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

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I can't stop laughing at that image of the slumbering god covered up with brick a brack. It really is embarrassing to be so ignorant that I believed it.

Those may be the funniest words which I have ever written in my life, although I did not knowingly try to be funny when writing them!

Maria, how about you doing a painting or at least a sketch on that subject? I can just see it, a gorgeous male body combining the beauty of Adonis, the speed of Mercury, the Strength of Hercules, the wisdom of Zeus, combined with human powers such as the science of Archimedes, the verbal skills and wisdom of Plato, and the geometric knowledge of Euclid lying there slumbering under the weight of tons of brick a brack which has him buried. In the foreground is a caricature of Hubbard in a Naval Uniform directing a couple of huge earth moving Caterpillar tractors which are picking up the brick a brack from the top of the slumbering God. In a 2nd drawing of the scene, the brick a brack is removed and the mighty Godlike creature is standing holding lightening bolts and saying to Hubbard, "Well done my Commodore, now help me waken my many comrades from their slumbers and we will work with you until Earth is restored to its rightful glory.

Don't feel too bad because you bought into it. You have lots of company here on ESMB who also bought into it including myself.
Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gizmo,are you still miffed?..lol....creating a muffled tempest in a teapot.
Actually,old chap,one of the sanest things an Ex or active Scientologist could do would be to overpower DM and put him in the RPF.
We could build a steel bar cage,Brousseau constructed,from which DM could not escape.
Ill bet if that occurred youd be cheering from the sidelines,though probably hiding behind an anonymous mask...lol...

Was never miffed.

In your world there might be something sane about the RPF or putting people in steel bar cages but not mine.

You are free to bet on whatever you like but on your suggested bet do go very light.

giz

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Howja know?

17 was my softball jersey number in high school.

Itsa a long story. A very long story. Are also special.

One day I may tell :dancer:

But, in all honesty, I think today is an absolutely great day to be alive & enjoy !

There is just so wonderfulness to life & fine people to share it with !

Like that old song goes " Yes, it's me & I'm in love again .... "

giz

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

What is the average length of an average adult male penis here in the US ?

Thought you'd never ask !


Looks like around 5.2 inches is going to be about the most widely accepted answer.


Some may question the length & depth of the sampling. OK. Fair enough.

Google helps.

Google also provides some reference of studies for the who have the thirst for such knowledge :

Suggested Reading


1.Wylie KR, Eardley I. Penile size and the 'small penis syndrome'. British Journal of Urology International, 2007, volume 99, number 6, pages 1,449-1,455. Abstract

2.Francken AB, van de Wiel HB, van Driel MF, Weijmar Schultz WC. What importance do women attribute to the size of the penis? European Urology, 2002, volume 42, number 5, pages 426-431. Abstract

3.Eisenman R. Penis size: Survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction. BMC Womens Health, 2001, volume 1, page 1 (DOI: 10.1186/1472-6874-1-1).

4.Wessells H, Lue TF, McAninch JW. Penile length in the flaccid and erect states: guidelines for penile augmentation. The Journal of Urology, 1996, volume 156, number 3, pages 995-997. Abstract

5.Sengezer M, Ozturk S, Deveci M. Accurate method for determining functional penile length in Turkish young men. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 2002, volume 48, number 4, pages 381-385. Abstract

6.Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, Sanders SA. Erect penile length and circumference dimensions of 1,661 sexually active men in the United States. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 2014, volume 11, number 1, pages 93-101 (DOI: 10.1111/jsm.12244). Abstract

7.Ponchietti R, Mondaini N, Bonafe M, and others. Penile length and circumference: a study on 3,300 young Italian males. European Urology, 2001, volume 39, number 2, pages 183-186. Abstract

8.Promodu K, Shanmughadas KV, Bhat S, Nair KR. Penile length and circumference: an Indian study. International Journal of Impotence Research, 2007, volume 19, pages 558-563 (DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901569).

9.Mondaini N, Ponchietti R, Gontero P, and others. Penile length is normal in most men seeking penile lengthening procedures. International Journal of Impotence Research, 2002, volume 14, pages 283-286 (DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3900887).



No doubt there is far more information for those so inclined but the above should provide at least a starting point.

PS - Know anyone looking for an interesting summer job ?

giz

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Philosophy calls that the 'thing-in-itself'.

That sounds so lewd.

<> >< <> >< <> >< <> >< <> >< <> ><

Anyway, all the discussions hereabouts about time or no time & all that, uh, didn't L Ron Flubbard write some where that " the bank was timeless".

[ Fortunately, I have forgotten - at last - so much of what he said & wrote that I just can't dredge it up. All books many years gone, too ].

But wouldn't that statement by him it put those people who argue there is ' no time ' in the position to be making a case (pun?) that they live in their bank ( as described by LRH ) & can perceive the world around them no other way ?

Not that it matters, as by now most of the people who suffered exposure to Flubbards drivel do now know better & do better.

giz

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

That sounds so lewd.

<> >< <> >< <> >< <> >< <> >< <> ><

Anyway, all the discussions hereabouts about time or no time & all that, uh, didn't L Ron Flubbard write some where that " the bank was timeless".

[ Fortunately, I have forgotten - at last - so much of what he said & wrote that I just can't dredge it up. All books many years gone, too ].

But wouldn't that statement by him it put those people who argue there is ' no time ' in the position to be making a case (pun?) that they live in their bank ( as described by LRH ) & can perceive the world around them no other way ?

Not that it matters, as by now most of the people who suffered exposure to Flubbards drivel do now know better & do better.

giz

the three options? (assuming one even believes in a silly thing like a reactive mind, which I do not.)

a) the reactive mind is outside of time.
If this was the case then the pc has to bring time into the bank every time he trys to run an earlier similar. Further, the pc is required to access things in themselves outside of time. This means that the pc, regardless of the shape he is in, will need to have the ability to move outside of time in order to go OT. To be OT before going OT. We can't live in the bank since it would be outside of our range of reality. And further, we'd have to wonder if it really IS a bank, since being a thing in itself it would remain UNKNOWN to us.

b) the reactive mind itself is timeless.
This implies that the reactive mind is either eternal (never ceases to be) or that it contains no time (just unmoving dead pictures) even though it could be embedded within time (since it belongs to a pc who is in time).

This option is even more messed up since if the bank is eternal then no amount of auditing (done via time) can remove it.
The likely definition Scn uses is that it contains no time, since pictures are involved. But if this is the case, then using time to run incidents won't do any good. It is impossible to 'run through an incident if it has no time. Further, a picture without time cannot possibly have 'charge'. It also creates a strange paradox in which something with no time in it could be located by a pc in time and using time. Thus pictures and the bank are things in themselves (As opposed to objects of the senses). The main characteristic of a thing in itself and the reason it cannot be described in any detail is that things in themselves are unavailable to the senses, being outside of time or containing no time. All we know of the things around us then are what we perceive about them; time is an internal process says Kant. Our perceptions are instruments, and can be better or worse, like vision or smell. What the things around us are, outside of our perception (outside of time) is impossible to say.

c) There is no time.
In reality we never encounter an experience without time. The only way to know if there was no time would be to encounter timeless objects like things in themselves. Which we cannot do. We can, via science, imiprove our tools such as telescopes and microscopes etc.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

d) scientologists live in their banks and through their banks, which is as timeless as they are. Sort of like when the salesman says to buy the encyclopedia, since it will be a timeless gift.
But when a new revised encyclopedia edition of the bank comes out and gets trademarked and copyrighted the old timeless bank will need to be phased out and the new bank taken through the entire bridge (for quality assurance purposes and all that.)

The whole concept of a pc in time accessing a bank that is timeless reminds me of using the wrong tool.

We would not use a hammer to do our laundry, but a a washing machine. Assuming the bank is timeless then using processes (tools) based on time to get rid of something with no time in it devolves into NONSENSE since the tool does not match the task.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I am not proposing a world in which there is a second world filled with things in themselves (timeless things). This is a more early modern way of looking at reality (this world + a world beyond).

If anything, the idea of parallel universes is what physicists are talking about....so perhaps scientologists are sad because their banks are in a parallel universe, always out of grasp no matter how many times they run their bridge!!!

But never fear! CERN news is that we might be on the verge of contacting a parallel universe. The process, due to cost, is not yet within reach of every day preclears however.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...o-make-contact-with-PARALLEL-UNIVERSE-in-days

 

[SPsince83]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

The wheel is turning and you can't slow down
You can't let go and you can't hold on
You can't go back and you can't stand still
If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will

Robert Hunter

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

That sounds so lewd.

<> >< <> >< <> >< <> >< <> >< <> ><

Anyway, all the discussions hereabouts about time or no time & all that, uh, didn't L Ron Flubbard write some where that " the bank was timeless".

[ Fortunately, I have forgotten - at last - so much of what he said & wrote that I just can't dredge it up. All books many years gone, too ].

But wouldn't that statement by him it put those people who argue there is ' no time ' in the position to be making a case (pun?) that they live in their bank ( as described by LRH ) & can perceive the world around them no other way ?

Not that it matters, as by now most of the people who suffered exposure to Flubbards drivel do now know better & do better.

giz

As I recall it, Hubbard's comments about the bank (one's reactive mind) being timeless or whatever his actual words were, did not have to do with time not existing but dealt with Hubbard's claim that from the perspective of one's bank, the time was always "now". This applied especially to verbal content within various incidents contained in a bank.

For example, let's say that a guy is in a car accident in 2007 and is knocked out. An ambulance shows up and an ambulance attendant examines the unconscious man and says to his partner, "It doesn't look like he is going to make it" The accident victim survives. Per Dianetic theory, whenever a guy receives a jolt and is on or near a highway and an ambulance comes by, those perceptics will trigger the phrase, "It doesn't look like he is going to make it" Thus even though this later time, he only received a minor jolt, the phrase reappears in his mind and he suddenly feels that he may survive this small jolt.

In other words, Hubbard is not stating that there is no time, he is stating that various times are indistinguishable to a bank. A bank reasons as if all times are "now" and that the command phrases in a person's bank always apply. Hubbard thought that the bank was a carry over from the time before humans had developed languages. He felt that animals still have this type of bank and for them it may be useful, but once humans developed language, the bank's inability to distinguish between different times became a serious liability for humans!

I must say, that this line of reasoning of Hubbard's is not garbage in my opinion, the way the OT theory which we discussed yesterday was. I don't know where Hubbard got this theory. Maybe he came up with this on his own, while trying to improve on Freudian analysis or maybe he hijacked it from someone else. In my estimation this theory deserved to be pursued further by the scientific community. The concepts involved seem plausible to me and worth exploring using valid scientific methods to study them. I know there were some University studies, one by the University of Chicago in the early 50's but those studies seemed to be biased against Hubbard and were done mainly with the mindset of proving him wrong.

Hubbard complained that none of those who delivered auditing in the university studies ever took any Hubbard training on how to be an auditor. They simply applied Book 1 techniques alone and then the sessions they gave did not produce any positive results. Probably for a university study, those who were to test out Dianetic auditing, should have been reasonably well read on Hubbard's theories and should have been required to take a Hubbard course or two on how to audit. Had this been done, then we now have some valid university testing of Dianetics.
Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

{ with no sorrow or remorse, some words were quietly dispensed with }

I must say, that this line of reasoning of Hubbard's is not garbage in my opinion, the way the OT theory which we discussed yesterday was.

{ with no sorrow or remorse, some words were quietly dispensed with }


Lakey

Hmm.

Why discount some 60 years or so of auditors trained in the various organizations & some even by Hubbard Himself... yet the grade chart abilities attained were not achieved in anything like a stable state ?

There are people who post here on ESMB who attained very high levels of auditor training, spend many years to get there & delivered thousands - some even tens of thousands - of auditing. Is their opinion somehow not valid?

How about those people that post here that spent years & years - if not over a decade in pursuit of OT 7 ?

What was that ? Cause over life ?

Who else remembers the first OT 7 completion ?

There are opinions about the validity of scientology & the opinions about results of scientology.

Then there are the facts about scientology & the facts about the results it has produced.

Confusing opinions with facts can be harmful to humanity.


Where is this clear or OT that can step up & demonstrate the state(s)which Hubbard said thet would exhibit ?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

As I recall it, Hubbard's comments about the bank (one's reactive mind) being timeless or whatever his actual words were, did not have to do with time not existing but dealt with Hubbard's claim that from the perspective of one's bank, the time was always "now". This applied especially to verbal content within various incidents contained in a bank.

Oh, yes, I remember all that tripe now. Forgive me. It's been more than 35 years and I had forgotten all the idiot logic involved in Dianetics. It's all just another way of saying there is no time. Why do I say this? Because I don't believe there is BANK. And if there is no bank, than whatever it is where those NOWS are IS RIGHT HERE. Thus no past, no future. Basically Hubbard's logic only holds if there is a reactive mind. But this only holds by psychologizing physics and turning it into into the human stories and dramas. That is, the bank is just a story, a coping mechanism, an explanation. I'm sorry but I don't accept banks as real so I can't follow those silly arguments. Even Hubbard's now argument is just a way of saying c) there is no time. But a dumb one because it makes the 'there is no time' an aberration to be removed (the bank itself being that aberration.) I suppose it's no funnier than an attempt to blink the Alps away by postulate over and over again. Failing, then trying again. Humans tell themselves such cute stories! And Hubbard was certainly a human, if a cantankerous one.

For example, let's say that a guy is in a car accident in 2007 and is knocked out. An ambulance shows up and an ambulance attendant examines the unconscious man and says to his partner, "It doesn't look like he is going to make it" The accident victim survives. Per Dianetic theory, whenever a guy receives a jolt and is on or near a highway and an ambulance comes by, those perceptics will trigger the phrase, "It doesn't look like he is going to make it" Thus even though this later time, he only received a minor jolt, the phrase reappears in his mind and he suddenly feels that he may survive this small jolt.

All of what you describe is attributable to other explanations. The Dianetics explanation depends on the existence of a bank. But banks do not exist so therefore that explanation has been crossed off my list. Next explanation, step right up.

In other words, Hubbard is not stating that there is no time, he is stating that various times are indistinguishable to a bank. A bank reasons as if all times are "now" and that the command phrases in a person's bank always apply. Hubbard thought that the bank was a carry over from the time before humans had developed languages. He felt that animals still have this type of bank and for them it may be useful, but once humans developed language, the bank's inability to distinguish between different times became a serious liability for humans!

I must say, that this line of reasoning of Hubbard's is not garbage in my opinion, the way the OT theory which we discussed yesterday was. I don't know where Hubbard got this theory. Maybe he came up with this on his own, while trying to improve on Freudian analysis or maybe he hijacked it from someone else. In my estimation this theory deserved to be pursued further by the scientific community. The concepts involved seem plausible to me and worth exploring using valid scientific methods to study them. I know there were some University studies, one by the University of Chicago in the early 50's but those studies seemed to be biased against Hubbard and were done mainly with the mindset of proving him wrong.

Atack has written an essay on this. Which I posted a link to on my blog. Basically it's a theory that Freud wrote on, originated, and which Freud DISCARDED as worthless. The theory is not worth pursuing scientifically since it is based on a big series of false assumptions, each of which can be debunked if anyone wished to be bored by such a long-winded explanation of why each of those assumptions was false. Yawn. But suffice to say that the word Bank or Reactive mind is of course a big assumption worthy of Debunk. I have said it and its of course my opinion, no offense to you at all Lakey, that ALL and every drop of Scn and Dianetics is bogus. That they have no scientific basis. That they are not logical by any traditional measure in history of science or philosophy. Science is not jumping to work on this 'problem' because Science already saw that the whole thing is snake oil and it walked away decades ago from such a joke. As for religion, it's a poor one if it is one. Any religion since time immemorial would be more interesting and alive than their cha-ching version.

Hubbard complained that none of those who delivered auditing in the university studies ever took any Hubbard training on how to be an auditor. They simply applied Book 1 techniques alone and then the sessions they gave did not produce any positive results. Probably for a university study, those who were to test out Dianetic auditing, should have been reasonably well read on Hubbard's theories and should have been required to take a Hubbard course or two on how to audit. Had this been done, then we now have some valid university testing of Dianetics.
Lakey

See my purple prose. Should we 'discuss' more? I am afraid to suggest we discuss or argue over this....so feel free to 'de-discuss' if you wish. Maybe Atack's next book will be: Why reactive minds do not exist - the ontology of the timeless bank.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

d) scientologists live in their banks and through their banks, which is as timeless as they are. Sort of like when the salesman says to buy the encyclopedia, since it will be a timeless gift.
But when a new revised encyclopedia edition of the bank comes out and gets trademarked and copyrighted the old timeless bank will need to be phased out and the new bank taken through the entire bridge (for quality assurance purposes and all that.)

The whole concept of a pc in time accessing a bank that is timeless reminds me of using the wrong tool.

We would not use a hammer to do our laundry, but a a washing machine. Assuming the bank is timeless then using processes (tools) based on time to get rid of something with no time in it devolves into NONSENSE since the tool does not match the task.

That provides such a moment of clarity !

Our friends in scientology, as they are diligently using the wrong tools they were taught to use in life are bringing about their own destruction ! !

And they refuse to give up the delusion!

giz

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

During my absence, I thought about a couple of concepts under discussion. On the no time universe, of course Maria has definite views and then Leon chimed in with this views.

I believe that Leon's views were restatements of a Hubbard concept. Originally, I believe that the word "universe" simply meant the totality of all things. Hubbard used the word differently. For example he talked of a person's own universe, the individual universe of each being and then finally, the agreed on universe which all beings withing this universe agree to uphold.

Hubbard then went further and came up with the agreed on universe being defined as the MEST universe and the Theta universe, the universe of spiritual beings. Now in the MEST universe, Hubbard considered that it was made up of Matter, Energy, Space and Time so by definition, time is present. However, in Hubbard's Theta universe, time is not present. I believe that Leon's remarks were made using this model.

In Plato's universe as explained by Maria, what I understand is that there is no time and that universe is made up of pictures containing energy and time. Maria and Leon, please correct me if I am wrong.

With these definitions in mind, I see Plato's universe as sort of a combination between Hubbard's Theta and MEST universes. Plato suggests that each human being is in a no time universe for spirits, essentially a Theta Universe,and they dream about a universe which is full of pictures made of energy and matter, essentially a MEST universe. Therefore, the way I see it, there is a large correlation between the Platonic Universe and Hubbard's Theta and Mest Universes combined.

On Facebook about a year and a half ago when I was posting with Vinnaire about the universe, Vinnaire, who started with a Spiritual Universe and a MEST Universe and had condensed those two universes down into just being "The Universe". Vinny was going for as much simplicity as possible and saw no advantage to dividing the universe into two or more sub universes. In his mind a sub universe did more to increase complexity than it did in helping to forward understanding. BTW, several people on Facebook opposed Vinny on this point.

I personally thought that it the more simplicity there was, the better the chances that Vinny was on the right track so I went along with Vinny in not breaking the universe down into subdivisions. Many prefer to make the divide between a spiritual universe and an agreed on universe of matter, energy, space and time.

An Interesting Phenomena between a Spiritual Universe with no time and a Universe of Matter, Energy, Space and Time
Let's say you are a Spirit in a spiritual universe with no time. Let's say that you can project yourself into a MEST universe and view what is going on. While you are in the MEST universe obseving it, time is running in that universe, objects are moving around with respect to each other. You view the MEST universe in action, with objects moving around and time passing then you decide to return to your Spiritual Universe where there is no time.

So far so good, but let's say that you decide to go back to the MEST universe again for another look at it. When you arrive there and occupy your space to view from, you notice that things are different than the last ime you were there. The objects have moved, perhaps colors change, sizes and textures may be different, etc. Well since a spirit is not bound by the laws of time, what happens. A spirit can view and if things changed in any way from his last visit, some time must have past. The Spirit goes back to his Theta Universe of no time but that spirit has now being subjected to the effects of time. Thus some aspect of time must have rubbed off on that Spirit. The Spirit, itself, has changed a bit, now being made aware that change is possible.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

During my absence, I thought about a couple of concepts under discussion. On the no time universe, of course Maria has definite views and then Leon chimed in with this views.

I believe that Leon's views were restatements of a Hubbard concept. Originally, I believe that the word "universe" simply meant the totality of all things. Hubbard used the word differently. For example he talked of a person's own universe, the individual universe of each being and then finally, the agreed on universe which all beings withing this universe agree to uphold.

Hubbard then went further and came up with the agreed on universe being defined as the MEST universe and the Theta universe, the universe of spiritual beings. Now in the MEST universe, Hubbard considered that it was made up of Matter, Energy, Space and Time so by definition, time is present. However, in Hubbard's Theta universe, time is not present. I believe that Leon's remarks were made using this model.

In Plato's universe as explained by Maria, what I understand is that there is no time and that universe is made up of pictures containing energy and time. Maria and Leon, please correct me if I am wrong.

With these definitions in mind, I see Plato's universe as sort of a combination between Hubbard's Theta and MEST universes. Plato suggests that each human being is in a no time universe for spirits, essentially a Theta Universe,and they dream about a universe which is full of pictures made of energy and matter, essentially a MEST universe. Therefore, the way I see it, there is a large correlation between the Platonic Universe and Hubbard's Theta and Mest Universes combined.

On Facebook about a year and a half ago when I was posting with Vinnaire about the universe, Vinnaire, who started with a Spiritual Universe and a MEST Universe and had condensed those two universes down into just being "The Universe". Vinny was going for as much simplicity as possible and saw no advantage to dividing the universe into two or more sub universes. In his mind a sub universe did more to increase complexity than it did in helping to forward understanding. BTW, several people on Facebook opposed Vinny on this point.

I personally thought that it the more simplicity there was, the better the chances that Vinny was on the right track so I went along with Vinny in not breaking the universe down into subdivisions. Many prefer to make the divide between a spiritual universe and an agreed on universe of matter, energy, space and time.

An Interesting Phenomena between a Spiritual Universe with no time and a Universe of Matter, Energy, Space and Time
Let's say you are a Spirit in a spiritual universe with no time. Let's say that you can project yourself into a MEST universe and view what is going on. While you are in the MEST universe obseving it, time is running in that universe, objects are moving around with respect to each other. You view the MEST universe in action, with objects moving around and time passing then you decide to return to your Spiritual Universe where there is no time.

So far so good, but let's say that you decide to go back to the MEST universe again for another look at it. When you arrive there and occupy your space to view from, you notice that things are different than the last ime you were there. The objects have moved, perhaps colors change, sizes and textures may be different, etc. Well since a spirit is not bound by the laws of time, what happens. A spirit can view and if things changed in any way from his last visit, some time must have past. The Spirit goes back to his Theta Universe of no time but that spirit has now being subjected to the effects of time. Thus some aspect of time must have rubbed off on that Spirit. The Spirit, itself, has changed a bit, now being made aware that change is possible.
Lakey

For me, Plato's cosmology has zero correlation to anything Ron did or thought. I tried to make a correlation, but it was a pretzel. Plato's universe has no time because it is made of forms. Forms are not made of matter. They are immaterial. Thus no time. Time is an illusion. Time contains pictures and the pictures themselves (even the physical world) are illusions for Plato. But pictures and time have nothing to do with reality (forms). Forms have nothing to do with pictures because pictures would also fit the definition of matter.

So maybe that helps. The reactive mind is made of pictures, regardless of whether we admit that the whole is related to time. The reactive mind does not exist. Has nothing to do with Reality. So living one's life trying to great rid of nothing is sort of like how Plato describes life on this ball called earth: an illusion. Not real. Pictures are unreal = made of time and matter. Matter and time are unreal = pictures. Only forms are real for Plato. As I said, Plato's philosophy is wrong quite often so don't blame me for spelling it out. Plato would just view the reactive mind concept as words humans tell themselves. Notes and thoughts. Matter.




In the world of pretzels and strait jackets, of course the reactive mind is real.

If Hubbard had stopped at the point of saying something modest like humans can create scenarios in their minds, and sometimes they can make such scenarios come into reality for others. Then he'd be in less trouble. Or if he said, we can shift how we feel, change the position from which we view something, that would also be more modest and better than 'as-ising' which concept suggests a violation of physics.

I can't answer more since what I have just said is my view of the entire subject. I've already become extremely boring talking about this. Getting too long-winded etc. There are no other details I can finesse on this one. (And all of this is just my opinion so no harm done if you or someone else wants to disagree.) But my question is, why stop at one spiritual dimension? Why not an infinity of them? Why just the couple physical + spiritual world? Why not multiple parallel universes? Why the hierarchical setup where there are two worlds and one is superior to the other, i.e., the spiritual world trumps the material? Why not lots of worlds that are different without one world being able to lord over another? the Theta universe BS is just BS as far as I can tell.

In a physics where nothing can be created or destroyed, it's hard really to buy into banks that can be as-ised. It sounds like something Hubbard dreamed up in third grade.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria, thank you so much for having the patience to write out an explanation ( in bold below ) to some one who doesn’t yet seem to have a clue of how horribly off the rails Hubbard went.

giz

As I recall it, Hubbard's comments about the bank (one's reactive mind) being timeless or whatever his actual words were, did not have to do with time not existing but dealt with Hubbard's claim that from the perspective of one's bank, the time was always "now". This applied especially to verbal content within various incidents contained in a bank.

Oh, yes, I remember all that tripe now. Forgive me. It's been more than 35 years and I had forgotten all the idiot logic involved in Dianetics. It's all just another way of saying there is no time. Why do I say this? Because I don't believe there is BANK. And if there is no bank, than whatever it is where those NOWS are IS RIGHT HERE. Thus no past, no future. Basically Hubbard's logic only holds if there is a reactive mind. But this only holds by psychologizing physics and turning it into the human stories and dramas. That is, the bank is just a story, a coping mechanism, an explanation. I'm sorry but I don't accept banks as real so I can't follow those silly arguments. Even Hubbard's now argument is just a way of saying c) there is no time. But a dumb one because it makes the 'there is no time' an aberration to be removed (the bank itself being that aberration.) I suppose it's no funnier than an attempt to blink the Alps away by postulate over and over again. Failing, then trying again. Humans tell themselves such cute stories! And Hubbard was certainly a human, if a cantankerous one.

For example, let's say that a guy is in a car accident in 2007 and is knocked out. An ambulance shows up and an ambulance attendant examines the unconscious man and says to his partner, "It doesn't look like he is going to make it" The accident victim survives. Per Dianetic theory, whenever a guy receives a jolt and is on or near a highway and an ambulance comes by, those perceptics will trigger the phrase, "It doesn't look like he is going to make it" Thus even though this later time, he only received a minor jolt, the phrase reappears in his mind and he suddenly feels that he may survive this small jolt.

All of what you describe is attributable to other explanations. The Dianetics explanation depends on the existence of a bank. But banks do not exist so therefore that explanation has been crossed off my list. Next explanation, step right up.
In other words, Hubbard is not stating that there is no time, he is stating that various times are indistinguishable to a bank. A bank reasons as if all times are "now" and that the command phrases in a person's bank always apply. Hubbard thought that the bank was a carry over from the time before humans had developed languages. He felt that animals still have this type of bank and for them it may be useful, but once humans developed language, the bank's inability to distinguish between different times became a serious liability for humans!

I must say, that this line of reasoning of Hubbard's is not garbage in my opinion, the way the OT theory which we discussed yesterday was. I don't know where Hubbard got this theory. Maybe he came up with this on his own, while trying to improve on Freudian analysis or maybe he hijacked it from someone else. In my estimation this theory deserved to be pursued further by the scientific community. The concepts involved seem plausible to me and worth exploring using valid scientific methods to study them. I know there were some University studies, one by the University of Chicago in the early 50's but those studies seemed to be biased against Hubbard and were done mainly with the mindset of proving him wrong.

Atack has written an essay on this. Which I posted a link to on my blog. Basically it's a theory that Freud wrote on, originated, and which Freud DISCARDED as worthless. The theory is not worth pursuing scientifically since it is based on a big series of false assumptions, each of which can be debunked if anyone wished to be bored by such a long-winded explanation of why each of those assumptions was false. Yawn. But suffice to say that the word Bank or Reactive mind is of course a big assumption worthy of Debunk. I have said it and its of course my opinion, no offense to you at all Lakey, that ALL and every drop of Scn and Dianetics is bogus. That they have no scientific basis. That they are not logical by any traditional measure in history of science or philosophy. Science is not jumping to work on this 'problem' because Science already saw that the whole thing is snake oil and it walked away decades ago from such a joke. As for religion, it's a poor one if it is one. Any religion since time immemorial would be more interesting and alive than their cha-ching version.

Hubbard complained that none of those who delivered auditing in the university studies ever took any Hubbard training on how to be an auditor. They simply applied Book 1 techniques alone and then the sessions they gave did not produce any positive results. Probably for a university study, those who were to test out Dianetic auditing, should have been reasonably well read on Hubbard's theories and should have been required to take a Hubbard course or two on how to audit. Had this been done, then we now have some valid university testing of Dianetics.

Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Maria, I so respect your patience.

For me, Plato's cosmology has zero correlation to anything Ron did or thought. I tried to make a correlation, but it was a pretzel. Plato's universe has no time because it is made of forms. Forms are not made of matter. They are immaterial. Thus no time. Time is an illusion. Time contains pictures and the pictures themselves (even the physical world) are illusions for Plato. But pictures and time have nothing to do with reality (forms). Forms have nothing to do with pictures because pictures would also fit the definition of matter.

So maybe that helps. The reactive mind is made of pictures, regardless of whether we admit that the whole is related to time. The reactive mind does not exist. has nothing to do with Reality. So living one's life trying to great rid of nothing is sort of like how Plato describes life on this ball called earth: an illusion. Not real. Pictures are unreal = made of time and matter. Matter and time are unreal = pictures. Only forms are real for Plato. As I said, Plato's philosophy is wrong quite often so don't blame me for spelling it out.




In the world of pretzels and strait jackets, of course the reactive mind is real.

If Hubbard had stopped at the point of saying something modest like Humans can create scenarios in their minds. And sometimes they can make such scenarios come into reality for others. Then he'd be in less trouble. Or if he said, we can shift how we feel, change the position from which we view something, that would also be more modest and better than 'as-ising' which concept suggests a violation of physics.


I can't answer more since what I have just said is my view of the entire subject. There are no other details I can finesse on this one. Except maybe to say, why stop at one spiritual dimension. Why not an infinity of them. Why just the couple physical + spiritual world. Why not multiple parallel universes.

In a physics where nothing can be created or destroyed, it's hard really to buy into banks that can be as-ised. It sounds like something Hubbard dreamed up in third grade.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

And by the way that structure or hierarchy of goods, in which the spiritual world trumps the physical world ad nauseum is positively Medieval. Literally, it is the topic of 1000s of pages of Medieval philosophy. The theta universe as trumping anything at all is just so passe.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Those may be the funniest words which I have ever written in my life, although I did not knowingly try to be funny when writing them!

Maria, how about you doing a painting or at least a sketch on that subject? I can just see it, a gorgeous male body combining the beauty of Adonis, the speed of Mercury, the Strength of Hercules, the wisdom of Zeus, combined with human powers such as the science of Archimedes, the verbal skills and wisdom of Plato, and the geometric knowledge of Euclid lying there slumbering under the weight of tons of brick a brack which has him buried. In the foreground is a caricature of Hubbard in a Naval Uniform directing a couple of huge earth moving Caterpillar tractors which are picking up the brick a brack from the top of the slumbering God. In a 2nd drawing of the scene, the brick a brack is removed and the mighty Godlike creature is standing holding lightening bolts and saying to Hubbard, "Well done my Commodore, now help me waken my many comrades from their slumbers and we will work with you until Earth is restored to its rightful glory.

Don't feel too bad because you bought into it. You have lots of company here on ESMB who also bought into it including myself.
Lakey

There are two things I won't ever do. One is to ever paint anything related to scientology. The other thing I will never do is write or publish a book about scientology. Why? Because I'd hate to spoil my creativity on that stuff. Art and literature are too good for Scientology to even sit next to on a book shelf. If scientology ever appeared in anything I published it would have to be a sci-fi novel and it would have to be a weird cameo where Travolta in his old age has shuttled offworld to mars for his mind control injection at the Galactic Base of Scientology. Just the one sentence. No more. And probably never since why honor them with such a cameo?

As for the painting, it is funny and if such a painting worked and could work without having ANY scientology connotation, then sure, I could do it. After I finish painting about 150 other things in the queue.

Here in the forum it's different. I am talking to exes and I am an ex. It's a forum, not a published thing and not anything formally produced in a campaign. I do appreciate that others do that work, like Ortega, a journalist. But I only write fiction and philosophy and I only paint dream like things. I don't care as much about reality in literature/writing and in art. I like to write in a speculative way. And even my comments here about Scientology are abstract theoretical views. I'm not talking here about how to build a chair out of wood. Instead we are talking about stuff like 'is there a theta universe?' Total fiction - WOO, right? Right. Pure speculation, whether put forth by CoS or by an ex. WOO.

 

[Gizmo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

And by the way that structure or hierarchy of goods, in which the spiritual world trumps the physical world ad nauseum is positively Medieval. Literally, it is the topic of 1000s of pages of Medieval philosophy. The theta universe as trumping anything at all is just so passe.

What ? Oh NO !

We are NOT the GODs that Hubbard told us we could be ?

All is lost !

Woe is me !

giz ( may be no ) mo