Onup Barman Roy - meeting Captain Bill Robertson early 80's

[auditor]

I remember meeting Capt. Bill Robertson at the Spinney in East Grinstead during the early 80's. I explained in detail the 13 dynamics to him at that time. I also explained my work on accompanying the souls of the dead.
It is/was noticeable that after two extended sessions with him basking in the sunlight of Englands Green, the garden lawn of the Spinney, where we demonstrated by measurement and definition, the 13 dynamics, that Capt. Bill did not take up the process by which these dynamics were defined and instead chose to utilise the concepts defined with him as an individual, as a basis for further OT levels.
I have been disassociated from Scientology for 30 years and am surprised to find that these concepts of dynamics beyond the 8th and the accompaniment of souls have been utilised to establish further OT levels with an admin orientation leading to Source, an aspect of existence.
In my opinion, identification of Theta with Source is a dead end which compromises theta as per Axiom 1.
In my opinion, Source is a viewpoint of existence that results in the creation of space. Theta has no existence.
Therefore rehabilitation of the person as Source powers them up and rehabilitates their space whilst compromising the freedom of choice as theta, specifically the choice of existence or not.
------------------------------------------
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.
STATIC, 1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero. (5410CM06) 2. a static by definition, is something that is in a complete equilibrium. It isn’t moving and that’s why we’ve used the word static. Not in an engineering sense but in its absolute dictionary sense. (5608C--) 3. an actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time. (Dn 55!, p. 29) 4. something which has no motion. The word is from the Latin, sto meaning stand. No part of mest can be static, but theta is static. Theta has no motion. Even when the mest it controls is moving in space and time, theta is not moving, since theta is not in space or time. (Abil 114A) 5. has no motion, it has no width, length, breadth, depth; it is not held in suspension by an equilibrium of forces; it does not have mass; it does not contain wave-lengths; it has no situation in time or space. (Scn 8-8008, p. 13) 6. the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05) 7. a static, in physics, is called something which is “an equilibrium of forces.” (Dn 55! p. 27)
THETA, 1. theta is thought, life force, elan vital, the spirit, the soul, or any other of the numerous definitions it has had for some thousands of years. (SOS, p. 4) 2. the life force, life energy, divine energy, elan vital, or by any other name, the energy peculiar to life which acts upon material in the physical universe and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it. It is susceptible to alteration in character or vibration, at which time it becomes enturbulated theta or entheta. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 21) 3. theta is thought; an energy of its own universe analogous to energy in the physical universe but only occasionally paralleling electromagnetic-gravitic laws. The three primary components of theta are affinity, reality, and communication. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 3) 4. reason, serenity, stability, happiness, cheerful emotion, persistence, and the other factors which man ordinarily considers desirable. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 12) 5. an energy existing separate and distinct from the physical universe. (SOS, p. 4) 6. Greek for thought or life or the spirit. (Aud 10 UK) 7. not a nothingness. It just happens to be an exterior thing to this universe—so you couldn’t talk about it in this universe’s terms. (PDC 6)
SOURCE, 1. the point of origin, or it would be the originator, or where something was begun or dreamed up or mocked up. (Class VIII, No. 18) 2. that from which something comes or develops; place of origin: cause. (HCOB 11 May 65)
SOURCE-POINT, if you consider a river flowing to the sea, the place where it began would be the source-point or cause and the place where it went into the sea would be the effect-point and the sea would be the effect of the river. (PAB 86)
VIEWPOINT, 1. a point of awareness from which one can perceive. (PAB 2) 2. that thing which an individual puts out remotely, to look through. A system of remote lookingness— we’ll call it just remote viewpoint. That’s a specialized kind of viewpoint. And the place from which the individual is himself looking, we’ll call flatly a viewpoint. (2ACC 17A, 5312CM07) 3. evaluation is the reactive mind’s conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind’s ‘viewpoint’ is an opinion based on another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties. Thus the confusion of the word viewpoint itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be somebody’s ideas on a certain subject which is the reactive definition. (CONA, pp. 208-209)
SPACE, 1. space is a viewpoint of dimension. It doesn’t exist without a viewpoint. (531lCM17A) 2. apace is not nothingness. Space is the viewpoint of dimension, and that is what space is. It is how far we look and if you didn’t look you wouldn’t have any apace. (5608COO) 3. space is caused by looking out from a point. The only actuality of space is the agreed-upon consideration that one perceives through something and this we call apace. (FOT, p. 71) 4. space is made by the attitude of a viewpoint which demarks an area with anchor pGints. (Scn 8-8008, p. 17) 5. can be defined of course in reverse by its own terms in terms of time. Space is something that to go from the left side of the table over to the right side of the tabletop would require space. They define against each other (time and space). (5203C03B)
DIMENSION, the distance from the point of view to the anchor point that is in space. (Spr Lect 14, 5304CM07)
DIMENSION POINT, any point in a space or at the boundaries of space. As a specialized case, those points which demark the outermost boundaries of the space or its corners are called in Scn anchor points. (Scn 8-8008, p. 16)
DIFFERENTIATION, 1. the ability to locate things in time and space. (5209CM04B) 2. simply the distance between the particles. (PDC 28)
SPHERES OF INTEREST, the spheres of interest are the eight dynamics. A series of concentric spheres each one larger than the last with the first dynamic at center and the eighth dynamic at the extreme of any universe gives a spatial picture of interest. (COHA, p. 99)
DYNAMIC, 1. any one of the eight subdivisions of the dynamic principle of existence—SURVIVE. (PXL, p. 49) 2. dynamic is the ability to translate solutions into action. (HFP, p. 171) 3. the tenacity to life and vigor and persistence in survival. (DMSMH, p. 38)
DYNAMICS, there could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations. We call them the eight dynamics. The first dynamic —is the urge toward existence as one’s self. Here we have individuality expressed fully. This can be called the self dynamic. The second dynamic—is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the second dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. This can be called the sex dynamic. The third dynamic—is the urge toward existence in groups of individuals. Any group or part of an entire class could be considered to be a part of the third dynamic. The school, the society, the town, the nation are each part of the third dynamic, and each one is a third dynamic. This can be called the group dynamic. The fourth dynamic—is the urge toward existence as mankind. Whereas the white race would be considered a third dynamic, all the races would be considered the fourth dynamic. This can be called the mankind dynamic. The fifth dynamic—is the urge toward existence of the animal kingdom. This includes all living things whether vegetable or animal. The fish in the sea, the beasts of the field or of the forest, grass, trees, flowers, or anything directly and intimately motivated by life. This could be called the animal dynamic. The sixth dynamic—is the urge toward existence as the physical universe. The physical universe is composed of matter, energy, space and time. In Scn we take the first letter of each of these words and coin a word, mest. This can be called the universe dynamic. The seventh dynamic—is the urge toward existence as or of spirits. Anything spiritual, with or without identity, would come under the heading of the seventh dynamic. This can be called the spiritual dynamic. The eighth dynamic—is the urge toward existence as infinity. This is also identified as the Supreme Being. It is carefully observed here that the science of Scn does not intrude into the dynamic of the Supreme Being. This is called the eighth dynamic because the symbol of infinity oo stood upright makes the numeral “8.” This can be called the infinity or God dynamic. (FOT, pp. 36-38)
------------------------------------------
The clear problem we face with the bridge is the imposition of personal interpretation to 'fill in the gaps ' resulting in altered Tech. The process utilised with Capt. Bill permits anyone to measure and define their personal space in terms of the dynamics according to their own criteria and engenders responsibility as knowing and willing cause. This is an entirely different result to that obtained by adopting someone elses philosophy and personal interpretation, whether that be Capt. Bill, LRH or anyone else.
So although the concepts of Capt. Bills work may ring true, substitution of personal data for demonstrable principles and processes results in a corresponding loss of Self-Determinism and autonomy, in the context of the current and future lifetimes.
The Rons Org extended bridge CBR OT levels are presented on Scientolopedia without a clear distinction and indication that this is not Scientology as per LRH, albeit derived from LRH principles. As a person visiting the site for the first time I find the emphasis on Rons Org and the CBR Bridge confusing.
I could not concur with Capt. Bill's pronouncements concerning the Galactic Patrol and consider them to be statements of his personal case which in my own perspective are out of place and out of time. As such they are relevant to Capt. Bill and his followers but not to the general public. We have several races of being present on planet earth, each with its own culture and history.
As you may know, according to the Spiritualist Church who do specialise in accompanying the souls of the dead and dealing with necromancy, they have an expertise which they claim saved England from Hitler during the 2nd World War. This was a subject also discussed with Capt. Bill.
Why is Capt. Bill Roberts work presented on the Scientolopedia site as if it is an extension of Scientology per LRH instead of the optional add-on which it is?
Freedom of Choice?
An informed choice?
The whole point of Standard Tech is that it is LRH's philosophy - which as LRH is a person, complete in himself, so his philosophy is also complete in itself.
LRH's philosophy makes sense within itself - with no additives.
Therefore we respect his work as a complete body of work - which makes sense within itself up to the point LRH was able to develop it to.
Anyone elses work, albeit based upon LRH principles is their own work.
From what I understand Capt. Bill also subscribes to this philosophy.
The principles of As-Isness and Perfect Duplication are demonstrable by a simple Touch Assist.
In my opinion any criteria for extension to the bridge must be based upon demonstrable principles and truths.
Furthermore, acknowledgement of source is essential in order that the general public not be confused between Capt. Bills work and LRH originated Scientology Tech.
I apply the same criteria to myself in my own work and posts.
I felt strongly about the above and questioned Capt. Bill Robertson's integrity in my original post which may be viewed in the edited comments.
I apologise. Capt. Bill is not here to defend himself and although I could not concur with his viewpoint on the bridge 30 years ago and still cannot, for my own technical reasons as well as those based upon my own understanding of LRH principles given in the intro to this post, I did like Capt. Bill Robertson a lot.
Nevertheless, Capt. Bill had the capacity and leadership position to set up an Org solely devoted to LRH Standard Tech, which in my opinion he did not due to his own case interests.
Perhaps there is something here to be learned by all of us.