An Evaluation of Dianetics

[Vinaire]

Damn them illusions - wish my illusionary tax collectors, illusionary bankers and illusionary service providers would stop wanting their illusionary cheques and illusionary payments each month.

Musta stepped into an illusion that I can rarely get free from

Any illusion is REAL because it is there and persisting.

It is surviving.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

All experience has to do with time and SURVIVAL.

.

Well, umm, yeah. 'Experience' pretty much presupposes 'Time' and if you're dead, there goes the experience.

But, whatcher point?

Zinj

 

[Zinjifar]

Any illusion is REAL because it is there and persisting.

It is surviving.

.

All illusions are not created equally illusory.

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

Well, umm, yeah. 'Experience' pretty much presupposes 'Time' and if you're dead, there goes the experience.

But, whatcher point?

Zinj

Really? That is an interesting consideration!

This consideration also seems to be persisting in the universe of Zinj.

.

 

[Vinaire]

All illusions are not created equally illusory.

Zinj

Is that another one of your considerations, Zinj?

You sure have a lot of things surviving.

.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I don't think we are disagreeing, just using different words to express what can't be expressed.

I think you're right LH.

Curse my inability to send batched concepts via telepathy!

 

[Headend]

Any pondering is subject to time and survival.

Any aspersion is subject to time and survival.

.

Vin it's very hard to define a no-thing, as soon as you do it becomes a something.

When I wrote, "When I say now I do not mean the things that appear in it". I was trying to explain something by saying what it is not.

If you ignore the things that appear in the now, what are you left with?

The mind will find the answer very uninteresting. See if you can stay with the uninteresting for a moment.

Pete

 

[Vinaire]

Life is dynamic and surviving.

The source of life is STATIC which is TOTAL POTENTIAL. STATIC is neither surviving nor not surviving.

.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

What is "now" and how wide is it?

I can see great potential benefits from being solely in "now" and I also see a long-term trap. There are two "now"s. 1. Where the being is volitionally directing his attention or simply being. 2. A vibrational mest agreement (for want of a better definition).

The only strong case I can see for being in "now" is to overcome any nonconfront on it. But the nonconfront is of things and not of time. Learn to confront anything and you will be in "present time".

Don't know if this helps or not, but somewhere on the BC there is a place where LRH says (amongst other strange things such as there being different sized thetans) that thetans have different sizes of present time - some very small, some very wide.

So, I guess you could try to measure your present time with a measuring tape. And I shall come looking for you for a beer someday and catch you still with a measuring tape in your hand, trying to make sense of what I wrote here.

Peace.

 

[lionheart]

Life is dynamic and surviving.

The source of life is STATIC which is TOTAL POTENTIAL. STATIC is neither surviving nor not surviving.

.

What about the outpoint I gave when you asked for outpoints?

Rewording and re-asserting the conclusion based upon an outpoint doesn't make it any more true.

At the start of this thread you said: "I shall be going over the route that LRH followed to see where he might have slipped."

Quote from Vinaire:
OBSERVATION: Life is energy of some sort. Energy is surviving.

Reply from Lionheart:
What "sort" of energy? (missing facts). How do you know it is an energy and how do you know it is a kind of energy that survives?

Survival of energy is a physical universe law. To extrapolate that to "life" is an assumption.

Are you now going to continue regurgitating LRH poorly researched dogma?

What sort of an evaluation is this?

 

[lionheart]

I am not here to prove anything. I am just a student.

What happens when a theety-weety wants to look very learned?

He starts to create stupid games conditions.

.

Your analysis is incomplete and theety-weety.

Why does he want to die in the first place? What does he hope to accomplish with dying?

Did he want to die when he was young and free of disablity?

.

Yikes, just picked up your little barbs! Sorry I was away celebrating the symbolism of the divine taking human form!

Vinaire, calling me theety weety is the greatest compliment that you can pay me! I am honoured to be one of Ron's Theeety Weety, Squirrel, SP, WOGS.

He was terrified of the spiritual, religious, mystical and aesthetic, as demonstrated by his published paranoid works.

To be called in Ron-speak "theety weety" is wonderful, truly wonderful!

The users of such parrot-speak have to evaluate their own use of Ron's cult terminology.

In case you didn't see it before here again is my love poem to you.
A love song to friends, especially for dear Vinaire
Are my words just theet and weet, a torn mush of lies sans care?
Or are our hearts hardened by, messiah with face laid bare?
Is rabid blame and offense here, or is it in your stare?

Don't worry if this message is not theety weety enough for you. I have plenty more theet and weet waiting to be expressed.

 

[Headend]

Life is dynamic and surviving.

The source of life is STATIC which is TOTAL POTENTIAL. STATIC is neither surviving nor not surviving.

.

I can't be bothered looking it up but didn't the "great" Guru say that life is a static. Static is clearly an attempt to define a no-thing, you seem to be confusing a no-thing with a something or at least mixing the two.

LH is right you need to reassess some of Ron's assumptions. God forbid that he be wrong but lets just try that idea on for a moment.

 

[beyond_horizons]

Life is dynamic and surviving.

The source of life is STATIC which is TOTAL POTENTIAL. STATIC is neither surviving nor not surviving.

.

Wasn't this hashed out already on a different thread? I thought it ended with your Hubbard having a problem while reinventing his definition of ‘Static’. It ended with something like; "His definition leads his flock to a false sense of serenity". I tend to think of it as the 'Dear in the Headlight' phenomena. Or perhaps you were the only one who hadn't 'cogged' on that yet?

As in Physics essentially 'Static' is potential. 'Kinetics' is manifestation of potential.

Survive is what you decide to do when you think your going to die. Perhaps your problem is, is that you think folks on this board are out to kill you?

In that case, by all means continue with your research!

 

[Vinaire]

What about the outpoint I gave when you asked for outpoints?

Rewording and re-asserting the conclusion based upon an outpoint doesn't make it any more true.

At the start of this thread you said: "I shall be going over the route that LRH followed to see where he might have slipped."

Quote from Vinaire:
OBSERVATION: Life is energy of some sort. Energy is surviving.

Reply from Lionheart:
What "sort" of energy? (missing facts). How do you know it is an energy and how do you know it is a kind of energy that survives?

Survival of energy is a physical universe law. To extrapolate that to "life" is an assumption.

Are you now going to continue regurgitating LRH poorly researched dogma?

What sort of an evaluation is this?

This is no longer an evaluation of Dianetics. You have already gone beyond Dianetics with your question.

Energy implies manifestation of potential. You may call it kinetic energy. That is what life is.

The source of life is STATIC. But life is dynamic and it is surviving.

The physical universe is a solidified aspect of life. Physical energy is solidified energy. Energy has to do with manifestingness, doingness, or activity.

Life, as manifested in the universe, is energy in the most general sense by the definition above. There are as many variations to this energy as there are variations to life.

All dichotomies are wrapped up in energy.

All energy is subject to TIME, and therefore, subject to survival. I am not aware of any "kind" of energy which is not subject to survival.


.

 

[Vinaire]

Yikes, just picked up your little barbs! Sorry I was away celebrating the symbolism of the divine taking human form!

Vinaire, calling me theety weety is the greatest compliment that you can pay me! I am honoured to be one of Ron's Theeety Weety, Squirrel, SP, WOGS.

He was terrified of the spiritual, religious, mystical and aesthetic, as demonstrated by his published paranoid works.

To be called in Ron-speak "theety weety" is wonderful, truly wonderful!

The users of such parrot-speak have to evaluate their own use of Ron's cult terminology.

In case you didn't see it before here again is my love poem to you.
A love song to friends, especially for dear Vinaire
Are my words just theet and weet, a torn mush of lies sans care?
Or are our hearts hardened by, messiah with face laid bare?
Is rabid blame and offense here, or is it in your stare?

Don't worry if this message is not theety weety enough for you. I have plenty more theet and weet waiting to be expressed.

OK.

.

 

[lionheart]

This is no longer an evaluation of Dianetics. You have already gone beyond Dianetics with your question.

Energy implies manifestation of potential. You may call it kinetic energy. That is what life is.

The source of life is STATIC. But life is dynamic and it is surviving.

.

Precisely which question of mine went "beyond Dianetics"?

You are just regurgitating Hubbard dogma which he never researched, although he pretended that he had.

Life is kinetic energy??? .... huh? How do you know that? You are just repeating the same outpoint which you originated in your "Evaluation of Dianetics"

Why don't you just tell us to re-read "Original Thesis", rather than just parrotting it back to us? I took your purpose in this thread to be to evaluate every concept of the subject newly with new un-cult eyes. Therefore every concept of the subject is open to re-evalaution. I thought you asking for outpoints in your evaluation was a good idea to de-cult the Dianatics dogma. However. you appear to not want outpoints in Hubbard's thories to be pointed out despite asking for them! And a few posts ago seemed to be re-commencing your unquestioning "evaluation".

By all means continue, if you wish, but what is the point if you are going to ignore any outpoint spotting?

 

[Vinaire]

I can't be bothered looking it up but didn't the "great" Guru say that life is a static. Static is clearly an attempt to define a no-thing, you seem to be confusing a no-thing with a something or at least mixing the two.

LH is right you need to reassess some of Ron's assumptions. God forbid that he be wrong but lets just try that idea on for a moment.

My understanding is that the source of life is static. The source of life is not something dynamic.

But life is dynamic in all its manifestations.

Please don't tell me that you are being static. If you were, you won't be in the physical universe writing to ESMB.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Wasn't this hashed out already on a different thread? I thought it ended with your Hubbard having a problem while reinventing his definition of ‘Static’. It ended with something like; "His definition leads his flock to a false sense of serenity". I tend to think of it as the 'Dear in the Headlight' phenomena. Or perhaps you were the only one who hadn't 'cogged' on that yet?

As in Physics essentially 'Static' is potential. 'Kinetics' is manifestation of potential.

Survive is what you decide to do when you think your going to die. Perhaps your problem is, is that you think folks on this board are out to kill you?

In that case, by all means continue with your research!

I have no idea what you are talking about. You are too complicated for me.

.

 

[lionheart]

My understanding is that the source of life is static. The source of life is not something dynamic.

But life is dynamic in all its manifestations.

Please don't tell me that you are being static. If you were, you won't be in the physical universe writing to ESMB.

.

The universe is a polarity-based universe. Life has a dynamic aspect just as a coin has a head. But life is not dynamic just as a coin is not a head.

This is the mistake Hubbard made. He ignored the non-dynamic aspect of life. If you haven't experienced this, then I weep for you.

Hubbard took this dynamic aspect of life and because of the outpoint in his analysis he leapt to the conclusion that the sole purpose of life is to survive!

Once he did this he stuck himself to one side of the polarity and could not see the other side of the coin. Hence he spent his life fighting to "survive" to be "at cause" and to "make things go right". He was doomed to fail and die a miserable death.

If we take off our Hubbard blinkers, we open ourselves to the wonder of life! The miracle of being.

 

[lionheart]

I have no idea what you are talking about. You are too complicated for me.

.

That's because you haven't taken off your Hubbard blinkers! BH is not being complicated at all, he just seems to be so to you because you are looking at him through Hubbard glasses.