Joe van Staden
New Member
TOM CRUISE IS SUPERNATURAL
In reference to the story by Stephanie Bauer for Holyscoop reporting the C of S’s claim that Tom Cruise is supernatural my skepticism in this regard probably differs from the, to be expected, skepticism of many others. To begin with I don’t doubt the existence of extrasensory perceptions – telepathy, remote viewing, precognition etc. Such phenomena have been experienced and witnessed by people from all walks of life for millennia. All that seems to change from time to time is how the “inexplicable” is interpreted and the amount of attention it receives.
For a period up till recently, due to the inability of science to explain such phenomenon, but mainly because it didn’t fit the scientists worldview (confirmation bias). As far as they were concerned it didn’t exist. However in the face of the overwhelming incidents of spontaneous healing, for instance, encountered by doctors daily (placebo effect) it became impossible to ignore “powers” at work beyond the “logic” of the materialistic realism on which science is based. Consequently scientists have in recent years taken such inexplicable phenomena into the laboratory. And lo and behold, based on specifically designed scientific procedures, the existence of phenomena like remote viewing etc. have been confirmed.
The problem scientists in a lab setting are having is that they seem unable to duplicate the intensity of such powers in a lab environment compared to what is often the case outside the lab. One explanation scientists have come up with is that when an individual has intuitively sensed that something has happened to a loved one a thousand miles away, for instance, strong feelings due to a strong connection are involved – factors which can not easily be duplicated in a lab setting.
As I see it there is more to it. Imagine consciousness (theta) as H2O. It can manifest as steam, water or ice, yet remain H2O throughout. Similarly consciousness (theta) can take on increasingly more solid, fixed “ice like” forms yet remaining consciousness throughout. However, just as the nature and certain “capabilities” of H2O change when frozen so does the nature and capability of consciousness change when it collapses into something more solid like a specific point of view a particular sense of self, me or ego.
To cut a long story short, the source of the power behind any extraordinary human capabilities is consciousness (theta) beyond typical human orientation. The “purer” the consciousness – the less oriented and entangled in terms of a particular sense of self, identity, meaning, relevance or value – the more accessible and natural those powers.
When looking at these extraordinary capabilities in a typical lab setting the emphasis is on observation, measurement, analysis and attempts to capture the source of the unexplained phenomena and “locate” it – define it. Perhaps at this point reference to developments in quantum mechanics and recognition of the observer’s role in determining “reality”, so to speak, will provide a more comprehensive answer to why the lab approach is flawed.
When applying the general idea of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to the issue at hand it amounts to this; the more “the source” (omni present consciousness – theta) is defined, located and oriented, in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value the less pure consciousness becomes – the more it becomes fixed and “ice-like”; less “steam-like” – unable to be “many places” at the same time.
The heart can go where the mind cannot. Intuition (feelings – love, passion and empathy) will open doors which are permanently shut to information (thinking – analysis and logic).
Whether in a lab or under a Bodhi tree in the open, the time and place does not matter. What does matter in reaching beyond the laws we believe determine the way things work is the required presence of heart and soul. It is through “feelings” not negated by rational analysis that the “connection” is made to the “Infinite Now”, a state of consciousness beyond typical human orientation, where all possibilities reside side by side.
This brings us to the basis of my skepticism regarding the Tom Cruise story. Here is the thing; from the moment an individual enters Scientology the labeling begins. He or she is constantly made aware where they are on the bridge along with details of what this means – along with a description of the type of person they are. Add to this the various ethics conditions Scientologists have bought into along with the latest array of awards (labels) for donations to the C of S and you wind up with a formula for extreme “location” in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value for members. The self-image of C of S members is largely based on a blueprint designed by LRH and in recent years by David M. .
The question is; has Mr. Cruise been able to step outside his ego, his Scientology manufactured sense of self? If not, he is far less of an OT than the Shepard, whose sense of self is being one with nature, able to find lost sheep in vast mountainous terrain through intuition.
.
In the final analysis: Who am I? This is probably the most frequently asked question by anyone on a quest to unravel the mysteries of life and the universe. Yet, should our perspective widen to beyond that narrow band determined by typical human orientation it will be discovered that there is no final answer. Whatever answer we come up with it will be one of an infinite number of possible selves, each one of which is valid within a particular life context.
In the words of G B Shaw; Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.
Joe van Staden.
In reference to the story by Stephanie Bauer for Holyscoop reporting the C of S’s claim that Tom Cruise is supernatural my skepticism in this regard probably differs from the, to be expected, skepticism of many others. To begin with I don’t doubt the existence of extrasensory perceptions – telepathy, remote viewing, precognition etc. Such phenomena have been experienced and witnessed by people from all walks of life for millennia. All that seems to change from time to time is how the “inexplicable” is interpreted and the amount of attention it receives.
For a period up till recently, due to the inability of science to explain such phenomenon, but mainly because it didn’t fit the scientists worldview (confirmation bias). As far as they were concerned it didn’t exist. However in the face of the overwhelming incidents of spontaneous healing, for instance, encountered by doctors daily (placebo effect) it became impossible to ignore “powers” at work beyond the “logic” of the materialistic realism on which science is based. Consequently scientists have in recent years taken such inexplicable phenomena into the laboratory. And lo and behold, based on specifically designed scientific procedures, the existence of phenomena like remote viewing etc. have been confirmed.
The problem scientists in a lab setting are having is that they seem unable to duplicate the intensity of such powers in a lab environment compared to what is often the case outside the lab. One explanation scientists have come up with is that when an individual has intuitively sensed that something has happened to a loved one a thousand miles away, for instance, strong feelings due to a strong connection are involved – factors which can not easily be duplicated in a lab setting.
As I see it there is more to it. Imagine consciousness (theta) as H2O. It can manifest as steam, water or ice, yet remain H2O throughout. Similarly consciousness (theta) can take on increasingly more solid, fixed “ice like” forms yet remaining consciousness throughout. However, just as the nature and certain “capabilities” of H2O change when frozen so does the nature and capability of consciousness change when it collapses into something more solid like a specific point of view a particular sense of self, me or ego.
To cut a long story short, the source of the power behind any extraordinary human capabilities is consciousness (theta) beyond typical human orientation. The “purer” the consciousness – the less oriented and entangled in terms of a particular sense of self, identity, meaning, relevance or value – the more accessible and natural those powers.
When looking at these extraordinary capabilities in a typical lab setting the emphasis is on observation, measurement, analysis and attempts to capture the source of the unexplained phenomena and “locate” it – define it. Perhaps at this point reference to developments in quantum mechanics and recognition of the observer’s role in determining “reality”, so to speak, will provide a more comprehensive answer to why the lab approach is flawed.
When applying the general idea of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to the issue at hand it amounts to this; the more “the source” (omni present consciousness – theta) is defined, located and oriented, in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value the less pure consciousness becomes – the more it becomes fixed and “ice-like”; less “steam-like” – unable to be “many places” at the same time.
The heart can go where the mind cannot. Intuition (feelings – love, passion and empathy) will open doors which are permanently shut to information (thinking – analysis and logic).
Whether in a lab or under a Bodhi tree in the open, the time and place does not matter. What does matter in reaching beyond the laws we believe determine the way things work is the required presence of heart and soul. It is through “feelings” not negated by rational analysis that the “connection” is made to the “Infinite Now”, a state of consciousness beyond typical human orientation, where all possibilities reside side by side.
This brings us to the basis of my skepticism regarding the Tom Cruise story. Here is the thing; from the moment an individual enters Scientology the labeling begins. He or she is constantly made aware where they are on the bridge along with details of what this means – along with a description of the type of person they are. Add to this the various ethics conditions Scientologists have bought into along with the latest array of awards (labels) for donations to the C of S and you wind up with a formula for extreme “location” in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value for members. The self-image of C of S members is largely based on a blueprint designed by LRH and in recent years by David M. .
The question is; has Mr. Cruise been able to step outside his ego, his Scientology manufactured sense of self? If not, he is far less of an OT than the Shepard, whose sense of self is being one with nature, able to find lost sheep in vast mountainous terrain through intuition.
.
In the final analysis: Who am I? This is probably the most frequently asked question by anyone on a quest to unravel the mysteries of life and the universe. Yet, should our perspective widen to beyond that narrow band determined by typical human orientation it will be discovered that there is no final answer. Whatever answer we come up with it will be one of an infinite number of possible selves, each one of which is valid within a particular life context.
In the words of G B Shaw; Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.
Joe van Staden.
