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.



Featured The Nature of Evil

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Gadfly, Jul 10, 2009.

  1. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    The bodily organs do not ask anything about their functioning. Does a computer ask how it is? Does the brain?
     
  2. Thanks, gadfly, for your very interesting posts. You have said many of the same things I would have said had I continued to post here on a regular basis. As it seems to be, though, most people are not ready to see beyond black and white. Something, or someone must be "good" or it must be "evil" and there is no separating the baby from the bath water, or taking what is needed and leaving the rest. Even here on this "kinder, gentler" board, people who intimate that there might have been anything good whatsoever about LRH or Dianetics and Scientology seem to be generally less accepted.


    Because the current Scientology management has perpetrated extreme abuses, then L. Ron Hubbard must have started the whole thing as a power and control con game, and because he practiced magick and had a peripheral connection with Aleister Crowley through Jack Parsons, he must have been a Satanist, and so on and so on. I don't think for a moment that it is all so simple as that - people are a mixed bag of black and white. For every power-hungry control freak to continue on, there must be those who are willing to give up their own power and be controlled.


    It is very neat and tidy to compartmentalize and label things, but ultimately not very freeing. Whatever you hate will continue to come back and haunt you, in some form or another until you choose to stop hating it. When the desire for vengeance and destruction is replaced by the collective choice that such manipulation and abuse is simply not tolerable by anybody or any group in our societies, then our world will change. Scientology is simply a mirror reflection of our collective thought, and frankly, I can't see where Scientology has done any worse than some of major religions of the world.


    I benefited from the tech, as much of it as I experienced, and I learned things in Scientology that are still useful to me today. The ability to look at "what is" rather than what I imagine is there, or suspect is there, is one of those things. In 1983, when management started to get very weird, I left. I took what was useful to me, left the rest and moved on. I am now glad I never made it to the OT levels, as I know now there was nothing there for me. As I perceive it, LRH had some pretty good, workable stuff, and then probably trying to create things for people to spend more money on, went way off the beam.


    What I discovered in my journeys beyond Scientology, in case anyone may be interested:


    There is no tech, ism, ology, belief system, system of enlightenment, religion, etc. that is going to work for everybody, although some of them may be useful in getting from point A, lower awareness, to point B, a higher state of awareness. Many paths lead to the center of the circle. Those who claim to have "the only way" are conning people and/or speaking from a place of extremely inflated ego.


    There are certain universal truths and operating laws which apply to everybody. They have not been hidden, and are contained in all the scriptures of the world's main religions and in the works of the great philosophers. Hubbard had a line on some of them and Scientology contained some "truth." Now, in the "New Age" these truths have been elaborated upon ad infinitum by a million self-improvement gurus trying to cash in. Few actually understand them to the point of application, though, including most of the gurus.


    The truth is, always was and always will be "the truth, and the power, are within you." The journey through all these other things which dictate our truth and take our power are not "ends" in themselves. They are steps on the path which give us the opportunity, if we choose to accept it, to find our own true power. "We" are the great mystery of the cosmos. It's all about the experiences of the journey and what we choose to do with them.


    :coolwink:
     
  3. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader


    :thumbsup: Thank-you Freedom Fighter. I read your entire post a few times, and I cannot find one thing to disagree with.

    I especially liked:

    "The truth is, always was and always will be 'the truth, and the power, are within you.'

    '"We" are the great mystery of the cosmos.'

    I have a strong affinity for all that you stated and pointed out.

    Also, I have read a fair amount of Crowley's work, and especially liked and was laughing out loud all through his autobiography. He had a great sense of humor. Actually, I never thought of him as a "Satanist"; I am sure he also never did. Like Marilyn Manson, I suspect that part of his self-created image was to create "shock" in the largely dull minds of those many small-minded Christians around him. He did grow up in a very strict Christian family (I think his father was some sort of minister), and he greatly enjoyed very intelligently picking apart aspects of Christian hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness.

    Also, Hubbard never even personally met Crowley - Crowley didn't think very highly of LRH based on what he heard from Parsons. Strangely, LRH refers to Crowley as his "great friend" or something like that in a PDC tape. LRH did that a great deal. He exaggerated things in his attempt to make a point or to make himself took better in his own eyes and in the eyes of others. I think in a certain regard LRH was like Michael Jackson. Michael was very very talented in one way, and a total mess as a person and as an "ego" in another way. As I see it, LRH had some of that also going on.

    Anyway, thanks again.

    _________________

    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
     
  4. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    No doubt you mean well, but for purposes of understanding your post is a crock. There is not one useful piece of information that comes from a viewpoint that I can see. There is a haughty and superior overivew that is quite Scientological. Maybe you could do with a little de-Hubbardizaiton, huh?

    If you want to show something that someone can compare to their own ideas, please do. Talk about the steps of the path that you refer to and what they consist of. Explain what you really mean by "journeys beyond".
    "We are the great mystery" is an absurdity. Everything is understandable, if one wants to understand it. My feeling from your post is that you don't get it. Feel free to prove me wrong.
     
  5. CornPie

    CornPie Patron Meritorious

    I learned these two concepts from Gadfly, here's how I interpret and alter them, for my own use:

    1. Based on beliefs in their 'ideas', fanatical organizations and individuals can feel justified in harming others. (per post #1 in this thread.)

    2. Although scientology-CIA criminally manipulates government, business, media, justice system, and everything else they touch to corrupt events in their favor -- it's a long ways from these groups actually using scientology 'tech' to run their country, organization, etc. (Keeping in mind scn inroads into dental, chiropractic, and veterinarian professions.) (per the last paragraph in post #37.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2009

  6. Thanks for the eval and inval, Nexus:whistling: As I was saying previously about people who found anything good about LRH or Scientology not being readily accepted here.........



    I have no desire to make you wrong. That would be impossible to do, because right and wrong are a matter of viewpoint. I was not actually trying to “show something that someone can compare to their own ideas.” I was replying to gadfly, who seems to have understood what I said. It makes no sense to me, either, that you say “everything is understandable if one wants to understand it.” Not only do we understand things in different ways at different times in our lives, but people do not generally understand anything in the same way. Even the scientists can take their observed and experimental data and come to radically different conclusions about what it means.


    Neither do I have the desire to write a long, verbose treatise on what I hold to be true and why I hold it to be true here on this board. Others have done that, Vinaire, for one, and gadfly has a pretty good start. There have been innumerable books written in the past 15 years or so which allude to the nature of the illusion we live in, and that it is most probably created by One consciousness expressing itself as an infinite number of separate parts; The Tao of Physics, Conversations with God; The God Theory, The Self-Aware Universe, Dancing Wu Li Masters, etc. Some of these books are written by highly educated, respected individuals in scientific occupations. The nature of the illusion was also described in the Vedas and in Buddhist scripture and even in the Bible: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21). As I said, the truth has not been hidden. Whether it has been understood by more than a few is another matter. So it seems, as well, that not all the scientists are content with their scientific knowledge. They want to explore the mysteries of consciousness itself.


    There are certain common steps on the path to enlightenment included in various practices; one must get personal control over the body/physical urges, the emotions and the chatter of the mind. One must face and eradicate all irrational and subjective fear, and finally defeat the ego. After achieving all that, a person is “reborn” as an enlightened being. This is the “journey” for those who seek and actually desire to find higher states of consciousness. The paths to get there are many. I think LRH tried to improve upon the existing systems, and to package the product for mass marketing, calling it a “spiritual technology.” He had some of the stuff right, especially earlier on, but failed in his endeavor, first and foremost because he was not enlightened himself. Like others before him, and after him, he let ego and his personal insecurities do him in.


    The primary tool for achieving this level of higher consciousness is the “viewpoint,” or “perception” if you find the word “viewpoint” offensive. Unless one is actually unconscious, drugged, or working with faulty hardware in the brain, “perception” is the one thing that nobody can take away from us. No matter what our life circumstances are, we can always choose to see the glass as half full, or as half empty, the bitter or the better. Perception, or viewpoint, creates experience so if perception changes, experience will also change. I believe the quantum physicists did a reasonable job of proving this when they proved that a photon particle changes its characteristics when it is perceived/observed.


    The primary teacher in the quest for higher states of consciousness is our own experience. People can read, study, take classes, acquire all the knowledge in the world, pray, be the most devoted follower of some religion, whatever, but it is experience, usually painful, that causes people to want to change, or to explore new options in life, or overcome fear. They will not change their way of perceiving or understanding until they are damn good and ready. No guru or method can bring about that change for another person if the person isn’t ready.


    The primary tool, perception/viewpoint, and the teacher, experience, are something that we already have. Perception and experience are “the power within” which is available to all conscious humans who choose to use it. The external teacher, the guru, the method or practice can provide us with experiences which we will learn something about ourselves from, but they cannot give us something that we do not already have.


    The “great mystery” is our own consciousness and what we choose to do with the knowledge and experiences we acquire along the way. We can’t really know anyone else’s mystery, because we are not that person, and can never be, although we can learn from one another. The nature of the path or process is “know thyself” or “self-inquiry.” Having all the knowledge in the universe would be pointless if there were no way to apply it to self and one’s own experience. Knowledge, then, observed through the filter of one’s own personal experience, leads one to determine one’s own “truth within.” Without the verification of personal experience, it’s just somebody else’s belief system being passed around as “truth.”


    I came to these ex-scientology boards after 20+ years of being out because I feel for people who have given up so much to Scientology and also other cults. Truthfully, I felt there might be something I was supposed to do here. When I post I hope to impart to people the encouragement that it is possible to survive and thrive and reach higher states of consciousness without Scientology, or other isms and ologies, for that matter, and without spending huge sums of money.


    I do know also, from my own personal experience, that the law of attraction works, and that whatever you hate and try to destroy will come back again and again and again. Everyone who went through Scientology’s doors wanted “total freedom.” I would like to see everyone who walked out those doors actually get it. One is not free when one is bound by hatred. And please do not construe that comment to mean that I said one should never take action against those who harm.


    I don't want to argue with people or be attacked every time I post, either, so I’ll go back to lurkdom soon enough.


    :coolwink:
     
  7. nexus100

    nexus100 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thank you, sweetie!
    I agree with nearly all you post, except there is a piece you don't get.
    You will.
    Have fun!
     
  8. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    Interestingly, this guy (Finishedman) is against anything abstract, yet he is using abstract concepts, such as, “survival.” He is using thought yet denies all thought. He is self-contradictory. He is like a logic circuit that is trying to invalidate logic. Anyway, thanks for providing me the background for his thoughts.

    Yes, any theory must start with postulates (assumptions). It is the examination of those assumptions, which leads to more fundamental postulates and an improvement of the theory. When discussing a theory I would rather discuss the fundamental assumptions or postulates to get anywhere.

    FM has a theory. The fundamental assumptions of that theory seem to be, “Only concrete reality (that depends on five major senses) is valid. Any abstraction derived from that concrete reality is invalid.” But the interesting part of this theory is that it turns around and violates its own fundamental assumption by speaking of “survival.” So, in essence, we don’t even have a theory here. We simply have some fixed ideas that are not based on any kind of principle.

    Beyond the perception of what is concrete, is the perception of the abstract in the form of PATTERNS. Perception of abstraction goes deeper by recognition of patterns within patterns within patterns. This is obvious in mathematics. This perception of abstract cannot be denied as FM is selectively trying to do.

    If FM thinks that my conclusion is incorrect, I would welcome his statement of his fundamental assumptions or postulates, and a justification for them. Otherwise, I shall be ignoring all his posts from now on. FM seems to be in a preaching mode, and I have been preached enough.

    .
     
  9. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    So, there is concrete reality, and beyond that is abstraction in the form of patterns within patterns within patterns. The question then becomes, “What is beyond all this abstraction?”

    This question reminds me of irrational numbers. One may find a unit of measure smaller than another unit of measure by taking a fraction of it, such as, a millimeter being a tenth of a centimeter. Now one may go smaller and smaller by taking a hundredth, a thousandth and so on. But however smaller one may go; one may not be able to reach the measure of an irrational number.

    So, I would think that beyond abstraction would be a new reality, which is starkly different from our concrete reality and the patterns perceivable within it. I would simply leave it as BRAHMA as I cannot describe it.

    In Scientology, only Axiom # 1 comes close to formulating this new reality. But I don’t think anybody in the Church of scientology is paying any attention to it. They seem to be engrossed in their “survival” in this MEST universe. They seem to have become subservient to this MEST universe. Their use of auditing, at this point, has become making another person simply subservient to the MEST universe as well.

    I believe that there is no known road beyond BRAHMA. BRAHMA is simply a backdrop to realize the grand illusion, which makes up all of our concrete and abstract reality. Once this illusion is fully comprehended, one is then ready to start another cycle of another grand illusion.

    This is the ultimate game.

    .
     
  10. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    :goodposting:

    Once again Freedom Fighter, for me and in alignment with my experiences and viewpoint, you aptly nail it right on the head.

    When I was studying Scientology there was one thing Hubbard said that really hit me the wrong way; he said somewhere that he had "verified" that the "thetan" was entirely and forever an "individual", and that there was no "Oneness" or great being that one dissolves back into. Of course, that very much counters what you said, "created by One consciousness expressing itself as an infinite number of separate parts". Granted, that separation occurs on many levels.

    I know that when I do meditation well, I very much "lose myself". "Sense of self" disappears. I am still there, I am still aware, BUT I have no real sense of an identity. Part of that is just being there, "looking" (not necessarily with the eyes), having left all judgment and analysis of anything far behind, and feeling as light as a feather.

    So, for me, there is no doubt that "advancing" involves losing "sense of self". Whether that means we are each actually part of some one consciousness is something else entirely, but it is an interesting observation.

    I have made up many drills to do over the years. Here are a few that have had interesting results for me, also tending to validate what you said.

    1) Go to a mall or busy place where there are many people. Sit down somewhere quiet. Surround each person you see with complete "love". This can be done in many ways. Visualize each surrounded by a bright yellow light. Imagine each completely happy, fulfilled and achieving all each wants. In your mind (where all of this is done) send each a well-wishing, a simple intention for each to be all that they want to be, can be and should be.

    2) Go to a similar place. Get the idea that each person is just another version of yourself, just at some other point of the journey. Don't "think" in words, or talk to yourself, REALLY SEE THEM as that. It is an ability that must be developed. To be able to simply see things as YOU CHOOSE, not as dictated by past experiences, mental constructs, and current situations. This involves the imagination more than anything, and the imagination may very well be the doorway to other realities and dimensions.

    What these drills both do, not by thinking about it, but by DOING the drill, is at times shatters your sense of "self" as an isolated and separate thing. And, enables an amazing feeling of connectedness with all other living things and especially people. This sort of state of awareness seems to be the REASON BEHIND and that explains compassion, loving your neighbor as your self, etc.

    Honestly, I don't know for certain if I am simply one aspect of one great big consciousness. I don't think about it or worry about much at all. But, I do know, from all I have experienced from MANY hours of inner work, is that there is something there.

    For example, when I first got into Scientology, I had amazing wins from auditing and from some training. Within 100 hours of auditing I had been blown out many times. There were many times where the colors of things in the room changed dramatically (got brighter), where my perception became detailed beyond any earlier experience, and where I would come out almost always with a big shit-eating grin on my face and myself spread all over the room. I LIKED THAT. I liked how all the thoughts, feelings, and body awareness disappeared, so that I was just there, like a little sparkling bell - ringing, bright and light as could be. That really happened to me, many times. But then, and this is probably more important than I even still realize, I was looking for that! THAT is what I wanted to find.

    I went exterior with full perception doing TR 0. I was suddenly a few feet in FRONT of my head (not 3 feet back - I even did that ass-backwards), with 360 degree perception, as if from a point, seeing everything at once, brighter than ever, and feeling the BEST I had ever felt as long as I could remember. Seeing in 360 degrees from a point was entirely "natural". There was nothing strange about it in any way. Though, "feeling" is NOT the right word. It wasn't an emotion at all, but it was how you would "feel" if all emotions, sensations, and thoughts completely vanished, but YOU were still there entirely aware, calm and serene. I was back inside within 5-6 seconds. It didn't last long. Once "back in", then it was expressed as human emotion with incredible laughing, joy and smiling. I couldn't stop. The state of joy overwhelmed me. But, I stayed "way keyed-out" for many hours. It was so amazingly pleasing, but on some other level way beyond human emotions. There was no object of my happiness; I was just HAPPY. There was no reason to make me smile; I was just smiling. I stayed off course for at least a day, just walking around, entirely grooving on whatever I saw and wherever I was. I LOVED the calmness and state of "just being there". I would get annoyed when staff would bother me to get back on course, because "I was there". As far as I was concerned, it didn't get any better than this! I thought they were morons to even think I would want to go back on course. I was entirely separated from any type of thought, feeling, idea, and for the most part from any sensation or awareness of body heaviness. To me, IT WAS GOOD! I didn't know then why I liked it, but there was no disputing that I did.

    While getting auditing everyday over a few month period, I would be nearly "fully awake" while sleeping. I would be "out", I wasn't really connected to the body as in sleep, BUT I could hear everything around me quite clearly. I was conscious and aware. That was interesting, because it was not usual for me. It was like napping, BUT I was fully asleep. I would take 2 hour sleep periods between auditing sessions, sleeping in an auditing room, so sounds were everywhere.

    I got blown out on courses a few times, not to where I was "seeing from outside", but to where I "felt" huge, big as the room, and of course, when that happened, I would want to groove on the experience and NOT study. I had a few really heavy arguments with supervisors. He or she would try to tell me that I was "blowing" because "you must have MUs". I would look at them and laugh, and just tell them, while grinning ear-to-ear, "I am so fucking blown out that there is no way I can or will even try to study". I would lay it on, knowing that if I am really "winning", they will have to go along with it. There was a policy on "letting the PC have his win", and I pushed that. So I would yap about how great the course was, and how effective the tech was. I did think that anyway at the time, but I knowingly and intentionally "laid it on thick" to get out of staying in the courseroom. I learned how to skip class and not get in trouble! Then they would leave me alone for awhile to wallow in the serenity. That is exactly what it was like for me, and I shit you not. That was COMMON for me. How I came to separate and differentiate between the wonderful and good in my personal awareness from the great deal of bad in LRH and the organization is a whole other story.

    THAT gave me a taste of a state that I have kept my eye on my entire life. Granted, while in Scientology, with all the diversions of "expanding", playing "Birthday Games", handling the "enemies", getting regged, and endless Church-created drama, one can tend to forget about that. I did to some degree. I never enjoyed all the add-ons in Scientology. I never agreed that all the bullshit had to go along with the great state of awareness, and I clearly saw that there was much wrong with LRH and the Church. But, that is not the point of this discussion.

    Luckily, I can now pretty much remain "keyed-out" at will, NOT from Scientology, but from extensive meditation (and other mental drills). As a result I have learned about some subtleties of my own awareness, greatly developed the ability to direct my attention and concentration, and especially have learned how to "see" contrary to existing events, situations and forms. THAT is too difficult to explain in a short space, but briefly, the ability to "see" in contrast to existing conditions is the basis of all magick, visualization and miracles. I early noticed in Scientology that THIS FACTOR was missing. Where are all the drills and training to get me to postulate RIGHT NOW? I would ask LRH in my head, "shit, you obviously know that reality is created from the inside out, and that ones own ideas enable reality to enfold in a certain way, so why do you leave out how to do that?" It was a gross and obvious omission, almost as if he left it out for some perverse hidden purpose of his own.

    For me, when I am in my calmest, most serene, pristine state of mind, well I am less "me", I just "am", and it is real and obvious to me that everyone else, fundamentally and way down deep, is exactly the same type of unconditioned and undefined awareness. For me, it is this simple. Each of us is a unit of awareness, with the tremendous ability to create (and then observe and experience those creations). Fundamentally, you are NOTHING, but with the ability to create and perceive everything. The tricky part is that this invisible "you" has a tendency to identify with all the many things, forms, and situations it finds surrounding itself. Your body, your car, your house, your wife, your children, your ideas, your mind, your imagination, etc. If you can notice it, then probably, it's not "you". You are that which does the noticing. You are that which does the identifying. "I AM THAT I AM" says it as well as anything else (from the Bible). Pure awareness with nothing else. Simply, I always liked it when I was THAT. I still do. I suppose anybody would and does, if and when he or she can put themselves into a similar state. But, you will NEVER attain to such a state of mind by thinking about, arguing about, debating about, or anything else about it other than DOING ACTIONS with your mind that enable you to quiet down enough inside to actually see what is and has been there all the time. YOU - with nothing else.

    That all makes complete sense to me because I have experienced it to some degree. Freedom Fighter, in you (and Vinaire) I have found a kindred soul! :happydance:

    Of course, possible when I meditate I somehow cause my Pituitary gland to excrete some substance that stimulates my brain to make me feeling good. But there is no doubt, that playing with aspects of my own awareness has had great and wonderful results for me (however the reader may want to explain it).
     
  11. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    Is there in you an entity which you call the 'I' or the 'mind' or the 'self'? Is there a co- ordinator who is co-ordinating what you are looking at with what you are listening to, what you are smelling with what you are tasting, and so on? Or is there anything which links together the various sensations originating from a single sense -- the flow of impulses from the eyes, for example? Actually, there is always a gap between any two sensations. The co-ordinator bridges that gap: he establishes himself as an illusion of continuity.

    In the natural ‘You’ state there is no entity who is co-ordinating the messages from the different senses. Each sense is functioning independently in its own way. When there is a demand from outside which makes it necessary to co-ordinate one or two or all of the senses and come up with a response, still there is no co-ordinator, but there is a temporary state of co- ordination. There is no continuity; when the demand has been met, again there is only the unco-ordinated, disconnected, disjointed functioning of the senses. This is always the case. Once the continuity is blown apart -- not that it was ever there; but the illusory continuity -- it's finished once and for all.

    Can this make any sense to the ‘thinking you‘? It cannot. All it knows lies within the framework of experience, which is of thought. This state is not an experience. Trying to get a 'feel' of it is, unfortunately, misleading.

    When there is no co-ordinator, there is no linking of sensations, there is no translating of sensations; they stay pure and simple sensations. You do not even know that they are sensations.

    What functions is a primordial consciousness, untouched by thought.
     
  12. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

     
  13. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    Perhaps it’s in the way that thought creates frontiers everywhere within a vast consciousness we assume we all possess. It could be thought that has created the domain wherein dwells remarkably wonderful integrated beings; and we as human beings draw demarcations in consciousness, "This is my province, that is your dream". So how can there be unity among the various mental images or creations? The very thing that is creating the frontiers and differences cannot be the means to bridge the different viewpoints in consciousness. Maybe if we let go of what consciousness comprises can something totally unique emanate from each individual in its own way producing a garden like effect of different flowers each having its own inimitable scent.
     
  14. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Bear something in mind here - to say we are basically "all one" or to say "we are all many individuals" - these two statements are neither of them "true" nor are they at all contradictory. It is not an either-or situation in any way.

    I don't believe one's individuality will ever disappear, and also we will all become all. Quantification breaks down completely, seperateness disappears but individuality remains. That is how I have experienced it in a limited way.
     
  15. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    well ... we do have to accept that society has created each of us to maintain the status quo collectively by means of an imposed reality.

    But at the same time we are encouraged to become an individual. First we change to fit in, then we want to change.

    maybe we're all neurotic :unsure:
     
  16. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Reply to Leon

    Leon - Thanks for replying to my post. What you said makes sense and it is food for thought...................lkwdblds
     
  17. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    What Leon has expressed is the central theoretical point in Ken Wilber's "holon" and transcendance doctrine. Transcend and include. It's worth reading.
     
  18. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Thanks for the tip

    Dear Uniquemand - Thank you for your comments to my post and the tip you gave on a book on the subject. I will look into obtaining the book.
    lkwdblds
     
  19. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    The adjectives "one" or "many" apply to the form.

    Individuality has nothing to do with the form of the source. For that to happen one has to consider that form first.

    I believe that individuality may have to do with the uniqueness of consideration.

    .
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2009
  20. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Wilber
    Holon