The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[MrNobody]

Re: Knowing Things about the Infinite.

<snip>
Go ahead and live your life as you see fit. I respect your opinions and if you are happy with your conclusions, I have no quarrel to pick with you. I don't even know what your belief system is, all I know so far is that you strongly reject the idea of intelligent design. How about cluing me and our viewers into some alternate theory which you prefer to intelligent design. I, for one, would be interested in hearing what you offer as an alternative theory.
Lakey

My belief system? Depending on my mood-of-the-day, I'm either atheist or agnostic. I need no god and I know of no god.

As to my theory on life, the universe and everything: That would be based on my theory on infinity - and explaining that one would take more than I'm willing and able to type, with only my 2 1/2 semi-functional fingers that I currently have.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Be back soon to respond but please do not worry about the professor thing. I am not one anymore because I am not working and sort of retired. There is no one correct view in philosophy. Philosophers quarrel constantly over minute points. If anything my view is not entirely philosophical since what I think is inflected by Christian beliefs. Like the science-religion chimera, I think that the mixture of philosophy and Christianity is difficult; if only because each of these has different goals.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Knowing Things about the Infinite.

You disappoint me, Lakey. First you mistake variables for constants and when I mention that, you take that to make an argument for an intelligent designer?

You want to believe in intelligent design? Fine go ahead, have fun with it and all the questions that come from that. Like who designed the designer, what was/is he/she/it designed for, what did he/she/it design this universe for, yada yada yada.

I'm able to live a relatively happy life without this kind of useless, unproductive questions and I'm also happy to live my life without any useless, unproductive answers. I'm happy without having all the answers for the world, the universe and everything.

BTW: The answer to that most important question is: 42.

Mr. Nobody, it is easy to get off of the treadmill of who designed the designer and what was it all designed for.

The second question is easy to respond to. There is a Universe, we beings are here. Likely there may have been earlier universes than this one. It's also likely that there could be more than just one universe. However, if that is true, the conglomerate of universes could be lumped together and be reclassified as "The Universe" To answer the question of why we beings are here one must look at what we do when we are here.

We can start with animal life, why do plants and animals seek life, what motivates them to live. Humans do the same things as animals but are able to do the same types of things but on a much grander scale. Within the universe, their may well be beings much further evolved than our human race. I SURE HOPE SO!!! If such beings exist what are they doing, probably the same things we are doing but on an even bigger scale.

So what are we doing. I can identify with the idea that we are playing a game. Not just Hubbard but other authors as well, see merit in that assumption. In our game we seek pleasure if we are winning at the game and want to avoid the pain inherent in losing. Not all people avoid pain, some may even choose to live with pain and endure it, feeling that doing so makes than stronger and gives them a sense of achievement. We have a strong drive to perpetuate our species. We are social in nature and enjoy meeting others of our species as well as getting involved with other species. The alternative to this Universe would be to be alive but have nothing at all going on. Such a drab existence apparently has no meaning for life so we need things to do. We have a yearning to understand who we are and where we came from and there is some sort of drive to reconnect with our early sources of creation. It all adds up to the fact that we are just playing a game!

Who designed it. To get out of the endless loop of who designed the designer, ad infinitum, one has to realize that a potential cause of life exists. It exists outside this Universe of Space, Energy, Matter and Time. If something exists and it is in a domain of no time then it just exists. There is no 'what came before that' because time does not exist in that domain. To be or not to be....? That is the question. If you exist you just exist. If something doesn't exist, why think about it. There is a chance that if a being thinks about something that doesn't exist, that may be enough to give rise to that thing existing. The new thing which now was willed into existence just by thinking about it, doesn't yet have free will but it does exist. Sentience, the ability to perceive and compute and free will require more steps before they occur. Who knows? This is all just speculation on what might be.

Anyway, those are my replies to the questions which trouble you. BTW, by you choosing a universe without a creator, you do nothing to mitigate the features about a creator which you find so objectionable. You just kick the can down the road. Instead of who created the creator, you must replace that with who created the matter, who created the space, who put all the specialized data into the atoms and molecules and who ignited the explosion and if you address all of that and come up with something then you can still be asked who created that something. No, your solution buys you nothing but kicking the can down the road a little further.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

My first thought and question is to ask you what unchangeable items exist within the Universe. It seems to me that everything is changing and if change stops occurring, there is no longer time. I am trying to think of something fixed in this universe and am drawing a blank with the possible exception of the concept of God or some sort of mover unmoved. When it comes to the concept of God, to me God would not reside inside the Universe but outside of the universe. Vinay's model starts with the presumption that the universe contains everything and thus any God involved in the universe would be part of the Universe. That concept really simplified the process of pondering the Universe but it was hard for me to accept that point of view.

I can't wait for your next post to see how you have reconciled the war between things that change and transcendental unchanging objects. I wish I was better schooled in Philosophy to I could speak to you more as a colleague but unfortunately that is not the case so when discussing this with you, it is more a I'm a student talking to a professor.
Lakey

Precisely. For the ancients there is no time....

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Interesting.

I reconcile concepts like the Trinity with Hinduism (which also has a Trinity) - the idea that God can have different aspects in order to be known by humans and takes on these aspects only be somewhat knowable by humans. IMHO, for humans to even glimpse that which is not human still requires a concept within our experience and language, which is terribly limited and biologically based. Considering the flexibility, healing potential and changeability of foetal tissue, a life force that precedes even the birth of the universe would seem limitless when perceived by a human. This may or may not be, but would still be so beyond our biological concepts and experience that the understanding of same as having infinite power or potential is still relative.

Therefore, all understanding of God by any religion must be metaphoric and no metaphor is accurate.

To me, there is no such thing as an emotional soul. Your earlier statement that I quoted covers this. Emotions are linked to biological processes which are part of the birth and death cycle.
The medieval Christian concept that one has a soul rather than one is a soul is preferable to me, though again not entirely descriptive. As biological humans, we are composites. As spirits or souls, we break out of that composite at death and rejoin as an entirely different composite that is part of the whole of the living force that is God, of which our soul/spirit has always been and will always be an intrinsic part. We are never truly alone.

Yes, the Hindu trinity consists of these three gods; Brahma the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver and Shiva the destroyer or transformer. I find those easier to understand than the Christian Trinity (I never really got what the Holy Ghost was supposed to mean).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

When I studied the Medievals, particularly the church fathers, I saw a couple of things that, philosophically, I don't know if theologically, helped me understand where early Christians viewed the body differently than did the Greeks some of them so admired. For the Greek the body was a source of evil, since material. For the Christian since God created matter it could never be evil. The body was not evil and neither were its needs. Yes, there was a hierarchy of goods, such that soul was superior to body, and at the top of the hierarchy was God. But since God created bodies they along with creation were good and the Christian scholar had to look elsewhere for the source of 'evil'.

Not only was the body good but according to Augustine humans were never meant to be separate from their bodies, the separation was a result of having disobeyed God in Eden and the separation was not viewed as natural.

Historically existential philosophy has had to do with being in concrete existence, having a body and experiencing the material world. For myself I reconciled matter and spirit by asking myself if it was possible that our glorified bodies, whatever those would be post a mortal existence, are material but of some other material unknown in finite physics in this world. If we are always with a body except at the interruption caused by mortal death, this situation of being embodied is natural to us.... The senses, then, and empiricism, are not wrong since even in the beyond we would have senses, I speculate, albeit more rich or different senses beyond finite measure. In this case it is not strange that the soul has senses if the soul is always embodied and in fact can't be distinguished or separated from a body.

Of course this is all just thoughts. But it is interesting. A final point is that once one decides the evil source is not the material sensuous world, Augustine says that evil can now be recognized as a habit of the soul, a habit of preferring or loving inferior goods; for example loving some aspect of material life more than God. In Augustine's definition evil is a form of misdirected desire, a sort of blindness that fails to perceive and love higher goods.

How I would tie this into Scientology is that the church sees it as a goal to exteriorize a 'thetan' from the body; the exteriorized state is seen as preferable. Cause is conceived as cause over matter, energy, space and time. Thus the view of Scientology, in my opinion, continues the ancient adversarial relationship of the soul against matter, and the immaterial continues for Scientology to be seen as superior to the material. So it seems to me that the Christian view of the body and Scientology's are very different.

I believe that there is some value in getting exterior to a problem, especially in emotional areas such as one's love life. When people experience a loss in their romantic life, such as losing a boyfriend or a girlfriend, it seems as if the worst thing they can do is think about it, especially compulsively. I have never seen that accomplish anything other than spinning the person in even worse. If a person goes out into nature and looks around at the ocean, the mountains, flowers, trees, lakes, etc., that tends to get them out of their thoughts and give them a better chance of solving their dilemma. The best thing seems to be having a live being listen to them and acknowledge them. That procedure does tend to give the person a view which is exterior to his problem instead of being socked into it. From that viewpoint exterior to his or her problem, the person is more likely to be able to work out a solution.
Lakey

 

[JustSheila]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, the Hindu trinity consists of these three gods; Brahma the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver and Shiva the destroyer or transformer. I find those easier to understand than the Christian Trinity (I never really got what the Holy Ghost was supposed to mean).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimurti

Thanks, CS.

I think there are parallels between Vishnu and the Holy Spirit. The word Vishnu has a similar meaning:

Yaska, an early commentator on the Vedas, in his Nirukta, (etymological interpretation), defines Vishnu asviṣṇur viṣvater vā vyaśnoter vā, "one who enters everywhere". He also writes, atha yad viṣito bhavati tad viṣnurbhavati, "that which is free from fetters and bondages is Vishnu".[SUP][4][/SUP]

Adi Shankara in his commentary on the Sahasranama states derivation from viś, with a meaning "presence everywhere" ("As he pervades everything, vevesti, he is called Vishnu")."to enter into, to pervade," glossing the name as "the All-Pervading One"

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu

Vishnu is always with us then, the same as the Holy Spirit. I don't usually use the term "ghost" by preference, even though it is probably more correct as the original term, because it brings to mind other concepts of minor, humanish spirits with personalities. The Christian Holy Spirit has no metaphoric personality as such. It is pervasive, like Vishnu.

My understanding is that in Christianity, God incarnated as Jesus primarily to incorporate the human experience into the Godhead and thus establish the bridge to God for man through the Holy Spirit.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

(John 14:16,17)

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

(John 16:7, 13)

In Hinduism, hasn't Vishnu been with mankind since the beginning? But in Christianity, the Holy Spirit has not. I reconcile these with the idea that the Holy Spirit itself has more than one aspect: the life force that has always been within us by which we are all children of God, the direct link to the Godhead through the incarnation of Jesus, and the living force within all living things.

What do you think?

 

[Free Being Me]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The entire concept of the pantheons of Gods (later morphing into Monotheism) started when man was in it's tribal infancy. Our oldest religions were Nature Worship with various Nature Deities and rightly so because being in tune with nature and the passing of seasons determined whether you froze to death, could hunt or forage depending on the season, understand plant life cycles and animal behavior which demanded shrewd observation.

All of life was seen as an expression of Nature because everyone lived by the dictates of what Nature gave and took. Almost every religion has some form of Nature Worship within it amalgamated from earlier religions. Seasons, fertility, equinoxes, sun and moon, life and death, bountiful hunts and harvests, venerated places - animals - plants, male/female unions, all come from Nature Worship.

So what are the Gods or God? Our tribal Nature Worship roots with the Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine joined living in harmony with Nature. Unfortunately this concept was corrupted because religion became how monarchies and high priesthoods could control populations as living gods or messengers speaking from "Divine Right."

My humble 2 cents.

 

[JustSheila]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Makes me think in a different way, FBM. Thanks.

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The entire concept of the pantheons of Gods (later morphing into Monotheism) started when man was in it's tribal infancy. Our oldest religions were Nature Worship with various Nature Deities and rightly so because being in tune with nature and the passing of seasons determined whether you froze to death, could hunt or forage depending on the season, understand plant life cycles and animal behavior which demanded shrewd observation.

All of life was seen as an expression of Nature because everyone lived by the dictates of what Nature gave and took. Almost every religion has some form of Nature Worship within it amalgamated from earlier religions. Seasons, fertility, equinoxes, sun and moon, life and death, bountiful hunts and harvests, venerated places - animals - plants, male/female unions, all come from Nature Worship.

So what are the Gods or God? Our tribal Nature Worship roots with the Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine joined living in harmony with Nature. Unfortunately this concept was corrupted because religion became how monarchies and high priesthoods could control populations as living gods or messengers speaking from "Divine Right."

My humble 2 cents.

I tend to agree. In my researching Rhetoric since Hubbard learned it, I had read a lot of this:

https://archive.org/stream/lecturesonrheto31blaigoog#page/n15/mode/2up/search/structure+of+language

but I need to continue.

What you wrote falls in line with this section called "LECTURE VII. RISE AND PROGRESS OF LANGUAGE, AND of WRITING."

the section is here: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004786433.0001.001/1:10?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Once I got used to the style of writing back then, it became easier to read. I found it fascinating and was liberated in reading it.

Reading those also gave me a simple understanding of the Latin language. And I also realized just as a side point, the Latin language is Yoda talk of Star Wars,

http://www.yodaspeak.co.uk/

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The medieval Christian concept that one has a soul rather than one is a soul is preferable to me, though again not entirely descriptive. As biological humans, we are composites. As spirits or souls, we break out of that composite at death and rejoin as an entirely different composite that is part of the whole of the living force that is God, of which our soul/spirit has always been and will always be an intrinsic part. We are never truly alone.

I have relevant experience. As I've said before it is knowledge
with no reservations. I separated from another soul, we were then
no longer composite, and I have no idea why we were for a while.
Don't think incident 2 although that is some sort of an explanation

We broke out of that composite both very alive. I still see doctors
for example And boy did the other half have emotions!!!!

I have looked at the possibility of rejoining as "Twin Flames".
This so far seems a dead end lest further research turns up
something.

I consider we are both part of what may be considered God.

As is anyone else reading or not. [imo]

Maybe we could rejoin as part of God? Or maybe
something else. Maybe just friends or lovers?

On L-11 ran stuff about separating from primordial theta.

That seems my path or part of it. Scn tech led me there.
How? Why? It worked for me.

Been there done that, still have to design the T-shirt.

Meanwhile some dedicated musicians have re constructed
the Finale to Bruckners 9th symphony. Dedicated to the big
guy in the sky. Parts 1&2 can be found but not altogether anymore.
This is part 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrXmNrIg2Fk

 

[JustSheila]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Fascinating, Terril! (and beautiful, too.)

It has long been said that male and female are two halves of the whole, that in order to really be complete, we need our other half.

It's a concept completely different than one being overpowering another that is stuck there.

As humans, living as a composite is the only thing we know as normal. We'd like to go without the baggage sometimes , but on the other hand, we wouldn't like to go altogether without use of our minds or bodies, and the bodies are composites made up of millions of living cells. It all works together. That's normal, each complete in itself, but altogether forming something more amazing.

So I see the concept of a spiritual body - not giving up any personal identity, but actually enhancing every other spirit and our own by and with each other. We're all connected, but it's a much bigger production than what we see in front of us, all complementing and enhancing each other.

 

[Gib]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I have relevant experience. As I've said before it is knowledge
with no reservations. I separated from another soul, we were then
no longer composite, and I have no idea why we were for a while.
Don't think incident 2 although that is some sort of an explanation

We broke out of that composite both very alive. I still see doctors
for example And boy did the other half have emotions!!!!

I have looked at the possibility of rejoining as "Twin Flames".
This so far seems a dead end lest further research turns up
something.

I consider we are both part of what may be considered God.

As is anyone else reading or not. [imo]

Maybe we could rejoin as part of God? Or maybe
something else. Maybe just friends or lovers?

On L-11 ran stuff about separating from primordial theta.

That seems my path or part of it. Scn tech led me there.
How? Why? It worked for me.

Been there done that, still have to design the T-shirt.

Meanwhile some dedicated musicians have re constructed
the Finale to Bruckners 9th symphony. Dedicated to the big
guy in the sky. Parts 1&2 can be found but not altogether anymore.
This is part 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrXmNrIg2Fk

Hubbard even said one has to run scientology out.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Be back soon to respond but please do not worry about the professor thing. I am not one anymore because I am not working and sort of retired. There is no one correct view in philosophy. Philosophers quarrel constantly over minute points. If anything my view is not entirely philosophical since what I think is inflected by Christian beliefs. Like the science-religion chimera, I think that the mixture of philosophy and Christianity is difficult; if only because each of these has different goals.

There's a philosopher in the UK called Christopher Rowe who tries to write for ordinary people rather than an academic audience (and in fact spent a while working on the London underground train system). He says that the point of philosophy is to have a "zoom lens" for life, and be able to see both great detail in what you're looking at and also the grand picture (which we usually miss).

From what you're saying, it looks as if philosophers have got stuck on the "detail", and are missing the grand, sweeping visions. (Robert Pirsig once said much the same thing in "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance", i.e. that everyone is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian; they're either drawn to Aristotle's endless classifications or Plato's great vistas of reality.

 

[MrNobody]

Re: Knowing Things about the Infinite.

<snip>
Anyway, those are my replies to the questions which trouble you.
<snip>

There are questions which trouble me? Interesting! Go ahead, fill me in. What exactly are the questions which allegedly trouble me?

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Knowing Things about the Infinite.

There are questions which trouble me? Interesting! Go ahead, fill me in. What exactly are the questions which allegedly trouble me?

Go back and read your own post and you will find them. Just to get you started, I will give you some, i.e., "Who created the creator?" and if I answer with someone, then who created that someone?... ad infinitum. Another question was (and I paraphrase), "Why would a creator bother to create a Universe?"
Lakey

 

[MrNobody]

Re: Knowing Things about the Infinite.

Go back and read your own post and you will find them. Just to get you started, I will give you some, i.e., "Who created the creator?" and if I answer with someone, then who created that someone?... ad infinitum. Another question was (and I paraphrase), "Why would a creator bother to create a Universe?"
Lakey

Those were hypothetical questions under the assumption that someone would believe in a creator - which I don't, so these questions don't bother me at all, never did and probably never will.

Better luck next time, Lakey.

 

[lkwdblds]

Lakey Massage Tech Works Like a Charm

Recently, at a motivational event I met an amazing lady, Pat, who has an amazing life story. After doing some terrible things in her youth, she was able to marry a Jewish multi millionaire and live with him in the lap of luxury in a mansion in Newport Beach, CA for 24 years. He has a private jet plane, a yacht which requires a crew of 14 to run it and with all of his millions, he was a nice guy, a humble and honest man. Pat's natural path, however, was spiritualism and pursuing physical health and vitality. She attempted to get her husband to join her in her life's work and he was not interested. As a result, 3 years ago, she divorced him, in a friendly divorce, similar to my own situation and she went off on her own to open a business which deals with holistic healing, exercise, eating a natural diet and various metaphysical arts as well.

I decided to sign up with her so as to drop a lot of body weight and do a lot of stretching and exercising in the bargain. I was at her office yesterday evening discussing her program and I told her that I developed my own modality, the psychic type of massage which I give. My treatment is a combination of Schiatzu massage from Japan mixed in with a bit of Touch Assist principals. Also, I seem to be using some of the principles of Mesmerism, as developed by Dr. Franz Anton Mesmer who started out in Vienna in the late 18th century.

Anyway, Pat wanted a sample of my treatment and I gave her about 20 minutes on a massage table she has in her office. This demonstration turned out to be my best massage ever and I even was able to improve my technique and expand it a bit by virtue of giving her this session.

Part of her tech has to do with the Atlas vertebra located on the back of one's skull.

Atlas (anatomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_(anatomy)
Wikipedia
Jump to Vertebral foramen - [edit]. Just below the medial margin of each superior facet is a small tubercle, for the attachment of the transverse atlantal ...
‎Structure - ‎Function - ‎Clinical significance - ‎Additional images


In the course of pressing on her head to release harmful static electricity from her body, I landed smack dab on her Atlas vertebra. The left side was load with problems, everything I touched was tensed up, sore and out of alignment. I checked the right side and it was not perfect but was in much better shape than the left side. I worked on the left side and I picked up perceptions of a betrayal which she suffered a year or two back and that her betrayer was a man. I told her this and she told me that the left side of the Atlas, had to do with males while the right side had to do with females.

I cleared out the left side of her Atlas and a huge amount of ugly energy came out of there and I was able to undo all the physical knots and misalignments such that the left side of her Atlas was completely cleaned out and was physically smooth and pliable. I than did the same to the right side, the female side. The right side had only a small amount of energy release. I picked up some annoyance with some of her female clients from time to time a and much stronger amount of resentment which came from her mother enforcing some bad decisions on her when she was young and under her mother's control. The right side of the Atlas cleaned up quickly.

We then ended off the demonstration. I knew that a tremendous amount of harmful energy had been released and that when she stood up, she would be looking at the world from a significantly different perspective. That proved to be the case. As she began to stand up, she said, "Oh my God, I feel totally different!" She went over and looked in the mirror and she almost had to readjust her balance and orientation because many of her anchoring points had been altered. In short, I blew her socks off! After a 20 minute demo, her whole orientation and manor of looking at the world had been reoriented. She wanted me to give a treatment to her business partner, who is also her boyfriend, the next time I come in. She said he needs it even more than she needed it.

To date, this was by far the most successful result which I have achieved using my technique and I was able to add cleaning out the Atlas vertabrta to my technique. I left the massage, went to pick up my Peruvian friend who was going to take me to dinner in exchange for driving her to various doctors during the past weeks and then while at dinner with her, my son called me and we had a fantastic phone conversation. I was totally blown out by the time I got home that but I was still able to get a good night's sleep and wake up feeling as clear as a bell with absolutely no noise or background thinking taking place in my mind.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Knowing Things about the Infinite.

Those were hypothetical questions under the assumption that someone would believe in a creator - which I don't, so these questions don't bother me at all, never did and probably never will.

Better luck next time, Lakey.

This is just bullshit. Maybe "bother" was not the proper adjective to use. The truth is that you thought about these question and to you there were no logical answers to them and as a result, you chose not be believe in a God. To me, the questions bothered you in a manner of speaking because you could not conceive of any answers to them. Actually, you handled the situation by rejecting God instead of being bothered by the questions so I admit that you were never bothered by the questions and that I was wrong about that.

I came up with some plausible answers to your questions and you ignored them without comment and then wish me better luck next time. Remind me not to dialogue with you any more because doing so is a dead end.
Lakey

 

[Claire Swazey]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

There is something to be said for the metaphorical belief in 6 impossible things before breakfast. After the caffeine kicks in, we could then tackle the possible.