Volume 2, Issue 10, page 9

New Data Unsticks Old Agreements

Some Beliefs Thrive on Ignorance

WHEN WE were children, we agreed (reluctantly) to be taught, mostly by those
capable of teaching only what they had
been taught. They poured all kinds of
sense and nonsense into our little heads, all
of which was acceptable and agreeable to the
society as being unlikely to cause any drastic
change in the maintenance of the society's

We may agree that all this is acceptable
for poor "defenseless" children, but are we
still children now? Isn't it about time we
went into action in learning for ourselves, in
deciding for ourselves? For example, in dealing with what is called "reality", do you KNOW
that you actually are dealing with your created
images of that reality, rather than with the
said reality directly? Do you KNOW that your
emotions are decided upon by you in terms of
the images you have created? Do you realize
that you have to decide whether you are angry
or sad or depressed or antagonistic and that
all these decisions are of your own making in
accordance with the images or mock-ups you
have created of reality?

Now, some beliefs, apparently, can only
be maintained through a requisite degree of
ignorance of other different beliefs, facts,
or data. This requires the banning of what is
undesired from the "authoritative" viewpoint.
Properly handled, it leaves a person, we may
say, "stuck" with his taught belief.' Some
churches go in for this kind of control: "Don't
listen to Doakesl He's a heretic! He's a
squirrel! He's a Communist -- a Socialist! a
Democrat -- a one-worlder!" "It's bad over that-
away!" is the way L. Ron Hubbard described it
in one of his lectures.

No control system (often callea "government") would be necessary or could, as presently constituted, exist with full information
available to the controllees. Full information
would result in the world's first democracy -- a
government by the people, of the people, and
for the people -- and this is something no politician or other agreed upon authority wants.
It is said of George Bernard Shaw that when
asked how he felt about Democracy, he replied:
"Fine! We ought to try it sometime!"

What I'm getting at is "How are we going
to attain that desired state of 'clear' (sort
of a nasty word in 'official' circles at present)?" Well, one of the ways is by unsticking
some of our agreed upon beliefs. Of course,
in the process, it involves learning how to
operate for ourselves, though we really do not
have to"learn" this so much as we do to change
our consideration that we aren't capable of
doing our own learning.

One of the ways to unstick a belief is to
become aware of alternate beliefs or simply
additional beliefs. Sometimes, we need only
look over one of our pet beliefs sort of careful-like to realize rather quickly that it
doesn't have much validity. Of course, one of
the things that may make it a little difficult
is that we have carefully disguised some of
these beliefs by considering them as "facts"
or "well thought out opinions" or "honest convictions" or "the right thing to do".

We can find alternate beliefs simply by
asking, looking, or (better yet) just inventing some alternatives. In doing this we, of
course, "change our minds". Now, most of us
are aware that what is called the reactive
mind is a sort of created, automatic, and mechanical affair, but fewer of us are likewise
aware that the "analytical mind" is also a
created, rather automatic machine-like structure. Probably, the chief difference between
them is that the analytical mind thinks sequentially (logically), while the reactive
mind operates in terms of identities: the famous "A equals A equals B equals a yellow sports
car equals a utility pole on a curve equals a
fractured skull".

If you want to change the world, change
your mind -- because when you do change your
mind, you change your images, your mock-ups.
You make the grass greener, the air more exhilarating, your emotions more volatile. When
you realize your reality is what you make it,
you have no one to "blame" but yourself if you
do not like it.

Additional data often can be helpful in
creating new beliefs for old -- and no belief
will exist unless maintained by you, which is
an action you are doing. You do not have to
"get rid of" anything! Just refuse to continue
to maintain it, whatever it is.

Persons who insist they are unaware of
creating their own data may be helped by simply asking them questions about past decisions.
"What other way could you have done that?"
"What would have happened if you had done it
that way?" "Then what would have happened?"
"What else would have happened?" "What other
way could you have done it?" Here's where you
find people either very reluctantly inventing
alternatives or just "knowing" there was no
other way to do it. They even may come upscale and get a mite peeved that you are implying there may have been some other way they
could have done whatever they did. They "know"
they did "right" and it was everybody else who
was "wrong". If you have the guts to stick it
out, they'll either get better, or you'll get
lumps on your head, or both, or neither. But,
it'll be fun, if you make it fun.

One way of avoiding "invalidating" the
person's "rightness"is to ask questions. This
is an ancient and honored (often safer, too)
method of changing a person. Another method is
to give an apparent answer, which actually
only moves the question over another stage.
For example, you explain that the reason a
person "sees" is that his eye operates something like a pin-hole camera, and most people
will accept that as an actual answer. It isn't,
of course. You just moved the question over
one stage. You can get your pre-clear to do
all kinds of new things he previously would
have "known" he could not do by using this
"move over a stage" method. You even may get
him to quit "waiting" for something to happen,
and get him to start "doing", creating his own
images knowingly and on purpose. You may find
this method used by "those who really know",
now that you know what to look for.

To really change, nothing can be considered too sacrosanct to look at or handle. You'll probably find it necessary to educate your
"normal" person to the point he realizes that
the emotion he feels when he talks about the
past is just a "recall" like "visio", "audio",