The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
RogerB
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
My gripe on "instruction manuals" is that they are written by techies who know what they're talking about but who fail to convey the needed knowledge to those who do not know the subject.
They miss vital data, sub-sets of knowledge and by-pass gradients.
After much chaos, confusion and failed attempts to program a VCR to record a program . . . eventually, it turned out you have to turn the thing OFF in order to have it do its thing!!
Only Japanese logic could dream that up . . . things work when they're turned off
We all knew that, right!?!
Today I got stuck with a real doozie . . . V tried to transpose the movie Amadeus (calling Lakey!!) from VHS to DVD over the weekend
Problem turned out to be that the movie is too long for the capacity of the DVD, it seems.
I say seems because my sweet V has taken on this project, and I am graciously letting her enjoy the work
Anyhow, shopping together yesterday we came across DVD+R DL stuff that had a capacity for 4.5 hours. Bonanza I think! But DL? that's new to me. I ask the techie at Staples WTF? He says don't worry about it, it works like regular DVDs and will do your job.
Great I think . . . I don't have to worry about it, even though I have no clue what DL means or is. Lots of shit works for me that I have no clue why . . . so why worry?
So V plugs the stuff in the VCR that does all this stuff for us this morning, and tells me as she heads off to work to finalize the DVD when done and put it away. Deal, says I. I've done this routine before
Anyway, in due course I wander by the VCR and see a whole new parade of instructions I've never seen before
The part I did understand said DL stands for "Double Layered" and the TV is giving me a screen full of instructions of what to do . . . except the what to do is incomplete.
The part I did get was tell the system to "finish side one" and copy side two.
Well hitting OK got the finish side one trick done . . . but the rest of the parade spoiled my day to the extent of major frustration and miserableness!
Nothing would do the logical
the thing kept presenting me with a copy option in the wrong direction which I could not change.
The system had turned into a mobius loop . . . around and around it went going nowhere.
Being brilliant, I resorted to the instruction manual. Did that help? bloody no.
Anyhow to cut the long drama short, I ended up having to risk the whole enterprise by taking my half run tape out . . . taking the risk of avoiding "Finalizing" the "finished" side one (finalizing a DVD renders it able to be run in other systems and no longer able to be recorded on . . . . here I was being inventive, winging it, hoping I'm not screwing up.
Being bright, I'm aware there is a huge gaping whole of absence of needed exact instruction of what to actually do here at the stage between completing side one and getting side two to go :shock::shock:
I'm pissed as usual at these techie types who fail to tell you everything you need to know in order to work their wondrous creations . . . and particularly way pissed at the Japanese types who don't seem to think the way we others do :confused2:
Eventually I try some courageous moves, at great risk of screwing up on our third attempt to get this movie onto DVD, and things appear to have been successful.
Tonight we'll check it . . . i'm wondering if and how the system will or can seamlessly move between Layer 1 and 2 . . . this will be something to see.
However, one thing I did learn from my today consultation the the bloody manual, is that my sweet V could have spared me all this drama had she really read the instruction manual . . . this because, she had the option of setting the copying on LP (long recording) or even for longer on EP (extra long) that would have done the copy on only one layer, and also even, on our regular DVDs without the need to get the bigger capacity ones
It's all buried deep in the book . . . but it takes finding.
And, errr, ummm, I will speak softly to her when she comes home . . . but only after a good calming brandy
It's bloody criminal the way these youngsters keep inflicting the pain of new gadgetry and complicated learning curves on we oldies!! Utterly wicked . . .
Tomorrow, I might find the time to relate the drama of buying the new android phone when offered to us by Google 6-8 weeks ago. Big mistake that . . . if you want aggravation buy new things from a website, site unseen and with no access to a reasonable human being who can make sure you're set to win with the purchase
Rog
My gripe on "instruction manuals" is that they are written by techies who know what they're talking about but who fail to convey the needed knowledge to those who do not know the subject.
They miss vital data, sub-sets of knowledge and by-pass gradients.
After much chaos, confusion and failed attempts to program a VCR to record a program . . . eventually, it turned out you have to turn the thing OFF in order to have it do its thing!!
Only Japanese logic could dream that up . . . things work when they're turned off
We all knew that, right!?! Today I got stuck with a real doozie . . . V tried to transpose the movie Amadeus (calling Lakey!!) from VHS to DVD over the weekend
Problem turned out to be that the movie is too long for the capacity of the DVD, it seems.
I say seems because my sweet V has taken on this project, and I am graciously letting her enjoy the work
Anyhow, shopping together yesterday we came across DVD+R DL stuff that had a capacity for 4.5 hours. Bonanza I think! But DL? that's new to me. I ask the techie at Staples WTF? He says don't worry about it, it works like regular DVDs and will do your job.
Great I think . . . I don't have to worry about it, even though I have no clue what DL means or is. Lots of shit works for me that I have no clue why . . . so why worry?
So V plugs the stuff in the VCR that does all this stuff for us this morning, and tells me as she heads off to work to finalize the DVD when done and put it away. Deal, says I. I've done this routine before
Anyway, in due course I wander by the VCR and see a whole new parade of instructions I've never seen before
The part I did understand said DL stands for "Double Layered"
and the TV is giving me a screen full of instructions of what to do . . . except the what to do is incomplete.The part I did get was tell the system to "finish side one" and copy side two.
Well hitting OK got the finish side one trick done . . . but the rest of the parade spoiled my day to the extent of major frustration and miserableness!
Nothing would do the logical
the thing kept presenting me with a copy option in the wrong direction which I could not change. The system had turned into a mobius loop . . . around and around it went going nowhere.
Being brilliant, I resorted to the instruction manual. Did that help?
bloody no.Anyhow to cut the long drama short, I ended up having to risk the whole enterprise by taking my half run tape out . . . taking the risk of avoiding "Finalizing" the "finished" side one (finalizing a DVD renders it able to be run in other systems and no longer able to be recorded on . . . . here I was being inventive, winging it, hoping I'm not screwing up.
Being bright, I'm aware there is a huge gaping whole of absence of needed exact instruction of what to actually do here at the stage between completing side one and getting side two to go :shock::shock:
I'm pissed as usual at these techie types who fail to tell you everything you need to know in order to work their wondrous creations . . . and particularly way pissed at the Japanese types who don't seem to think the way we others do :confused2:
Eventually I try some courageous moves, at great risk of screwing up on our third attempt to get this movie onto DVD, and things appear to have been successful.
Tonight we'll check it . . . i'm wondering if and how the system will or can seamlessly move between Layer 1 and 2 . . . this will be something to see.
However, one thing I did learn from my today consultation the the bloody manual, is that my sweet V could have spared me all this drama had she really read the instruction manual . . . this because, she had the option of setting the copying on LP (long recording) or even for longer on EP (extra long) that would have done the copy on only one layer, and also even, on our regular DVDs without the need to get the bigger capacity ones
It's all buried deep in the book . . . but it takes finding.
And, errr, ummm, I will speak softly to her when she comes home . . . but only after a good calming brandy
It's bloody criminal the way these youngsters keep inflicting the pain of new gadgetry and complicated learning curves on we oldies!! Utterly wicked . . .
Tomorrow, I might find the time to relate the drama of buying the new android phone when offered to us by Google 6-8 weeks ago. Big mistake that . . . if you want aggravation buy new things from a website, site unseen and with no access to a reasonable human being who can make sure you're set to win with the purchase
Rog
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Just finished the second recording. As I understood John's further comments on 'circuitizing' he's warning against the prospect of individuals adopting the ideas of another as their own and being led into acting upon them as if they were 'completing a circuit for a remote power source', as it were.
He hypothesizes the influence of electric fields as a possible medium of transmission, in whole or in part, but his argument is actually rooted in the simple recognition of the 'source' of an idea and the 'path' or 'circuit' by which that idea is communicated to others.
In effect he warns that unless the actual source of an idea is recognized and acknowledged for what it is, then the idea can serve as a 'false purpose' or 'other purpose' for the others who may have been exposed to the idea indirectly and who undertake to act upon it as if it were their own without sufficient consideration of the idea & it's intent.
An alternate, and more visually suggestive image is to see his circuits in terms of the lines of magnetic influence as shown by a magnetic source surrounded by iron filings. The same principles he describes produce a similar effect, but it is clearly a more graphic image and may be easier to comprehend. In that instance the magnet would of course be 'source' and the iron filings align themselves in response to the created field as localized circuits compatible with and conforming to the overall field.
The above is my paraphrase of his discussion, but I consider that it summarizes it in a reasonable fashion.
The exchange with the seeming 'lrh loyalist' in the audience seeking to attribute the 'source' attribution as a direct denigration of lrh were interesting. It left me wondering what ever happened to him?
As such and from my view it definitely parallels the idea of the manifestation of 'demon circuits' and valences, although it goes on to suggest that the communication of this 'circuitizing' may be understood through the analogy of circuits being developed through the interaction of the electric fields of the bodies of the individuals who altogether share a 'path of communication' to an idea's source. An interesting, if not directly supported, hypothesis.
His comments on the oft encountered need for rehabilitating one's own purpose and his auditing approach for achieving this are excellent.
These recordings are interesting on so many levels. Not only from the perspective of the information presented by John, but also in terms of the actual interpersonal dynamics and considerations of the people involved with scientology at the time. It's a living bit of scientology's history which is not clearly understood at present but which sheds new light on the nature of the earlier years of the church.
Great Stuff!
Mark A. Baker
Just finished the second recording. As I understood John's further comments on 'circuitizing' he's warning against the prospect of individuals adopting the ideas of another as their own and being led into acting upon them as if they were 'completing a circuit for a remote power source', as it were.
He hypothesizes the influence of electric fields as a possible medium of transmission, in whole or in part, but his argument is actually rooted in the simple recognition of the 'source' of an idea and the 'path' or 'circuit' by which that idea is communicated to others.
In effect he warns that unless the actual source of an idea is recognized and acknowledged for what it is, then the idea can serve as a 'false purpose' or 'other purpose' for the others who may have been exposed to the idea indirectly and who undertake to act upon it as if it were their own without sufficient consideration of the idea & it's intent.
An alternate, and more visually suggestive image is to see his circuits in terms of the lines of magnetic influence as shown by a magnetic source surrounded by iron filings. The same principles he describes produce a similar effect, but it is clearly a more graphic image and may be easier to comprehend. In that instance the magnet would of course be 'source' and the iron filings align themselves in response to the created field as localized circuits compatible with and conforming to the overall field.
The above is my paraphrase of his discussion, but I consider that it summarizes it in a reasonable fashion.
The exchange with the seeming 'lrh loyalist' in the audience seeking to attribute the 'source' attribution as a direct denigration of lrh were interesting. It left me wondering what ever happened to him?
As such and from my view it definitely parallels the idea of the manifestation of 'demon circuits' and valences, although it goes on to suggest that the communication of this 'circuitizing' may be understood through the analogy of circuits being developed through the interaction of the electric fields of the bodies of the individuals who altogether share a 'path of communication' to an idea's source. An interesting, if not directly supported, hypothesis.
His comments on the oft encountered need for rehabilitating one's own purpose and his auditing approach for achieving this are excellent.
These recordings are interesting on so many levels. Not only from the perspective of the information presented by John, but also in terms of the actual interpersonal dynamics and considerations of the people involved with scientology at the time. It's a living bit of scientology's history which is not clearly understood at present but which sheds new light on the nature of the earlier years of the church.
Great Stuff!
Mark A. Baker
Last edited:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: John McMaster
Ones and zeros. But you will need to understand a bit more than that to be satisfied.
Ones and zeros. But you will need to understand a bit more than that to be satisfied.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
John McMaster - What is Love?
I really liked this ....
I really liked this ....
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
It's nice to have company FoTi! I think that you hit the nail on the head describing young people and how they seem to intrinsically know how to set up and run all their gear. THEY GREW UP WITH IT! They were introduced to computers in the 3rd grade and probably played around with them at home much earlier than that.
I fear opening the container which a new electronic item comes in. BY THE WAY HAVE YOU, TED OR OTHERS NOTICED HOW HARD IT IS TO OPEN ONE OF THESE CONTAINERS, ESPECIALLY THE PLASTIC ONES? It seems as if a hacksaw, a jigsaw, a butcher's knife and a chisel are needed to open these packages. That alone is often a frustrating experience which leads to a lot of swearing and then throwing the package on the floor and kicking it.
Many of these electronic items can do a multitude of functions but as an example, I just used my cell phone as a standard telephone for years. Over time, the ability to use a few of the more elementary features was developed such as taking photos, then sending the photos to others, then learning how to TEXT MESSAGE. I finally learned to read my email. That is about all the functions I use. I decided I want to download music to be stored on my cell phone so I can listen to music while walking or exercising. It turns out the correct cord to do the download did not come with my phone. I have to go purchase the cord and then find someone to demonstrate how to download the music. I haven't a clue.
Misery loves company.
Lakey
I feel the same way. Seems like the world has gotten too complex with all this electronic stuff and I feel left behind in the dust.
Last week we lost the internet, where I live, for a couple of days. When it came back on, I still couldn't get online. I called AT&T and a lady helped me to get it going again...(took her over an hour and she had to grab my computer to do it). Afterwards I asked her how she learned to do all this stuff. She said she grew up with it.....that it was really easy for her. She said she started with computers in the third grade....they just let them play on the computer and do whatever they wanted to do. She said it was really fun. Having grown up with it, she said she's totally comfortable with it, it's like second nature to her, and for her it's play.....that's what she said..."It's play". Her job is like play to her. She also has a degree in accounting 'cause she's good in math, but chooses a job having to with dealing with computer problems because it's fun for her. I guess us older folks just didn't get a body at the right time to be in the swing of things now. These kids seem so smart and it makes me feel so stupid, or maybe ignorant is the right word. I didn't used to feel that way.
I just got a new phone and I haven't opened the box for 3 days now because I don't want to have to face the confusion of trying to figure out a new electronic gadget.
I bought a digital camera 5 years ago. When I opened it up and looked at the manual my response weI put it back in the box and 3 years later I finally had someone show me how it worked. It has a camcorder in it, but to this day I haven't ever used it that way and don't know how to use it and have shyed away from even trying to learn how to use it in that manner......point and click is what I stick with.....can't deal with those manuals....
I totally get what you're saying, Lakey. These are complexities we didn't grow up with. Life used to be so much simpler.....I like simpler, but have to live with the progress of society. I wonder if other generations have felt this way with the advances of mankind.
It's nice to have company FoTi! I think that you hit the nail on the head describing young people and how they seem to intrinsically know how to set up and run all their gear. THEY GREW UP WITH IT! They were introduced to computers in the 3rd grade and probably played around with them at home much earlier than that.
I fear opening the container which a new electronic item comes in. BY THE WAY HAVE YOU, TED OR OTHERS NOTICED HOW HARD IT IS TO OPEN ONE OF THESE CONTAINERS, ESPECIALLY THE PLASTIC ONES? It seems as if a hacksaw, a jigsaw, a butcher's knife and a chisel are needed to open these packages. That alone is often a frustrating experience which leads to a lot of swearing and then throwing the package on the floor and kicking it.
Many of these electronic items can do a multitude of functions but as an example, I just used my cell phone as a standard telephone for years. Over time, the ability to use a few of the more elementary features was developed such as taking photos, then sending the photos to others, then learning how to TEXT MESSAGE. I finally learned to read my email. That is about all the functions I use. I decided I want to download music to be stored on my cell phone so I can listen to music while walking or exercising. It turns out the correct cord to do the download did not come with my phone. I have to go purchase the cord and then find someone to demonstrate how to download the music. I haven't a clue.
Misery loves company.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Thanks for relating this experience Roger and as to your conclusions, they tell it like it is.
By the way, I purchased a DVD of the movie Amadeus about 6 or 7 years ago. The copy I purchased was a new release at that time and has 20 minutes more of movie, in the form of several scenes, which were not present in the movie's initial release.
The most interesting scene has to do with Constance Mozart, coming to Salieri's house trying to get Salieri to promote her husband's music. Part of this is shown in the movie but a major part is deleted. In that scene, Salieri propositions Contance by saying that if she returns to his house later that evening and sleeps with him, he will promote Mozart's music. She refuses and storms out but then comes back that evening anyway and offers herself to Salieri. What happens then is very interesting.
I hope that the version of "Amadeus" which you purchased has the extra 20 minutes.
Lakey
My gripe on "instruction manuals" is that they are written by techies who know what they're talking about but who fail to convey the needed knowledge to those who do not know the subject.
They miss vital data, sub-sets of knowledge and by-pass gradients.
After much chaos, confusion and failed attempts to program a VCR to record a program . . . eventually, it turned out you have to turn the thing OFF in order to have it do its thing!!
Only Japanese logic could dream that up . . . things work when they're turned off
Today I got stuck with a real doozie . . . V tried to transpose the movie Amadeus (calling Lakey!!) from VHS to DVD over the weekend
Problem turned out to be that the movie is too long for the capacity of the DVD, it seems.
I say seems because my sweet V has taken on this project, and I am graciously letting her enjoy the work
Anyhow, shopping together yesterday we came across DVD+R DL stuff that had a capacity for 4.5 hours. Bonanza I think! But DL? that's new to me. I ask the techie at Staples WTF? He says don't worry about it, it works like regular DVDs and will do your job.
Great I think . . . I don't have to worry about it, even though I have no clue what DL means or is. Lots of shit works for me that I have no clue why . . . so why worry?
So V plugs the stuff in the VCR that does all this stuff for us this morning, and tells me as she heads off to work to finalize the DVD when done and put it away. Deal, says I. I've done this routine before
Anyway, in due course I wander by the VCR and see a whole new parade of instructions I've never seen before
The part I did understand said DL stands for "Double Layered"
The part I did get was tell the system to "finish side one" and copy side two.
Well hitting OK got the finish side one trick done . . . but the rest of the parade spoiled my day to the extent of major frustration and miserableness!
Nothing would do the logical
The system had turned into a mobius loop . . . around and around it went going nowhere.
Being brilliant, I resorted to the instruction manual. Did that help?
Anyhow to cut the long drama short, I ended up having to risk the whole enterprise by taking my half run tape out . . . taking the risk of avoiding "Finalizing" the "finished" side one (finalizing a DVD renders it able to be run in other systems and no longer able to be recorded on . . . . here I was being inventive, winging it, hoping I'm not screwing up.
Being bright, I'm aware there is a huge gaping whole of absence of needed exact instruction of what to actually do here at the stage between completing side one and getting side two to go :shock::shock:
I'm pissed as usual at these techie types who fail to tell you everything you need to know in order to work their wondrous creations . . . and particularly way pissed at the Japanese types who don't seem to think the way we others do :confused2:
Eventually I try some courageous moves, at great risk of screwing up on our third attempt to get this movie onto DVD, and things appear to have been successful.
Tonight we'll check it . . . i'm wondering if and how the system will or can seamlessly move between Layer 1 and 2 . . . this will be something to see.
However, one thing I did learn from my today consultation the the bloody manual, is that my sweet V could have spared me all this drama had she really read the instruction manual . . . this because, she had the option of setting the copying on LP (long recording) or even for longer on EP (extra long) that would have done the copy on only one layer, and also even, on our regular DVDs without the need to get the bigger capacity ones
It's all buried deep in the book . . . but it takes finding.
And, errr, ummm, I will speak softly to her when she comes home . . . but only after a good calming brandy
It's bloody criminal the way these youngsters keep inflicting the pain of new gadgetry and complicated learning curves on we oldies!! Utterly wicked . . .
Tomorrow, I might find the time to relate the drama of buying the new android phone when offered to us by Google 6-8 weeks ago. Big mistake that . . . if you want aggravation buy new things from a website, site unseen and with no access to a reasonable human being who can make sure you're set to win with the purchase
Rog
Thanks for relating this experience Roger and as to your conclusions, they tell it like it is.
By the way, I purchased a DVD of the movie Amadeus about 6 or 7 years ago. The copy I purchased was a new release at that time and has 20 minutes more of movie, in the form of several scenes, which were not present in the movie's initial release.
The most interesting scene has to do with Constance Mozart, coming to Salieri's house trying to get Salieri to promote her husband's music. Part of this is shown in the movie but a major part is deleted. In that scene, Salieri propositions Contance by saying that if she returns to his house later that evening and sleeps with him, he will promote Mozart's music. She refuses and storms out but then comes back that evening anyway and offers herself to Salieri. What happens then is very interesting.
I hope that the version of "Amadeus" which you purchased has the extra 20 minutes.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: John McMaster
Very meaninful comments MAB. On the second sentence, "The more you learn the more there is to know.", though I agree in principle with your statement, it seems to me that when someone is first learning the basic elements of a particular subject and succeeds in mastering them, then temporarily, just for a finite period of time, the person will not feel that there is more to know. Instead, he may feel that the subject has a finite amount of knowledge, say 100% and that he has mastered 25% of it and now only needs to learn the other 75%.
If the person does no further study in that subject, he may always feel that he has mastered a fixed percentage of the subject. An example might be someone studying math up through Algebra II in high school. They might conceivably believe they know 20% or 25% of all mathematics and not come to the realization that there is more than that to know.
Now if the person continues studying that subject, then what you say in your quoted sentence, kicks into gear. As the person continues studying, he becomes aware that there is more to know and this continues onward so that the more one knows, the more one realizes that there is more yet to know.
A TOTAL KNOW ON A GIVEN SUBJECT? - I can conceive of a "total know" on a man-made practical type of subject or art. For example, take cooking. It seems that one could learn virtually everything one needs to know to be a master chef. The more a chef learns does not cause him to be aware that there is yet much more to learn. This might extend to an art such as music, as well.
For subjects such as philosopy, theosophy, religion, psychology, the healing arts and sciences having to do with living organisms, it seems true that the more one knows the more one realizes there is more and more to know. The same can be said for sciences such as physics, chemistry and astronomy.
A ZERO SUM GAME? - I had never heard it expressed before that the physical universe is set up as a zero sum game. That is a very profound statement. The first reaction is that it is true. Everytime someone eats something to live, some other living things must die. If someone wins at something, usually someone else must lose. I always believed that a win-win game was possible. If this were true, then the PU would not necessarily be a zero sum game. Am I oversimplifying your remarks here or am I on the right wave length?
A SEPARATE THREAD? - I think that your quoted post would be a great topic for a new thread. Both the more to learn concept and the zero sum concept. Why not start a thread on this?
Lakey
Very meaninful comments MAB. On the second sentence, "The more you learn the more there is to know.", though I agree in principle with your statement, it seems to me that when someone is first learning the basic elements of a particular subject and succeeds in mastering them, then temporarily, just for a finite period of time, the person will not feel that there is more to know. Instead, he may feel that the subject has a finite amount of knowledge, say 100% and that he has mastered 25% of it and now only needs to learn the other 75%.
If the person does no further study in that subject, he may always feel that he has mastered a fixed percentage of the subject. An example might be someone studying math up through Algebra II in high school. They might conceivably believe they know 20% or 25% of all mathematics and not come to the realization that there is more than that to know.
Now if the person continues studying that subject, then what you say in your quoted sentence, kicks into gear. As the person continues studying, he becomes aware that there is more to know and this continues onward so that the more one knows, the more one realizes that there is more yet to know.
A TOTAL KNOW ON A GIVEN SUBJECT? - I can conceive of a "total know" on a man-made practical type of subject or art. For example, take cooking. It seems that one could learn virtually everything one needs to know to be a master chef. The more a chef learns does not cause him to be aware that there is yet much more to learn. This might extend to an art such as music, as well.
For subjects such as philosopy, theosophy, religion, psychology, the healing arts and sciences having to do with living organisms, it seems true that the more one knows the more one realizes there is more and more to know. The same can be said for sciences such as physics, chemistry and astronomy.
A ZERO SUM GAME? - I had never heard it expressed before that the physical universe is set up as a zero sum game. That is a very profound statement. The first reaction is that it is true. Everytime someone eats something to live, some other living things must die. If someone wins at something, usually someone else must lose. I always believed that a win-win game was possible. If this were true, then the PU would not necessarily be a zero sum game. Am I oversimplifying your remarks here or am I on the right wave length?
A SEPARATE THREAD? - I think that your quoted post would be a great topic for a new thread. Both the more to learn concept and the zero sum concept. Why not start a thread on this?
Lakey
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Physical Universe
The PU is structured around physical laws which set limits to phenomena. In particular Newton's 3rd law, the energy conservation principle, and the principle of closure preclude a non-zero sum.
Whether something qualifies as a 'win' is a strictly non-physical subjective consideration. Such personal considerations are not innately subject to physical laws.
In any phenomenal event, for example the chemical combination of two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom into a molecule of water, the sum total of physical energy involved remains fixed. If the 'goal' is an attempt to burn hydrogen as fuel, then it might be considered to be a 'win'. If the goal is to reduce a water molecule into its constituent atoms, then it constitutes a 'loss'. Nevertheless, the total energy involved in the reaction remains fixed, i.e. 'zero sum'.
The establishment or interpretation of goals is a result of subjective considerations which are a byproduct of consciousness. As such they are a transcendental function independent of the function of the PU. Such subjective considerations are not to be confused with the actual mechanical functioning of the PU. The latter remains a 'zero-sum' net.
The PU does what it does. The value assigned to it through consideration by any individual is not relevant to its actual function.
Mark A. Baker
The PU is structured around physical laws which set limits to phenomena. In particular Newton's 3rd law, the energy conservation principle, and the principle of closure preclude a non-zero sum.
Whether something qualifies as a 'win' is a strictly non-physical subjective consideration. Such personal considerations are not innately subject to physical laws.
In any phenomenal event, for example the chemical combination of two hydrogen atoms with an oxygen atom into a molecule of water, the sum total of physical energy involved remains fixed. If the 'goal' is an attempt to burn hydrogen as fuel, then it might be considered to be a 'win'. If the goal is to reduce a water molecule into its constituent atoms, then it constitutes a 'loss'. Nevertheless, the total energy involved in the reaction remains fixed, i.e. 'zero sum'.
The establishment or interpretation of goals is a result of subjective considerations which are a byproduct of consciousness. As such they are a transcendental function independent of the function of the PU. Such subjective considerations are not to be confused with the actual mechanical functioning of the PU. The latter remains a 'zero-sum' net.
The PU does what it does. The value assigned to it through consideration by any individual is not relevant to its actual function.
Mark A. Baker
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
I'm tracking a bit behind everyone else here at the moment. Have been as busy as hell lately and have only now had a chance to listen to the first of John Mac's talks. Will catch up on the rest of the posts once I am through these.
Utterly breathtaking stuff! I came into Scio just after he had passed through Cape Town on his lecture tour; everyone was still raving about him and what a guy he was. Soon afterwards he got the boot from LRH for daring to be more popular than he ought to be.
Anyway, what I want to write about here is that "condition below treason" that he talks about. To grasp what I'm getting at here you need to recognise that the conditions that the CofS was applying then and has ever since are all on the third dynamic. It's your stats and your behaviour in the group and all of those things. When you "Find out who you really are" you're supposed to come up with something like "I AM the Letter Reg" or something like that if you hope to be upgraded a notch. All third dynamic.
They were aware that there were conditions below this and LRH eventually came up with Confusion as being that condition. As I see it this is correct - though I doubt that the formula for geting ou of that confusion as given on the P/L is adequate for the job.
But notice what John Mac has done here - He spotted that one had, prior to going into this Treason of betrayal after trust, - prior to it one betrayed one's own certainty and knowingness. This is first dynamic. And this is precisely too what Mary Freeman was getting at with her First Dynamic Ethics Program. John M saw this as being just a single lower condition below Treason when in fact it is the entire echelon of ALL of the conditions, but applied correctly to oneself as a being, and not to a mishmash of one's organizational post and broader "friends" etc etc.
An individual will NEVER be ethical on the third dynamic while he is unethical on the first. Just as a strong building cannot stand on a muddy foundation. John spotted the condition, but not the entire picture.
And then further - John gets Mario Feninger to apply the formula of finding a safe point from which to communicate, and this is a corrct formula too. I am not sure where exactly it fits in on the conditions scale, it may be thaqt he is correct in placing it here at 1st Dyn treason. LRH makes a reference to this condition in a P/L of April 1982 called The Safe Point: Quote: There is a formula here just a hair lower than Non-Existence: “Find a point from which to put out a comm line.” unquote. I don't know whteher the CofS has incorprated this into their materials fully or not. I was out already by this time.
I am greatly impressed by John's depth of perception. He gets right into the basic simplicities of the issues at hand. I am delighted too that he got out of the CofS for the same reason I did - namely that the admin monster has gobbled up the tech solution and everyone had to OBEY! the monster.
And I haven't even finished the first talk.
I'm tracking a bit behind everyone else here at the moment. Have been as busy as hell lately and have only now had a chance to listen to the first of John Mac's talks. Will catch up on the rest of the posts once I am through these.
Utterly breathtaking stuff! I came into Scio just after he had passed through Cape Town on his lecture tour; everyone was still raving about him and what a guy he was. Soon afterwards he got the boot from LRH for daring to be more popular than he ought to be.
Anyway, what I want to write about here is that "condition below treason" that he talks about. To grasp what I'm getting at here you need to recognise that the conditions that the CofS was applying then and has ever since are all on the third dynamic. It's your stats and your behaviour in the group and all of those things. When you "Find out who you really are" you're supposed to come up with something like "I AM the Letter Reg" or something like that if you hope to be upgraded a notch. All third dynamic.
They were aware that there were conditions below this and LRH eventually came up with Confusion as being that condition. As I see it this is correct - though I doubt that the formula for geting ou of that confusion as given on the P/L is adequate for the job.
But notice what John Mac has done here - He spotted that one had, prior to going into this Treason of betrayal after trust, - prior to it one betrayed one's own certainty and knowingness. This is first dynamic. And this is precisely too what Mary Freeman was getting at with her First Dynamic Ethics Program. John M saw this as being just a single lower condition below Treason when in fact it is the entire echelon of ALL of the conditions, but applied correctly to oneself as a being, and not to a mishmash of one's organizational post and broader "friends" etc etc.
An individual will NEVER be ethical on the third dynamic while he is unethical on the first. Just as a strong building cannot stand on a muddy foundation. John spotted the condition, but not the entire picture.
And then further - John gets Mario Feninger to apply the formula of finding a safe point from which to communicate, and this is a corrct formula too. I am not sure where exactly it fits in on the conditions scale, it may be thaqt he is correct in placing it here at 1st Dyn treason. LRH makes a reference to this condition in a P/L of April 1982 called The Safe Point: Quote: There is a formula here just a hair lower than Non-Existence: “Find a point from which to put out a comm line.” unquote. I don't know whteher the CofS has incorprated this into their materials fully or not. I was out already by this time.
I am greatly impressed by John's depth of perception. He gets right into the basic simplicities of the issues at hand. I am delighted too that he got out of the CofS for the same reason I did - namely that the admin monster has gobbled up the tech solution and everyone had to OBEY! the monster.
And I haven't even finished the first talk.
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: John McMaster
Thanks for the remarks on PU. I can appreciate the comments as relating to the physical universe of matter energy space and time. The law of entropy comes into play here as well. Once two or more soluable chemicals are combined in an urn the process can not be reversed so that they are uncombined.
Defining the PU as only the Physical Universe of matter, energy, space and time, I would agree with what you are saying.
The PU can be viewed that way and that may be the proper way to view it but the way I was using the term, the consciousnesses of living beings were present within the PU.
If the PU is viewed without any life being present in it, what you say is correct but then what difference does it make? If there is no life present to view and speculate about what is taking place in the PU, the PU is immaterial (sort of a pun). The manner in which it is constructed and the laws which it follows would be meaningless. It would be a zero sum game but who or what would care? Without life force and consciousness present within its confines, it would not matter whether it was zero sum or not nor what it's laws or construct were. Without life present to view it, all these things would be moot points.
Whether you agree with this or not, one thing would be certain. We wouldn't have to worry about whether as one learned more about the PU, he would realize that there is yet more to learn. This concept would not exist if there was no life present to do the learning.
That is why I errantly assumed that when you used PU, you were including not only the physical component but also the life residing within the PU or risiding outside of it and viewing it from outside it's boundaries.
Lakey
Thanks for the remarks on PU. I can appreciate the comments as relating to the physical universe of matter energy space and time. The law of entropy comes into play here as well. Once two or more soluable chemicals are combined in an urn the process can not be reversed so that they are uncombined.
Defining the PU as only the Physical Universe of matter, energy, space and time, I would agree with what you are saying.
The PU can be viewed that way and that may be the proper way to view it but the way I was using the term, the consciousnesses of living beings were present within the PU.
If the PU is viewed without any life being present in it, what you say is correct but then what difference does it make? If there is no life present to view and speculate about what is taking place in the PU, the PU is immaterial (sort of a pun). The manner in which it is constructed and the laws which it follows would be meaningless. It would be a zero sum game but who or what would care? Without life force and consciousness present within its confines, it would not matter whether it was zero sum or not nor what it's laws or construct were. Without life present to view it, all these things would be moot points.
Whether you agree with this or not, one thing would be certain. We wouldn't have to worry about whether as one learned more about the PU, he would realize that there is yet more to learn. This concept would not exist if there was no life present to do the learning.
That is why I errantly assumed that when you used PU, you were including not only the physical component but also the life residing within the PU or risiding outside of it and viewing it from outside it's boundaries.
Lakey
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Physical Universe
PU refers to the physical universe.
There is no actual physical theory of consciousness and much subjective evidence to suggest that consciousness is not bounded by the physical universe. Therefore it is a mistake to assume that the consciousnesses of living beings is necessarily present within the PU.
Life as a biological construct observes the laws of the physical universe. Consciousness is a completely different matter. Your assumption is that life, as it is manifested in the physical universe and as it is accordingly bound by its physical principles, possesses consciousness. Arguably instead consciousness may well possess life and be equally capable of being experienced wholly separate from the life processes of the physical universe and any biological organism. My own personal subjective experiences support this latter interpretation.
Wherever the truth may lie, the actual means of interaction between consciousness and manifest physical existence remains unknown and highly speculative. The fewer assumptions made concerning the precise character of the relationship between physical life and the subjective phenomenon of consciousness the better for logical thought.
The laws of physics have been demonstrated to determine the behavior of all phenomena within the physical universe, biological processes included. The same is not true with regard to the character of consciousness. Ergo, lumping the fact of consciousness in with the processes of biological life is an unwarranted assumption and is not apparently supported by all of its observed properties.
Mark A. Baker
PU refers to the physical universe.
There is no actual physical theory of consciousness and much subjective evidence to suggest that consciousness is not bounded by the physical universe. Therefore it is a mistake to assume that the consciousnesses of living beings is necessarily present within the PU.
Life as a biological construct observes the laws of the physical universe. Consciousness is a completely different matter. Your assumption is that life, as it is manifested in the physical universe and as it is accordingly bound by its physical principles, possesses consciousness. Arguably instead consciousness may well possess life and be equally capable of being experienced wholly separate from the life processes of the physical universe and any biological organism. My own personal subjective experiences support this latter interpretation.
Wherever the truth may lie, the actual means of interaction between consciousness and manifest physical existence remains unknown and highly speculative. The fewer assumptions made concerning the precise character of the relationship between physical life and the subjective phenomenon of consciousness the better for logical thought.
The laws of physics have been demonstrated to determine the behavior of all phenomena within the physical universe, biological processes included. The same is not true with regard to the character of consciousness. Ergo, lumping the fact of consciousness in with the processes of biological life is an unwarranted assumption and is not apparently supported by all of its observed properties.
Mark A. Baker
RogerB
Crusader
Re: Physical Universe
Yes, this is pretty good.
In discussing this subject one needs distinguish between three "things":
1) the source of "life"
2) Life
3) Life forms.
The source of life, at its essence, is a static with infinite potentials . . .
When the static expresses any of its potential(s) or goes into motion there is then "life."
In the physical and some earlier universes the expressions of "life" have been formed into constructs we currently view as "life forms."
R
Yes, this is pretty good.
In discussing this subject one needs distinguish between three "things":
1) the source of "life"
2) Life
3) Life forms.
The source of life, at its essence, is a static with infinite potentials . . .
When the static expresses any of its potential(s) or goes into motion there is then "life."
In the physical and some earlier universes the expressions of "life" have been formed into constructs we currently view as "life forms."
R
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Re: Lectures and a radio interview by John McMaster
FYI:
The talks, that I posted above, for you Standard Tech troglodytes, can be reverse engineered from MP3 to CD to cassette to reel to reel for a true 20th Century Sound Experience.
If you need me to do it, I've got an old Ampex reel to reel that I can record over some old Miles Davis tape, and mail to you for authentic 20th Century feel good experience. Please mail me a check or money order (no PayPal accepted), and I shall, by return snail mail, send you the Real True Sound of John McMaster at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in 1970.
[video=youtube;NOHF5fAUkN4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOHF5fAUkN4[/video]
the video below starts off with some MAJOR BS, but the photos and narratives are worth wading through, if you (as I was), were around the Ambassador way back when.
[video=youtube;v5jPhsvONao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5jPhsvONao[/video]
FYI:
The talks, that I posted above, for you Standard Tech troglodytes, can be reverse engineered from MP3 to CD to cassette to reel to reel for a true 20th Century Sound Experience.
If you need me to do it, I've got an old Ampex reel to reel that I can record over some old Miles Davis tape, and mail to you for authentic 20th Century feel good experience. Please mail me a check or money order (no PayPal accepted), and I shall, by return snail mail, send you the Real True Sound of John McMaster at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in 1970.
[video=youtube;NOHF5fAUkN4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOHF5fAUkN4[/video]
the video below starts off with some MAJOR BS, but the photos and narratives are worth wading through, if you (as I was), were around the Ambassador way back when.
[video=youtube;v5jPhsvONao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5jPhsvONao[/video]
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Fox News interviews Wall St. Protestor
This is killer!
[video=youtube;CJgWdfZqDj0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgWdfZqDj0[/video]
This is killer!
[video=youtube;CJgWdfZqDj0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgWdfZqDj0[/video]
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Excellent post Leon and thank you! I had not fully realized that the conditions formulas of Hubbard applied exclusively to the 3rd Dynamic until reading your post. I knew they were slanted that way. For example, being asked to give C of S all one's money, sell or mortgage all one's assets including their home, stop having and raising children etc. sure alerts a person to what is going on but I did not realize that C of S was applying them exclusively to the 3rd dynamic to the exclusion of all the other dynamics.
AN ETHICS CONDITION BELOW CONFUSIONIn the beginning of 2010, a trusted employee of mine ripped me off for $11K from my business. I had some serious physical reactions immediately after finding this out. My heart went into atrial fibrilation and at bedtime, I could not sleep.
I had only known Purple Haze for 2 months at that time and called her around 10 PM. After telling her what happened, she suggested that my ethics were out and that I needed to find and apply the correct ethics condition and asked me what condition I thought I was in vis a vis my business. I started at Danger. That was way too high, worked down to Liability, Enemy and then to Treason. According to Purple, I was still too high so I assigned myself Confusion. She said it was still too high and I responded that Confusion was the lowest condition which I was taught.
She mentioned that a lower condition than that was mentioned by LRH on the Class VIII Course. I asked what it was and she said "STUPIDITY". It took about 5 seconds of protesting that "stupidity" could not be correct when I suddenly saw clearly that it was the correct condition!
I realized that I was much too open when communicating with others. To anyone who would listen, I would tell my life story, all my weakness and my trade secrets in my business. Not only that but I gave away too much confidential information about others. Realizing this was my condition as a business owner, immediately handled the upset for me. I was able to sleep well that night and the other physical manifestations quickly abated.
The type of stupidity condition which I had effected all my dynamics but focussed most on the 1st and 3rd.
Lakey
Excellent post Leon and thank you! I had not fully realized that the conditions formulas of Hubbard applied exclusively to the 3rd Dynamic until reading your post. I knew they were slanted that way. For example, being asked to give C of S all one's money, sell or mortgage all one's assets including their home, stop having and raising children etc. sure alerts a person to what is going on but I did not realize that C of S was applying them exclusively to the 3rd dynamic to the exclusion of all the other dynamics.
AN ETHICS CONDITION BELOW CONFUSIONIn the beginning of 2010, a trusted employee of mine ripped me off for $11K from my business. I had some serious physical reactions immediately after finding this out. My heart went into atrial fibrilation and at bedtime, I could not sleep.
I had only known Purple Haze for 2 months at that time and called her around 10 PM. After telling her what happened, she suggested that my ethics were out and that I needed to find and apply the correct ethics condition and asked me what condition I thought I was in vis a vis my business. I started at Danger. That was way too high, worked down to Liability, Enemy and then to Treason. According to Purple, I was still too high so I assigned myself Confusion. She said it was still too high and I responded that Confusion was the lowest condition which I was taught.
She mentioned that a lower condition than that was mentioned by LRH on the Class VIII Course. I asked what it was and she said "STUPIDITY". It took about 5 seconds of protesting that "stupidity" could not be correct when I suddenly saw clearly that it was the correct condition!
I realized that I was much too open when communicating with others. To anyone who would listen, I would tell my life story, all my weakness and my trade secrets in my business. Not only that but I gave away too much confidential information about others. Realizing this was my condition as a business owner, immediately handled the upset for me. I was able to sleep well that night and the other physical manifestations quickly abated.
The type of stupidity condition which I had effected all my dynamics but focussed most on the 1st and 3rd.
Lakey
RogerB
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Yes, Lakey, Leon is correct about the Conditions as generally applied in the Cof$ . . . you get assigned in a Condition by a senior for you to carry out vis a vis your post.
EO's (thinking they are senior to you) run the shit of slamming you with the Condition they think you are in or deserve . . . but it is too often their condition relative to you that they mis-assign to you.
But Hubbard's tech is full of references that the Conditions tech applies at a personal level.
One that is routinely missed is the "personal Condition of Power" . . . this by the way referenced in HCO P/Ls stating that where it exists the Personal Condition of Power should be assigned (or recognized in self) and the formula for the Condition of Power carried out.
However, the Cof$ being idiotic and suppressive routinely scoffs at the notion and refused to allow it be done
Rog
Yes, Lakey, Leon is correct about the Conditions as generally applied in the Cof$ . . . you get assigned in a Condition by a senior for you to carry out vis a vis your post.
EO's (thinking they are senior to you
) run the shit of slamming you with the Condition they think you are in or deserve . . . but it is too often their condition relative to you that they mis-assign to you.But Hubbard's tech is full of references that the Conditions tech applies at a personal level.
One that is routinely missed is the "personal Condition of Power" . . . this by the way referenced in HCO P/Ls stating that where it exists the Personal Condition of Power should be assigned (or recognized in self) and the formula for the Condition of Power carried out.
However, the Cof$ being idiotic and suppressive routinely scoffs at the notion and refused to allow it be done
Rog
lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: Fox News interviews Wall St. Protestor
I heard a liberal spokesperson speak on Fox News yesterday and I believe that he revealed what this sit in on Wall Street in New York is all about. The liberal spokesperson stated that the Tea Party is thought of as a "grass roots" movement which bashes and complains about the direction the progressives are taking this country. He stated that they have been able to exert meaningful pressure on the outcome of elections during the short period of their existence.
HE THEN WENT ON TO STATE THAT, "MAYBE ITS TIME FOR THE LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES TO HAVE THEIR OWN GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT!"
Right there, in his statement, one can see the genus of how this movement on Wall Street got started. The Tea Party has cost the Democrats several important elections since its inception. All the left has been able to do is to bash the Tea Party with claims that they are Racist and that they are Psychologically messed up. This hate campaign against them has not been effective to date and is not gaining traction so the left decided to create their own grass roots movement.
Consistent with much of the far lefts' "thinking", specific complaints or specific laws or people are not selected out for complaint. No ideas or steps to better conditions are proposed. Also, Wall Street leaders have little or no ability to rectify the complaints of the crowd. Wall Street is a "wrong target" but the protesters could care less.
Remember, Obama won the presidency using the word "change" as his mantra. There were no specifics as to what would be changed but this mantra stuck and was successful. The same with these protesters. Most of them have no idea why they are protesting. They know they are not happy and that they want change, expecially away from the evil corporations and capitalistic system. Its sort of like Karl Marx revisited.
BTW, the protests have spread now and are popping up at various places around the country. What is behind all this? As I said at the start of this post, The left wing groups want their own grass roots movement to oppose and drown out the Tea Party movement of people on the right. At every sit in around the country, every now and then a Michael Moore or an Elen DeGeneris or Rosey O'Donnel or some other wealthy celebrity from the far left will show up and give support to the crowd.
Lakey
I heard a liberal spokesperson speak on Fox News yesterday and I believe that he revealed what this sit in on Wall Street in New York is all about. The liberal spokesperson stated that the Tea Party is thought of as a "grass roots" movement which bashes and complains about the direction the progressives are taking this country. He stated that they have been able to exert meaningful pressure on the outcome of elections during the short period of their existence.
HE THEN WENT ON TO STATE THAT, "MAYBE ITS TIME FOR THE LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES TO HAVE THEIR OWN GRASS ROOTS MOVEMENT!"
Right there, in his statement, one can see the genus of how this movement on Wall Street got started. The Tea Party has cost the Democrats several important elections since its inception. All the left has been able to do is to bash the Tea Party with claims that they are Racist and that they are Psychologically messed up. This hate campaign against them has not been effective to date and is not gaining traction so the left decided to create their own grass roots movement.
Consistent with much of the far lefts' "thinking", specific complaints or specific laws or people are not selected out for complaint. No ideas or steps to better conditions are proposed. Also, Wall Street leaders have little or no ability to rectify the complaints of the crowd. Wall Street is a "wrong target" but the protesters could care less.
Remember, Obama won the presidency using the word "change" as his mantra. There were no specifics as to what would be changed but this mantra stuck and was successful. The same with these protesters. Most of them have no idea why they are protesting. They know they are not happy and that they want change, expecially away from the evil corporations and capitalistic system. Its sort of like Karl Marx revisited.
BTW, the protests have spread now and are popping up at various places around the country. What is behind all this? As I said at the start of this post, The left wing groups want their own grass roots movement to oppose and drown out the Tea Party movement of people on the right. At every sit in around the country, every now and then a Michael Moore or an Elen DeGeneris or Rosey O'Donnel or some other wealthy celebrity from the far left will show up and give support to the crowd.
Lakey
- Status