Knowing How to Know vs. Believing

[Mojo]

If there is such a thing as a pet-peeve, this one is mine. Lol. (To Vinaire, a pet-peeve is a minor irritation that one loves to be irritated about).

Knowing How to Know?
Knowing How to Know?
Knowing How to Know?
Knowing How to Know?

No matter where I place the emphasis, the sentence appears to be nonsensical to me (even when adding the other 4 possibilities of emphasis).

Following up such a nonsensical statement with literally millions of words to explain just how one does it, seems equally nonsensical, to me.

So, HOW DOES ONE KNOW HOW TO KNOW?

If I recall correctly Mr. Hubbard initially explained that scientology had to do with 'the study of knowledge' (scio and logos?). And in a blink of an eye the word 'study' became 'knowing'. With the phrase 'HOW TO' appearing front and center.

It's all so darn confusing. Lol.

When I have asked scientologists how 'they know how to know' they have responded with either the near famous scientologist blank stare, or by referring me to the church/Hubbard for clarification (on how they know how to know) or both.

So I am asking here (in scientology theory and practice) how does one KNOW HOW TO KNOW?, as a practical matter, and WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BELIEVING AND KNOWING (in scientology).

 

[Leon]

It's never fully made sense to me either. I've always taken it as meaning "knowing the knower", or "knowing the one who knows".

That's my alter-is, but it works for me.

Knowing is knowing. When you don't know but you pretend that you do then that is belief.

 

[Leon]

There is no "how" to know. Just like there is no "how" to postulate. You just d.

 

[Leon]

do

 

[Vinaire]

If there is such a thing as a pet-peeve, this one is mine. Lol. (To Vinaire, a pet-peeve is a minor irritation that one loves to be irritated about).

Knowing How to Know?
Knowing How to Know?
Knowing How to Know?
Knowing How to Know?

No matter where I place the emphasis, the sentence appears to be nonsensical to me (even when adding the other 4 possibilities of emphasis).

Following up such a nonsensical statement with literally millions of words to explain just how one does it, seems equally nonsensical, to me.

So, HOW DOES ONE KNOW HOW TO KNOW?

If I recall correctly Mr. Hubbard initially explained that scientology had to do with 'the study of knowledge' (scio and logos?). And in a blink of an eye the word 'study' became 'knowing'. With the phrase 'HOW TO' appearing front and center.

It's all so darn confusing. Lol.

When I have asked scientologists how 'they know how to know' they have responded with either the near famous scientologist blank stare, or by referring me to the church/Hubbard for clarification (on how they know how to know) or both.

So I am asking here (in scientology theory and practice) how does one KNOW HOW TO KNOW?, as a practical matter, and WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BELIEVING AND KNOWING (in scientology).

Knowing how to know
Simply means how to as-is.
You just look
And differentiate between
What is out there
from
What is in your mind.

.

 

[Mojo]

It's never fully made sense to me either. I've always taken it as meaning "knowing the knower", or "knowing the one who knows".

That's my alter-is, but it works for me.

Knowing is knowing. When you don't know but you pretend that you do then that is belief.

I can work with that (given it's a rare rare rare response from someone well versed in scientology as a doctrine).

Using your response (which I really do appreciate Leon), would you say that you don't know what 'knowing how to know' means, but you believe it means knowing the knower or knowing the one who knows?

See, here's the upshot for me. I don't believe anyone on earth can know anything at all, save for the fact that they are aware of being. Which awareness of being they state as 'I am'. Everything else being agreement and belief (or disagreement and or disbelief). All being a function of conditioning.

For example (don't stop me here I'm on a roll, lol). What is visible to the human eye is an unconditioned impression of a form (at rest or in motion) being visible through a very small range of the light spectrum. That's all anyone on earth can see. An unconditioned impression of a form at rest or in motion. What that impression/form is, is a secondary interpretation/definition based upon an intellectual capacity coupled with education/conditioning/belief etc. etc. etc. of the beholder of it. But the fundamental fact is what everyone on earth is seeing at any given time is a form at rest or in motion. Throw in color (which seemingly didn't appear as a distinguishable intellectual feature/capacity for discernment till numerous years after the first clam crawling, so to speak), and we have an undefinable (though distinct) form, of an undefinable (though distinct) color, either in motion or at rest. Which is exactly what you are looking at right now. But which you cannot see as being what it is, because your conditioning has transformed it into what you now Know, or Believe, it to be. Lol.

Which truth would be the testimony of every new-born infant on earth should new-born infants have the capacity to offer such testimony (as to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth).

But new-born babies can't talk. Until they become conditioned to do so.

So the dichotomy between belief and knowing is a false dichotomy.

And Ron Hubbard knew it. And exploited it. Right out of the gate.

Scientology= "Knowing How to Know".

Parsons is proud.

And so am I.

Lol.

 

[Mojo]

Knowing how to know
Simply means how to as-is.
You just look
And differentiate between
What is out there
from
What is in your mind.

.

For me, there is no out there V. Everything I see exists within. Within what? Within my Awareness. Being this which is boundless timeless infinite formless and free. Whereas once I saw an Objective World, everything now is Subjective I see.

And contrary to the fables of men, the Awareness does not exist in the head. The head exists in The Awareness. And the mind does not exist in the head either. The Mind exists in Awareness too. For where else can it exist? In the absence of the Awareness of thought, thought is non-existant, and if that is too steep a gradient, we can say, in the absence of the awareness of a thought, that thought is meaningless (or insignificant) and that which is meaningless (or insignificant) in consciousness, is equal to that which is dead (to the one that is unaware of the meaning or significance of it).

As for the simplicity of As-ising, I shall have to study up on that.

Thanks for the response as I always appreciate your insights and perceptions.

Lar

Being Higher and Prior
To I

 

[Leon]

As you say, it is all subjective with you now.

I have no idea what it is you are going on about.

 

[programmer_guy]

Mojo,

I think that it would be better to not get lost in figuring out the Scientology phrasiology and Hubbard PR crap. That's my recommendation on this particular subject.


IMO, for the big picture in the wog world for new discoveries, "knowing how to know" means using wog scientific methods.

If one is not a scientist then "knowing how to know" means taking classes, getting a knowledgable mentor, learning yourself through books and trying things with "hands-on" equipment, OR "on the job" training. These are the ways that I have done this since leaving Scientology.

There is NO SCN magic involved. Wog methods work just fine.

 

[Tanstaafl]

"Knowing how to know" - it makes no sense to me either. :confused2:

 

[Vinaire]

"Knowing how to know" - it makes no sense to me either. :confused2:

One may know new things by resolving contradictions for oneself.

.

 

[Tanstaafl]

One may know new things by resolving contradictions for oneself.

.

That is true Vin. However, the phrase itself makes no literal sense to me.
It's fine for the good folks here to find a workable definition for themselves but that would go down like a cow without a parachute in an Academy.

 

[Alan]

Mojo,

I think that it would be better to not get lost in figuring out the Scientology phrasiology and Hubbard PR crap. That's my recommendation on this particular subject.

IMO, for the big picture in the wog world for new discoveries, "knowing how to know" means using wog scientific methods.

If one is not a scientist then "knowing how to know" means taking classes, getting a knowledgable mentor, learning yourself through books and trying things with "hands-on" equipment, OR "on the job" training. These are the ways that I have done this since leaving Scientology.

There is NO SCN magic involved. Wog methods work just fine.

Spot on PG!

For thousands of years the 'wogs' have had a Grade Chart - It has taken us out of the mud.

WOG GRADE CHART

1. You don't know something.

2. You want to know something.

3. You find someone who knows what you want to know.

4. You apprentice yourself to them.

(Orientate yourself to what it is and its parts and begin to get a rudimentary understanding of the subject and orientation to whats need or wanted to produce the products of the subject.)

5. You intern yourself to the subject. (Practice under supervision.)

6. Journeyman of the subject. (You do an adequate job without supervision.)

7. Craftsman of the subject. (You produce quality products,)

8. Master of the subject. (You produce master pieces.)

Of course if you really want to know how to know - You holographically duplicate and permeate (with love, truth, value, etc.) the subject fully.

But to do that you need to do the 8 Steps above!

Alan

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,

I think that it would be better to not get lost in figuring out the Scientology phrasiology and Hubbard PR crap. That's my recommendation on this particular subject.


IMO, for the big picture in the wog world for new discoveries, "knowing how to know" means using wog scientific methods.

If one is not a scientist then "knowing how to know" means taking classes, getting a knowledgable mentor, learning yourself through books and trying things with "hands-on" equipment, OR "on the job" training. These are the ways that I have done this since leaving Scientology.

There is NO SCN magic involved. Wog methods work just fine.

Good point PG. I guess the question was actually rhetorical, with the slightest hint/hope of possibility that a valid answer was possible which I had somehow missed along the way. Which there isn't and I didn't.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

I've discovered since ditching out on Scientology that "knowing" has seriously gotten in the way.

If you want to be open to learning new things, you can think you "know", because it really makes it hard to accept other information and evaluate it.

I knew all kinds of things about people, their reactions, the Tone Scale. Plenty of things I "knew" as a Class VI.

I had to toss alot of it to be able to observe for myself.

I found a different world of people.

And they were alright.

Not like "they" said they'd be.

Another confirmation that Scn does not belong here.

 

[Div6]

I've discovered since ditching out on Scientology that "knowing" has seriously gotten in the way.

If you want to be open to learning new things, you can think you "know", because it really makes it hard to accept other information and evaluate it.

I knew all kinds of things about people, their reactions, the Tone Scale. Plenty of things I "knew" as a Class VI.

I had to toss alot of it to be able to observe for myself.

I found a different world of people.

And they were alright.

Not like "they" said they'd be.

Another confirmation that Scn does not belong here.

The first barrier to study is getting over the idea that you know everything.

That is per the study tapes. (At least, the unedited ones...) It used to be one of the first things I would take up with new students. Why are you studying this? It appears that Scn aspires to be the NEW ser fac...("meet the new boss, same as the old boss....we won't get fooled again").

Is Obnosis still on Level 0? Is it GAT drilled? How can you squirrel OBSERVATION? (I'm sure DM found a way...)

 

[Bea Kiddo]

The first barrier to study is getting over the idea that you know everything.

That is per the study tapes. (At least, the unedited ones...) It used to be one of the first things I would take up with new students. Why are you studying this? It appears that Scn aspires to be the NEW ser fac...("meet the new boss, same as the old boss....we won't get fooled again").

Is Obnosis still on Level 0? Is it GAT drilled? How can you squirrel OBSERVATION? (I'm sure DM found a way...)

Yes, that is the first barrier to study.

I guess I would have to say that, because of the training, and supposed knowingness from training, and from processing, that you would consider that you "knew".

For example: You wouild not listen to a WOG or psych regarding a proper communication cycle. You would already know. Even if they demonstrated a workable technology, your mind is CLOSED to it, because you have been taught that Scn tech is the ONLY tech. That was what I was referring to.

 

[Div6]

Yes, that is the first barrier to study.

I guess I would have to say that, because of the training, and supposed knowingness from training, and from processing, that you would consider that you "knew".

For example: You wouild not listen to a WOG or psych regarding a proper communication cycle. You would already know. Even if they demonstrated a workable technology, your mind is CLOSED to it, because you have been taught that Scn tech is the ONLY tech. That was what I was referring to.

Be able to experience anything.
Only create those effects others can have easily.

Gets me through the day.....

 

[programmer_guy]

Alan,

You are very correct. And it has been that way for 100s (if not 1000s) of years.

And technology continues to move forward...

Regards

P.S.
Do you think that this young man (Eric Johnson) was mentored? Enjoy an Irish jig done rock'n'roll style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ0iww5u6_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjDHdu8IQM

 

[Alan]

Alan,

You are very correct. And it has been that way for 100s (if not 1000s) of years.

And technology continues to move forward...

Regards

P.S.
Do you think that this young man (Eric Johnson) was mentored? Enjoy an Irish jig done rock'n'roll style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQ0iww5u6_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjDHdu8IQM

Since time immemorial, people have been transferring skills from one generation to another in some form of apprenticeship.

Four thousand years ago, the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi provided that artisans teach their crafts to youth. The records of Egypt, Greece, and Rome from earliest times reveal that skills were still being passed on in this fashion.

When youth in olden days achieved the status of craft workers, they became important members of society. Their prestige in England centuries ago is reflected in a dialog from the Red Book of Hergest, a 14th-century Welsh Bardic manuscript:

“Open the door! “I will not open it. “Wherefore not? “The knife is in the meat, and the drink is in the horn, and there is revelry in Arthur’s Hall; and none may enter therein but the son of a King of a privileged country, or a craftsman bringing his craft.”

The status given the craft worker was well placed. As we all know, many countries no longer have kings but still have craft workers.

A little history of apprenticeships!

Alan