What's new

Knowing How to Know vs. Believing

Vinaire

Sponsor
Thank you for rewording what I wrote! :grouch:

LRH blocked all the above.

AXIOM 1 is the basic incorrectness of Scio!

Alan

Yes, we are on the same wave-length here.

It doesn't bother me if LRH blocked it, or somebody else blocked it back when. What is important is to discover for oneself who or what is blocking it in the present.

AXIOM 1 is just fine when looked at from the Vedic viewpoint. But you may explain how it is the "basic incorrectness of Scio" from your viewpoint.

.
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, we are on the same wave-length here.

It doesn't bother me if LRH blocked it, or somebody else blocked it back when. What is important is to discover for oneself who or what is blocking it in the present.

AXIOM 1 is just fine when looked at from the Vedic viewpoint. But you may explain how it is the "basic incorrectness of Scio" from your viewpoint.

I'm not sure if you can truly get the purity or infiniteness of the formless unsubstantial substance of the purity and essence of Spirit or the purity and essence or infiniteness of pure conciousness, awareness, love etc. (fill in the formless unsubstantial substance qualities and attributes of your choice.)
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I'm not sure if you can truly get the purity or infiniteness of the formless unsubstantial substance of the purity and essence of Spirit or the purity and essence or infiniteness of pure conciousness, awareness, love etc. (fill in the formless unsubstantial substance qualities and attributes of your choice.)

Who knows? These are just considerations.

.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Who knows? These are just considerations.

.

Vinaire -

Are you aware of the thought-stopping techniques you employ?

"These are just considerations"

"You are just emoting"

Etc.

You are using filters to discredit the idea in your own mind so that no more thought occurs in that area.

Are you aware of this?
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I'm not sure if you can truly get the purity or infiniteness of the formless unsubstantial substance of the purity and essence of Spirit or the purity and essence or infiniteness of pure conciousness, awareness, love etc. (fill in the formless unsubstantial substance qualities and attributes of your choice.)

I have a lot of problems with 'Axiom 1', including the fact that it's called an 'Axiom' in the first place. Then, there comes the generalization re: 'Life' and on and on.

But, more than anything else, what really bugs me about it is the use of the weasle-word 'basically' in it. If you're trying to make some kind of *core*, absolute and essentially 'basic' statement, *why* dilute it by saying 'basically', which just begs the question; 'OK, it's *basically* that; what is it *unbasically*??'

Zinj
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Vinaire -

Are you aware of the thought-stopping techniques you employ?

"These are just considerations"

"You are just emoting"

Etc.

You are using filters to discredit the idea in your own mind so that no more thought occurs in that area.

Are you aware of this?

Hope he heeds what you have indicated Alanzo! :)
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I have a lot of problems with 'Axiom 1', including the fact that it's called an 'Axiom' in the first place. Then, there comes the generalization re: 'Life' and on and on.

But, more than anything else, what really bugs me about it is the use of the weasle-word 'basically' in it. If you're trying to make some kind of *core*, absolute and essentially 'basic' statement, *why* dilute it by saying 'basically', which just begs the question; 'OK, it's *basically* that; what is it *unbasically*??'

Zinj

Good point Zinj.
It always seemed to me a bit of a woolly definition for an axiom.
I think Hubbard didn't like to put out anything that suggested he didn't have a complete understanding and mastery concerning that of which he wrote.

It wouldn't be too hard to define static first and then say that all life derived from static. Even "life" is woolly in axiom 1, as it usually means theta + mest in biological forms.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Vinaire -

Are you aware of the thought-stopping techniques you employ?

"These are just considerations"

"You are just emoting"

Etc.

You are using filters to discredit the idea in your own mind so that no more thought occurs in that area.

Are you aware of this?

You forgot about, "This is infinitization," "Duh," and several others indicating emotional outbursts.

"These are just considerations," was a response to the following invalidative opinion or speculation that was not beneficial to dwell upon. It is just gobbledygook.

I'm not sure if you can truly get the purity or infiniteness of the formless unsubstantial substance of the purity and essence of Spirit or the purity and essence or infiniteness of pure conciousness, awareness, love etc. (fill in the formless unsubstantial substance qualities and attributes of your choice.)

How would you respond to such an opinion if directed at you?

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Good point Zinj.
It always seemed to me a bit of a woolly definition for an axiom.
I think Hubbard didn't like to put out anything that suggested he didn't have a complete understanding and mastery concerning that of which he wrote.

It wouldn't be too hard to define static first and then say that all life derived from static. Even "life" is woolly in axiom 1, as it usually means theta + mest in biological forms.

"Axiom 1" has clarified to me the understanding of Brahma as I explored it on the thread THE VEDIC VIEWPOINT.

.
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
You forgot about, "This is infinitization," "Duh," and several others indicating emotional outbursts.

"These are just considerations," was a response to the following invalidative opinion or speculation that was not beneficial to dwell upon. It is just gobbledygook.



How would you respond to such an opinion if directed at you?

.

Probably:

"Oh yeah? So's your old man!"
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Alanzo, you may note that Alan didn't respond to a direct request to explain how Axiom 1 is the "basic incorrectness of Scio."

This is quite a serious point.

.
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
Alanzo, you may note that Alan didn't respond to a direct request to explain how Axiom 1 is the "basic incorrectness of Scio."

This is quite a serious point.

.

Is this kinda like a KR? And you want the EO to handle?

Please provide more specifics, then.

Ml,

Alanzos secretary (or nosy board member)
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
Do you mean that she's tied to a desk working and he occasionally pops his head around the door for a 2 minute flirt but then goes off and shags every other woman in Christendom? :)

But the great thing about that is he has no idea where I am the rest of the day neither....:whistling:
 
Top