Home

20150827_200723

By Lana M.

I am sitting watching two kids playing an imaginary game with spaceships, laser shields, missiles and intricate plots, rules and challenges.

Their mocked-up worlds are real – very real — to them (and to anyone that wants to play the game). ย They come up with problems, which they then solve. They create imaginary opponents, who they try to strike down and conquer. And even when they have been struck down, they then create some new lives, new energy or new force that somehow makes the game continue.

We tend to regard child play as so different from every-day life. ย But is it?

I don’t think so.

We create our own games every day.

We set ourselves goals or things to achieve, and then we work to achieve these through created obstacles, problems and challenges.

If we accomplish what we desired, we feel happy.

And if we don’t then we feel pain, loss and upset, which then becomes another challenge to try again, or to create a new game.

Those Scientology Axioms…

“AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

“AXIOM 2. THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.

“AXIOM 3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

“AXIOM 4. SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION.

“AXIOM 5. ENERGY CONSISTS OF POSTULATED PARTICLES IN SPACE.

“AXIOM 6. OBJECTS CONSIST OF GROUPED PARTICLES AND SOLIDS.

“AXIOM 7. TIME IS BASICALLY A POSTULATE THAT SPACE AND PARTICLES WILL PERSIST.

“AXIOM 8. THE APPARENCY OF TIME IS THE CHANGE OF POSITION OF PARTICLES IN SPACE.

“AXIOM 9. CHANGE IS THE PRIMARY MANIFESTATION OF TIME.

“AXIOM 10. THE HIGHEST PURPOSE IN THIS UNIVERSE IS THE CREATION OF AN EFFECT.” LRH

 

15 thoughts on “Imagine

  1. You’re right about games.

    On the subject of creativity, I have found that the current church views creativity as an ability that can only be utilized by the elite few who are permitted. This is why the current church is a garbage dump. An artist can’t thrive in that environment.

    Being creative and coming up with one’s own goals is natural to Scientologists, but not to non-Scientologists who typically suppress creative people and their goals. I know from personal experience.

    • I don’t know that I agree with you Jonathon, as in my life I have met a large number of very creative individuals who have never heard of Scientology.

      My general experience is that only a very small minority actually cause trouble and try to suppress others. The majority are good, well-intentioned and hard-working people.

      • Ugh. I feel like Charlie Brown when he runs to kick the football and Lucy pulls it away at the very last minute.

        I’m attempting to communicate the idea that creative people (Scientologists or non-Scientologists) often have suppressives around them who are attempting to make nothing out of them and their creations.

        One of the characteristics of suppressive people is that they cannot allow others to win.

        • Haha! Yes, I understand Charlie Brown. Yes, SPs love to hook their talons into a creative person — they generally can’t stand anyone who is succeeding and will be on the fringes, trying to cause trouble. I certainly agree with you on that.

  2. LM:

    You are correct about children’s games. The whole point of us being here is the playing of games. It has been this way since the beginning of time, certainly back to the “free thetan” period. Children have recently emerged from a period of profound forgettingness. They play games they are capable of playing. Their “tools”, unlike ours are simpler. They play with whatever is available to them, which might include garden hoses, sticks, balls, paper and whatever they can find. We play with the tools of adults– automobiles, computers, money, desk chairs and any of a thousand other objects which populate the adult world. We may consider our games more “serious”, which just means we play our games at a lower tone level than our children. The “fun” has gone from many of our games (seriously, who considers taking out the trash and going to a job we don’t particularly like “fun”?). Children, on the other hand, feel free to consider their games as lightly or as seriously as they prefer. Nothing but their own satisfaction with the game waits at the end. We, on the other hand have mortgage payments, the avoidance of lawsuits and other considerations which dog our games.

    While it’s a child’s job to grow up, they should never be discouraged from playing the games they like, particularly those which involve their imaginations. It’s never appropriate to tell a child to “grow up” when they are in the middle of their private games. It will be soon enough that they will have to enter the world of adults and play adult games using adult tools. If the child wants to play the game of going to the office every day and answering the phone, etc., let them. But if instead they prefer to be “Spaceman Spiff” and jet around the galaxy with their stuffed tiger, let them. So much the better.

    My middle granddaughter has been attending pre-kindergarten for a year or so, but her year-younger sister was too young to attend. So as a substitute, she made up her own imaginary school to go to, full of imaginary friends and imaginary assignments, etc. Personally, I would have preferred the Spaceman Spiff game, but it’s been wonderful to hear the stories of her days at her imaginary school with her imaginary friends.

    Back in 1952, during the days of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course, the gist of SOP5 was to get the PC to create (through mock-up processing) their own universe and “drill” them at it until they had gained some facility with it. At some point, it begins to dawn on them that the MEST universe is not so imposing, and that they can also influence MEST just as easily as they can their own universe. Having a child exercise their own imagination in service of their own universe is a stepping stone on the way to this realization. At the least, this would produce a child with more KRC with regard to MEST than the “normal” child. And that’s a bonus no matter how you look at it.

    Besides, it’s FUN!

    Paul

    • Hi Paul,
      It is true that as an adult it is easy to forget the game of life, and feel that life is a bunch of commitments, stresses and problems. It is interesting as in the last 10 years my own “seriousness” has fallen away, and even when something dire and unexpected occurs, I no longer react in the same way I used to. Life just does not seem very serious to me anymore — even its more degraded and awful aspects, there always seems to be something that I can do something about.
      Very interesting subject, this one of games.
      Cheers lana

      • LM:

        You benefit from three things over the “average” adult of whom I speak. First, you’re a former SO member, someone who has been trained to confront life and situations more easily. Second, you’re trained in LRH Tech. Third, you’re auditing a level whose ultimate EP is more or less “Cause over life”. These are Ron’s legacy for us.

        The whole reason for the Bridge and Scientology could be said to be to recover what you now benefit from, that sense of play and the ease of playing the game of life.

        Anyone who can sincerely say, “there always seems to be something I can do something about” is ahead of the game, as would be reckoned by most wog adults. The KRC of such a person would be that much higher than the average human.

        Such is life.

        Paul

        • I disagree, Paul, with your assessment of the “average human”. I’ve been out of the church since 1997 but even when in, maintained friendships with non-Scientologists. Even now, I have friends who, although there may be momentary setbacks to barriers in life (and who doesn’t face them, even those “free from” their effects), still have fun in life, still don’t get pulled down into the seriousness of it. I know the media makes it all seem bad, but when you take that out of the equation, there are many, many wonderful “human beings” out here. As with anyone and anything, one just has to lgive them the opportunity to show you. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • I don’t take Paul’s comment the way you have Chris. I don’t think that he is trying to make a point that the “average human” is incapable or incompetent or are serious.

            My understanding is that he is saying that they can fall back into the bank easily or quickly and not recover quite as quickly or as well as persons who have a technology to prevent this from occurring. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • CB:

            I have friends as well, but I’m not at all sure whether their apocryphal lives represent the average of humanity or not. I do know that one’s place on the socio-economic scale has a great deal to do with how one views life.

            The original point, though, was the contrast in the way children react to their environment, versus adults. And I’ve rarely seen an adult react as light heartedly to their environment as children do. And then I proceeded to attempt to explain why that might be. Seems like I recall a quote by LRH which goes something like, “Most people live lives of quiet desperation….”

            Also note that I did not say everyone who is not a child is miserable. (And similarly, children are not always deliriously happy. Just ask my youngest granddaughter, who is experiencing tremendous separation anxiety from being in school away from her mommy for the first time.)

            But I rather suspect that that 66% of the bell curve of humanity which occupies the middle of the curve have lost a great deal of their ability to treat life as a game. And in fact, I’m fairly certain they would not classify what they are experiencing as a game at all. This would also explain why Ron spent so much time describing games, their anatomy, and how to rehabilitate one’s ability to play a game.

            Paul

            • Hi Paul,

              I’m sure your views are quite real to you, but not what I see as reality. That’s the neat thing about reality – it’s always changing depending on views and agreements. Like being in a funhouse at the carnival! ๐Ÿ˜‰

              Anyway, I don’t think one’s position on the socio-economic scale has a great deal to do with one’s outlook on life; I believe it to be a factor, but not the majority stakeholder. I think that’s found in one’s case and beingness. I’ve known many poor who have an amazing outlook on life; there are examples of great people who could be considered low on that scale who are some of the most exemplary people in life; there are stories and snippets of down-trodden and poor people with amazing integrity and outlook on what life is. So while one’s position on such a scale may have some affect on one’s outlook, I think it only has an affect if it coincides with case.

              Re explaining why LRH wrote and lectured so much on games, I don’t know about that. Maybe it was because Life is a game fundamentally. I don’t try to explain, just try to understand what he is saying. All else eventually falls to the wayside.

              Peace. ๐Ÿ™‚

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s