document.onmousedown=disabletext document.onclick=reEnable

 

Research Hat

Started: April 13, 2006

Completed: May 6, 2006

Last Revised:  May 23, 2012 4:50 PM

Last Revised Date is Technical, not actuaL

I've often wondered if I am unusual in some particular talent I have and if I did not understood how different I might be?

Here on Wednesday, May 19, 2010, as I am within a few days of my 79th birthday, I've come to realize something about myself, not well described on this page.

The Scientific Method generally involves making and recording results from observations, drawing a hypothesis from those observations and with more observations and testing evolving from a hypothesis to a LAW.

It could take years of life times to prove the truth of your hypothesis.

I have just discovered that I work the other way around - I START with an OT Perception of the truth (per LRH, the definition of "postulate is 'self-created truth.'

Ii first perceive the truth and then work to find and observe the truth in the physical universe.

The obverse is also true. I perceive something to be false and know that I can then look for and find the proof of that lie.

For years I have "had a hunch" that I knew the truth about something and without certainty, only with the hunch, I would then study, research and either find of make observations that would support my hunch.

The direct look and the self-confidence in rightness involved is nice gradient improvement (case gain) that affects "how I do research."

I do research and writing in what seems to me to be such a natural way that it doesn't seem unusual to me. I find it "natural" to express my thoughts in words and to "discover data" that is useful. How do do that? Is this an unusual ability that I think is "natural" while others don't have it?

That's what I'm writing about here.

HOW I do research is written here. WHY I do research is written here.

When I look objectively at what others do and say, I don't see these skills and talents widely demonstrated.

And, at the request of a few people on, "How do you do that," I've decided to take my hand to writing up my "Research Hat."

What comes easiest to mind is simply my ability to "observe the truth" of something, then "stick to my reality" without changing because of others. I may, indeed, change my reality, but I do not take kindly to use or threats of force.

I recall, for instance, an employee who worked on stuff I considered confidential. We had a large dispute -- I fired her. Soon thereafter she got into my office and took floppy disks with some of the data she had been working on. She left a note, threatening to "give that information to the police!" She asked for $5,000 to remain silent!

I immediately sent (first left a recorded phone message, then followed up with a formal complaint and letter) a message to the FBI about her extortion threat. I INCLUDED in that message to the FBI copies of the same information that I believed was on those floppy disks -- I don't see any other way to survive!

I mailed her a copy of what I had done -- that put the threat back in her court and removed any threat to me -- other than the danger, if any, of giving the FBI some of my secrets.

I've never been one to value the secrecy of my secrets. Do you suppose there are people who research something and then decide to keep it secret? (Pop-Up Window of Background)

On a later case of similar subject content, I once won a precedent-setting legal decision against the IRS -- where I established the legal right to apply the Fifth Amendment to remain silent in an area where the IRS said there was no such right. I won my case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- one level below the US Supreme Court.

Yet, a few years later I appeared before a Grand Jury, asking me the same types of questions I had earlier refused to answer. I had "decided" in advance of that Grand Jury hearing that I would NOT use the Fifth Amendment response to ANY question, but would answer fully and honestly whatever was asked. In fact the Prosecutor did ask me the same type of questions as I had earlier established my right to not answer and I answered this time completely and honestly.

I don't see any other way to survive.

Why the difference? The first event was before I had my L's. The second event was after. My considerations about changing my own reality had changed -- so that threats now need to be a whole lot bigger before I will allow force to change my position. But, I can change my position without any threat IF I DECIDE TO DO SO (per item #6 of the Code of Honor).

A friend recently wrote to me. Whether someone else might consider this non-complimentary it is a comment I do not deny: 

In closing I would just like to repeat that you are the most stubborn and arrogant man I have ever met -- always totally certain of your rightness and reality even when it is fantasy. But I do still like you and LRH says that bastards can also be quite effective.

There is a very famous LRH quote that relates to this:

An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. (Keeping Scientology Working)

Part of my research hat is having a very high IQ -- about 151 on a test with a highest score of 155. I do math problems in my head and marvel at other people who don't! Part of it is also the ability to apply logic -- that's part of IQ but worthy of separate mention. Of course I joined Mensa, but it didn't interest me much. It is not enough to have high IQ -- you have to use it productively.

There is no question but my IQ has been increased as a result of the spiritual counseling I've received in the Church of Scientology. In college I tested at 131 -- considered quite high, but nothing compared to 151.

"Observation" is far more than IQ, however, it is the use of the state of "being aware."

For instance:

John is standing on a "ball." 

You see him standing there.  He says to you,

"Hi, I'm here standing on a cooked chicken!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right away you know that one (or more) of certain things are true:

  • He is standing on a ball and he doesn't know the difference between a cooked chicken and a ball? 

  • Or?  he hasn't looked at what he is standing on?

  • or He knows he is standing on a ball, but tells you something different.  Sometimes this is called a lie?
  • or possibly He is standing on a cooked chicken and YOU don't know the difference between a cooked chicken and a ball? or

  • Something else?

Who is aware of the truth here? Awareness coupled with the consideration that "it is true" can be useful if true, and harmful if not. Would you ever know your own awareness to be either? What is "truth?" I wrote an important philosophical article on this subject -- now here in a pop-up window.

I would add to the information in that pop-up, that I look largely for alignment of data to be evidence of truth. The more data I have assimilated and aligned, the easier it becomes for me to align new data with the existing data. Any LRH data has, in my mind, such special value that any new data which aligns with LRH data means that not only is the new date valid and usable but its source of probably to be trusted for other data, whether or not matched with something comparable from LRH. Stable data and aligned data are the hallmarks of good and fast research. I see this alignment easily over a broad range of different data.

It is not enough to accept rot ely the definitions of trusted opinion leaders -- I did it another way, and suggest to others that they do the same: I figured out WHY the answer I found with "just being aware and looking" was the best answer. In other words I have often accepted as true that which I observe and consider true, THEN look for the confirming data. That is NOT the traditional "Scientific Method" of research that rejoices in finding data contrary to your hypothesis.

"Awareness" is a trait common to all beings -- whether there is much or little of it, and whether there is "false awareness" or true awareness of "what actually is."

"Awareness" is also FINDING something you had not even been looking for -- and finding that what has been thus found is more useful than what you had been looking for. The Three Princes of Serendipity is an old Persian fairy tale about three men who were on a mission but they always found something that was irrelevant but needed in reality. They discovered things by serendipity and sagacity. Serendip is a variation on the Arabic name for Sri Lanka. Later serendipity was coined by Horace Walpole. Click here for the fable, pop-up window.

One of my most common "sayings" to my wife -- often at 3 AM, when I've been working on some research (or "study," about the same as "research") item and not found what I wanted: "Dear, I've been hitting my head against the brick wall again. I'm quitting for the night -- my "file clerk" will find it for me." The paragraph above, about "serendipity" has the pop-up window where I wrote a bit more about this "finding it" and I say here, also, that when your awareness is high and you have a "goal" and "purposes" then "you" find whatever data that aligns with that goal and those purposes. You do not HAVE TO KNOW the items specifically you are looking for -- you are looking for "something" that aligns with your purpose.

It's like your purpose is to make vegetable soup. Some people might have a picture of "vegetables. YOU have no such picture, but that purpose is coupled with a very high awareness of what "aligns" with "soup."

If you were to send your clerk, "Bill," out for some peas and carrots to bring for the soup, he would probably bring back the peas and carrots. But, if you make up a list of ingredients you want for your soup, and put on the list "peas" and "beans," you yourself might well go out "shopping" but come back with far more than peas and beans. You do not go out to "buy peas and beans," and in fact would never even make a list. You would go out with the intention of getting "stuff" for the soup. Then, with this intention you go to a "food store" and notice "beets" and think, "Well, I hadn't thought of 'beets' but they would be great in the soup."

How did that happen? The beets "aligned" with your stable data about what belongs in vegetable soup, and your make-up allows you to experiment beyond your stable data.

You drive home with your bag of ingredients and notice a Pollo Loco fast food restaurant. You recall that they sell a great "tropical chicken salad" with mangos and coconut. You "realize" (??) that your vegetable soup would be much more "interesting" with some mango and the other stuff in that Pollo Loco salad. On a whim you stop, buy a "salad to go" and at home you dump the whole thing, lettuce and all, even the chicken, into the pot of soup, along with the beans, the peas, the beets and everything else.

Later the soup is great or terrible. It really makes no difference. You had a bright idea, tried it, and depending on the results you would then drop that whole line of research or go further with it.

So with my research -- call it study of the physical universe, looking for the laws of the physical universe -- you learn and your next foray into learning in that direction will be all the better. You decide that "fresh carrots" would be better than canned carrots -- so you try fresh coconut also!

Somewhere, perhaps, you are building up the stable data you can use to align new unproven data with -- stable data that fits with your perception of what is "good vegetable soup." YOU CAN CHANGE WHAT IS YOUR STABLE DATA TOO!

I have had considerable experience with "knowing" that "something is there" without knowing "what" it is that is there. This happens routinely for me in spiritual counseling when I "know" there is something there and I "know" when it leaves -- even though I may never get the significance of the mass that I was aware of.

This happens outside of counseling also, and I recount one instance that was startling to ME. I, of course, was the only one who ever realized what was happening "to me."

I had started to write on a subject knowing in advance some three or four points I would be writing about. As I wrote I realized that there were ANOTHER several points that I would want to write about WIHOUT having any conscious awareness of WHAT those points might be or what I would write. Then, in due course, as I was writing, and finished whatever points I had known I would be writing about, the cognition came for the next, and the next. I went this way from an original intention to write about three or four points to a feeling of completion when I had written about 12 points.

In a general philosophical sense this was "knowing" without being aware of what it was that I was "knowing." It is strange when it first happens -- I now count on this phenomenon as normal and helpful. You could say it is "instinct" but that is not my explanation. My more accurate explanation, now, is "I am aware of the 'presence' of something without being aware of the significance of it."

A Scientology wording comes in the HCOB where LRH describes the Case Supervisor being interested in the mass contacted and blown by the preclear -- whereas the preclear is interested in the significance of the item containing the mass. The preclear is generally aware of the mass, or not, but feels happier when he can become aware of the significance. When I "go looking" for some "data" ("significance") I run into the masses connected with that data, become aware of that mass and realize that my intention was to find the significance, but it would be logical to find, first, the mass -- and I become aware of that mass before I see the significance.

As this is true, I have only to "trust" my awareness of "something" (the mass) and look a bit more to find the significance that can fit into a research project. But, I find the mass first. Here is an example:

I'm traveling through space, looking for animals. I sense a MASS of something (it is a planet in space -- lots of mass). I don't catch the significance of animals, nor do I get the significance of the mass being a planet. But, the skill I'm describing tells me that this sensing of a mass and my intention to find "animals" has caused THIS particular mass to be "the one." I put MORE attention into the area of the mass. Perhaps I become aware of a planet -- that's not what I've been looking for, but a bit more attention now reveals the animals I HAVE been looking for. I went looking for animals. I "found" (in the sense of "sensing") a mass, and it would appear that I discovered the animals accidentally. The truth is, I found exactly what I was looking for and I have explained how I do that. I suspect many more people could do this if they did not invalidate their own "knowingness" of sensing a mass and knowing that the significance is close at hand.

If you are ready for a wild one, you might consider that I not only sense the mass, but sense whether that mass aligns with the masses I've accumulated as aligned for myself. In other words, if that mass "out there" aligns with my other masses, then it is likely to be something I can use. If that mass "out there" is sensed as having a wrong alignment, then I could safely stay away from whole bodies of knowledge -- where my "sense" tells me the data to be found there will not align with my own and be usefully added.

I have enjoyed, and done well in life, when working in "pioneer areas" of new technology (health and taxes):

They do well in pioneer areas where they have to do it all off the cuff and where their very inability accept anything causes them also to refuse defeats and discouragements. Their inability to grasp a situation is often of benefit when bravery is required. This does not however excuse efforts to make them more capable and as they grow older and more experienced, they will also become brave and quick and will follow policy.

Source HCOPL 13 March 1965, Issue III

It appears to me that to whatever extent this LRH concept applies to me, that now, at 77, pushing into a very new pioneer area, the use of Limited Liability Companies to create the existence of another, without his having location -- and thus giving him a safe point from which to communicate. (Added July 2008.)

On a much more "physical universe" subject, I've had a long series of thoughtful exchanges with a very good friend who reads the Veda in Sanskrit. He finds much "truth" in it, and also, in Scientology. I do not look for truth in the Veda. I have come to believe that ALL the data in Scientology originated by LRH is aligned with all the other data -- this is a state of the subject that has never existed in time before. The Veda can have thousands of points of truth, but it would take only one false datum in the whole work of the Veda to show that the Veda is not a body of work where ALL the data are aligned and evaluated for importance.

The same governs my research generally. I can look within the Veda, or more likely the "Ayur Veda" for useful information THAT ALIGNS WITH MY OWN STABLE DATA. That way I can select some and omit other data from that source. When I look within the body of data created by LRH I am comfortable with the realization that if there IS something that does not seem "right" the problem is with my understanding of the data, not the truth of it. Looking into the Ayur Veda requires the outside criteria of use of my stable data to test the alignment.

The "Logics" have always been a favorite writing by LRH for me. Click here for a more detailed look at the Logics that apply particularly to my research.

In my early years I had the "usual" self-doubts of the validity of my observations -- but so often they have proven true that my research ability increases with self-confidence.

Observation and awareness are not enough to explain research skills either.

The best reference I can think of for the next item is Mr. Hubbard's answer to the question, "How good does a piece of art have to be?" I've used that data on answering the similar question, "How good does a web site have to be?" at the link -- that link includes the LRH quote.

Taking a lesson from that reference, I would say that a researcher may have ideas and great thoughts, but unless he communicates that data to others, they are worthless. He has to use tools that allow his message to be carried to the recipient.

Thus one crude tool of use is the typewriter or the dictionary and the sophisticated tools are those relating to English language, publishing, "positioning," authoring and the like.

Was it an accident? Or, was I planning far into the future with the only choices I could then make? In high school during the 1940's I enrolled in the typing class. I was the only boy in that class -- that year and probably before and after.

I just thought it would be useful to know how to type. It proved extremely useful and probably led to, or aligned with, a heavy interest I had all through my life in the newest communication technologies -- certainly including my very early interest in computers -- when very few others were showing such interest. That I could type at 100 words per minute is simply a testament to my ability to master the tools I needed for the research I wanted to do.

Much later in life I took the Key To Life course and found that it multiplied my ability many times -- to communicate. I recall one instance:

It was a short time after I had finished the "Key To Life" course. I was at a convention with people I knew very well, but met only about twice per year -- very casual. I was standing in some informal group, observing the number of banners from the different Clubs, all around the room, and said, "There is a plethora of banners here!" Even as I was uttering the words I realized that at least one of the three guys standing right next to me didn't know the meaning of that word. Without even a blink of an eye I ADDED, "You know, such a large number that I've not seen before . . . ." I "picked up" the guy's MU before it had a chance to have much effect on him. I do that even in writing -- not even knowing who will be reading my stuff, but write well enough to serve most.

Those tools can seem to be THE research, and the research may often be on new and better tools, but the tools are only the means by which the message is carried, as per LRH in the Art Series.

When I was in graduate school (Harvard) I went over to MIT, took a course in the Eniac, and learned binary numbering systems. If you are looking for someone to do research, then look for someone who was born with a great desire to learn the tools that would become useful in doing his research in some not-too-distant future year. Studying the Eniac in 1960, some 46 years ago, was NOT what many business-oriented people did. That study gave me the most basic of foundations in the theory of how computers worked.

In later years I've realized that I get very excited about learning a new tool -- even if it may not seem related to the research and main thrust of my production.

For several years I have used a photo-editing program that had so many features that I had no clue about that I just used one tenth of one percent of its capabilities I would use it to take a large memory-sized image and make it into a smaller memory-sized image. I saw other features, even played with them, but it was always hit or miss to see what effect I could create with them.

One day, recently, I was using one of these features and discovered the basic technology of what it would do for me. I can see WHAT it will do, but have not yet practiced with it long enough to have any mastery at all. But, it is part of my research hat to learn how I learn new tools. I've crossed over some barrier. Before I was throwing paint on the wall and looking to see whether it was pretty or not.

Now I've realized that I can spray colors on the wall, change the colors at will, change the "cone" of paint from a narrow beam to a broad brush and do many other tricks to an image. I don't think I am using that tool, yet, to send a message with content, but I now can see the path to having mastered that tool ENOUGH to use it, alone, to create an emotional reaction. I'll get better with this tool now that I have passed over this barrier beyond which I hadn't passed for many years.

When I was ready to go to college I really wanted to be a classical pianist. But after learning that classical pianists hardly ever made enough money to live on, I had no trouble switching to having a major in accounting. I have had a grand piano in my home for dozens of years -- have one now and even play a bit.

You might think a pianist is interested in aesthetic and abstract things -- as might be a researcher? But, my interest in research has always and only been for areas where I could see a bottom line impact measured with good effect on beings and money. Then health improvements took over the more generalized purpose and they should be measured with successful sales. The successful sales, as I looked over the landscape, were related to new and unique products that needed new and exciting health claims to make them succeed.

Who could ever be happy selling cheap Vitamin C?

Much later in life I observed what happens on a TV screen. Those little dots of color are placed here and there in an exact pattern. "Motion" on that screen is an apparency of nothing more than LRH's "constant creation" of particles in space -- giving the appearance of solidity and motion -- every few milliseconds and every few pixels a new creation puts a new point to view. If that point is slightly different from the last point put there? Well, after all, alteration is what makes for persistence. We have the TV screen in front of us, if understood, to illustrate one of the most intricate of LRH concepts -- the creation of the physical universe, including "time" itself, is before our eyes.

How do I see this? Have others seen this parallel? Will others even agree or care? I revel in my understandings -- even if they don't fit into the current research interests of the planet. But I WRITE about those that are produce the only thing that measures success in the Western Hemisphere -- material wealth, money, sales, and, realized later, one more thing.

However I might make money it cannot be without actually delivering a product, as LRH calls it, a "finished high quality service or article in the hands of the being or entity it serves as an exchange for a valuable." (source)

There is another element to my research. I had this viewpoint before my discovery of LRH this life-time, but also had that relationship with him earlier than this life. (I have an ability to "travel the time track" that I will not elaborate on here.) So, this is not a tool that I necessarily discovered on my own. This is the tool of all the study tech! I sense a particular type of false data very easily. I have "always" done that! I had this exchange recently with a good friend, a scientist well educated in modern science.

Karl: You wrote:

Friend: Cells are programmed to "Live" and "Die" at specific time co-ordinates, in accordance with the requirement of maintaining the integrity of the whole being. 

Karl: "Cells ARE programmed" is the use of the passive tense of the verb.  The passive tense generally always fails to identify "cause."

The question here is "Who programs these cells."  Only life or a living being can be cause.  All causation is always and only from the source of life or a thetan.  Chemicals are not "cause."  "Chemicals" can be a tool used by life to SEEM to be the cause of an effect.  It is the old story, "John shoots Bill with a gun, Bill dies. Was it the bullet that killed Bill, or John?"  There is only one true answer. 

"John hit Bill" shows cause.  "Bill was hit" does not show cause, but only effect.  Effect with hidden or unrevealed "cause" invites "dub-in" as LRH calls it -- the "dub-in" of something to fill the vacuum in logic when cause is not mentioned but effect is.  This is a very basic tool of the logic that I use in my research.  I look for causes in bodies of data -- and when the true cause is "a thetan" and that concept is replaced with some word, like "nature" that, then, has no definition, I know that the author of that body of data is not worth any study.     The explanation of effect may be intricate and even logical, but without accurately identifying cause there is no full subject here.

The question here is "Who programs these cells."  Only life or a living being can be cause.  All causation is always and only from the source of life or a thetan.

You wrote:

Friend: The cells are commanded to die

Again, "WHO" commanded the cells to die?  Then "why" can be examined.

In this case I know the answer to "WHO" and I know the answer to "WHY."  These answers should interest you, but the answers I have, from LRH, are NOT the answers you have referenced.

So, when you say that "nature" has designed it this way, you are using a word "nature" which has no possible definition in logic or science.

There is yet another element to the type of research I do, therefore HOW I do research -- to be aimed in this direction.

I am very interested in creation. In all the vast planet the most exciting and useful thing to create was and is Scientology. LRH has taken that field. It is not for me to "create" some new process, or technology.

If I can't create Scientology, what might be a non-mental and non-spiritual condition of society that has almost equal importance as Scientology? In a materialistic subject? Well, the number one ruin of people is certainly health and body problems. Of all of those the number one cause of death is said to be heart disease. LRH did not write much about heart disease. (What he did write, here and there a single sentence, or whatever, it was a very firm peg to hang an entire statement of truth on -- I needed only to "research" stuff that agreed with LRH and thus that type of research was very easy for me.

In a more vague sense any research has been easy for me as long as I can, one way or another, find some alignment between some "prospective research finding" and some "LRH datum."

I've done heart disease and cancer, see as a broader field the whole genre of health care I've created called "Ayurceutical" and within that expect to research and writing about "the science of motion" which supplants all existing technology on exercise. This is how I select out large areas of knowledge I can become interested in. I take, for instance, LRH Scientology Axiom #23, "All thought is concerned with motion" and figure a bit, "Did LRH say 'exercise?' NO! He said 'motion.' Is there more to motion than exercise (and range of motion as often used in chiropractic)? Surely there is. It would build on or take out of Kung Fu and certainly make a big issue of 'proper breathing.' It would certainly include the motion of blood and function (motion) of cells and electrons that affect the body."

I look forward to researching "the science of motion" as a much broader subject that either exercise or "range of motion" and tie that to Ayurceutical, then align my sale of Ayurceutical products to the establishment of a network of Kung Fu schools around the planet -- isn't that fun!

(I later received an honorary black belt and became a "Sasya" to my Grandmaster.)

So, again, my research interests are driven by what goals and purposes for changing conditions I have -- those have been fairly steady, always seeming to get more focused -- and aim, now, at health of the body as regards "choices" people make (and thus my interest in TWTH) and "motion" (and thus my interest in Martial Arts) and the old standbys of heart disease and cancer, with diet as a piece of truth to be promoted for choices to be made.

There is yet another element for "the researcher." There must be fire in the belly. I've recognized that in myself -- thought many others had it and discovered sadly that it is still a rare commodity.

Fire in the belly is just a fancy way of saying "intention." The intention to do something could be measured, at the high end, as fire in the belly. But Fire in the Bellythat intention is not necessarily directed yet.

What causes the research to be along some particular path?

I've written extensively about that here.

It is so obvious, not necessarily understood in the importance of its position, that "survival" is what drives those of us mostly working in and through a body. We (thetans) want the body to survive -- on into future generations too, of course. This is true despite the body's own preference for death (Per Game of Life lecture). So, health becomes an interesting struggle between the thetan and the body with the thetan capable of making choices that force the body to survive, whether it wants to or not!

My linked writing, above, makes the point that "seeking to live with the truth" is the basic tool of how you survive. When and as you can recognize truth it should and must be a truth which leads to increased survival for the body. Survival for the being, of course, only needs to be recognized as automatic.

So the drive to survive is universal, of course, but in me it is my fire in the belly. I have found that the drive to help in the survival FOR OTHERS is the source of my intentions, as anyone would, but my intentions seem a bit more intense! I have long-since passed the point of worrying about personal body survival, to arrive at the point where I want to help others survive more and better -- then I want my help in the form of ideas to survive -- carry on into the future so as to be help for future generations.

There is a large element of playfulness in my life. I do NOT always research subjects of seriousness -- but generally always research subject of INTEREST to me.

What interests me? Certainly the "Curious About button" suggests that the "unknown" is what interests me. I might well have less engramic fear of the unknown than most.

One of my early mottos was that, "It makes no difference how deep the water is when you are treading water. You tread in the top 5 feet whether the water is 10 feet deep or two miles deep.

It was always difficult for me to understand how someone would be afraid of going out in the "deep water" when all they ever needed was the top six feet.

Is there any implication here in my status of "Natural Clear?" Did the "L's" help? The answer is "yes, but." The "but" simply says, "I have less junk in my space than many, and I have always had less junk."

I recall well how I turned my life away from future temptations for drugs,whether that was the knowingly the best way to do it, or accidentally brought about that result. I was raised in a "hard-drinking" family, lots of parties -- perhaps I would have rebelled anyway? In any event an incident occurred with our family physician when I was 8. I was sick! He came to our home. He decided that I needed both my "ears punctured." (Even now I wonder that they did such stuff.)

He assured me that it would not hurt.

I accepted his treatment on the first ear -- it hurt about as bad as anything I had had in my short life. It took him, and my father, to hold me down in bed while he went at the second ear.

I fought so hard that the bed fell apart -- onto the floor.

But, the doctor got his deed done.

Around this time I knew a neighborhood couple that went to the Christian Science Church -- I was going to some Protestant Church every week. I didn't know anything about Christian Science, but knew that "they didn't believe in doctors."

My doctor "betrayed me" with harm and I VOWED that I would never again see a doctor and would join the Christian Science Church "so I wouldn't have to see a doctor again.

I did -- I became a devout Christian Scientist.

Who knows if, without that vow and church, whether I might have taken up the drink and drugs that many others of my later ages took up.

In any event I was a strong teetotaler and wouldn't touch alcohol for many years after that.

Did I "pull in" an "ear doctor" in order to find a way to keep me away from doctors and drugs?

Perhaps I could have found a better way?

Any skill I may have at researching is certainly enhanced by a drug-free and alcohol-free youth and life.

But the more important observation here is that I have "done things" that looked odd when I was young -- things that helped steer me around future obstacles that would have really screwed up any person's ability to do research. The image on the left is of a place where I went white-water rafting on my 70th birthday. Rocks in the stream and high water are the source of great adventure. I've always loved adventure. I learned that you didn't actually have to "steer around" obstacles so much as "enjoy them" -- isn't it better to not resist an obstacle. So I have changed a lot since I was young and I go on into the next lifetime as a researcher eager for learning the tools that are then-needed and looking for obstacles to survival -- just to enjoy them.

It has been not only an unknown area of survival technology, but very often an unknown tool to communicate my research findings that has interested me.

I took great satisfaction in writing my observations about PLAQUE (here), survival technology, but I take a very similar pleasure in learning how to make a drop down menu (the tool) that works well for the viewer of a web site. (Note the slow loading of that page -- how can that be fixed? That is a question of great interest to me -- at least in part because I don't think anyone else has yet worked on that problem.)

Awareness very much includes "seeing" into the future when it is a high awareness. This is one reason, probably, why I've never seen any possibility of some other person "helping" me with research. I could use some very junior clerks to go here and go there, gather this or gather that, but my type of research is NOT a team sport. When I go alone into some far future, not only to gather the data I want, but put the reality there that I can see is possible, I do not feel the need of agreement on what I can or do find, or what I can see in that future reality. ("Future data," by the way is simply a clean look at what will be or what could be -- the word "prediction" is not accurate except as to etiology.)

I am a researcher into the truth about health matters -- and I write well, so I have published my findings. What can and should make me valuable is that I have proven to be trustworthy in life, generally, and particularly in the trustworthiness of my published findings on health matters. That is not always a character trait that people recognize as useful and worthy of proclamation in life. I do.

Creativity is a large part of my research hat -- I am not interested much in reviewing the research done by others, except to support my furtherance of that subject or to critique it.

I have a peculiar form of creativity. I will often just take an "OT Look" into an area and "decide" what the truth is. THEN I go looking for confirmation by sources that make the "truth" credible, even if controversial. I THEN ALSO look at those who endorse the opposite view and look for the flaws.

I always find the confirming supporters and I always find the flaws.

There was a time in one of my businesses when I pronounced that I was the world authority on a legal subject having to do with "trusts" and that I would provide a analysis of complex legal documents TO THE FIRST FATAL FLAW! I could find those flaws, usually in less than five minutes of study. People would send me 50 page trust indentures, perhaps after paying thousands of dollars to some attorney for them. I never failed to find that fatal flaw and write back to tell them what the problem was.

There is a large number of LRH data which I react to as, "My goodness, I would not have said I knew that, but when I saw the LRH source I felt that I surely had known that before and it helps explain a lot of other stuff." What had been a vague instinct or intuition, and useful, now becomes more useful because I recognize my own prior understanding of it.

Above I wrote:

What comes easiest to mind is simply my ability to "observe the truth" of something, then "stick to my reality" without changing because of others. I may, indeed, change my reality, but I do not take kindly to threats.

There is another concept that is so central to my Research Hat that I have repeated the first two parts of it, just above, to put them in the proper relationship to this THIRD vital part of my hat.

It is not enough to just "do research." It is necessary to have a goal and purpose, first, and to do research in order to achieve that goal and those purposes. One could take up research on the "mating habits of South Borneo WindField Butterflies" and perhaps discover a great deal of hitherto unknown truth.

In fact, another type of research one could engage in is what LRH writes this way:

There is this labyrinth, and a guide who is supposed to lead you out of the labyrinth. You see some 'pretty rocks' and you suggest to the guide that he research more about those 'pretty rocks.' He says, "Miss, those rocks may be pretty, but the road out doesn't go that way."

The goal certainly is "survival" and one of the Purposes, surely, is something like: "Discover the most important obstacles to survival, and the technology of overcoming those obstacles."

So a research hat must include the goal and purpose for the research. The research must find some obstacle that can be solved, present a solution and establish, at least on a pilot basis that the solution works.

Research is not a pure theoretical thing that can be a creation left on the dusty pages of unread manuscripts. It is not enough, either, to turn over those research notes to someone else to turn into a workable technology. The very process of creating a workable technology shows flaws, if there are any, in the observations and research -- flaws that lead to a corrected observation and revised research findings.

ONLY APPLICATION can prove the value of research and my research hat has always included "demonstrating that it works in the physical universe."

I found it curious that I started the "Life Orientation Course" but did not finish it. Many years later I re-read the "product" of that course, something like: "A person who is competent in the physical universe." My goodness I have had that ability for decades and it has only gotten better -- and perhaps the greatest form of that competence is in my research ability.

I looked over the "purpose" on LOC and realized something else.

Whether good or bad, my justification for not becoming skilled in applying organizational tech, and the use of the 21 Department Org Board, COULD be that my own "hey you" org board allowed me to learn, as painfully as it may have been, by following the LRH datum of bumping your head into the physical universe, withdrawing with perhaps pain, but data to be understood, thereby learning more about how to bump your head again, more effectively.

Dianetic Axiom 8: "The life static conquests the material universe by learning and applying the physical laws of the physical universe." Originally there was no text book to "learn from." The guys who then later wrote the books? Who was the first to learn these laws and how did HE do it?

Many years after first writing the next-above paragraph, I discovered an answer to my own question. I have published that HERE.

It is probably a complete justification, but I am "learning" the org board by using some basic pieces of LRH tech and my trial and error methods. So far I've done well enough to not give up on this approach (although, in 2008, I recognized my failure in building an organization and "pulled in" just the right man to help and take over.) ! Dianetic Axiom 143: "All learning is accomplished by random effort." Dianetic Axiom 148: "Physical laws are learned by life energy only by impingement on the physical universe producing randomity and a withdrawal from that impingement."

My final source of inspiration, LRH, Factor #30:

And above these things there might be speculation only. And below these things there is the playing of the game. But these things which are written here man can experience and know. And some may care to teach these things and some may care to use them to assist those in distress and some may desire to employ them to make individuals and organizations more able and so give to Earth a culture of which we can be proud.

Having thought about this and written this article I have come to feel increased confidence in my own ability to do research -- and believe that my further research activities will be better, however that word might be described.

Shortly after finishing this Company Policy I set about applying my research skills on the subject of "positioning" Ayurceutical concepts --- here. Many months after first finishing this Policy I realized that over that time I had many more further cognitions on this subject but decided to NOT include them here until January 9, 2007 when I came to a realization about "research that explains virtually all of the above. I had placed that new data HERE.

Enough for now.

 

Official