The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
lkwdblds
Crusader
I can identify with this article.
I identify with this post because down on the street at the micro level, the small entrepeneur level of small Mom and Pop home remodeling companies which I am involved with, we are facing similar problems and I can see that managerial creativity is the key to the survival of small home remodelers as well.
I just touched base with a non Scn friend, Corey, who has his own small remodeling company as I do. Corey and I are both in the same boat. Not very many leads or prospects coming in and then when we bid them our normal way, we get undercut drastically on price. The jobs these days are much smaller and are jobs of necessity, usually, like repairing things which are broken or changing things such as windows or heating and a/c into units which are more efficient energy wise. Just 3 years ago, any residential street in greater L.A. and Orange Counties had several large additions or remodels going on. About 2 years ago that market dried up completely.
People can't get loans to build the big jobs now, the banks are not loaning and home values have fallen so the equity in the homes, needed to put together a loan, is often no longer present.
Corey had a creative solution which shows the type of thinking and creativity skills necessary for a remodeler to survive. He noted that the smallest job which is still big enough for a general contractor to make money on is a bathroom remodel. These range in size from $5,000 to $30,000 with most of them being in the $10,000 to $15,000 range. Homeowners do not take loans to do bath remodels but use their savings to pay for them.
Corey's idea is to change his name from Southland Builders to "Just Bathrooms" and put whatever money he can muster into advertising "Just Bathrooms". Furthermore, he plans to develop various cookie cutter templates such as Bath Remodel A, B, C, D, and E besides doing custom bath remodels. A person can view the templates in the add and say, oh yes, I need a new sink and top, a toilet replacement, a new floor and a retile of my shower. Let's see, here it is = Template C for $12,500. They can call him up, knowing the price in advance and they will only do so if the have the $12,500 to hand so whatever calls come in, they are going to be strong candidates to be easily closed.
In a market where our old techniques used to be to emphasize quality, being licensed and insured and having an impressive list of referals, those techniques currently do not work. People are going only for the cheapest price, period. No license, no insurance, only one referal is okay now because the bidders are two young unlicensed guys who do their own work and they only want $13,000 for the same job which I have bid at $25,000. Since only price matters right now for most people, creative thinking, such as Corey's renaming of his company and his providing of prepriced templates in his advertising will give him a fighting chance for survival in this market. Guys such as Corey and I are microcosms of what is going on at the big corporate and international levels.
Lakey
I identify with this post because down on the street at the micro level, the small entrepeneur level of small Mom and Pop home remodeling companies which I am involved with, we are facing similar problems and I can see that managerial creativity is the key to the survival of small home remodelers as well.
I just touched base with a non Scn friend, Corey, who has his own small remodeling company as I do. Corey and I are both in the same boat. Not very many leads or prospects coming in and then when we bid them our normal way, we get undercut drastically on price. The jobs these days are much smaller and are jobs of necessity, usually, like repairing things which are broken or changing things such as windows or heating and a/c into units which are more efficient energy wise. Just 3 years ago, any residential street in greater L.A. and Orange Counties had several large additions or remodels going on. About 2 years ago that market dried up completely.
People can't get loans to build the big jobs now, the banks are not loaning and home values have fallen so the equity in the homes, needed to put together a loan, is often no longer present.
Corey had a creative solution which shows the type of thinking and creativity skills necessary for a remodeler to survive. He noted that the smallest job which is still big enough for a general contractor to make money on is a bathroom remodel. These range in size from $5,000 to $30,000 with most of them being in the $10,000 to $15,000 range. Homeowners do not take loans to do bath remodels but use their savings to pay for them.
Corey's idea is to change his name from Southland Builders to "Just Bathrooms" and put whatever money he can muster into advertising "Just Bathrooms". Furthermore, he plans to develop various cookie cutter templates such as Bath Remodel A, B, C, D, and E besides doing custom bath remodels. A person can view the templates in the add and say, oh yes, I need a new sink and top, a toilet replacement, a new floor and a retile of my shower. Let's see, here it is = Template C for $12,500. They can call him up, knowing the price in advance and they will only do so if the have the $12,500 to hand so whatever calls come in, they are going to be strong candidates to be easily closed.
In a market where our old techniques used to be to emphasize quality, being licensed and insured and having an impressive list of referals, those techniques currently do not work. People are going only for the cheapest price, period. No license, no insurance, only one referal is okay now because the bidders are two young unlicensed guys who do their own work and they only want $13,000 for the same job which I have bid at $25,000. Since only price matters right now for most people, creative thinking, such as Corey's renaming of his company and his providing of prepriced templates in his advertising will give him a fighting chance for survival in this market. Guys such as Corey and I are microcosms of what is going on at the big corporate and international levels.
Lakey
RogerB
Crusader
Lakey!
To some degree!?!
Hell this subject has been a passion of mine since 1957!
You mention Vin's Oh! God!!! thread.
My first dissertation on the thread was here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11238&page=5 post #46. It addresses the creation/emanation of space, time and forms of existence.
It was me that raised that notion of: "A Lifeforce Presence has infinite potential."
It's here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11238&page=8 in Post #71
which for ease of reference, I'll copy in below.
____________________________________________
My Dear Vin,
It appears you either type like greased lightening, or that you had all these ready answers prepped and awaiting the appropriate button to press. You are way faster than I am . . . .
Though it has been good to let you get way ahead in your array of responses as it has given me the chance to see more of your “world view.”
As I read your posts since mine of 8th May 2009, 05:01PM, which is # 50 on this thread, I see something I warned of in that post, namely:
“Before I render my views on this paragraph, there is something I would like to express. Here, you and I use some different nomenclature and terminology. Which, of course, is proper and logical: we have different backgrounds. Also, some of what we are discussing is being viewed from different levels or points in the sequence of developed existence; or the other way it can be put, is that we can also be discussing actual different stages or points along the chain of developed existence. Note the distinction here between the act of viewing and the that which is being viewed.
"These variables or different items we need to realize can trip up any attempt to come to an enlightened accord if we fail to recognize that we often can, unwittingly, be referring to different things or items within a discussion such as this of a vast arena.”
"These variables or different items we need to realize can trip up any attempt to come to an enlightened accord if we fail to recognize that we often can, unwittingly, be referring to different things or items within a discussion such as this of a vast arena.”
What I am seeing is your posts slipping back and forth between changes of nomenclature referring to apparently the same thing yet, on other occasions, referring to different levels of the sequence of developed states of existence.
Example
This is at variance with your opening dissertation that enthralled me.
As is this exchange:
...
You replied:
So, Vin, I think that to continue to pick apart each and every little discrepancy or difference that appears in what we are endeavouring to express will be fraught with difficulty. I think a smarter action would be for me to outline my “world view.”
That is, where am I coming from, what am I seeing as the big picture. Then we will know what we are comparing the bits and pieces to.
What I am about to write is not the result of ruminations nor extrapolation or theory: it is actually what I have seen, done and processed in session.
To begin, I might relate to you an exchange of emails I had with Alan a couple of years ago. I am doing this because it speaks to the points you have made in your posts on this thread, and validates a point you made with which I am in accord.
If you go to the Scn and Dianetics Axioms, you will see the following as their Axiom 1’s:
“Life is basically a static.”
I have always had difficulty with this, seeing it as either incomplete or in error. I always joked about this rather silly “axiom” for in essence it was saying that “we are a nothingness that is a somethingness.” And it actually robs us of all of our attributes, virtues and qualities other than to say that we have the “ability to postulate and perceive.”
“The Source of Life is a Static of peculiar and particular properties.”
Well the first part of that is better, but that word “peculiar” does not ring true to me. It is in error. The axiom is however correct when it says “the Source of Life has particular properties” — even though it does not articulate them.
Alan sent me his revised look at the above. I won’t put here all of his write-up; he gets a little grumpy when I put his stuff out . . . but here is the first sentence of his restatement:
“NEW AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY AN EMANATION STEMMING FROM A LIFEFORCE PRESENCE.”
The rest of the axiom goes on to describe and define the innate attributes, qualities, virtues and characteristics of this life-force presence, each in terms of being infinite. It is a rather brilliant document, and I hope Alan might see this thread and post it here for you.
But there was one key point missing in his “New Axiom One.”
This was my reply to him on that:
"Dear Alan,
"I’ve been chewing on the New Axiom 1, and I do believe we have a very important item omitted. It is:
" A Lifeforce Presence has infinite potential.
"One could use the less familiar noun form, “potentiality.” Good big dictionaries give wonderful expressions of what these concepts are in the context of an attribute of the state of existence of pure Spirita. (Spirita is Alan's word for what we used to call “Theta” in Scn or others refer to as the “Formless Substance”.)
"This is a big concept. The stem word, of course is potent. And the original definition of it as an adjective is: that has power; potent. A modern adjective definition is: that can, but has not yet, come into being; possible; latent; unrealized; undeveloped; opposed to actual. The noun definition is: something potential; a potentiality. (These definitions from Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged Second Edition (Simon & Schuster.) A simple noun definition of it from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, is: The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
"I have for the last several months been processing in the area of this state of “ultimate, infinite potential/potentiality” and the what stemmed from it when, as a “Life-Force Presence of infinite potential,” (and interestingly I did use those words to articulate the scenario in session) I and/or we acted to convert the potential to express actual states of Being or conditions of existence, and produced “things”.
"Hence my view that we need to add this concept to complete the full statement of New Axiom 1."
Rog
"I’ve been chewing on the New Axiom 1, and I do believe we have a very important item omitted. It is:
" A Lifeforce Presence has infinite potential.
"One could use the less familiar noun form, “potentiality.” Good big dictionaries give wonderful expressions of what these concepts are in the context of an attribute of the state of existence of pure Spirita. (Spirita is Alan's word for what we used to call “Theta” in Scn or others refer to as the “Formless Substance”.)
"This is a big concept. The stem word, of course is potent. And the original definition of it as an adjective is: that has power; potent. A modern adjective definition is: that can, but has not yet, come into being; possible; latent; unrealized; undeveloped; opposed to actual. The noun definition is: something potential; a potentiality. (These definitions from Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged Second Edition (Simon & Schuster.) A simple noun definition of it from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, is: The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
"I have for the last several months been processing in the area of this state of “ultimate, infinite potential/potentiality” and the what stemmed from it when, as a “Life-Force Presence of infinite potential,” (and interestingly I did use those words to articulate the scenario in session) I and/or we acted to convert the potential to express actual states of Being or conditions of existence, and produced “things”.
"Hence my view that we need to add this concept to complete the full statement of New Axiom 1."
Rog
He did not acknowledge my email, nor my brilliance . . . .
Some months later, in his September, 2007, Vital Fundamentals Course, Lecture #7 titled “Life,” Alan embraced this fact of the Life-Force Presence having “infinite potential,” big time. He did not mention any of my part in revealing this . . . how Hubbardesque of him! I don’t know if he added it to his written version of “New Axiom One.”
I’m giving you the above at this point because I’m setting you up for what I have found to be the sequence of events and steps “down” away from what you originally termed “ORIGIN” or God, and now seem to be referring to as “BRAHMAN.”
It’s what I found from processing as a “Life-Force Presence of infinite potential.”
But that is for my next post. I’m out of time today, and beside my mate Paul’s old scrolling finger tires if I put too much on one post!
Rog
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
If it is true that life is basically a static of peculiar and particular properties, it follows that the two fundamental actions of the (or a) life static are reaching and withdrawing.
Observably, things get bigger and bigger then they get smaller. Companies invest, invest, invest, expand, dominate, grow. Then they downsize. Or, "rightsize" as they say in a more PR'ish and politically correct manner. Ford Motor Company is a good example. The Swedes sold Volvo to Ford in 1999. Ford recently sold Volvo to the Chinese. I predict China will be on a long expansion cycle, probably until the rest of the world can no longer afford their products. There are many other examples of corporate reach and withdraw. Individuals do likewise.
I predict that corporate, big agriculture, which got big through political influence, will one day downsize. Just last month I read that the number of small, privately-owned farms is back on the rise after many years in decline. For the end-user, it has come easier to find organic, locally grown produce now sitting in the same markets with imports and not-organic stuff. This is a market forming for the local growers.
If Monsanto can ship it's genetically modified seeds overseas we could end up starving that part of the world choosing to plant a product that the bugs won't eat. My thought is that if a bug won't eat it because it lacks food value why would a person care to eat it?
Anyway, nothing in life stays the same.
"Give me spots on my apples. But leave me the birds and the bees."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWwUJH70ubM
Winston Smith
Flunked Scientology
This thread seems to be home to novelists, or just maybe peeps who enjoy seeing themselves write. Glad I never was on a boat full of people searching for "freedom" while in fact being abject slaves of a maniac.
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
Thank you for your opinion, Winston. I feel much better now knowing that you are superior to all of us. Very Well Done!
Face
RogerB
Crusader
Thank you for your opinion, Winston. I feel much better now knowing that you are superior to all of us. Very Well Done!
Face
But Face, don't you know that closed minds are always superior?
But then, on the other hand, I've never seen a closed mind reach to do another any good . . . they are notorious for non-contribution to their fellows!
And the idea of shared knowledge . . . . Jezzuzz! That's anathema to a closed mind! Though they are strong on opinions about things
But then, that's what opinions about things do . . . they close down the mind
R
lkwdblds
Crusader
Two recent examples of down sizing, Starbucks & GM
Excellent points Ted, the cycle of rightsizing as a natural occurance had never occurred to me. Starbucks Coffee is the classic example. They were building outlets on what seemed like every major block in the USA. Some unexpected competition came when Mac Donalds started selling gourmet coffee much cheaper than Starbucks and then all the other major fast food outlets followed suit, offering more than just gourmet coffee but also latte's and other fancy Starbucks type drinks. Starbucks started losing money and started selling off a large percentage of their stores to other companies or just plain shutting them down. Starbucks now seems to be right sized and is making money again and stats are going back up.
General Motors took about 25 years getting smaller and losing market share before they were wise enough to know they had to downsize. Back in the 1910's a chap name William Durant, came up with offering a stable of cars from a low entry priced vehicle (Chevrolet) up to a high end luxury vehicle (Cadillac). I believe Durant also introduced planned obsolescence in the form of the annual model change, just changing the outer look for no good reason than to freshen the new models and make the previous models seem out of date. GM grew to dominate the market from right after WWII to the mid 1980's they controlled about 55% of the entire market in the USA.
First VW with their refininment policy of adding new improvements in the middle of the model year and jettisoning the annual styling changes caused a change in the market on the lower end. Next Mercedes came to market with less glitz than Cadillac but a more technically advanced product, a product which had enormous "snob appeal" among the wealthy, say in Beverly Hills, CA. VW and Mercedes, however, only set the table for the Japanese. Around 1957 Toyota began selling here with Nissan, then using the Datsun brand, close behind. Honda came in about 1969. It took a long time but using better business models than the Durant originated GM model, the Japanese began to take over the market.
GM just continued its tried and true practices and their market share began to sink. To make a long story short. GM eliminated the Oldsmobile brand a few years ago and late last year they cancelled Pontiac and Saturn as well. They also sold off Saab, which they had acquired and ditto for Hummer. Now the company is right sized and they are again starting to produce competitive products and make money.
Lakey
Excellent points Ted, the cycle of rightsizing as a natural occurance had never occurred to me. Starbucks Coffee is the classic example. They were building outlets on what seemed like every major block in the USA. Some unexpected competition came when Mac Donalds started selling gourmet coffee much cheaper than Starbucks and then all the other major fast food outlets followed suit, offering more than just gourmet coffee but also latte's and other fancy Starbucks type drinks. Starbucks started losing money and started selling off a large percentage of their stores to other companies or just plain shutting them down. Starbucks now seems to be right sized and is making money again and stats are going back up.
General Motors took about 25 years getting smaller and losing market share before they were wise enough to know they had to downsize. Back in the 1910's a chap name William Durant, came up with offering a stable of cars from a low entry priced vehicle (Chevrolet) up to a high end luxury vehicle (Cadillac). I believe Durant also introduced planned obsolescence in the form of the annual model change, just changing the outer look for no good reason than to freshen the new models and make the previous models seem out of date. GM grew to dominate the market from right after WWII to the mid 1980's they controlled about 55% of the entire market in the USA.
First VW with their refininment policy of adding new improvements in the middle of the model year and jettisoning the annual styling changes caused a change in the market on the lower end. Next Mercedes came to market with less glitz than Cadillac but a more technically advanced product, a product which had enormous "snob appeal" among the wealthy, say in Beverly Hills, CA. VW and Mercedes, however, only set the table for the Japanese. Around 1957 Toyota began selling here with Nissan, then using the Datsun brand, close behind. Honda came in about 1969. It took a long time but using better business models than the Durant originated GM model, the Japanese began to take over the market.
GM just continued its tried and true practices and their market share began to sink. To make a long story short. GM eliminated the Oldsmobile brand a few years ago and late last year they cancelled Pontiac and Saturn as well. They also sold off Saab, which they had acquired and ditto for Hummer. Now the company is right sized and they are again starting to produce competitive products and make money.
Lakey
Blue Spirit
Silver Meritorious Patron
Bitter
The Classic Bitter Old Man ?
TED, I agree Joni Mitchell is an Angel. Beautiful being she is.
The Classic Bitter Old Man ?
TED, I agree Joni Mitchell is an Angel. Beautiful being she is.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Winston, this doesn't sound like you!
Winston, I have always enjoyed your posts. You seemed to offer down home common sense wisdom. Then there was your attachment to classical music and the nice tribute you paid to Brahams. What is with your bashing type comments above?
First of all, I do not believe the word "novelists" is correct. As far as I know there is not one line of fiction on this entire thread. Everything is non fiction so the word novelist is a misnomer. As far as liking to write, if one likes writing, I think that is a good thing. Our teachers back in public school days envisioned that their students would end up exercising their writing skills. You yourself post on ESMB in high volume and have a following of readers. I'm sorry but I see that as a good thing, I hold you no ill will because you do a lot of writing on ESMB.
Finally, as to being on the Apollo ship, this is a website for ex Scientologists. Hopefully some of them served on ships and wish to share their stories with ESMB members and non members who are guests on ESMB. Those who were never on the ships are usually thrilled to hear stories which took place on the ship. The stories are often helpful in sorting out how various practices which hurt people came into being. Knowing this can help many ex Scios heal from emotional abuse suffered while in the C of S.
Reread you post and make sure that you really meant what you said. If you do, I suggest as your rememdy that instead of bashing us, you simply don't read the thread anymore.
Lakey
P.S. - I joined ESMB in February of 2009 and have made about 1815 posts, you joined one month later and have made about 1640 posts. We are both posting at almost exactly the same rate. What are you saying, that its fine if you post at 4 posts a day but when I do it, it is an aberation?
Winston, I have always enjoyed your posts. You seemed to offer down home common sense wisdom. Then there was your attachment to classical music and the nice tribute you paid to Brahams. What is with your bashing type comments above?
First of all, I do not believe the word "novelists" is correct. As far as I know there is not one line of fiction on this entire thread. Everything is non fiction so the word novelist is a misnomer. As far as liking to write, if one likes writing, I think that is a good thing. Our teachers back in public school days envisioned that their students would end up exercising their writing skills. You yourself post on ESMB in high volume and have a following of readers. I'm sorry but I see that as a good thing, I hold you no ill will because you do a lot of writing on ESMB.
Finally, as to being on the Apollo ship, this is a website for ex Scientologists. Hopefully some of them served on ships and wish to share their stories with ESMB members and non members who are guests on ESMB. Those who were never on the ships are usually thrilled to hear stories which took place on the ship. The stories are often helpful in sorting out how various practices which hurt people came into being. Knowing this can help many ex Scios heal from emotional abuse suffered while in the C of S.
Reread you post and make sure that you really meant what you said. If you do, I suggest as your rememdy that instead of bashing us, you simply don't read the thread anymore.
Lakey
P.S. - I joined ESMB in February of 2009 and have made about 1815 posts, you joined one month later and have made about 1640 posts. We are both posting at almost exactly the same rate. What are you saying, that its fine if you post at 4 posts a day but when I do it, it is an aberation?
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
But Face, don't you know that closed minds are always superior?
But then, on the other hand, I've never seen a closed mind reach to do another any good . . . they are notorious for non-contribution to their fellows!
And the idea of shared knowledge . . . . Jezzuzz! That's anathema to a closed mind! Though they are strong on opinions about things
But then, that's what opinions about things do . . . they close down the mind
R
Hear Hear from here.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Rog - I am glad I brought this topic back to life on this thread!
Rog, I am glad I did a copy/paste on Face's link over here. By the way are you very familiar with the link which Face has cited?
It is really amazing that just one sentence in a reply of yours to a post of mine about two days ago, caused me to start thinking about Vinnaire's thread again. In my thread about "Help" you were stating how co-creation amongst spiritual beings seemed to exist along the top of the various scales which describe life's activities. I just thought, what about God? God is supposed to be at or above the very top of the scales and is a spritual being but God does not co-create with any other being, as far as I know. Then I thought of Hubbard, having convinced himself that he was a God like figure, he would not apply his own tech and wisdom to himself. He was acting as he were God and he created the rules only for us peons to follow but he was above having to follow the rules and constrictions which the rest of us were subject to.
ON VINNY'S OH!GOD!! THREAD
I did not arrive there until some around Page 30 of the thread. I reread about the first 6 pages and then skipped to Page 30 or so and stayed with the thread until Vin quit doing it on 12/7/09. I did not read that interchange which you had with Vin. I know that you posted there but you did not seem like one of the key "Regulars" while I was there.
I remember that I told how I gave a lot of accupressure massages and in doing so, especially when pressing on someone's head, I would often be able to pick up their pictures and their thoughts. I had two women who I did this on where I was virtually reading their mind. I knew all their thoughts instantly as they thought them. I wrote this up on Vinny's thread and you replied to my write up the next day and I had an exchange with you then. On the accupressure, I usually can get the person to discharge static electricity from their head and down through my body into the ground at which point they experience great relief. I think one's skull acts as a large capacitor and stores charge on it. Discharges are also easily obtained from the wrists, elbows, finger tips, hip bones, knees and ankles.
I have lost touch with Vin now. I saw where you and he were going at it as if in a bar room brawl over on the Allen Walters thread shortly before Emma closed off the thread. On his Oh!God!! thread, Vin was always affable and cordial to me. We had both been Programs Chiefs on the Apollo and had actually briefly met on the Sea Org ship, the Bolivar, in 1971. More recently, on Alan's thread, I attempted to reconnect with him and he did not seem interested. I have not followed his postings since.
I believe Vin was writting that "Potential life force" was within Brahman, an infinite sea of nothingness. He described it as arising as waves arrive in a turbulent sea or as cloud formations arise in the sky. He is trying to strip away all qualities, all adjectives from Brahman so he does not say that "life force" is within Brahman because that would give Brahman a quality and it would no longer be a nothingness. By saying that only a potentential life force is in Brahman, he feels that he has not given Brahman any actual characteristic but only a "potential". I do not know if I'm quoting him correctly but if so, his explanation is sort of an Ad Hoc construct, made up only to keep Brahman free of adjectives. Even though it may be Ad Hoc, it still seems to be workable. I can think of no other way an infinite nothingness can exist and still have the roots of life arise from within it.
Well, Rog, I did not know that this area was your passion. Please provide any additional links to videos or writings you have done on the subject and I will check them all out.
Thanks, Lakey
Lakey!
To some degree!?!
Hell this subject has been a passion of mine since 1957!
You mention Vin's Oh! God!!! thread.
My first dissertation on the thread was here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11238&page=5 post #46. It addresses the creation/emanation of space, time and forms of existence.
It was me that raised that notion of: "A Lifeforce Presence has infinite potential."
It's here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11238&page=8 in Post #71
which for ease of reference, I'll copy in below.
____________________________________________
My Dear Vin,
It appears you either type like greased lightening, or that you had all these ready answers prepped and awaiting the appropriate button to press. You are way faster than I am . . . .
Though it has been good to let you get way ahead in your array of responses as it has given me the chance to see more of your “world view.”
As I read your posts since mine of 8th May 2009, 05:01PM, which is # 50 on this thread, I see something I warned of in that post, namely:
“Before I render my views on this paragraph, there is something I would like to express. Here, you and I use some different nomenclature and terminology. Which, of course, is proper and logical: we have different backgrounds. Also, some of what we are discussing is being viewed from different levels or points in the sequence of developed existence; or the other way it can be put, is that we can also be discussing actual different stages or points along the chain of developed existence. Note the distinction here between the act of viewing and the that which is being viewed.
"These variables or different items we need to realize can trip up any attempt to come to an enlightened accord if we fail to recognize that we often can, unwittingly, be referring to different things or items within a discussion such as this of a vast arena.”
What I am seeing is your posts slipping back and forth between changes of nomenclature referring to apparently the same thing yet, on other occasions, referring to different levels of the sequence of developed states of existence.
Example
This is at variance with your opening dissertation that enthralled me.
As is this exchange:
...
You replied:
So, Vin, I think that to continue to pick apart each and every little discrepancy or difference that appears in what we are endeavouring to express will be fraught with difficulty. I think a smarter action would be for me to outline my “world view.”
That is, where am I coming from, what am I seeing as the big picture. Then we will know what we are comparing the bits and pieces to.
What I am about to write is not the result of ruminations nor extrapolation or theory: it is actually what I have seen, done and processed in session.
To begin, I might relate to you an exchange of emails I had with Alan a couple of years ago. I am doing this because it speaks to the points you have made in your posts on this thread, and validates a point you made with which I am in accord.
If you go to the Scn and Dianetics Axioms, you will see the following as their Axiom 1’s:
“Life is basically a static.”
I have always had difficulty with this, seeing it as either incomplete or in error. I always joked about this rather silly “axiom” for in essence it was saying that “we are a nothingness that is a somethingness.” And it actually robs us of all of our attributes, virtues and qualities other than to say that we have the “ability to postulate and perceive.”
“The Source of Life is a Static of peculiar and particular properties.”
Well the first part of that is better, but that word “peculiar” does not ring true to me. It is in error. The axiom is however correct when it says “the Source of Life has particular properties” — even though it does not articulate them.
Alan sent me his revised look at the above. I won’t put here all of his write-up; he gets a little grumpy when I put his stuff out . . . but here is the first sentence of his restatement:
“NEW AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY AN EMANATION STEMMING FROM A LIFEFORCE PRESENCE.”
The rest of the axiom goes on to describe and define the innate attributes, qualities, virtues and characteristics of this life-force presence, each in terms of being infinite. It is a rather brilliant document, and I hope Alan might see this thread and post it here for you.
But there was one key point missing in his “New Axiom One.”
This was my reply to him on that:
"Dear Alan,
"I’ve been chewing on the New Axiom 1, and I do believe we have a very important item omitted. It is:
" A Lifeforce Presence has infinite potential.
"One could use the less familiar noun form, “potentiality.” Good big dictionaries give wonderful expressions of what these concepts are in the context of an attribute of the state of existence of pure Spirita. (Spirita is Alan's word for what we used to call “Theta” in Scn or others refer to as the “Formless Substance”.)
"This is a big concept. The stem word, of course is potent. And the original definition of it as an adjective is: that has power; potent. A modern adjective definition is: that can, but has not yet, come into being; possible; latent; unrealized; undeveloped; opposed to actual. The noun definition is: something potential; a potentiality. (These definitions from Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged Second Edition (Simon & Schuster.) A simple noun definition of it from The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, is: The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, or coming into being.
"I have for the last several months been processing in the area of this state of “ultimate, infinite potential/potentiality” and the what stemmed from it when, as a “Life-Force Presence of infinite potential,” (and interestingly I did use those words to articulate the scenario in session) I and/or we acted to convert the potential to express actual states of Being or conditions of existence, and produced “things”.
"Hence my view that we need to add this concept to complete the full statement of New Axiom 1."
Rog
He did not acknowledge my email, nor my brilliance . . . .
Some months later, in his September, 2007, Vital Fundamentals Course, Lecture #7 titled “Life,” Alan embraced this fact of the Life-Force Presence having “infinite potential,” big time. He did not mention any of my part in revealing this . . . how Hubbardesque of him! I don’t know if he added it to his written version of “New Axiom One.”
I’m giving you the above at this point because I’m setting you up for what I have found to be the sequence of events and steps “down” away from what you originally termed “ORIGIN” or God, and now seem to be referring to as “BRAHMAN.”
It’s what I found from processing as a “Life-Force Presence of infinite potential.”
But that is for my next post. I’m out of time today, and beside my mate Paul’s old scrolling finger tires if I put too much on one post!
Rog
Rog, I am glad I did a copy/paste on Face's link over here. By the way are you very familiar with the link which Face has cited?
It is really amazing that just one sentence in a reply of yours to a post of mine about two days ago, caused me to start thinking about Vinnaire's thread again. In my thread about "Help" you were stating how co-creation amongst spiritual beings seemed to exist along the top of the various scales which describe life's activities. I just thought, what about God? God is supposed to be at or above the very top of the scales and is a spritual being but God does not co-create with any other being, as far as I know. Then I thought of Hubbard, having convinced himself that he was a God like figure, he would not apply his own tech and wisdom to himself. He was acting as he were God and he created the rules only for us peons to follow but he was above having to follow the rules and constrictions which the rest of us were subject to.
ON VINNY'S OH!GOD!! THREAD
I did not arrive there until some around Page 30 of the thread. I reread about the first 6 pages and then skipped to Page 30 or so and stayed with the thread until Vin quit doing it on 12/7/09. I did not read that interchange which you had with Vin. I know that you posted there but you did not seem like one of the key "Regulars" while I was there.
I remember that I told how I gave a lot of accupressure massages and in doing so, especially when pressing on someone's head, I would often be able to pick up their pictures and their thoughts. I had two women who I did this on where I was virtually reading their mind. I knew all their thoughts instantly as they thought them. I wrote this up on Vinny's thread and you replied to my write up the next day and I had an exchange with you then. On the accupressure, I usually can get the person to discharge static electricity from their head and down through my body into the ground at which point they experience great relief. I think one's skull acts as a large capacitor and stores charge on it. Discharges are also easily obtained from the wrists, elbows, finger tips, hip bones, knees and ankles.
I have lost touch with Vin now. I saw where you and he were going at it as if in a bar room brawl over on the Allen Walters thread shortly before Emma closed off the thread. On his Oh!God!! thread, Vin was always affable and cordial to me. We had both been Programs Chiefs on the Apollo and had actually briefly met on the Sea Org ship, the Bolivar, in 1971. More recently, on Alan's thread, I attempted to reconnect with him and he did not seem interested. I have not followed his postings since.
I believe Vin was writting that "Potential life force" was within Brahman, an infinite sea of nothingness. He described it as arising as waves arrive in a turbulent sea or as cloud formations arise in the sky. He is trying to strip away all qualities, all adjectives from Brahman so he does not say that "life force" is within Brahman because that would give Brahman a quality and it would no longer be a nothingness. By saying that only a potentential life force is in Brahman, he feels that he has not given Brahman any actual characteristic but only a "potential". I do not know if I'm quoting him correctly but if so, his explanation is sort of an Ad Hoc construct, made up only to keep Brahman free of adjectives. Even though it may be Ad Hoc, it still seems to be workable. I can think of no other way an infinite nothingness can exist and still have the roots of life arise from within it.
Well, Rog, I did not know that this area was your passion. Please provide any additional links to videos or writings you have done on the subject and I will check them all out.
Thanks, Lakey
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
I was gonna include your name in my last Post, Rog, but I got concerned that that would make the Post too long for Winston.
Face
Face
RogerB
Crusader
I was gonna include your name in my last Post, Rog, but I got concerned that that would make the Post too long for Winston.
Face
Oh dear! You and I just simply must get together for a beer and a good laugh together some time!That was funny.
R
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
That was funny.
R
I'd love it, Rog...Make mine a BV...XXXX will do if I'm desperate, which I'm always not far away from.
Datum: Necessity is the mother of invention.
Face’s Corollary #1: Desperation is the mother of necessity.
Face
RogerB
Crusader
Lakey wrote:
It was me that introduced the idea of "Potential" . . . and that it is a quality, faculty and attribute of spirit. As I said in that post, it was also a missing element in Alan's redo of Axiom One.
Vin then appropriately appropriated (Ya gotta love these words Winston!) this little notion of mine as perfect to resolve and describe what he was getting at, and it became part of his mantra on the thread.
The genesis of it is in the earlier post on the Oh! God!! thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...t=11238&page=5 post #46
Lakey wrote:
The whole thing is a moving target . . . the further my case advances, the more nuances I see.
I did write a lot about it back in 1990. That stuff is still lying around to publish. I did a whole number dissecting the propositions of modern science/physics as taught in universities which propositions contain some totally ridiculous stuff, lies and contradictions held as "valid."
Eventually I'll dust it off, but it would be too long and too inappropriate to post here.
Rog
It was me that introduced the idea of "Potential" . . . and that it is a quality, faculty and attribute of spirit. As I said in that post, it was also a missing element in Alan's redo of Axiom One.
Vin then appropriately appropriated (Ya gotta love these words Winston!
) this little notion of mine as perfect to resolve and describe what he was getting at, and it became part of his mantra on the thread.The genesis of it is in the earlier post on the Oh! God!! thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...t=11238&page=5 post #46
Lakey wrote:
The whole thing is a moving target . . . the further my case advances, the more nuances I see.
I did write a lot about it back in 1990. That stuff is still lying around to publish. I did a whole number dissecting the propositions of modern science/physics as taught in universities which propositions contain some totally ridiculous stuff, lies and contradictions held as "valid."
Eventually I'll dust it off, but it would be too long and too inappropriate to post here.
Rog
Winston Smith
Flunked Scientology
Winston Smith
Flunked Scientology
Also, everything I write these days is for one purpose: to get my next star. So if I come off as bitter, closed minded or otherwise none of it means anything.
My viewpoint is that what is past is past. I have said my piece about Scn, FCDC many times and have tired of going over the same bull. Sorry to have ruffled feathers BUT to me making fun of Scientology whether directly or toward ESMB'ers is my only game.
My viewpoint is that what is past is past. I have said my piece about Scn, FCDC many times and have tired of going over the same bull. Sorry to have ruffled feathers BUT to me making fun of Scientology whether directly or toward ESMB'ers is my only game.
afaceinthecrowd
Gold Meritorious Patron
Thank You, Winston
Ah, now I get it....a stat push....makes sense.
Peace Bro':wink2:
Face
Ah, now I get it....a stat push....makes sense.
Peace Bro':wink2:
Face
RogerB
Crusader
Hey, W,
I think the Ozzie Senate needs to hear from you . . . . how about it?
You sound as though you have some real dirt on Scn. . . . I mean making fun of the cult has got to do some good for the cause! Yes?
R
- Status