FROM BLOWNFORGOOD - DM IS REDOING THE ENTIRE GRADE CHART

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Reason: (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reason)
2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2): proper exercise of the mind (3): sanity b: the sum of the intellectual powers

The entity who creates the context in which reason exists, should be capable of also creating other or larger contexts.

It is the power of creation, choice pure, which is the entity who births reason.

Will>reason.

alex

????????????? You create the context of reason? Maybe in the far reaches above life. But down here one occasionally looks around to see which way the wind is blowing. If you want to glide into the ozone please attach a string so we can follow.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
????????????? You create the context of reason? Maybe in the far reaches above life. But down here one occasionally looks around to see which way the wind is blowing. If you want to glide into the ozone please attach a string so we can follow.

So If I understand you correctly, reason only exists within the bounds of what other people also agree with?

Must be hard to apply reason if you cant find an intelligent crowd to have some agreement with.

I tend to think that reason can exist without the need for checking which way the winds blow, and can be a purely insular activity.

The application of intellect to something is itself a context.

Perhaps you mean agreement when you say reason? Truth (a potential product of "reason") equals something others will also agree on?

Yes perhaps I am being a bit too philosophical.

Oh well back to speculating on what DM is up too....

alex
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Maybe so.

But my concern is that a lot of these platitudes by Hubbard can become unexamined considerations, what Scientologists call "fixed ideas", which can lie like boils in the folds of the mind until they are tested, squeezed and popped by the light of reality.

If this is not a fixed idea, then there should be no problem in showing how, in the real world, "reason abrogates one's own cause to past consideration" by a couple real life examples.

That you will not provide one, means that you can not, because reason does not do that at all. Reason is a skill that allows one to preserve the truth during their thinking process, and which leads to better choices in life - just as Hubbard advertised for his "Data Series".

Hubbard concocted slogans like you parroted above for people to believe so that their ability to reason would be crippled, while he held out the Data Series for them to use instead.

Does following the Data Series abrogate one's own cause to past consideration, too?

Why not?

I'm sorry but I don't believe that I have repeated any platitudes of Hubbards, but my own thoughts.

I believe I have given decent a explanation of my how I arrived at my conclusion, and perhaps you would be so kind as to provide "real life examples" refuting it.

And if you do, reason leads me to predict that they will be subjective rather than objective proof.

That I do not care to provide you with real life examples, hardly proves an inability on my part. You have drawn a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion, know as a Fallacy of the Consequent, (or Jeromes refutation).

Reason, the application of the intellect, or thinking in orderly rational ways, requires some degree of logic which you are attempting to skip over.

You are trying to drag the discussion into something about scientology, claiming I pander with Hubbards platitudes, and throwing up the "data series".

Sorry. No game.

alex
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
So If I understand you correctly, reason only exists within the bounds of what other people also agree with?

Must be hard to apply reason if you cant find an intelligent crowd to have some agreement with.

I tend to think that reason can exist without the need for checking which way the winds blow, and can be a purely insular activity.

The application of intellect to something is itself a context.

Perhaps you mean agreement when you say reason? Truth (a potential product of "reason") equals something others will also agree on?

Yes perhaps I am being a bit too philosophical.

Oh well back to speculating on what DM is up too....

alex

Mercy, I now know what a corkscrew feels when in process. I changed from defending reason from alienation with regard to the creative process, to a scamp who means it as "agreement", subject to the bounded logic of Neandrathals. All without moving a step! I must address this great cork-pull in the sky and have it out!
 
Last edited:

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Maybe so.

snip

Does following the Data Series abrogate one's own cause to past consideration, too?

Why not?

Any reliance on past consideration rather than current situation is an abrogation of one's own cause to some extent. Sometimes insignificant, sometimes deeply seated, unknown, and harmful.

I would tend to think of the Data Series as more on the lines of a tool, to be used when it fits the situation, rather than considerations.

I am currently studying tetralemmic logic, which seems to perhaps be a bit larger context than dualism, and it is dualism in which reason seems to best work.

Thus, the more creative conceptualization of the heirarchy, of reason vs will on my part.

alex
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Any reliance on past consideration rather than current situation is an abrogation of one's own cause to some extent. Sometimes insignificant, sometimes deeply seated, unknown, and harmful.

I would tend to think of the Data Series as more on the lines of a tool, to be used when it fits the situation, rather than considerations.

I am currently studying tetralemmic logic, which seems to perhaps be a bit larger context than dualism, and it is dualism in which reason seems to best work.

Thus, the more creative conceptualization of the heirarchy, of reason vs will on my part.

alex

OK.

I've suddenly become fascinated with tetralemmic logic:

From a this website page:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[SIZE=+1]Summary of Major Ideas[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]All things, ideas, events, etc., are 'empty,' meaning they don't cause or define themselves, but arise and cease due to conditions.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Under close scrutiny even the most rationally constructed positions and systems-- including Buddhism-- are demonstrably incoherent and irrational.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The four alternatives-- X is, X is not, X both is and isn't, X neither is nor isn't-- underwrite all theories, propositions, beliefs, etc.; given any X, all four alternatives can be demonstrated to be invalid and inadequate.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]No entity arises from itself, from another, from both itself and another, or from neither itself nor another.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]All thinking presupposes the categories 'identity' and 'difference,' but these categories are incoherent and have no referent.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Language does not refer to things, but is self-referential.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]There are two levels of discourse, the conventional and the ultimate; one learns the latter through the former, and realizes Nirvana on the basis of the latter.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Our deepest emotional and existential problems stem from clinging to cognitive positions and presuppositions.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The deep-seated, driving propensity to create the illusion of conceptual order through self-justifying rationalizations (prapa~nca) can be overcome and eliminated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.


So thanks for that, Alex!


With this form of logic, I can get a glimmer of an example of how the use of "reason abrogates one's cause to past considerations" only because limiting oneself to two choices (true or false) might limit one's actions and range of response.


But tell me - isn't your study of this form of logic still your use of reason to inform your choices?


Why demean reason as a whole?



Isn't your target just two-valued logic?

 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Isn't your target just two-valued logic

If you can call it a 'target', Alex' target is the preservation of his 'stable data', whether by sabotaging any critical tools which might endanger them (reason) or by reverse engineering 'acceptable' reasons which might support them (rationalizations.)

The discussion of 'reason' is intended only to dilute or castrate reason to the point where it can no longer endanger 'stable data'.

Zinj
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
If you can call it a 'target', Alex' target is the preservation of his 'stable data', whether by sabotaging any critical tools which might endanger them (reason) or by reverse engineering 'acceptable' reasons which might support them (rationalizations.)

The discussion of 'reason' is intended only to dilute or castrate reason to the point where it can no longer endanger 'stable data'.

Zinj

Well put, Zinj.

I suspect the same.

I'm wondering if Alex can demonstrate "Not X", or "Neither X, nor Not X".
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
OK.

I've suddenly become fascinated with tetralemmic logic:

From a this website page:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[SIZE=+1]Summary of Major Ideas[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]All things, ideas, events, etc., are 'empty,' meaning they don't cause or define themselves, but arise and cease due to conditions.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Under close scrutiny even the most rationally constructed positions and systems-- including Buddhism-- are demonstrably incoherent and irrational.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The four alternatives-- X is, X is not, X both is and isn't, X neither is nor isn't-- underwrite all theories, propositions, beliefs, etc.; given any X, all four alternatives can be demonstrated to be invalid and inadequate.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]No entity arises from itself, from another, from both itself and another, or from neither itself nor another.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]All thinking presupposes the categories 'identity' and 'difference,' but these categories are incoherent and have no referent.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Language does not refer to things, but is self-referential.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]There are two levels of discourse, the conventional and the ultimate; one learns the latter through the former, and realizes Nirvana on the basis of the latter.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Our deepest emotional and existential problems stem from clinging to cognitive positions and presuppositions.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The deep-seated, driving propensity to create the illusion of conceptual order through self-justifying rationalizations (prapa~nca) can be overcome and eliminated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.


So thanks for that, Alex!


With this form of logic, I can get a glimmer of an example of how the use of "reason abrogates one's cause to past considerations" only because limiting oneself to two choices (true or false) might limit one's actions and range of response.


But tell me - isn't your study of this form of logic still your use of reason to inform your choices?


Why demean reason as a whole?



Isn't your target just two-valued logic?


My whole point is that reason is ultimately less valuable than choice.

Reason works well and is entirely applicable within the context of the elements that are used to reason with.

But life does not lay itself out neatly to be reasoned with. The wild card seems to be us who possess consciousness. Thus there are always elements not subject to reason.

Choice trumps reason.

I would say that it is a spirititual viewpoint, or a viewpoint that gives primacy to consciousness. I believe it is best to function from that higher ground, rather than to accept and submit to the "realities" of the material world, which it can be demonstrated that we can in fact influence.

For instance, I can imagine things that are not real, and imagine ways to create them as realities. Is that reason? I would say less so than choice. Weighted more to operating from reason, would discourage the exploration of the possiblities.

Reason and choice are not mutually exclusive.

I believe, and wish to function with choice, as the senior.

Tetralemmic logic is cool because it gives a "workspace" to imagine other models of life, or to see our paradigm from a larger perspective.
:)


alex
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Mercy, I now know what a corkscrew feels when in process. I changed from defending reason from alienation with regard to the creative process, to a scamp who means it as "agreement", subject to the bounded logic of Neandrathals. All without moving a step! I must address this great cork-pull in the sky and have it out!

Well you certainly are a scamp!

alex
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
My whole point is that reason is ultimately less valuable than choice.

Reason works well and is entirely applicable within the context of the elements that are used to reason with.

But life does not lay itself out neatly to be reasoned with. The wild card seems to be us who possess consciousness. Thus there are always elements not subject to reason.

Choice trumps reason.

I would say that it is a spirititual viewpoint, or a viewpoint that gives primacy to consciousness. I believe it is best to function from that higher ground, rather than to accept and submit to the "realities" of the material world, which it can be demonstrated that we can in fact influence.

For instance, I can imagine things that are not real, and imagine ways to create them as realities. Is that reason? I would say less so than choice. Weighted more to operating from reason, would discourage the exploration of the possiblities.

Reason and choice are not mutually exclusive.

I believe, and wish to function with choice, as the senior.

Tetralemmic logic is cool because it gives a "workspace" to imagine other models of life, or to see our paradigm from a larger perspective.
:)


alex

You have presented a very well reasoned argument for your position.

Thank you.

Pass.
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
OK.

I've suddenly become fascinated with tetralemmic logic:

From a this website page:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[SIZE=+1]Summary of Major Ideas[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]All things, ideas, events, etc., are 'empty,' meaning they don't cause or define themselves, but arise and cease due to conditions.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Under close scrutiny even the most rationally constructed positions and systems-- including Buddhism-- are demonstrably incoherent and irrational.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The four alternatives-- X is, X is not, X both is and isn't, X neither is nor isn't-- underwrite all theories, propositions, beliefs, etc.; given any X, all four alternatives can be demonstrated to be invalid and inadequate.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]No entity arises from itself, from another, from both itself and another, or from neither itself nor another.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]All thinking presupposes the categories 'identity' and 'difference,' but these categories are incoherent and have no referent.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Language does not refer to things, but is self-referential.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]There are two levels of discourse, the conventional and the ultimate; one learns the latter through the former, and realizes Nirvana on the basis of the latter.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Our deepest emotional and existential problems stem from clinging to cognitive positions and presuppositions.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The deep-seated, driving propensity to create the illusion of conceptual order through self-justifying rationalizations (prapa~nca) can be overcome and eliminated.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.


So thanks for that, Alex!


With this form of logic, I can get a glimmer of an example of how the use of "reason abrogates one's cause to past considerations" only because limiting oneself to two choices (true or false) might limit one's actions and range of response.


But tell me - isn't your study of this form of logic still your use of reason to inform your choices?


Why demean reason as a whole?



Isn't your target just two-valued logic?


Well done Alanzo! Thanks for posting the above.

In many ways the above explains why Power Processing was run in a very controlled manner and that it finally is not done or rarely done in the DM era CofS.

Power Processes are designed against 3 Awareness States.

1. SOURCE

Tell me a Source?

Tell me a no source?

2. CONDITIONS

What is?

What isn't?

3. EXISTENCE

Tell me an existing problem?

How have you handled that?

These seemingly innocuous processes can run deep - so deep that you run into Axiom 1.

The Hubbard defined Axiom 1 is a "what isn't" definition.

I ran the Power Processes for 75 hours - running very deep - they have much the same phenomena as the L's - that is holographic revivification of what you are stuck in.

It is not erasure technology - it is key-out technology.

In running the Power Processes for so long - they became part of me - that is since that time, 43 years ago, I have continued to run the Power Processes in life on life. :)

Accidently or my "shear bloody-mindedness" I made them continue the Power Processes until I could be at cause with them and they were a natural part of me. :clap:

Alan
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Well done Alanzo! Thanks for posting the above.

In many ways the above explains why Power Processing was run in a very controlled manner and that it finally is not done or rarely done in the DM era CofS.

Power Processes are designed against 3 Awareness States.

1. SOURCE

Tell me a Source?

Tell me a no source?

2. CONDITIONS

What is?

What isn't?

3. EXISTENCE

Tell me an existing problem?

How have you handled that?

These seemingly innocuous processes can run deep - so deep that you run into Axiom 1.

The Hubbard defined Axiom 1 is a "what isn't" definition.

I ran the Power Processes for 75 hours - running very deep - they have much the same phenomena as the L's - that is holographic revivification of what you are stuck in.

It is not erasure technology - it is key-out technology.

In running the Power Processes for so long - they became part of me - that is since that time, 43 years ago, I have continued to run the Power Processes in life on life. :)

Accidently or my "shear bloody-mindedness" I made them continue the Power Processes until I could be at cause with them and they were a natural part of me. :clap:

Alan

Wow.

I've had quite a morning on ESMB!

Hubbard was working on these first in Phoenix in 1954.

I was there.
 

Div6

Crusader
Wow.

I've had quite a morning on ESMB!

Hubbard was working on these first in Phoenix in 1954.

I was there.

Cool dude...I would love to hear about your recall. The extant story is that John McMaster did most of the dev work on Power and Power Plus...and because people were so RAVE about it, he wound up in the commodore's commode...

From what I understand, (and keep in mind my understanding is limited) the "technical theory" of why Pr Pr's were "dropped" was because they presupposed that the "engramic command level of the reactive mind" was there.

But, since people were attesting to Clear from Dn's and NED, they were therefore "free" of the engramic command level of the reactive mind" and therefore could not/did not need to run power. As we know further, LRH wanted to realease Super Power in 78, but it was not ready (and likely never will be).


I have no experience with running Power on "clears". BTW, this was also the "solution" to handling the 2.5% er's...as it would blow apart the incident they were stuck in and "dramatizing".

BUT I have talked to a number of people that received Pr Pr at St. Hill (they were given badges to wear that said "I am on Pr Pr, please don't talk to me about my case", or some such). They ALL uniformly RAVE about it, saying it was the best auditing they ever had.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
My whole point is that reason is ultimately less valuable than choice.

Reason works well and is entirely applicable within the context of the elements that are used to reason with.

But life does not lay itself out neatly to be reasoned with. The wild card seems to be us who possess consciousness. Thus there are always elements not subject to reason.

Choice trumps reason.

I would say that it is a spirititual viewpoint, or a viewpoint that gives primacy to consciousness. I believe it is best to function from that higher ground, rather than to accept and submit to the "realities" of the material world, which it can be demonstrated that we can in fact influence.

For instance, I can imagine things that are not real, and imagine ways to create them as realities. Is that reason? I would say less so than choice. Weighted more to operating from reason, would discourage the exploration of the possiblities.

Reason and choice are not mutually exclusive.

I believe, and wish to function with choice, as the senior.

Tetralemmic logic is cool because it gives a "workspace" to imagine other models of life, or to see our paradigm from a larger perspective.
:)


alex

" A thetan has things beyond Matter Energy Space and Time which can deteriorate. His power of choice, his ability to keep two locations separate,
his belief in self and his ethical standards are independant of material things. "

Time track bulletin 1, HCOB 15 may 1963.
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
I would have to sort of disagree on this point.

I see commonality in situation of "man".

While the church has gone overboard with the concept of standardization, some structure is applicable to "spritual developement".

And certainly at the lower levels of awareness the standardiztion is beneficial.

The route of the east, relatively structureless, failed to deliver large scale advancement.

I would agree though that the CoS has taken it to robotic degrees, and is in fact failing also.

But a defined and previously walked path is valuable.

alex


LRH himself said that the only thing thetans have in common is bank. Maybe the "cookie cutter" solution works on a number of people, but even how two people have perceived the same event can vary so much that the handling needs to be completely different.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
LRH himself said that the only thing thetans have in common is bank.

He said more. From KSW1: "The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical."

Note the last sentence, which is rarely duplicated by churchies who haven't done the Clearing Course or OT2, and is often missed even then.

Out of the thousands of lower-level students I supervised in over ten years, I don't recall a single one asking me about that unbelievable sentence. I assume that not one of them took it at face value--I certainly didn't until I had done OT2.

At the time I assumed that what he meant by "bank" here is what he calls the CC Implant, considered as core bank. But had he forgotten about his research into Actual GPMs, which he said were thousands of times more aberrative than implant GPMs? Did he think everyone had the same Actual GPMs?

To put it another way, what the hell was he talking about? :confused2:

Wow--I quoted KSW1 in a post!

Paul
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
He said more. From KSW1: "The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical."

Note the last sentence, which is rarely duplicated by churchies who haven't done the Clearing Course or OT2, and is often missed even then.

Out of the thousands of lower-level students I supervised in over ten years, I don't recall a single one asking me about that unbelievable sentence. I assume that not one of them took it at face value--I certainly didn't until I had done OT2.

At the time I assumed that what he meant by "bank" here is what he calls the CC Implant, considered as core bank. But had he forgotten about his research into Actual GPMs, which he said were thousands of times more aberrative than implant GPMs? Did he think everyone had the same Actual GPMs?

To put it another way, what the hell was he talking about? :confused2:

Wow--I quoted KSW1 in a post!

Paul

Would not actual gpms be outside the definitions of reactive mind? Lacking the pain and unconciousness factor?

To me actual gpms = LIFE

??

alex
 
Top