individuals going up, up, and up, nothing left for
anything else . . . and as they witness the sheer devastation
the democracy and oil driven over-population bubble leaves in its
wake. When the change happens, and it surely will --- unless of
course a desperate, worldwide religious- or resource-war
intervenes --- sterilization will likely begin only with extreme
cases . . . people with traits so onerous, even the individual
possessing them would surely agree they not be cursed on a new
generation.

___
KL: There are mothers that know there's something wrong with them
but still want to have kids hoping, somehow, they'll turn out
better. {questioning look} There are also mothers that feel
terrible about themselves but feel better when they find a man
willing to comfort them. What about them?

RD: They just need something other than themselves to absorb
their spare attention. {pause}

That's one of the reasons birth rates differ so drastically
between non-industrial and industrialized countries: in the
industrial countries, women have more opportunities. The
drawback is that the most talented women are not reproducing
themselves at rates which their success seems to deserve.
Ideally, those with severe genetic problems would not pass them
on at all, average people would reproduce at the replacement
level, no higher . . . while truly exceptional people would
contribute eggs and sperm such that they could leave tens, even
hundreds of offspring.

___
KL: Hundreds of kids?

RD: Gestated in surrogates, raised by surrogates.

___
KL: How many would you say I'd deserve?

RD: {laughs} I've seen some very adaptive traits in you. On that
basis, I'd suspect . . . you deserve at least ten.

___
KL: Ten children?? {smiling gleefully}

RD: With various fathers. The exact number would be influenced
by how your parents and grandparents --- several generations back
- - --- have fared.

___
KL: In terms of what?

RD: Our selection criteria. Health, happiness, longevity . . .

The next generation is important. Other than obsolete tradition,
there's no reason to put it in the hands of people who abuse it;
there's no reason it not be bequeathed with the best genetics we
can give it.

___
KL: I can think of lots of reasons.

RD: Our kind hearted Christian friends. {pause} Yes, well . . .
I hope it doesn't take too much to finally persuade them. It
will happen. They will be persuaded. {pause} Any fantasy that
tries to nullify natural selection bears the seeds of its own
destruction. But how much destruction it will take to finally
undo the fantasy . . . I do not know.

___
KL: They have a saying the road to Hell is paved with good
intentions.

RD: Yes. {smiles} The real problem is the road AWAY from Hell.
{pause, smiling} It's paved with what --- to most Christians . .
and to most people --- looks like evil.

Some Christians must have known what they were up to was folly.

___
KL: Isn't it wrong to deny people with problems their chance?
{smiling}

RD: Their chance to curse future generations with their
suffering? {smiling} What do you think?

{pause}

Honestly . . .

___
KL: It isn't.

RD: Well I don't think it's wrong either. {laughs} Our cultural
predisposition towards giving unhappy, unfortunate people equal
"rights" is based solely on the fact that Jesus of Nazareth ---
during his life --- had few open hearts to win but those of the
disenfranchised. They were his "public". Yet, in present time,
our laws are now slanted towards these people, based primarily on
the idea of equality in the eyes of a higher authority.

___
KL: When you say it, it doesn't sound all that bad.

RD: Yet it prevents society from institutionalizing social
Darwinism.

___
KL: Well . . . ? {shrugs}

RD: Admittedly, the idea has multiple interpretations. It's
allowed us a meritocracy, which is surprising since it also
allowed communism. Americans lucked out by betting on Locke.
Locke favored ownership of property. The Russians looked at
America's robber barons, compared them to the Czars and decided
to gamble on Marx. My point is that we need to consider
evolutionary consequences when making these kinds of bets. If
they move us to perpetuate suffering rather than extinguish it,
religious philosophers and religious stories can take us
*sharply* against the interests of the future.

{pause}

___
KL: You think the idea of equal rights is truly religious?

RD: Yes.

___
KL: In the U.S. --- I don't know about Mexico --- there's
supposed to be a separation between Church and State.

RD: The separation is in name only.

___
KL: But the U.S. is multi-religious. And multicultural. They're
not allowed to have a religious government. Their government
can't *favor* one religion over another.

RD: I disagree. They make no laws which _name_ religion, but
they regularly make laws _applying_ religion. They can't help
it. Their government is elected and run by religious people.
It's the same with Mexico . . . for all of the Americas, as well
as Europe.

___
KL: But politicians are not like rabbis or priests . . .

RD: {smiles} Western governments pretend to be "secular", but
underneath the pretense, they are exclusively Jewish-Christian.
They favor Darwinist economics because that's what keeps them
alive. Beyond that, however, they continue to run almost
exclusively on Jewish-Christian stories and uphold
Jewish-Christian traditions.

___
KL: Like a theocracy?

RD: They are as much a theocracy as practicality allows.

___
KL: It's all religion, not politics.

RD: It's religious politics, for the most part.

___
KL: {dubious} Religious stories really control decisions to that
extent . . . ?

RD: They are the groundwork upon which everything else is built.

___
KL: I doubt most politicians would admit to taking part in a
theocracy. {smiling}

RD: Nonetheless, the Western history, and the history of the
United States has been decided primarily under the influence of
the Old and New Testament. We can know this because the ruling
classes still accept that influence, even to their detriment.
{pause} They don't know they're being controlled. That's the
sign of a mind, made up. It's unconscious. Times have changed
but it still favors what worked in the past.

___
KL: Now I'm not following you. What's changed and what is still
favored?

RD: When Europeans were not yet dominant here, the Christian view
was that enlightened Europeans were helping ignorant natives to
live their lives according to God's will.

___
KL: True . . .

RD: Now, after lighter-skinned Europeans have control, the
Christian view no longer aids their cause. What it does do is
keep the descendants of the original colonists pacified.

___
KL: How?

RD: With guilt. New colonists come in and the new natives . . .
ah, Caucasian, European people, get a dose of their own medicine,
so to speak.

If they knew what was good for them they'd change their mind.
But they can't because it's been solidified into their Christian
theocracy.

___
KL: Why doesn't it favor Caucasians?

RD: Simple. Equality and dominance don't mix.

___
KL: Whoops! Sorry, stupid question . . .

RD: No, it was a good question. {pause}

Christ's message was that everyone is equally deserving in the
eyes of the great dispenser of rewards and punishments. If one
takes this message to heart . . . then looks at the real world
with its disparity between the have's and have-not's . . . why,
there's only one thing to do . . .

___
KL: What? Take from white people and give to people of color?

RD: Christian tradition does favor the less fortunate. In
practice, what this means is that true Christians will forever be
lamenting the status of the disenfranchised. This is what we've
been getting from literature for the last two centuries or so . .
that everyone has a "right" to have as much life, liberty, and
happiness any anyone else. It took Western thinkers 1600 years
or so to start cogniting, but toppling the powerful is now, more
than ever, part of a new status quo. {pause} Fortunate people who
understand what they're up against can find loopholes . . .
artifice . . . to preserve their hold on power, but the general
mindset tends to work against them.

___
KL: How do you square this with the continuing existence of
Christian institutions? How have they held onto power?

RD: That's one of the tricks to modern day survival. Emulate the
Church. Speak against those in power to dissemble your own.
Advocate the "little guy" in rhetoric; preserve your own power in
action. To take control of people you simply name something
that's controlling them and advocate its downfall. This trick's
been used so many times, it's a wonder they still fall for it.
But they do.

___
KL: Yet that doesn't seem to be a feature of general society.

RD: What do you think democracy is? In the name of Christian
equality, it's one person, one vote. It provides a periodic
opportunity to bring down those in power.

___
KL: Didn't democracy start with the Greeks?

RD: Yes. Of course it did. {long pause}

Western culture began with Greek gods and Greek heroes. It began
with Greek theater and Greek tragedy. If we expand our view to
include the Greeks, Christianity is merely a reinforcement of
traditions already set in place. That's the reason Christianity
could became so popular. It made sense given what was already
known and accepted. Yet it still contained significant
departures from Greek traditions which have their own significant
consequences.

___
KL: One person, one vote? It seems fair, don't you think Ralph?
"We, the People" deciding on a government, rather than the
government deciding for us?

RD: The fairness can be a façade. Once it was Greek storytellers
who were in control. Today, its the old and new testaments and
their interpreters. When the bible has nothing to say, it's
whoever hires the best artists, whoever disseminates the most
compelling alternative. And when democratic governments are not
overtly Christian in their duties, they've usually been bought
off by the rich.

___
KL: When that happens, wouldn't it work _against_ your Christian
tendency to undermine those in power?

RD: Well first of all, it isn't _my_ Christian tendency. I'm not
a Christian. But yes, there are _tricks_, as I said, which allow
one to maintain power within a system that gives it . . . _less_
than stable ground.

___
KL: So in your view, Christians undermine the status quo, while
those in power use "tricks" to retain it. Who's winning?

RD: The Christians, slowly but surely. They have the edge.

___
KL: Why?

RD: Their made up minds have become an institution. The
institution feeds the opposition.

It's numbers my dear. There are more and more of them all the
time. Democracy gives the opposition --- both loyal and enemy
- - --- an incentive to multiply . . . as in overpopulate. Then to
colonize . . . then to possess. Christian democracy is stable
because it opens up opportunities and provides for the release of
pent up frustrations. Its weakness is that the frustrated can
now come from any status, any place, lest Christians be accused
of being two faced or holding a double standard.

___
KL: You mean, of discriminating.

RD: "Give us your poor, your tired, your oppressed . . . "
leaves the door wide open to overpopulation, infiltration and
unchallenged foreign invasion.

___
KL: Through immigration?

RD: Everyone's equally deserving in the eyes of the Lord.

___
KL: America was built on immigration.

RD: Well it's being RE-built as a Third World Nation. Look
around you when you get back.

___
KL: I've seen it.

RD: Even Europe is losing its national and regional identities.
First world minorities and Third world majorities have heard the
Gospels, they know how democracy works. They're using it to
their advantage.

{pause}

Keep in mind, I'm obviously not against dark skin . . . or any
race or ethnicity, per se. I'm just stating facts. We, the
conquering peoples from around the Mediterranean --- and Europe
- - --- are finally losing our grip. That's a fact. What we dished
out is coming back to haunt us in the form of an over-populated
world flooding through the gates. Who we can thank is Jesus
Christ and Christianity.

___
KL: {flustered} You know, I haven't actually read much of the
new Testament, but I have Christian friends and I don't remember
hearing anything about Jesus saying that.

RD: What? That everyone is equally deserving in the eyes of the
Lord?

___
KL: [There's] nothing about equality, at least not that I heard.

RD: There was no need [for Jesus] to talk about it. He lived it.
He died it. That was enough. Look at the Christian symbol: a
cross on which the supposed "Son of God" was hung to slowly die.
In Christianity, the powerful are forsaken. Only the weak can
rise up.

{pause}

___
KL: That makes some sense, you know.

RD: Of course it does.

___
KL: Why shouldn't the weak rise up?

RD: So they can widen their failure?

The story has had an enormous influence. Look at the slogans of
the French revolution: "Equality, Fraternity, Liberty". Or the
American revolution: "All men are created equal" . . .

___
KL: Where does the "liberty" come from?

RD: From Christianity.

___
KL: That too? Explain . . .

RD: In Roman society, it was the opposite. The weak and
unfortunate were forsaken, the powerful were chosen. Being a
slave was a privilege because it brought protection and
sustenance. {pause}

So . . . what if the chosen were to be forsaken? Does that not
open a vacuum of power? Does it not confer liberty upon the
slaves? . . . by creating a position that a former slave might
fulfill?

___
KL: Interesting.

RD: Christian tradition is reversal of fortune. In the story,
the feeble, the sick, the crippled are _served_ . . . served mind
you, by the Son of God himself! By an authority. One step down
from the Highest authority. Then this second highest is brought
down and killed. Why? Because only _then_, can he be raised up.

Jesus may not have said it, but he _implied_ it: it is misfortune
which brings one among the chosen. Everyone can become divine
because misfortune is on the path to divinity.

___
KL: {quietly} The way out is the way through.

RD: Excuse me? You have to speak up.

___
KL: You just reminded me of something that showed up a lot in the
Scientology texts I read. "The way out is the way through".
It's also Christianity.

RD: When in Christendom, my dear, one appeals to the Christian
mindset.

___
KL: The more I think about it, the stranger that mindset seems.

RD: {laughs} It is amazing what it's motivated throughout its two
millennia of influence. There are actually people who mutilate
themselves specifically in the interests of attaining divinity.
Hang themselves on crosses, nails through their hands . . .
seriously! {laughing} Others simply avoid convenience and
comfort. Many avoid having sex. There are Christian cults
founded specifically to inhibit pleasure, dominance, or
sophistication . . . Amish and Puritans and so forth. On the
other side are people who are lucky enough to find themselves
among the dominant and sophisticated, yet they can't enjoy it.
They feel as undeserving, as if pleasure were a heavy burden,
which they are too frail to carry.

{pause}

It is indeed, very strange. But that's our cultural heritage.

___
KL: They used to call some of those things "hang ups". I wonder
if there's a connection.

RD: Hang-ups, guilt and shame are abundant in Christendom . . .
and in places you wouldn't expect.

There are American professors --- political science professors
in American Universities --- who are very much like Puritans,
except that they wear a more cynical, secular guise. For them,
it's not sex and sloth that are of the Devil, it's power and the
use of power.

___
KL: But they don't say it's "Of the Devil" . . . ?

RD: No, of course not. They're pretending to be "secular", not
religious.

___
KL: They're not lying on purpose . . .

RD: They're being unconsciously controlled by made up minds
passed down by Christian Institution. Acknowledging the source
story might require them to doubt its veracity and wake up. Yet
that would erode their authority and threaten their position.
They remain fully "made up" minds . . . absolute pawns of the
Christian story.

___
KL: Like who for instance?

RD: I'm not going to name names --- there are so many --- but
their general drift is that because America is dominant it is
therefore off the righteous path.

What does this mean? . . . it means America must be brought down.
Brought down like Christ was brought down. Given a crown of
thorns and made to carry a heavy cross.

___
KL: Why? What's their reasoning?

RD: They don't have any reasoning. They have a story. Jesus had
to be humiliated . . . made to suffer . . . in order to be
raised up. If the "Son of God" has to follow such a path to
divinity and be deserving, why should America be excepted?

___
KL: There's no way you would ever get them to explain their
motives like that.

RD: {laughs} No . . . they'll talk of the need for "justice", or
that they're merely being an "advocate" of the innocent and
mistreated.

___
KL: That's right . . .

RD: Yet they're pawns of the Christian story. Completely
brainwashed.

___
KL: Aren't there atheists that believe in justice?

RD: Justice is merely state-sponsored revenge. And yes, I'm sure
there are atheists that believe in it . . . in adherence to an
environment of agreement.

___
KL: Ok . . . whatever . . . I'm not going to argue that . . . but
do you think it's wrong to take revenge for the mistreatment of
innocents?

RD: I think dominance is achieved by winning and that winning
will be viewed by someone as mistreatment. It's normal . . .
instinctive . . . for losers to feel jealous and complain of
mistreatment but it's definitely NOT instinctive for the winners
to become their advocates. For this, one needs an additional
source of motivation. What I'm saying is that Christian stories
are the source of it.

___
KL: Even for non-Christians?

RD: They are acting in a cultural milieu that rewards certain
behaviors and punishes others. The majority is controlled by
Christian stories. It is natural for Christians to require others
- - --- even atheists --- to behave as they do.

___
KL: Not every American is against American policies.

RD: There's tension though. And much of it is from within.
There's a drive to be successful, but there's also the sense that
the dominant are undeserving.

___
KL: Hmm . . . {pause}

RD: It's easy to see why Christianity became so popular: like its
scion, Communism, it appeals to jealousy. Because people compare
themselves to one another, there are always more people jealous
than there are satisfied . . . even in times of plenty.

___
KL: Ok, but it doesn't _look_ that way at first glance . . .

RD: Well, dissatisfaction had to be there for a pop philosophy to
fill the lack. It needs a basic element of agreement with what
the majority of people are feeling. It must be their advocate.
What better way to agree than taking the "son" of the absolute
highest authority and nailing him to a cross?

___
KL: Isn't Jesus said to have "died for people's sins"?

RD: The suffering and supposed "resurrection" demonstrated a
reversal of fortune. It's the hope of a reversal of fortune that
takes away the burden of sin, not Jesus's rumored death by
crucifixion.

___
KL: But not reversal downward . . . ?

RD: For someone else. They hope for a downward reversal of
fortune for someone that makes them feel jealous.

___
KL: What if you're that person?

RD: Well, guilt is jealousy directed towards the self. Winners
feel guilty unless they emulate Jesus.

___
KL: I know how Catholics are known for talking a lot about guilt.

RD: There was a time when dominant Romans could watch their
enemies suffer . . . and laugh. Now, suffering is equated in the
mind with Jesus on the cross. Suffering is now done by good,
righteous people on their way to heaven. "How can they also be
enemies?" the Christian mind thinks. "Who am I, to dare laugh at
them."

___
KL: You have to admit that sounds a lot more civilized.

RD: Only because the wealthiest civilization is now *dominated*
by Christians. If it were dominated by the ancient Roman
mindset, self jealousy would sound incredibly self-destructive .
. quite pathetic really.

___
KL: I read recently that Americans are no more satisfied than
they were fifty years ago, despite having more wealth.

RD: Fifty years ago they defeated an upstart enemy of
Christendom. That was one of the rare occasions they felt they
actually _deserved_ to feel good about their success, given the
restrictions of the Christian story. Unfortunately, this success
makes Americans want to repeat it. In Christendom it's not smart
to look like a Nazi. No matter that all the extermination camp
Jews have been more than replaced. Someone still needs to be put
(figuratively) on a cross. "Who has power now??" they say.

___
KL: Who says that?

RD: Sit in on nearly any political science lecture and you'll
soon hear a litany about the "injustices" America has committed
throughout the world and why it should passively allow itself to
be colonized and depleted. One can't help but notice the level
of dissatisfaction. Here they sit in beautiful surroundings,
tenured, well paid, yet all they can do is wallow in guilt and
recrimination. In some cases it really goes to extremes.

___
KL: And this is all supposedly because of one guy two thousand
years ago.

RD: One guy who acted out the ultimate reversal of fortune.

___
KL: What? So now we _all_ want to do it? Is that how it works?

RD: Monkey see, monkey do.

___
KL: I can see why you like this yacht. A man like you needs
privacy.

And don't tell me privacy has its roots in the Christian story.

RD: I'd say it does.

___
KL: {disbelief} No . . .

RD: Notice that in our "gringo" model of government, privacy is
supposed to be something lesser citizens have but the wealthy,
the politically inclined, and the government do not. To allow
the Christian reversal-of-fortune theme to more readily play out,
you have to have the less fortunate ones able to plan and plot to
overthrow those in power, but you can't have those in power
finding out about it and nipping it in the bud. You can't have
those in power secretly planning and plotting how they'll
maintain themselves.

___
KL: Unbelievable. I thought I was Jewish. {pause} I'm a closet
Christian and didn't even know it!

RD: No decision can be made without a contextual story which
informs it as to what should be done.

___
KL: Does that mean no decision at all? Anything and everything?

RD: Just about . . .

___
KL: What about unconscious decisions? How far does it really go?

RD: All behavior whose motivating impulse passes through the
brain is generally selected on the basis of stories. That
excludes things like the little kick your leg gives when the
doctor taps your knee, but it includes most everything else.

___
KL: Is it possible to prove it?

RD: Prove it?

___
KL: Well . . . ? Sure, why not? It's a matter of serious
contention.

RD: All right. I can show you how and where to look. Consider:
RED. Should you approach or avoid . . . comply, or resist?

___
KL: Resist what?

RD: There you go . . . you're asking for context.

___
KL: Am I?

RD: Yes, you are.

___
KL: Ok, I'm asking for context. So what?

RD: {laughs} There's how you look for your proof. You simply
note how you need context to restimulate a value expectation . .
that you need restimulation to make a decision.

You know anything about moviemaking?

___
KL: {shrugs}

RD: They use something called "story boards". A series of
pictures, like a comic strip. Think of it that way. A series .
. a "chain" of pictures in the mind matches what's going on in
the real world. That's restimulation coming from the
environment. There's also imaginative, associative, and
intentional restimulation; in each case the immediate source is
another part of the brain rather than sensory neurons.

___
KL: Ok.

RD: Doubt makes you query, "Red what?" Just "RED", alone, a
single picture, gives you no basis for a decision. You need to
know from what it comes and where it's leading. That's context.

___
KL: Ok Ralph. {pause} I'm game. Restimulate me. Red what?

RD: Red sky in the morning . . .

___
KL: . . . sailor take warning.

RD: See anything?

___
KL: I see the ocean and a blood red sunrise.

RD: *Blood* red sunrise, uh-huh. What next?

___
KL: Wind and waves.

RD: What do you do? Approach or avoid?

___
KL: Avoid.

RD: Comply or resist?

___
KL: Comply.

RD: You see, now you know. I gave you a context. A value was
restimulated. It showed you what you should do.

___
KL: Try something else. Red what?

RD: Deep red tulips with a hint of yellow.

___
KL: Pretty.

RD: But not "blood red".

What's restimulating K---?

___
KL: A whole field of flowers I once saw. All deep reds against
greens. And my garden. I have some red ones too.

RD: Approach or avoid?

___
KL: Approach. Unless it's muddy of course.

RD: All right. There you've got what's called a "dependent"
value. Before activating its behavior it must call for more
information. It's also in "doubt".

___
KL: A single value can be in doubt?

RD: A value expects something. If it gets some, but not all [of
what it expects], it calls on behavior that seeks full
restimulation.

___
KL: What's full restimulation?

RD: Certainty. Having a goal of certainty may be what keeps us
awake, but ironically, fulfilling it puts us asleep. The
potential for full restimulation makes up the unconscious,
made-up mind.

___
KL: I scanned though the Dianetics book --- along with the rest
of the stack of materials you gave me . . . I remember
restimulation having to do with "engrams", not values.

RD: Sure. {smiles} In that old _erasable_ Reactive Mind . . .
{smiles}

___
KL: That's all just fiction?

RD: As I've said several times, the mind is reactive. The
Dianetics story describes a piece of it, but it neglects to
mention that all behavior --- including emotion and thought ---
is reactive. There is no analytical mind that is not also part of
the reactive mind.

___
KL: Why use a word from Dianetics?

RD: I'm tired of avoiding it.

___
KL: Is "restimulation" the best word for what you're talking
about?

RD: It is. It is because values organize . . . structure
themselves . . . on the heels of surprise. Learning is
surprising. That's the original stimulation, the one that
structures the value expectation. Afterwards, whenever the value
is stimulated, it's always "RE-stimulated" . . . as it gets all
or part of what it expects.

Whenever I use the word "restimulate" I'm implicitly referring to
an expectation that's getting what it's learned to expect.

___
KL: It gets stimulation . . . but . . . stimulation is a story .
.

RD: Correct.

___
KL: I get it now. {pause} It's really true then. We're waiting
for a story to come along and clue our values in as to what they
should do.

RD: That's right. And when they don't have one, they make one up
. . through implications. An implied story makes the most
sense . . . better than any other known story, better than no
explanation at all.

___
KL: I've been hearing what you're saying. It's just difficult to
believe sometimes.

RD: Do you know why?

___
KL: I do now.

RD: All right then.



{break}



___
KL: Ok . . . we're back. This has certainly been one of the most
interesting, if not the most disturbing things we've talked
about: controlling people.

You said today decisions must be "informed" and that there's no
way to make an informed decision without context . . . and that
whoever provides the context --- the story --- controls the
decision making.

RD: Yes.

___
KL: You also seemed to imply we're being controlled without even
realizing it.

RD: That's true.

___
KL: Why is that?

RD: Because of the method we use to judge. We simply say . . .
if results repeatedly line up with our desires . . . then we're
in control. All people want is to know their destiny is
satisfaction . . . then to feel it. That's it. If you can
convince them obedience leads them that direction, they're very,
very easy to control.

___
KL: You said religion is something that convinces people they're
in control of their fate.

RD: Yes, and to do that, it must repeatedly make them satisfied.
After that, their minds become made up, the religion becomes an
institution, and it can eventually do what it wants with them.

___
KL: This is how people come to be perfectly satisfied in what,
from the outside, looks like bondage.

RD: Correct.

___
KL: Then there are the leaders of religions.

RD: Yes . . .

___
KL: What do they have to say about control? How do you think
they'd respond to what we've talked about today?

RD: Some would give a wry smile, others would grimace and drift
towards nervous breakdown.

___
KL: {laughs} Why so different?

RD: The former group would firmly believe in fate, as I do . . .
as the other founders of Scientology did. The latter would
believe in free will. Free will advocates tend to prefer
not-knowing what's controlling them. They're like prey animals
that instinctively pull away when suddenly grabbed. They assume
what's grabbed them is out to do them harm.

___
KL: Isn't that true sometimes?

RD: Yes, which is why if they don't believe in a pre-ordained
positive fate, they'd prefer to not- know what's controlling
them.

___
KL: They prefer ignorance?

RD: They prefer superstition. Ignorance and superstition go hand
in hand. It's an easy route to a sense of beingness, freedom,
and immortality. All faux of course, but what does that matter?
They're getting what they want, the heart feels free. All that's
required is blindness to the interconnected deterministic nature
of the Universe.

You want to be free? Just forget what you're hearing. In
not-knowing there is freedom.

{pause}

___
KL: I'm not sure I want to believe that.

RD: Consider this very carefully, K---: if you knew the future,
would you be free?

___
KL: If I could change it . . . yes, I'd be free.

RD: But then you wouldn't know it. {pause}

___
KL: No, I would know what I was going to change it to.

RD: All right. If you knew what you were going to change it to,
would you be free?

___
KL: If I could change it again . . . sure, why not?

RD: All right then. At some point I assume you'd settle down and
stop changing your prediction.

___
KL: Maybe. Maybe not. {smiles}

RD: What you're telling me then, is as long as you can _change_
the future to what you want, THEN you'd be free.

___
KL: Right.

RD: Would you say being trapped is never getting what you want?
. . always yielding to the familiar habit, pattern, and
whatever makes good sense?

___
KL: That's right. Sameness. On and on, forever. Wanting a
change would not make me feel trapped. Wishing for something new
is not a trap. At least it doesn't feel that way.

RD: But that's exactly what it does, sweet K---. Wanting but not
getting is the source of feeling trapped. To make people feel
free, you give them what they want. Do you see? Religion is
about promising the audience what it wants, sustaining itself
while they wait.

___
KL: What if the promise can't be fulfilled?

RD: Then you're off into fantasy. Like the standard fantasy of
Scientology.

___
KL: Why do you say "standard" fantasy? What's so standard about
it?

RD: It appeals to our standard target audience. A non-standard
fantasy is created for people not grabbed by the anticipation of
being separate from the body, living forever, and being able to
select whatever happens.

___
KL: I'm not following you. Are non-standard fantasies also part
of Scientology?

RD: Not officially.

___
KL: What's a non standard fantasy?

RD: It's whatever the non-standard audience wants . . . or
doesn't want, in many cases.

___
KL: Who's in the non-standard audience?

RD: Anyone who gets in our way.

___
KL: Like who for instance?

RD: Reporters, journalists, lawyers.

___
KL: IRS officials?

RD: Whoever dares get in our way. {smiles}

Let's say we found it necessary to take control of, say, the
President of the United States.

___
KL: What . . ?!

RD: Ok, let's make it the CEO of a large corporation.

We'd have to first find out his "ideal scene". He's already in a
top position. What more does he want? Probably not exactly what
Scientologists want. But what's his fondest fantasy? What does
he want to believe in? There's got to be something. Whatever it
is, we'd train a troupe of actors to provide it.

___
KL: What do you mean, "provide it"?

RD: Well, a fantasy is just a story. How does one get it
believed? If one pegs the right fantasy, one already owns the
desire factor. Next, we help the fantasy make sense by arranging
the scene to be compatible with it. Next there's the element of
repetition. We introduce that through agreement.

___
KL: Whose agreement?

RD: The actors'.

___
KL: Ok. {pause} But how do you arrange a person's _life_ to be
compatible with a fantasy?

RD: You eliminate anything that's incompatible. You might just
take it out of the scene. As simple as that. Or you might take
it out of his awareness by changing its significance.

___
KL: Don't you think he might object to that?

RD: Not if we're at the same time _filling_ his awareness with
things that are fantasy-compatible. Let's make it a deluge.
E-mails. Letters. Calls and meetings with our actors. Lots and
lots of things which are fantasy compatible. Even CEO's have
only so much attention.

___
KL: How do you change the significance of something?

RD: You get it recognized as something else.

___
KL: And how do you do that?

RD: Stereotypes. Negative stereotypes are the easiest way of
de-signifying something.

Show your subject the stereotype label, link it up to some
negative characteristics the subject has seen, then point it at
the target by giving the label at least three of the target's
characteristics. The subject sees the target and all he can
think of is the negative stereotype.

You know the effect of racial stereotypes . . . ?

___
KL: Of course . . .

RD: In Scientology, there are many more. {pause} The effect is
nearly the same.

___
KL: I doubt many CEO's would sit still for that kind of garbage.

RD: Oh you'd be surprised how readily people accept new
generalizations. {smiling} Generalizations make them feel "in
the know" without having to run through a close inspection.
Create a label. Match it with characteristics. It becomes a
reality.

___
KL: Like what? Kike? Nigger?

RD: How about "suppressive"? or "psychotic"?

___
KL: Seems to me like it's the _words_ that are suppressive.

RD: Very good K---. That's exactly right. They suppress
recognition and they suppress behavior. That's why we use them.
What you may not realize is that the term "racist" is also an
effective suppressive term.

___
KL: Suppressive?

RD: It's like the term "suppressive person". It allows the
speaker to do precisely what it condemns in the listener without
highlighting his own hypocrisy. {pause}

CEO's throughout the world have been cowed by the term "racist".
What makes you think they'd do any better against our label of
"suppressive person"?

{pause}

___
KL: Fantasies demand a captive audience. What makes you think
they'd be interested?

RD: Who owns their desired fantasy? They are already captives.
Of their own desire.

You see?

Remember what you said earlier. You said you don't feel trapped
by your own desire.

___
KL: So I did. {pause} You know, this all is beginning to sound
really creepy. It's scary to think you could take control of
someone important, like a CEO or a President.

RD: I'll set your mind at ease then.

It's not as simple as I've described it. Certainly, every person
has his or her price. Every person can be "bought". Their price
is fulfillment of their most desired fantasy, or, release from
its antithesis. But not everyone is so easy to get to. Not
everyone will reveal their heart's desire, or if they will, they
may want independent verification that you're actually fulfilling
it. That's when things get tricky. You've got to block their
sources of independent verification. In theory, you simply
alienate all the person's friends and contacts and replace them
with your troupe of actors. But this is highly labor intensive
and not easy to accomplish completely or on a large scale. Take
the U.S. President. Think of all the friends he has. Think of
all the contacts. Think of all the people he could go to for
independent verification. Take the news media, for example. How
many infiltrators would be needed to get the news media to
dramatize the President's fantasy?

___
KL: {smiling} Too many. That's good.

RD: It's not feasible. And we'd already have plenty of
competitors all trying to do the same thing.

___
KL: Lobbyists.

RD: Right.

___
KL: I never thought I'd be thankful for lobbyists.

RD: There are so many of them that none can have absolute
control. We'd have to alienate them all, then replace them with
our actors.

___
KL: Ok. Let's just say for the discussion's sake you have
alienated all the President's lobbyists, friends, and associates.
All he's surrounded with are your actors. Didn't you say a story
controls behavior? But it's the President's fantasy, not yours.

RD: {laughs} Ah yes. {smiling} Well, he _thinks_ it's his
fantasy. But you see, people are much more inclined to agree
with those that are agreeing with them. It's a tradeoff. They
feel it only fair. They _want_ to be fair.

___
KL: They want to be fair . . . hmm . . .

RD: We own his fantasy. Its "fulfillment" depends on our acting.

___
KL: What happens if he doesn't behave properly?

RD: The fantasy becomes a nightmare. {pause} Simply the _loss_ of
a desired fantasy would be traumatic for many people. But we can
make it much worse by mocking up its antithesis.

___
KL: You'd never be able to do that with someone well connected.

RD: No. That's why it's so much easier with the emotionally
handicapped.

___
KL: Scientologists.

RD: They don't have the social network. The few contacts they do
have are easy to alienate. We simply find somewhere they're
failing and put the blame on the contact we want to alienate.
Hatred is a natural reaction to the source of failure. If we can
make it look like the contact is responsible . . . nature takes
its natural course . . . one tries to make the other fail "in
retaliation" . . . the cycle of revenge does the rest.

___
KL: What if the contact isn't responsible?

RD: Through agreement, we _make_ them responsible.

___
KL: And if there were no failure to blame on someone?

RD: There's always something. But if not, we create one.

___
KL: You make them fail?

RD: Yes. Then blame it on the friend or contact we need to
alienate.

___
KL: And you do this with actors.

RD: That's the nature of a trained Scientologist. He or she is
an actor, always feeding a fantasy.

___
KL: I'll remember that.

RD: We've reached our time limit.

___
KL: Ok . . . well this has been very interesting.

I still have lots of questions here.

RD: I know . . . {smiling}



_To be continued_ . . .


© 2001 by Ralph Dorian

Current e-addresses: <r_dorian@nym.alias.net> or
<dorian@nym.alias.net>
PGP Key ID: 0x1A7A3ECA
PGP fingerprint: 222E 252F C976 52F4 B575
CC27 4529 DCC0 1A7A 3ECA


- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBPEYUAUUp3MAaej7KEQInpwCfar7703PEhW6VCFhd8MEYhvuRyNkAoJRC
4bkXLlrWQSScXPCCTjdl+ZDr
=0t7C
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net.
Date: Thu Jan 17 22:20:51 2002 GMT
From: r_dorian@nym.alias.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBPEdOS05NDhYLYPHNAQFyEQf/TrMISlIYdBWBDgu33MjlrseOMosQ448M
4l15m0YelPdecpwJ3g5CmaGc0E7HQg2f+nrjUSQKC+lcj4EcL1poe1qEypqJ60xQ
K0ME5aj9JCIS0bPvtG8xT3qd1Tgjticgc8Kri9LINT9IVxqX+n3G3cR9sXFRNt7C
xCDov+HuWu0ZsTenGp0NOYgVeH3JS3sYWjJcJcpDJUozDPl9oWEVTyaYShVJFCgY
7Tp6cDNeRNso2cDG5w+ZJIeo3CyNX4u/2D3gzn593IJXqbHlFLay97oLu0VbiV6h
FjTfY7NELIZ5QLaAu/g1pSJjA4f2/kYNVsMo6LQIKmvONiOMXomyrA==
=MtW0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----