ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Oh! God!!!

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Vinaire, May 6, 2009.

  1. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    If I do not use good observation, it doesn't follow that I am in a bad place. After all, one cannot say what the correct tools are for good observing. No need to deliberately learn an observation method from some one else. There is nothing so problematic that I should need it. What you propose is limiting my natural existence as I am. I am not interested in being something other than what I am and do not have any intention to change anything out there in the world.
     
  2. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    I'd say thinking is an agreement with time. It is the process of life as movement across space being accepted as "real". Since it appears that life exists in time, and what we see is "real", one accepts that mode of existence without much examination. It appears that we are, in effect, a creature who "thinks".

    I believe that it is more accurate to say one is one's perspective, the area one covers by look/create, not by movement. One is not thought but perception Therefore the process of thought has nothing to do with the intention to understand. Understanding is recognition of the space one is occupying.

    I agree with you that thought is perpetuated, but not self-perpetuating. Thought is a product of our perception in an object universe IMO, and can be understood as such.
     
  3. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    Thought is the only instrument we have. You cannot perceive what you do not know. Past knowledge comes into play to tell you how to recognize something. Knowledge is the structure. Repetition of knowledge is thought. Even the thought we are talking about is created by the knowledge that is given to us. So the thought is a self-perpetuating mechanism.

    The body is not interested in that at all. The actions of the body are responses to the stimuli, and it has no separate, independent existence of its own. Unfortunately, time is the one that has created the beginning and the end, and it is interested in permanence, whereas the functioning of the body is immortal in its own way, because it has no beginning, it is not born, so it has no death. So there is a death to the thought, but not to the body. But thought does not want to come to an end. It is interested in creating an artificial immortality -- of an entity, soul, self, whatever you want to call it. It knows in a way that it is coming to an end somewhere along the line, and its survival, its continuity, its status quo depends upon the continuity of the body. But body is not in any way involved with the thought, because it has no beginning, it has no end. It is the thought that has created the two points -- this is the birth and that is the death.
     
  4. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Ah. I would say that what we do not "know" is what we are presently not percieving consciously. However we certainly can perceive more, therefore know more. We are not in a static condition, IMO. If you are convinced we are, then none of this is likely to agree with your position.
     
  5. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Right on!

    .
     
  6. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    I'm bowing out of the FM debates for a while.

    I'm going to bow out of debating FM for the time being, at least a month or two. I feel I have made my points and made them well. To be accepted on this board by me, FM would have to grant viewpoints other than his own some beingness without trying to bash them and he would have to practice what he preaches. If he won't do those two things then I will be like Pontius Pilate in the Jesus story, I am going to wash my hands of him. Vinaire and Nexus seem to have entered the fray and done some jousting with him. It is actually a lot of fun to mentally joust with FM. I was even thinking of writing a post, FM style, you know something, like "My dog wears a collar, I prefer button down collars but usually wear a tee shirt so I am equal to my cat." On the XSO Message board today, someone said that the WOG term for a "Service Fac" exists and it is called a "Defense Mechanism". FM should have his picture in the Thesaurus under "Defense Mechanism", he has taken the concept to new heghts.

    Moving on to something much more important and uplifting, I emailed SP Bill an email about 3 weeks ago and he never replied. I was worried that he had health problems because he looks pretty old but he just answered me today saying that he is doing fine and has been working on some major computer project and has let the ESMB go for awhile, though he has checked in sporadically. Anyway, he says he will be rejoining us soon and start contributing once again to ESMB in general and this thread in particular. SP Bill and FM had a pretty good relationship as I remember, so even FM can take heart that SP Bill will be returning soon.
    Lakey
     
  7. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    How come you didn't respond to your observation failure regarding the computer!

    .
     
  8. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    So, your solution is not to look! Great!

    .
     
  9. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Last edited: Nov 15, 2009
  10. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    It is interesting to note that "soul" and "identity" could be considered synonymous at the most fundamental level.

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=329909&postcount=148


    So, do body parts have certain purposes associated with them?
    Does that mean body parts have certain identities?
    Does that mean body parts have "souls"?
    So, what are "body thetans"?

    .
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2009
  11. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Ad hoc theories and hypotheses

    AD HOC - def #1 "THE ADDITION OF AN EXTRANEOUS HYPOTHESIS TO A THEORY TO TRY AND SAVE IT FROM BEING FALSIFIED."

    AD HOC - def #2 "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one's belief or theory. They are common in the work of pseudoscientists."

    Nexus theory is an example of one which has no ad hoc elements in it. It is consistent throughtout. All possible outcomes are looked at using the same tools.

    A serious scientist, investigator or guru in a field does not resort to ad hoc hypotheses to explain away facts that seem to refute his theory. Instead he looks deeper and expands his theory to handle the contrary facts rather than try to explain them away ad hoc.

    An excellent example is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Scientists of the late 19th century believed light to be totally a wave phenomena. They reasoned there had to be a medium within which the light could wave. They created a clever but ad hoc hypothesis of an ether which permeated the entire universe. It made sense, most people accepted it but a few did not stop looking for a non ad hoc answer, especially Einstein, Ernst Mach, and Poincare. Einstein made the breakthrough first, there was no ether; light had both wave a particle properties. Voila! Science could then move forward.

    To quote LRH, "The way out is the way through!" The way to remain trapped is to invent Ad Hoc hypotheses to explain away anamolies.
    Lakey
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2009
  12. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    It is OK to be just "natural" as FM says, but what about one's "natural vibrations"?

    If one's "natural vibrations" are interfering with other people's vibrations, then how does one adjust one's "natural vibrations" such that one can unfix one's attention from one's beingness?

    .
     
  13. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    The point for someone using his own 'Natural Vibration Tech' *is* exactly to manipulate and interfere with other people's 'Natural Vibrations'.

    That's what it's about. You gotta problem with that?

    Zinj
     
  14. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    :lol: One should be adjusting oneself, and not others, in my view.

    .
     
  15. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Is that what's going on here?

    Is that what is going on here with FM? It sure makes sense to me. There are many detractors and natterers around and I can ignore them all with ease and move on but someone like FM is an anomaly. My normal way to handle someone such as him is to use reason and reach a middle ground but if he won't agree to disagree and move on, then its extremely hard for me to move on as well.

    I think that Zinj has a good grasp on people using philosophies similar to FM's. The goal of the philosophy is to screw up ones vibes.

    His philosophy seems to interfere with one's natural vibrations as you so brilliantly state. He has a weird mix of things going on including some semblance of being intelligent, some semblance of knowledge and wisdom and by writing in an Eastern or Vedic style of prose, that seems to give him added altitude and importance. What really is hard to take is his pompousness and altitude of pretended knowledge and the certainty with which he asserts his beliefs as being truths and not just theories and his inconsistencies in applying his pretended knowledge to himself. He then claims that what he is doing is not a philosophy and that he has no interest in wining someone over. It is all so extremely illogical!! Does anyone want to come over and bullbait me on this stuff until I am flat? I think maybe after about 10 or 12 hours of TR0 with bullbait, I would eventually get flat on this guy.
    Lakey
     
  16. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    Beingness is all that is important. Not how to be. The how you are suggesting is addressed to people who are seeking certainty for themselves, and because it is apparent that people are seeking, there can be no certainty. There’s a lot of different things to try. There is no need to bother with all that because nothing will work. So what’s going on? Actually there is nothing wrong with the individual. He is being connived to think there is something wrong by the ‘wise spiritual men’ selling their bogus wares. The question of being fixed does not arise as long as you don't search for being unfixed.

    There is a natural harmonious functioning in my body already, and what you call ‘harmony’ or agreeable natural vibrations with others, or whatever, is totally unrelated to that. I am free from all how’s. How to adjust this, how to unfix that, etc. There is no burden of reaching for that reality. I have to accept the sometimes irritating reality that is imposed on me by society because it is very essential for us to function in this world intelligently and sanely. At the same time I understand that there is nothing that I can do to experience the reality of anything else (except that which is imposed). I am not in conflict with the society, and there is no demand to be something other than what I am.

    Any ideal goal placed before me to be reached, and the demand to be something other than what I am, are notthere. It is not a question of accepting something, but the pursuit of those goals you have accepted as desirable, is not there. The demand to reach that goal is not there. So, I am what I am.

    When the movement in the direction of becoming something other than what I am isn't there, I’m not in conflict with myself. If I’m not in conflict with myself, I cannot be in conflict with you guys. As long as I’m not at peace with myself, it is not possible for me to be at peace with you. Even then there is no guarantee that you all will be peaceful. But I’m not concerned with that. When I’m at peace with me, then I am a threat to you all as you function. I will be a threat to you because you accepted the reality of this place as real, and because you are pursuing some funny thing called “(whatever it is you call it)". I will be a threat to your existence as you know it and as you experience it. So I am all alone.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2009
  17. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    FM's real goal in posting? To kill of the thread?

    In the last flurry of activity here, 4 or 5 days ago, it looks like FM got the final say. He claimed that he had no interest whatsoever in wining over converts and nobody could figure why he was posting here so diligently in his TR 3 bashing type posts against other's beliefs.

    Since nothing has been posted here in nearly 5 days, and FM has not originated anything, this suggest to me that his real purpose posting here is to smash this thread out of existence because he feels that all efforts to think and figure things out only make the universe a worse place. Probably when FM sees that someone has broken the silence as I have done, he will immediatley post again and try and stomp me out.

    I see FM's activites as someone on alert trying to get rid of ants in his house. He sprays (posts) and the ants keep coming, after he sprays enough the ants back off but FM is constantly checking and when a single ant appears again after a long lull, FM will quickly smash that ant until the colony eventually gives up and goes away.

    FM told me that U.G. Krishnamurty once studied with Jedu Krishnamurty (not a relative). Jedu was a more mainstream guru. After a long time of studying together, the story is that U.G. realized that his namesake's teachings were not the truth but were false and destructive. U.G. told this to Jedu and then left him, never to see him again. FM is following the theories of U.G. and may be looking at us on this thread as the Jedu's who are teaching falsely but instead of just leaving us, which would be his proper action, he is deciding to silence us instead
    Lakey
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2009
  18. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I have started a new thread on THE SCIENTOLOGY FORUM to pretty much summarize what I was contemplating upon here, and take it from there. The thread is:

    SCIENTOLOGY & GOD

    .
     
  19. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    3D Fractal

    [​IMG]


    Shape (created thing)
    External boundary of an object… Shape is all the geometrical information that remains when location, scale and rotational effects are filtered out from an object… can be described by basic geometry such as points, line, curves, plane, and so on.

    Fractal
    A rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole…

    .
     
  20. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Very helpful concept and visual.

    Very helpful and useful concept. I think Nexus should consider using this visual on the cover or inside of the next edition of his book.
    Lakey