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

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes on seals. Isn't old ot 4 something about what valence would be safe ? Interesting what could be hidden in a being or entity or identity or valence ....like those nesting dolls. Then each surrounded by clones - a synthetic security system (to protect things or keep things out or keep things in) as in the movies Inception or Vanilla Sky....

Yeah.

I don't like the evidence there is. The phenomena is there to witness, but somehow I don't have the exact correct perspective on it. It's just lately, even on the home front, personal dramas have becone insane on my block. Neighbors who used to get along, all of a sudden hate each other and look forward to making problems. Twice this week I was somehow deliberately misunderstood and a war started. I even got attacked for drip drying my wonder bras from the crepe myrtle bush hidden BEHIND our 6 ft privacy fencing. It was windy and they dried in 15 minutes while I sat and watched in a lawn chair. The fiasco almost got a 911 call.

We have wildlife here. There are lots of displays of dominance and blood gets shed. Some deaths. These are animal brained 'human' beefs happening near me. It is about survival. The behavior is being triggered in the same fashion...marking their personal boundaries and rights. Some near death experiences here too!

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I tried to find this writer; where did you read of the animal minds thing? I did find some links on deep character clearing.

I know Heidrun Beer a bit. She posted on this thread quite a lot in late 2010 and also started a few threads of her own. She and I share the same birthday, she being 15 years my junior. She posts on Facebook now. Occasionally she will comment on something or I will comment on something she wrote.

Heidrun seems to be a sort of Freezoner who branched off into her own study of the mind and life. The interviewer sounds like Helmut, another ex, who is married to Helen Chen, the founder of the Chen Academy, here in L.A.'

I watched the entire video. Heidrun definitely believes in most all of Hubbard's principles. To me, what she is doing represents a sort of sane version of dianetics. You take dianetics, as Hubbard developed it and CoS is still selling it and filter out all the CoS idiosyncrasies and Hubbard personal idiosyncrasies stemming from his own case and try and make an honest mental therapy of it. That is how I see what she is doing.

I believe she is university trained, although I don't know what her major was or what degrees she has but she is well educated. She and her cohorts are not locked into Hubbard's existing work and they do not have to leave it exactly as it was when he died. Unlike CoS, she permits herself to research dianetcs and scientology further and attempt to develop new material and techniques and better the subject, particularly as regards its effectiveness.

Heidrun is honest and of high integrity. She believes fervently in past lives, she believes in "as is ness" , mental charge and basically all the major pillars of Hubbard's work. Several times on her video, she states that when an incident containing overwhelm, etc. is viewed in full, then the incident vanishes.

So what you have here is a type of dianetics which for want of a better description, I call "Sane Dianetics". Money, power and fame play no part in Heidrun's work, it is all about helping people and developing better and better tech with which to help them. She is researching the subject, using scientific principles and making improvements to techniques and developing some new techniques such as DEEP processing. She does get results, as stated on her video

She has helped people consistently over the years. I was of the same mind as her back in 2010. Staying on ESMB for 5 1/2 years has turned me away from the path Heidrun is on. Nevertheless, I am glad she is out there doing what she is doing.
Lakey

 

[Gizmo]

Ada Lovelace remains a mystery

...clip ... clip....

Also this quote: "Einstein believed much the same of physics, that beyond observations and theory lay the music of the spheres — which, he wrote, revealed a 'pre-established harmony' exhibiting stunning symmetries. The laws of nature, such as those of relativity theory, were waiting to be plucked out of the cosmos by someone with a sympathetic ear. Thus it was less laborious calculation, but 'pure thought' to which Einstein attributed his theories."

...clip ... clip....

The lady has the correct answer ! Thank you !



And Ada Lovelace will forever remain a mystery to most - yet she had such rare vision.



PS - Is " sane dianetics " the ultimate oxymoron of all time & it surely must have been posted tongue in cheek ?


giz

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: Ada Lovelace remains a mystery

The lady has the correct answer ! Thank you !



And Ada Lovelace will forever remain a mystery to most - yet she had such rare vision.



PS - Is " sane dianetics " the ultimate oxymoron of all time & it surely must have been posted tongue in cheek ?


giz

Well gee. Thank you Giz. This may be my first quiz show win ever!


The problem 'solved' by pre-established harmony is how it is that substances (beings) can affect each other (a system of causality). Leibniz wants to preserve the causality of the monad (something of an I or a soul.) Pre-established harmony is Leibniz' solution to conflicting causalities, that one monad's effects and causes could conflict with the causes of another. If God harmonizes the 'monads' then no more conflicts.

The law of conservation had not yet been discovered when Leibniz came up with his solution to the problem. It (conservation) was discovered 200 years AFTER NEWTON.

The problem of conflicting causes is the same problem discussed re: as-ising. How can an OT who is cause not be in conflict with another OT who is cause since either one could destroy the causations of the other?


The Law of Conservation says nothing is destroyed or created, only moved around. That's what physics knows and has tested quite thoroughly. Just because as-ising doesn't happen though doesn't mean people don't believe they feel better applying some mental tech or another.

There is no sane Dianetics since to run 'sane Dianetics' one has to buy into structures of the mind which are discredited and under those delusions suffer harm, even if only to the pocket book and even if the source of help is sincere. I suppose though that if I were to go through life thinking I was made of glass it might cause problems for me in busy traffic in case I was afraid of being broken by mistake. I might act in ways that triggered the accident I was trying to avoid.

As I tried to point out in a post of mine concerning the Romantic era sources of the unconscious mind, the concept of an unconscious mind is in disrepute and Freud's writings, of interest mostly in literary circles, are not considered science or anything like that in the fields related to psychology. I don't have to prove that since it is commonly known and Googling it using various search terms gives lots of results. I already suggested Century of the Self, a documentary on Freud, for anyone who wanted to watch it and at least start to think about why I hold the views that I do about Freud and this subject.That said, I find Freud VERY helpful and wonderful for the interpretation of literary texts and it's fascinating the various theories and anti-Freudian theories that have arisen around Freud in literary circles.

It's alright though if in popular culture people want to believe in Freudian structures. After all, CoS does, and it's entire tech is based on those structures, specifically parts of the theory that Freud himself rejected.

I am sure Heidrun is a very nice wonderful person and just as I get along swell with Lakey and we don't agree that much on things (or maybe its just that our brains are wired differently), I am sure I would get along with Heidrun too!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yeah.

I don't like the evidence there is. The phenomena is there to witness, but somehow I don't have the exact correct perspective on it. It's just lately, even on the home front, personal dramas have becone insane on my block. Neighbors who used to get along, all of a sudden hate each other and look forward to making problems. Twice this week I was somehow deliberately misunderstood and a war started. I even got attacked for drip drying my wonder bras from the crepe myrtle bush hidden BEHIND our 6 ft privacy fencing. It was windy and they dried in 15 minutes while I sat and watched in a lawn chair. The fiasco almost got a 911 call.

We have wildlife here. There are lots of displays of dominance and blood gets shed. Some deaths. These are animal brained 'human' beefs happening near me. It is about survival. The behavior is being triggered in the same fashion...marking their personal boundaries and rights. Some near death experiences here too!

When people are very upset and don't know what the source is of their problem, they sometimes blame something they can see. They create value systems to regulate themselves and others as a way of coping with situations.

I wish you had taken a picture of the bras. Sigh. Sounds like a fun painting "wonder bras drying on the crepe myrtle bush!" If you could be subversive I'd ask you to do it again and take a picture to send me. While no one is looking of course!!!! (wink).

But don't get into trouble Hats. If you feel you'd be caught hanging wonder bras on the myrtle bush then don't risk jail for me!!!!!

(I can always use my own ingenuity to create art of the same thing you describe, from my mind, without seeing a picture.) If I do so I will send it to you. I find such 'clashes' memorable from an artistic standpoint! Why not have an art work of the skirmish!!!!

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: What is a "Big Being"?

That fellow would be me, I am the official in charge of the Department of Circumstance. If and when you manage a trip out to the West Coast, I will be able to do a reading on you to give you the straight dope on whether or not you will be successful in art. No margaritas until after the reading is done because alcohol is very likely to render any readings impossible. Yes, if a positive answer emerges for a successful art career then the Margaritas would serve as a celebration but it the reading yielded a negative result, the Margaritas would serve a different purpose.

On your last sentence about struggling with understanding how one can max out causation levels potential, I believe that Carmelo put out the best advice so far and that is to connect up with lots of people but not necessarily just any people but rather influential people people with connections in high places. It's clear that you have a better chance in New York City than you would have if you went to Mongolia. New York City, L.A., San Francisco, Miami, Paris, places like that afford more contacts and then among those many contacts you must find the right contacts. ESMB has at least one such person I know and there are probably others on ESMB.
Lakey

P.S. Of course, you also need some degree of Art talent as well but from what you have shown on the board, you have sufficient talent to be successful in an art career.

Thank you for the compliments Lakey. I too agree with Carmelo's advice. It will definitely be fun, if I go to California at some point, to sit down with some of the exes and have a margarita or two. It's not like we have to report to the purif the next day, or to a drug rundown! LOL. I doubt alcohol harms a reading so of course I will have to break that rule straightaway.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Ada Lovelace remains a mystery

Well gee. Thank you Giz. This may be my first quiz show win ever!


The problem 'solved' by pre-established harmony is how it is that substances (beings) can affect each other (a system of causality). Leibniz wants to preserve the causality of the monad (something of an I or a soul.) Pre-established harmony is Leibniz' solution to conflicting causalities, that one monad's effects and causes could conflict with the causes of another. If God harmonizes the 'monads' then no more conflicts.

The law of conservation had not yet been discovered when Leibniz came up with his solution to the problem. It was discovered 200 years AFTER NEWTON.

The problem of conflicting causes is the same problem discussed re: as-ising. How can an OT who is cause not be in conflict with another OT who is cause since either one could destroy the causations of the other?


The Law of Conservation says nothing is destroyed or created, only moved around. That's what physics knows and has tested quite thoroughly. Just because as-ising doesn't happen though doesn't mean people don't believe they feel better applying some mental tech or another.

There is no sane Dianetics since to run 'sane Dianetics' one has to buy into structures of the mind which are discredited and under those delusions suffer harm, even if only to the pocket book and even if the source of help is sincere. I suppose though that if I were to go through life thinking I was made of glass it might cause problems for me in busy traffic in case I was afraid of being broken by mistake. I might act in ways that triggered the accident I was trying to avoid.

As I tried to point out in a post of mine concerning the Romantic era sources of the unconscious mind, the concept of an unconscious mind is in disrepute and Freud's writings, of interest mostly in literary circles, are not considered science or anything like that in the fields related to psychology. I don't have to prove that since it is commonly known and Googling it using various search terms gives lots of results. I already suggested Century of the Self, a documentary on Freud, for anyone who wanted to watch it and at least start to think about why I hold the views that I do about Freud and this subject.That said, I find Freud VERY helpful and wonderful for the interpretation of literary texts and it's fascinating the various theories and anti-Freudian theories that have arisen around Freud in literary circles.

But Pavlov says blah de blah and ......Oops, I'm just kidding around, don't worry, I am not going to bring him up again, just having a little fun......

It's alright though if in popular culture people want to believe in Freudian structures. After all, CoS does, and it's entire tech is based on those structures, specifically parts of the theory that Freud himself rejected.

I am sure Heidrun is a very nice wonderful person and just as I get along swell with Lakey and we don't agree that much on things (or maybe its just that our brains are wired differently), I am sure I would get along with Heidrun too!

As to calling Heidrun's brand of Dianetics, Sane Dianetics, I used the term, "for want of a better name". Anyone who doesn't like the name, how about recommending a better name. What about "Sanely applied Dianetics". or "Well intended Dianetics". I'm not saying that the theory is sound or scientific but even so a lot of people still feel as if they get gains from it. In CoS you have a subject with a non scientific background which is mainly being run on people to get stats up and make money for CoS and DM. With Heidrun, the stat and money angles are deleted and the subject is delivered only to help people. That's the difference, so some new adjective should be developed to name Heidrun's brand of dianetics.

As to Freud's writings now being in disrepute and a subconscious mind not believed to exist anymore and Freud not being a scientist. I am okay with all of that. If those topics are all passe, I have no dog in that race one way or the other so I'm totally able to go along with the general consensus.

I believe that the law of the conservation of energy is fully scientifically proven. The only way where "as isnes" can take place is to do what Hubbard did and divide the Universe into the physical (MEST) universe and the spiritual (Thetan) universe. If you do that, one could then assert, as Hubbard did, that "as isness" does occur in the spiritual universe. I believe you said, Maria, that you sometimes found it helpful to divide the universe into physical and spiritual components. Is that true? Of course doing that has not been scientifically proven but if one views the universe that way, would not "as isness" be possible in the spiritual portion of the universe only?

I really like the following sentence which you wrote above: The problem of conflicting causes is the same problem discussed re: as-ising. How can an OT who is cause not be in conflict with another OT who is cause since either one could destroy the causations of the other?

I thought about that question a lot when I was in. Of course, being in CoS, no one could ever let it be known that they were thinking such thoughts, it just wasn't allowed to bring up such ideas inside CoS! Hubbard solved that anomaly by declaring himself "Source". Anyone who challenged him was quickly busted and routed out. Also, he allowed no "seconds in command" as we have already mentioned numerous times.

My effort at an answer is feeble but here goes. Each OT would be creating its own universe and be master of that domain. If two OT's come into proximity, one OT would have to have the power to project some communication into the second OT's universe. The two OT's are able to communicate but not do more than that and both universe remain inviolate. The next step would be for the two OT's to agree on a mutual universe where, essentially using illusion, an apparent common ground is established. In this way, more OT's can be recruited and convinced to agree to the shared universe where they can all play and work together. Inside the agreed on universe, really just an illusion, one OT can attempt to destroy another OT's causations and they can succeed in doing so.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch (the OT's own universe), that universe remains intact with only its own creations standing which only that OT can ever take down. How does an OT get rid of one of its own creations, it "as ises" it. All that really meansis to span it, much like a mouse is dragged across a sentence before hitting a delete button. The OT puts his attention on its creation, drags its attention across the creation and then decides that it no longer exists or possibly more accurate would be say that it stops creating it or causing it, whichever verb you prefer.

Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: Ada Lovelace remains a mystery

As to calling Heidrun's brand of Dianetics, Sane Dianetics, I used the term, "for want of a better name". Anyone who doesn't like the name, how about recommending a better name. What about "Sanely applied Dianetics". or "Well intended Dianetics". I'm not saying that the theory is sound or scientific but even so a lot of people still feel as if they get gains from it. In CoS you have a subject with a non scientific background which is mainly being run on people to get stats up and make money for CoS and DM. With Heidrun, the stat and money angles are deleted and the subject is delivered only to help people. That's the difference, so some new adjective should be developed to name Heidrun's brand of dianetics.

As to Freud's writings now being in disrepute and a subconscious mind not believed to exist anymore and Freud not being a scientist. I am okay with all of that. If those topics are all passe, I have no dog in that race one way or the other so I'm totally able to go along with the general consensus.

I believe that the law of the conservation of matter is fully scientifically proven. The only way where "as isnes" can take place is to do what Hubbard did and divide the Universe into the physical (MEST) universe and the spiritual (Thetan) universe. If you do that, one could then assert, as Hubbard did, that "as isness" does occur in the spiritual universe. I believe you said, Maria, that you sometimes found it helpful to divide the universe into physical and spiritual components. Is that true? Of course doing that has not been scientifically proven but if one views the universe that way, would not "as isness" be possible in the spiritual portion of the universe only?

I really like the following sentence which you wrote above: The problem of conflicting causes is the same problem discussed re: as-ising. How can an OT who is cause not be in conflict with another OT who is cause since either one could destroy the causations of the other?

I thought about that question a lot when I was in. Of course, being in CoS, no one could ever let it be known that they were thinking such thoughts, it just wasn't allowed to bring up such ideas inside CoS! Hubbard solved that anomaly by declaring himself "Source". Anyone who challenged him was quickly busted and routed out. Also, he allowed no "seconds in command" as we have already mentioned numerous times.

My effort at an answer is feeble but here goes. Each OT would be creating its own universe and be master of that domain. If two OT's come into proximity, one OT would have to have the power to project some communication into the second OT's universe. The two OT's are able to communicate but not do more than that and both universe remain inviolate. The next step would be for the two OT's to agree on a mutual universe where, essentially using illusion, an apparent common ground is established. In this way, more OT's can be recruited and convinced to agree to the shared universe where they can all play and work together. Inside the agreed on universe, really just an illusion, one OT can attempt to destroy and other OT's causations and they can succeed in doing so.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch (thee OT's own universe), that universe remains intact with only its own creations standing which only that OT can ever take down. How does an OT get rid of one of its own creations, it "as ises" it. All that really meansis to span it, much like a mouse is dragged across a sentence before hitting a delete button. The OT puts his attention on its creation, drags its attention across the creation and then decides that it no longer exists or possibly more accurate would be say that it stops creating it or causing it, whichever verb you prefer.

Lakey

Actually, what I believe is the the spiritual dimensions are part of physics, cannot escape physics, and therefore also have to abide by conservation, although the physics in that sense might not be 'identical' anymore than frog = rabbit. What a metaphysical dimensions are I won't say. I do know that nothing escapes physics. If it exists, it's empirical. If we can't see it then it's only because we aren't to the point of seeing it. We are like flat landers and we lack the instruments that would help us see it. What it is or is not is therefore a personal belief each person has, nothing scientific. It's not scientific because to be scientific science would have to be able to measure it and science cannot measure metaphysical dimensions at this time, even if they were real and therefore part of physics. Anything that exists is part of physics, even metaphysical dimensions. Reality is real through and through. There is not based on what I have studied a double world syndrome where there is an idealized metaphysical 'world' and then a physical one such that these were somehow mutually exclusive 'realities'.

We don't, even today, know what the word 'physical' means. We limit that word to things measurable by the current state of physics (the discipline). Forces that 500 years ago were not measurable and not known to be physical are now understood that way.

I don't agree or believe that 'beings' (what you call OTs) can create a universe, any universe, even a metaphysical one, since that violates the law of conservation. I do think we can play in universes and style our life and arrange it to our liking. But arranging and creating are quite different things. Humans don't create anything having to do with matter or energy. They do create schedule entries in appointment books. LOL. A much humbler proposition.

I think that the word create is applicable metaphysically, but only in the limited sense used in something like painting, that is, taking existing things and artistically transforming them. There is no ex nihilo creation or destruction possible for human beings or "OTs".

What keeps forces in competition (beings and their spaces) is more about power than about some sort of hidden law of harmony that prevents them from interfering with each other's creations or destructions (the competing causality problem). This fits in more with Carmelo's view of networking that you mentioned in a post a few posts ago.....having a lot of friends helps one improve one's life and increases one's bigness as a being. Well, that means that the force that prevails has more to do with things, because of that bigness, than some rule or etiquette that protects OT boundaries. It's not a democracy in the metaphysical sphere! But it has nothing to do with the original creation of some universe. It's more like the concept of 'balance', which of course fits well into the law of conservation.

But of course, these above comments are just my view, not to be imposed on anyone else, simply expressed for the purpose of sharing. I guess I am a strange empiricist since I acknowledge the metaphysical realms but I just don't see that they are separate from this one or that such dimensions would not be themselves empirical. Everything for me is just 'reality' to discover and I'd rather just separate things like metaphysics into the word 'unknown'. And whatever ails a human being into the word 'unknown' rather than ascribing it to a bank or locking myself into an 'unconscious mind' or 'reactive mind'.

The above is real for me, smirk, so whatever is real for you don't let me rain on your parade.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey, some psychologists DO like Freud's overall project for the practical purpose of therapy and so on. He has resurgences now and again. But his views just do not have the cachet they once did. It's not considered scientific. Here are two articles on the subject I located right away. In terms of the second citation, JSTOR is free to use but an account has to be created. I have not read these particular articles; I found them as a result of an initial search of the topic via Google.

• Derksen, A.A., 2001. “The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudoscience: a look into Freud's rhetorical tool box”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32: 329–350.
• Is Psychoanalysis a Pseudo-Science? Karl Popper versus Sigmund Freud Adolf Grünbaum
  Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung
  Bd. 31, H. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1977) , pp. 333-353 Published by: Vittorio Klostermann GmbH
  Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20482837

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: Ada Lovelace remains a mystery

Actually, what I believe is the the spiritual dimensions are part of physics, cannot escape physics, and therefore also have to abide by conservation, although the physics in that sense might not be 'identical' anymore than frog = rabbit. What a metaphysical dimensions are I won't say. I do know that nothing escapes physics. If it exists, it's empirical. If we can't see it then it's only because we aren't to the point of seeing it. We are like flat landers and we lack the instruments that would help us see it. What it is or is not is therefore a personal belief each person has, nothing scientific. It's not scientific because to be scientific science would have to be able to measure it and science cannot measure metaphysical dimensions at this time, even if they were real and therefore part of physics. Anything that exists is part of physics, even metaphysical dimensions. Reality is real through and through. There is not based on what I have studied a double world syndrome where there is an idealized metaphysical 'world' and then a physical one such that these were somehow mutually exclusive 'realities'.

We don't, even today, know what the word 'physical' means. We limit that word to things measurable by the current state of physics (the discipline). Forces that 500 years ago were not measurable and not known to be physical are now understood that way.

I don't agree or believe that 'beings' (what you call OTs) can create a universe, any universe, even a metaphysical one, since that violates the law of conservation. I do think we can play in universes and style our life and arrange it to our liking. But arranging and creating are quite different things. Humans don't create anything having to do with matter or energy. They do create schedule entries in appointment books. LOL. A much humbler proposition.

I think that the word create is applicable metaphysically, but only in the limited sense used in something like painting, that is, taking existing things and artistically transforming them. There is no ex nihilo creation or destruction possible for human beings or "OTs".

What keeps forces in competition (beings and their spaces) is more about power than about some sort of hidden law of harmony that prevents them from interfering with each other's creations or destructions (the competing causality problem). This fits in more with Carmelo's view of networking that you mentioned in a post a few posts ago.....having a lot of friends helps one improve one's life and increases one's bigness as a being. Well, that means that the force that prevails has more to do with things, because of that bigness, than some rule or etiquette that protects OT boundaries. It's not a democracy in the metaphysical sphere! But it has nothing to do with the original creation of some universe. It's more like the concept of 'balance', which of course fits well into the law of conservation.

But of course, these above comments are just my view, not to be imposed on anyone else, simply expressed for the purpose of sharing.

Maria, I only used the word OT because I was answering a specific comment of yours where you had used that word. Also, you were asking how something could be done which violated the law of the conservation of energy. I mentioned that my solution was feeble but that it was the best which I could come up with in the days when I was in CoS.

I am not pedaling this solution at all, just putting it up there for the purpose of sharing as well.

On the subject of the main body of your post, I believe that your views are consistent with your being a Christian and there is nothing wrong with that. On the metaphysical world being part of the physical universe, certainly that is a valid belief to hold as well. As for Those who believe the metaphysical world is separate, I believe that belief is also valid to hold.

I like you analogy, using the universe of flatland, a two dimensional world existing on a plane. The really interesting thing about Flatland is that their plane could possible not be a Flat plane but there could be curvature in their plane. What would happen in that case is that Flatlanders might occasionally experience a 3rd dimensional phenomena but being incapable of perceiving the third dimension, there likely would be a lot of speculation about what took place. Many different schools of thought might develop. Some smart Flatlander such as an Einstein might theorized that there were more than two dimensions. Probably a lot of theories would be floating around.

In Flatland the Flatlander's plane, 2 dimensions plus time, or call it a 3 dimensional spacetime, would exist. This 3 dimensional spacetime would actually be part of the 4 dimensional spacetime which we live in. Some Flatlanders might conceive that they are in a separate universe and others would perceive they are in the 4 dimension space time, not a separate universe.

What about the Diety, God the Creator, do you envision God as within the boundaries of the physical universe or existing outside those boundaries?
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If As-ising were defined more humbly (see below) then I can see it would not conflict with the law of conservation. And it would also explain why nothing is ever erased and folks have to do the bridge over and over again.

So if it were defined as 'feeling better' or relieved after a mood or perspective/viewpoint shift caused by examining one's past thoughts, intentions, and actions, etc. --- no problem.

In this way, that nothing is erased and everything needs to be redone, I agree with CoS. LOL. It's sad that it's true that objectives and everything else have to be done over and over again on a regular basis. Just like it's sad we have to clean our house every week and it doesn't stay that way. Or that we get older and no longer look 20. Or that we need to eat on a regular basis, once over is not enough.

But CoS doesn't actually agree with me on this, since they claim that things have to be done over because they were done incorrectly in the past. They still assume some process can be applied and that some EP will result from that process and that the EP if correctly done will stick for all eternity. I am just saying that any hypothetical process applied to a person is more like eating a hamburger. It lasts x amount of time but not forever. One will get hungry once again. The process of eating will have to be repeated.

If absolute EPs were possible this would imply that Scn could accomplish something beyond the reach of physics.

I think the reason the 'tech' fails is that on one hand it is mostly a time-based, time assuming therapy, auditing (the reactive events processed viewed as trip-wired or reactive 'causes') and that on the other hand that same tech claims time-free effects (EPs). The tool and the material don't match up. And, the process itself reinforces 'time-thinking'. In analogy, using a hammer to do laundry. Objective processing is the only thing they do which evades the time-based thinking, and as you know, I have given the concept of time up completely. I think of time as a manifold, in the Minkowskian sense, involving coordinates upon that manifold. Thus time as a dimension of space. Objectives fit in more with the space perspective than the time perspective. All those e/s processes just 'reinforce' the time illusion which is why I think such processes reinforce the reactive mind illusion.

A better process would be "Where is that incident?" "Now Go There."

I don't mean go there as a memory.

As for getting into 'present time', maybe it would be better to ask the person where they are and work from there.
(And in that sense the old OT 4 circa 1980 is very interesting, if indeed I am remembering what it was correctly.)

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Lakey, some psychologists DO like Freud's overall project for the practical purpose of therapy and so on. He has resurgences now and again. But his views just do not have the cachet they once did. It's not considered scientific. Here are two articles on the subject I located right away. In terms of the second citation, JSTOR is free to use but an account has to be created. I have not read these particular articles; I found them as a result of an initial search of the topic via Google.

• Derksen, A.A., 2001. “The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudoscience: a look into Freud's rhetorical tool box”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32: 329–350.
• Is Psychoanalysis a Pseudo-Science? Karl Popper versus Sigmund Freud Adolf Grünbaum
  Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung
  Bd. 31, H. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1977) , pp. 333-353 Published by: Vittorio Klostermann GmbH
  Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20482837

Thanks very much Maria, I really appreciate your objectivity. You sort of won a debate against me and then sent me some material which is supportive of my side of the debate . That is a very cool thing to do. Hells bells, Freud's work was done in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Here we are over 100 years past the time the main body of his work was done and his works don't have the cachet they once did have, that would be expected as far as I am concerned. The fact that his work is still widely known and that it still has resurgences stands as mute testimony that Freud was a major figure in the advancement of human knowledge.

P.S. - Thanks for providing the references too, I see that they have German roots, well that should be expected as well as the good Dr. was an Austrian.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: Ada Lovelace remains a mystery

Maria, I only used the word OT because I was answering a specific comment of yours where you had used that word. Also, you were asking how something could be done which violated the law of the conservation of energy. I mentioned that my solution was feeble but that it was the best which I could come up with in the days when I was in CoS.

I am not pedaling this solution at all, just putting it up there for the purpose of sharing as well.

On the subject of the main body of your post, I believe that your views are consistent with your being a Christian and there is nothing wrong with that. On the metaphysical world being part of the physical universe, certainly that is a valid belief to hold as well. As for Those who believe the metaphysical world is separate, I believe that belief is also valid to hold.

I like you analogy, using the universe of flatland, a two dimensional world existing on a plane. The really interesting thing about Flatland is that their plane could possible not be a Flat plane but there could be curvature in their plane. What would happen in that case is that Flatlanders might occasionally experience a 3rd dimensional phenomena but being incapable of perceiving the third dimension, there likely would be a lot of speculation about what took place. Many different schools of thought might develop. Some smart Flatlander such as an Einstein might theorized that there were more than two dimensions. Probably a lot of theories would be floating around.

In Flatland the Flatlander's plane, 2 dimensions plus time, or call it a 3 dimensional spacetime, would exist. This 3 dimensional spacetime would actually be part of the 4 dimensional spacetime which we live in. Some Flatlanders might conceive that they are in a separate universe and others would perceive they are in the 4 dimension space time, not a separate universe.

What about the Diety, God the Creator, do you envision God as within the boundaries of the physical universe or existing outside those boundaries?
Lakey

God would be the only source capable of creating or destroying, thus the only cause in the sense often ascribed to OTs.
God however is a matter of faith or belief, not fact, so there is nothing I can say about that in terms of defining.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks very much Maria, I really appreciate your objectivity. You sort of won a debate against me and then sent me some material which is supportive of my side of the debate . That is a very cool thing to do. Hells bells, Freud's work was done in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Here we are over 100 years past the time the main body of his work was done and his works don't have the cachet they once did have, that would be expected as far as I am concerned. The fact that his work is still widely known and that it still has resurgences stands as mute testimony that Freud was a major figure in the advancement of human knowledge.

P.S. - Thanks for providing the references too, I see that they have German roots, well that should be expected as well as the good Dr. was an Austrian.

As far as I know the citations I sent are against Freud, not for. I admitted that citations can also be found in his defense, although I think those citations are fewer and I did not link to any of those. I doubt it is time to take a win here. LOL.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Thanks very much Maria, I really appreciate your objectivity. You sort of won a debate against me and then sent me some material which is supportive of my side of the debate . That is a very cool thing to do. Hells bells, Freud's work was done in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Here we are over 100 years past the time the main body of his work was done and his works don't have the cachet they once did have, that would be expected as far as I am concerned. The fact that his work is still widely known and that it still has resurgences stands as mute testimony that Freud was a major figure in the advancement of human knowledge.

P.S. - Thanks for providing the references too, I see that they have German roots, well that should be expected as well as the good Dr. was an Austrian.

I would not go as far as to say that Freud advanced human knowledge Lakey...but of course some think that. You included.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

If As-ising were defined more humbly (see below) then I can see it would not conflict with the law of conservation. And it would also explain why nothing is ever erased and folks have to do the bridge over and over again.

So if it were defined as 'feeling better' or relieved after a mood or perspective/viewpoint shift caused by examining one's past thoughts, intentions, and actions, etc. --- no problem.

In this way, that nothing is erased and everything needs to be redone, I agree with CoS. LOL. It's sad that it's true that objectives and everything else have to be done over and over again on a regular basis. Just like it's sad we have to clean our house every week and it doesn't stay that way. Or that we get older and no longer look 20. Or that we need to eat on a regular basis, once over is not enough.

But CoS doesn't actually agree with me on this, since they claim that things have to be done over because they were done incorrectly in the past. They still assume that they can apply some process and that some EP will stick for all eternity.

But this would imply that they could accomplish something beyond the reach of physics.

I think the reason they fail is that on one hand they posit a time-based therapy (causes) and that on the other they want to talk about time-free effects (EPs). The tool and the material don't match up. In analogy, using a hammer to do laundry. Objective processing is the only thing they do which evades the time-based thinking, and as you know, I have given the concept of time up completely. I think of time as a manifold, in the Minkowskian sense, involving coordinates upon that manifold. Thus time as a dimension of space. Objectives fit in more with the space perspective than the time perspective. All those e/s processes just 'reinforce' the time illusion which is why I think they reinforce the reactive mind illusion.

A better process would be "Where is that incident?" "Now Go There."

I don't mean go there as a memory.

As for getting into 'present time', maybe it would be better to ask the person where they are and work from there.
(And in that sense the old OT 4 circa 1980 is very interesting, if indeed I am remembering what it was correctly.)

Great post, Maria!! This is really well written and explains some of your major beliefs very well. Until your art career takes off, have you ever considered writing up your own tech. It could be called Cuervology!
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I would not go as far as to say that Freud advanced human knowledge Lakey...but of course some think that. You included.

I just can't win! I reply to a line which used the word OT and then am chastised for using it in my reply. On this one, I didn't want to say that he was a great scientist because you did not consider him a scientist. Instead I wanted to include a generalized all inclusive descriptive. I was just looking for some bland phrase to describe him which would offend no one and I did not succeed in doing even that. I don't necessarily think that, I was just looking for a phrase to finish my post.

"The fact that his work is still remember today and that he still has resurgences stands as mute testimony to the fact that Freud's works were........."
Help me out here since I am unable to come up with the right word or phrase at the end of my sentence.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Of course I am a reader of Freud and Lacan and Jung. Unique and valuable thinkers all of them. Especially Lacan. But that reminds me.... Lacan and Freud had quite a falling out.....

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Great post, Maria!! This is really well written and explains some of your major beliefs very well. Until your art career takes off, have you ever considered writing up your own tech. It could be called Cuervology!
Lakey

I have no interested in writing my own tech.

I'd never call my thinking Cuervology. LOL. (Although since Cuervo translates to Crow that might interpret as 'the philosophy of birds', which sounds better.)

I do have fairly developed ideas, for myself, a personal map you could say, but I see no point in sharing it. One thing is for sure...techniques are NOT favored.
Anyway, while I did mention those quoted processes of my own invention (as far as I know I don't remember seeing them anywhere)
they are really too general as questions to 'work' if applied that way to someone. LOL. They have more to do with straight visualization.

In fact, I often wonder if metaphysics is entirely heterogeneous to and within each human being, i.e., not universalizable. Thus "writing my own tech" would only be of use to me, in making my own way within reality, not to impose on anyone else. Each being is a cosmos completely unique in comparison to others....thus the infinity of being and reality. I think it would be presumptuous of me to think that my ideas of how anything works would universally apply to any other person.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Of course I am a reader of Freud and Lacan and Jung. Unique and valuable thinkers all of them. Especially Lacan. Of course Lacan and Freud had quite a falling out.....

Okay, I'll go with "a valuable thinker"

On the post where you responded that God is a faith or a belief so that you could not respond further on the question of whether or not God existed inside or outside of this universe, it seems to me that your faith and beliefs, of which God is one, would be inside this universe where you dwell. Also, if God existed outside of this universe, that would be a sort of admission that something did exist outside of this universe and that would tend to clash with your earlier statement. For example, if beings go to heaven for good works and/or faith in God, their souls would be taken to a heaven outside of this universe and that is out of sync with your earlier statements.

That doesn't align well with the beliefs which you stated in reply to one of my recent posts.

Lakey