Grass Roots Movement

spbill

Patron with Honors
THETAN - MIND - BODY simply provide a gradient of manifestations.

All three are manifested.

What is unmanifested cannot be known simply because it is unmanifested.

Please see Essay #3 KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE at Vinaire's Blog.
.

Manifested sounds like another word for constructed :)

I still don't have a clear understanding of how theta manifested (or should I say manifested itself?) Personally, I'm inclined to think it just happened spontaneously in one case, then got communicated to all subsequent beings. We are led to believe the difference between humans and other animals is that humans have this "soul" or "thetan" (self-awareness?) - and other animals don't. An interesting experiment would be to take an animal having a relatively sophisticated brain (chimp?) and see if we could engineer the spontaneous igniting of whatever flame is needed to give it a soul. I wonder if chimps raised by humans exhibit more of that characteristic than those raised in the wild? Presumably once we turned on the first chimp the idea would spread rapidly to others. This reminds me of a joke about an Irish dog and a catholic priest :) One drawback to the experiment would be if all chimps had souls they'd be entitled to rights and we could no longer use them in lab experiments.

Bill
 

spbill

Patron with Honors
THETAN - MIND - BODY simply provide a gradient of manifestations.

All three are manifested.

What is unmanifested cannot be known simply because it is unmanifested.

Please see Essay #3 KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE at Vinaire's Blog.
.

Thanks for the link and please forgive me for skimming over it. There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

First of all, in KHTK 3D you say "When someone argues "God is one" or "God is many" he is confusing God with God's manifestation". Isn't this the same thing (in LRH-think) as confusing a picture with "what it is a picture of" ? It's a very common mistake, perhaps the basic mistake we make. I often claim God is not creating us, it's just the opposite and We are creating God. Sure, the *idea* of God exists (in our imagination) and for religious people it supposedly refers to some external entity, but that is just a trick of make-believe; in fact there is no such spiritual entity, just the idea of it.

Secondly, in essay #3 you say "one can only know what is manifested" -
Perhaps I am quibbling over fine detail here, but I'd say we only "know" what we postulate. Since we could postulate anything at all, manifested or not, I'd say we could "know" some unmanifested things too. Agreed that 99 percent of what we postulate is subconsciously trying to make sense of manifested stuff coming in via our sense-data channels but there is still the possibility of postulating something original, no? I'm sure you've heard people say "I know there is a God" - obviously such folk can "know" things which are not manifest.
Bill
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I can see it that way too. I don't think Hubbard believed it was a construct. His response might be: "who constructed it?"

Bill


That question would ultimately lead to speculation.

One would have to accept the UNKNOWABLE at a certain point.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Manifested sounds like another word for constructed :)

I still don't have a clear understanding of how theta manifested (or should I say manifested itself?) Personally, I'm inclined to think it just happened spontaneously in one case, then got communicated to all subsequent beings. We are led to believe the difference between humans and other animals is that humans have this "soul" or "thetan" (self-awareness?) - and other animals don't. An interesting experiment would be to take an animal having a relatively sophisticated brain (chimp?) and see if we could engineer the spontaneous igniting of whatever flame is needed to give it a soul. I wonder if chimps raised by humans exhibit more of that characteristic than those raised in the wild? Presumably once we turned on the first chimp the idea would spread rapidly to others. This reminds me of a joke about an Irish dog and a catholic priest :) One drawback to the experiment would be if all chimps had souls they'd be entitled to rights and we could no longer use them in lab experiments.

Bill


Any manifestation seem to come from the UNKOWABLE speculating over UNKNOWABLE. See Essay #4 THE NATURE OF THOUGHT.

The above is stated half jokingly, but the truth lies somewhere in the vicinity of that statement.

.
 
Last edited:

Vinaire

Sponsor
Thanks for the link and please forgive me for skimming over it. There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

First of all, in KHTK 3D you say "When someone argues "God is one" or "God is many" he is confusing God with God's manifestation". Isn't this the same thing (in LRH-think) as confusing a picture with "what it is a picture of" ? It's a very common mistake, perhaps the basic mistake we make. I often claim God is not creating us, it's just the opposite and We are creating God. Sure, the *idea* of God exists (in our imagination) and for religious people it supposedly refers to some external entity, but that is just a trick of make-believe; in fact there is no such spiritual entity, just the idea of it.

Secondly, in essay #3 you say "one can only know what is manifested" -
Perhaps I am quibbling over fine detail here, but I'd say we only "know" what we postulate. Since we could postulate anything at all, manifested or not, I'd say we could "know" some unmanifested things too. Agreed that 99 percent of what we postulate is subconsciously trying to make sense of manifested stuff coming in via our sense-data channels but there is still the possibility of postulating something original, no? I'm sure you've heard people say "I know there is a God" - obviously such folk can "know" things which are not manifest.
Bill

That essay, "CAN GOD BE DEFINED?" is not part of the KHTK essays. It is not listed under CONTENTS (KHTK).

The formless God of the VEDAS is UNKNOWABLE as it is unmanifested.

The God of the Semitic religions is viewed as a BEING, so it is manifested to that degree.

All manifestations are ultimately the outcome of speculations. The Semitic God is the result of speculation, and so is the MEST universe.

You will be able to follow my argument if you read the 5 essays under CONTENTS (Philosophy).

By the way, a postulate is manifested as a postulate! Haha.

.
 

spbill

Patron with Honors
That essay, "CAN GOD BE DEFINED?" is not part of the KHTK essays. It is not listed under CONTENTS (KHTK).
Feels like you're scolding me :unsure: That's OK.

The formless God of the VEDAS is UNKNOWABLE as it is unmanifested.
So it must be speculated (in the conventional sense of the word), right?

The God of the Semitic religions is viewed as a BEING, so it is manifested to that degree.
Or *imagined* to be manifested. Do we have incompatible definitions for the word manifest? I will go with "immediately evident to sense perception" - I think it comes from Latin: something you can touch with your hand.

All manifestations are ultimately the outcome of speculations. The Semitic God is the result of speculation, and so is the MEST universe.
Here is where we diverge. I would say the *notion* of the Semitic God is the result of speculation; the Semitic God itself is unmanifest.

You will be able to follow my argument if you read the 5 essays under CONTENTS (Philosophy).
I hoped you would forgive me for not reading it all :)

By the way, a postulate is manifested as a postulate! Haha.
Thought you might say that.

Bill
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Feels like you're scolding me :unsure: That's OK.


So it must be speculated (in the conventional sense of the word), right?


Or *imagined* to be manifested. Do we have incompatible definitions for the word manifest? I will go with "immediately evident to sense perception" - I think it comes from Latin: something you can touch with your hand.


Here is where we diverge. I would say the *notion* of the Semitic God is the result of speculation; the Semitic God itself is unmanifest.


I hoped you would forgive me for not reading it all :)


Thought you might say that.

Bill


No I am not scolding you. You are quite sharp actually.

You know it already. A discussion only confuses it because language is involved.

.
 

spbill

Patron with Honors
No I am not scolding you. You are quite sharp actually.

You know it already. A discussion only confuses it because language is involved.

There are many ways to understand the term "mind" - isn't that where we started? I guess I was trying to point out the same thing in my own way: what Hubbard meant by "mind" was likely quite different from common usage. I see the modern definition per Scn tech dictionary is somewhat different from the one I remember.

Bill
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
There are many ways to understand the term "mind" - isn't that where we started? I guess I was trying to point out the same thing in my own way: what Hubbard meant by "mind" was likely quite different from common usage. I see the modern definition per Scn tech dictionary is somewhat different from the one I remember.

Bill


I see mind as a repository of visualizations. Thoughts are actually made up of visualizations.

The concept that I am bringing to light here is stacking and un-stacking of the mind. The mind seems to un-stack most readiliy in the order it got stacked up.

Hubbard tried to invent clever ways to bypass the natural stack up of the mind in order to get faster and miraculous results.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
There are many ways to understand the term "mind" - isn't that where we started? I guess I was trying to point out the same thing in my own way: what Hubbard meant by "mind" was likely quite different from common usage. I see the modern definition per Scn tech dictionary is somewhat different from the one I remember.

Bill

I see mind to be a queue of perceptions waiting to be processed. This queue can be very, very long extending over a lifetime.

However, not all perceptics are queued up. Perceptics that are processed simply disappear leaving behind knowledge. This knowedge is in the form of abstraction rather than actual record of precptics received. This idea is different from Hubbard's idea that every moment is recorded in the mind to be available forever.

If there is no need to recall what you ate for breakfast on 15th April 1987 then a recording of that moment would have been long processed into abstract knowledge.

What may be hard to process would be too many perceptions compressed into too little time. Also, hard to process would be perceptions that align with the beingness of a person.

What happens when all the backlog of waiting perceptions has been processed? Is there a mind left? I guess not. It would be a very different kind of a scenario hard for me to imagine at the moment.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Feels like you're scolding me :unsure: That's OK.

Sorry, if I came across that way. That was not my intention.

So it must be speculated (in the conventional sense of the word), right?

Yes, you are right.

Or *imagined* to be manifested. Do we have incompatible definitions for the word manifest? I will go with "immediately evident to sense perception" - I think it comes from Latin: something you can touch with your hand.

In my view, any imagination itself would be a manifestation. In Buddhism, mind is viewed as a sensory organ. From that viewpoint "immediately evident to sense perception" would be a good definition for manifestation.

Here is where we diverge. I would say the *notion* of the Semitic God is the result of speculation; the Semitic God itself is unmanifest.

I don't think we diverge really. All speculations are an effort to know the UNKNOWABLE. If we say that the Semitic God is unknowable, then the label "Semitic God" becomes redundant. That label can only persist if aspects of it are considered knowable. Those aspects would be the result of speculation.

I hoped you would forgive me for not reading it all :)

I don't mind that at all. If you are curious you will read them.

Thought you might say that.

:)

Bill


Please see my responses in blue above.
 
Last edited:

Vinaire

Sponsor
There are many ways to understand the term "mind" - isn't that where we started? I guess I was trying to point out the same thing in my own way: what Hubbard meant by "mind" was likely quite different from common usage. I see the modern definition per Scn tech dictionary is somewhat different from the one I remember.

Bill

I consider the ideas of ANALYTICAL and REACTIVE minds unnecessary. To the degree there are unprocessed perceptions there is a lack of fluidity in thinking in the area of those perceptions.

.
 

spbill

Patron with Honors
I see mind to be a queue of perceptions waiting to be processed. This queue can be very, very long extending over a lifetime.
I see that too but I don't call it mind. For me it is part of the understanding process. Everything we experience has to fit together with everything else in a way that makes good sense. Understanding is the process of aligning or making sense of what we experience. To use a computer analogy, we keep stuff that has yet to be completely aligned or explained in RAM - sometimes for a long while, even a lifetime - and when we find a way to fit it in with everything else it is understood and is taken out of the queue. Seems to me our nightly dreaming sessions operate on the data in this RAM, trying various scenarios that could make sense of it all. I do believe it is possible to empty the queue - that would be the complete alignment of all a person's data, what Alan called an "Ascension Experience".

However, not all perceptics are queued up. Perceptics that are processed simply disappear leaving behind knowledge. This knowedge is in the form of abstraction rather than actual record of precptics received. This idea is different from Hubbard's idea that every moment is recorded in the mind to be available forever.
That fits in with the RAM buffer idea nicely. We need a word for individual items in the RAM/buffer/queue - perceptics doesn't quite do it for me because we only keep stuff in the queue that hasn't yet been integrated and I haven't disavowed Hubbard's notion of a time-track. Perhaps some people use time as the basic alignment technique whereas others don't?

If there is no need to recall what you ate for breakfast on 15th April 1987 then a recording of that moment would have been long processed into abstract knowledge.

What may be hard to process would be too many perceptions compressed into too little time. Also, hard to process would be perceptions that align with the beingness of a person.
Seems to me that perceptions which align with the beingness of a person ought to be *easy* to process, even automatic. I don't see them hanging around in the queue.

What happens when all the backlog of waiting perceptions has been processed? Is there a mind left? I guess not. It would be a very different kind of a scenario hard for me to imagine at the moment.
That would be the Ascension Experience.

Bill
 

spbill

Patron with Honors
I thought God was a dude with a beard who sat on a cloud and farted lightning bolts.
I'll take a crack at this one, if I may...

Say one uses a camera to take a snapshot of a tree. Later when looking at the picture, what does he see: a "tree" or a "picture of a tree" ?

Say one uses his eyes to look at an actual tree out on the lawn. What does he see, a "tree" or "his perception of a tree" ?

Say one contemplates God or prays to God, what does he see: "God" or "his idea of God" ?

Images can be easily confused with the things/events/entities they portray. It is important to make the distinction.

Bill
 

spbill

Patron with Honors
I consider the ideas of ANALYTICAL and REACTIVE minds unnecessary. To the degree there are unprocessed perceptions there is a lack of fluidity in thinking in the area of those perceptions.
Agreed, ANALYTICAL vs REACTIVE was a construct I found helpful for a while but it obscures the big picture. What keeps stuff in the queue is the old stick whose ends are polar opposites. Accepting one notion precludes the other because we can't see how mutually-contradictory postulates could both be true. One way around this is to never activate (dramatize) both ends at the same time. There is a classic example from religion: many people have a concept of God which includes the notion that God created us. While this postulate asserts itself, the person cannot readily acknowledge his own role in its creation. The content of stuff in the RAM gets dramatized until the item is successfully integrated. One might say whatever is in the RAM/buffer/queue corresponds to Hubbard's REACTIVE mind; once it has been aligned/integrated/discharged, it becomes part of the ANALYTICAL mind.
Bill
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I see that too but I don't call it mind. For me it is part of the understanding process. Everything we experience has to fit together with everything else in a way that makes good sense. Understanding is the process of aligning or making sense of what we experience. To use a computer analogy, we keep stuff that has yet to be completely aligned or explained in RAM - sometimes for a long while, even a lifetime - and when we find a way to fit it in with everything else it is understood and is taken out of the queue. Seems to me our nightly dreaming sessions operate on the data in this RAM, trying various scenarios that could make sense of it all. I do believe it is possible to empty the queue - that would be the complete alignment of all a person's data, what Alan called an "Ascension Experience".


That fits in with the RAM buffer idea nicely. We need a word for individual items in the RAM/buffer/queue - perceptics doesn't quite do it for me because we only keep stuff in the queue that hasn't yet been integrated and I haven't disavowed Hubbard's notion of a time-track. Perhaps some people use time as the basic alignment technique whereas others don't?


Seems to me that perceptions which align with the beingness of a person ought to be *easy* to process, even automatic. I don't see them hanging around in the queue.


That would be the Ascension Experience.

Bill



Mind seems to provide a holding action in lieu of complete understanding.
Understanding seems to be the process of removing inconsistencies.
By the way, it is very seldom that I dream. I just go into a deep sleep.
If one can have more than one Ascension experience then it cannot be complete alignment of data.
I think that a complete alignment of all data would lead to complete as-iness (Poof...)
Nirvana is as-isness of the mind at all levels.

Basic alignment technique, in my view, is simply the removal of inconsistencies. When inconsistency is gone, the related queue is gone. Nothing remains except for an ability to operate in the the related area.

Beingness is the last remnant of the mind. I am still working on finding out what kind of a "queue" generates beingness.

.
 
Top