FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME

    The biggest problem with memory of course is what everyone likes
to call false memory syndrome.

    The track is full of dub in, and it can be very REAL, even 
overwhelmingly real, but it is always missing RECOGNITION.

    Thus one can have elaborate dreams at night that are CLEARLY
someone's incident just on the face of it, but to then claim
they are your own past lives is an egregious error, because one
they aren't, and two they belong to someone else who you are auditing
at that moment whether you know it or not.

    Thus reality of experience, brightness, clarity, detail, impressiveness 
overwhelming power, has nothing to do with whether the incident or memory 
is YOURS.

    Lots of lower level cases run all kinds of dub in early in dianetics, 
they grab on to these experiences as evidence THEY have lived before. 
Someone may have lived before, but these dubins are not your preclear's 
memory.

    How will he know when he finally trips one of his own?

    RECOGNITION.

    No recognition, not his memory.

    Recognition, his memory.

    Homer


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Pip wrote:

>>
>>
>> You forgot to add, "it is my opinion."  None of the things you wrote
>> about can be proven, so basically your statements, based on Hubbard's
>> statements have to be taken on faith.
>>
>
> They can all be proven.  I think you mean to say "proven to me"  because
> you have no reality on any of it.  But the ability to remember birth and
> past lives for example (and many other things) has been proven to
> many.   The proof however is not theoretical.  It is a personal knowing,
> which of course can be challenged or even ridiculed and may be
> undemostrable but is nevertheless one's own intimate reality.  Does
> "proven" mean that some authority you believe in said so?"  This is
> critical: "proven" means proven to a person, a being.  No proof sits out
> there in the universe like a sacred tome such that whomever come's near
> it will be imbude with final certainty (or be declared insane if they
> aren't). And it's not a logical statement backed by undisputed evidence
> that will convince anyone in their right mind no matter how much they
> don't like it.  Proof is always a personal relationship with a reality
> or concept.  Now most people don't remember 1% of their childhood, but I
> don't think you would doubt yours or anyone's childhood exists.  So if
> you don't or can't remember some significant amount from that time, why
> even be concerned about past lives at this point - first get to square
> one.  Once you realize you can remember SOMETHING you didn't before,
> your reality on memory starts to get stronger.  My first major success
> in healing something involved recalling birth. It was completely
> unexpected, but I didn't reject the memories even though it hadn't been
> real to me before.  Instead I expanded my paradigm. I was doing Primal
> Therapy.  I did this alone and in the end I had an immediate and self
> validating result.  I didn't need no stinkin' certs from the Wizard of
> Oz.   : )
>
> There are tons of personal things that you know or have experienced that
> you cannot prove to anyone, yet they are real.  Even if you see a doctor
> and say "I have a headache"  they have to take it on faith.  Also, when
> considered pragmatically, proof is whatever it takes to convince someone
> of something.  Some people have impossible standards so you can't prove
> anything  and some have very low standards and it's easy to prove to
> them that Venus is ruled by cats. What are you convinced of?  And are
> you !00% sure?
>
> I remember more than most.  I believe it is possible to remember
> everything.  I started out long ago trying to figure myself out, by
> myself.  I never gave up.  Doesn't matter what 'ologies you've tried -
> try them all and press on.  Usually when someone can't remember
> something it's because they don't want to, but they don't know this.
> It's called an inner conflict.  Unless you can get the underlying
> reasons, efforts to remember just make it worse.  Like Homer said, a
> missed incident.  Eventually things start to make sense.  But don't tell
> anyone what you find out if you don't want to be labeled a nut case.
>
> Pip
>
>
> Keith wrote:
>
>> homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Curiosus (curiosus@fastmail.fm) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> I would spend more time studying what Scn really is, rather
>>>>> than posting your idiotic garbage.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That you don't agree don't prove that what I say above is garbage.
>>>> That is one of the problem with strong claims: to consider that other
>>>> claims are garbage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>     You still don't get it.
>>>
>>>     Hubbard's case is not part of Scn, and has nothing to do with the
>>> 'strong claims' of Scn.
>>>
>>>     Scientology at top level has to do with HOW to know answers to
>>> questions, not with any particular answer found to any particular
>>> question.
>>>
>>>     YOUR garbage is claiming that Xenu and the OT 3 *INCIDENT* are
>>> part of Scn technology.
>>>
>>>      The whole story of Xenu and OT III should be banned from
>>> discussion, as talking about a preclear's case folders in public
>>> without his permission is a High Crime.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You figure out birth yet?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No. I was trying to remember my birth when I was on NED, but I did not
>>>> really have any recall of it. I was running an imagined birth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem I have with processes in Scientology, is that I don't have
>>>> any visual recall.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>     Black V cases are sub oblivion.
>>>
>>>     Join the club and throw all your certs out the door.
>>>
>>>     When pictures start turning on they will be 360 degrees of
>>> disaster.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> really run past lives. That is one of the sources of my doubts about
>>>> reincarnation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>     Past lives, schmast lives, your doubt is about *CHOICE*.
>>>
>>>     Did you or did you not CHOOSE to enter this universe and the body
>>> you presently have?
>>>
>>> That was not a problem on the grades as past life recall
>>>
>>>
>>>> is not really necessary, but that was a problem on NED. All along my
>>>> auditing, I had the hope that I could improve my memory, that was one
>>>> of the claims of Dianetics. But it did not work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>     Yep they missed your incident.
>>>
>>>     Visio always turns on in the correct incident.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now about birth, I can understand that if after death and before birth
>>>> a spirit inhabits a spiritual realm, human birth could be considered as
>>>> a departure from that spiritual realm, some kind of death in that
>>>> plane, maybe that is what you mean.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>     What I mean is you keep whining about death, poor dear innocent
>>> *BEAUTIFUL* dying people everywhere, can't you wring your hands enough
>>> to help them etc.
>>>
>>>     Their charge is on birth.
>>>
>>>     Perhaps if you audited conception, birth and THE GOD DAMN
>>> ASSUMPTION OF THE BODY, you might find your alzheimers cases going
>>> into remission.
>>>
>>>     Alzheimers is basically the phyiscal consequences of fixidity,
>>> erosion, dispersal, disassociation, criminality, uncausing,
>>> disconnection and unexistence.
>>>
>>>     Bring them up to disaster, getting born, and you might just work
>>> miracles and solve those *STUPID STUPID* doubts you are wandering
>>> around, *WASTING* your life in.
>>>
>>>     How many lives are you going to waste wondering if you are
>>> a body or not?
>>>
>>>     How much charge does it take to make a dead thetan?
>>>
>>>     How much charge does a being have on never having lived before,
>>> on living once, and dying once, and that's it bud?
>>>
>>>     Homer
>>>
>>> Thu Aug 31 00:14:41 EDT 2006
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You forgot to add, "it is my opinion."  None of the things you wrote
>> about can be proven, so basically your statements, based on Hubbard's
>> statements have to be taken on faith.
>>
>> Whatever is true for you, and all that jazz.
>>
>> By the way, high crime or not, Scientologists' PC folders are regularly
>> culled by the "Church" for dirt to be used for blackmail purposes, to
>> solicit more money from publics, and to silence any departing critics.
>>
>> It's arguable that Hubbard himself began that practice. It's also
>> arguable that this is part of the reason for the "PC" folder to begin with.
>>
>> Carry on with your wise words. The problem is they amount to nothing
>> that you can actually show me as proof of what you say is true.
>>
>> And everything I've seen since birth contradicts your assumptions. They
>> seem extremely simplified and childish.
>>
>> Cheers-
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clear-L mailing list
>> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
>> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Sun Feb 13 16:00:33 EST 2011