Grass Roots Movement

[The Great Zorg]

Look to East, my son... without the lens of some "source" or "creator."

.

Actually, the idea of Creator is simply a quick fix to an impossible concept; that a sentience in it's own right and consciousness continues to be the one and only master of everything. :confused2:

My belief is that "God", the "Creator", the "Creator Of All Things", the "Great Spirit", "Yahweh" or any other Supreme Being is simply the conscious remnant of the Big Bang; the left over, unused energy still present and sentient. What form it takes, if any is basically inconsequential; it only matters that this Supreme Being exists and is accessible, somehow, some way. :confused2:

 

[Vinaire]

Coffee Shop Auditing

Today I ran this exercise from KHTK 1D on two people. This exercise is based on a Scientology Grade 0 process.

Not much talking took place. The person simply looked at what came up and indicated so. The exercise was ended when all available responses were looked at. KHTK approach was used. No E-meter was required to run this Grade 0 process.

The results were wonderful. In both cases there were plenty of chuckles and smiles, and in the end the person himself originated his realizations.

I am satisfied with the results which I got today but I look forward to others doing this exercise and the results they get.

If this works out then possibly the whole Scientology Bridge may be run as a Grass Roots movement. I wonder how this will affect the Church.

.

The whole idea behind KHTK 1D is that most of the Scientology processes may be run with KHTK approach. One may run them with benefit even when one is unstacking the mind, and not digging deeply into the mind like in Scientology. I do not plan to create new proesses here. I just want to see how existing Scientology processes would run with KHTK approach. It would certainly be interesting to examine how L's would run with KHTK approach.

Per KHTK principles one looks at whatever the mind brings up, otherwise one moves on to the next action if nothing comes up. I think that listing questions can be run safely with KHTK approach. That is to say, one should simply accept what the mind offers and should not go digging in the mind for answers.

I think that past, present or future doesn't come into picture when running KHTK, because one simply looks at whatever the mind offers. If the mind offers nothing on a Scientology process then there is nothing to unstack with this process at that moment. Maybe after running some other processes this same process may help unstack something.

I would appreciate if some members on this board could guide a few people through the exercise in KHTK 1D. I ran it on two of my ex-Scientologist friends as part of a comfortable discussion in Starbucks. I did not use "Start of session" or "That's it" after the session. I simply showed them the KHTK issue and asked them if they would like to run this Scientology process KHTK style. They enthusiastically agreed. I made sure they knew the KHTK principle of simply looking and not digging in the mind. Then I guided them through the exercise.

This may be called Coffee Shop auditing (literally), but it brought about some nice chuckles and realizations mostly on Flow 0 (last question). They both ended up very happy.

This is a bit adventurous, I would love to see what other people can do with it. If you do then keep it very light and fun, and let me know how it went.


KHTK 1D: LOOKING: PRACTICE


.

 

[Vinaire]

Actually, the idea of Creator is simply a quick fix to an impossible concept; that a sentience in it's own right and consciousness continues to be the one and only master of everything. :confused2:

My belief is that "God", the "Creator", the "Creator Of All Things", the "Great Spirit", "Yahweh" or any other Supreme Being is simply the conscious remnant of the Big Bang; the left over, unused energy still present and sentient. What fork it takes, if any is basically inconsequential; it only matters that this Supreme Being exists and is accessible, somehow, some way. :confused2:

IMHO, Supreme being is a construct.

.

 

[paradox]

Actually, the idea of Creator is simply a quick fix to an impossible concept; that a sentience in it's own right and consciousness continues to be the one and only master of everything. :confused2:

My belief is that "God", the "Creator", the "Creator Of All Things", the "Great Spirit", "Yahweh" or any other Supreme Being is simply the conscious remnant of the Big Bang; the left over, unused energy still present and sentient. What fork it takes, if any is basically inconsequential; it only matters that this Supreme Being exists and is accessible, somehow, some way. :confused2:

IMHO, Supreme being is a construct.

.

See also Names of God

Re "Big Bang"; big bang cosmology (1927) was invented by Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître ( July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966), a Belgian Roman Catholic priest and professor of physics and an astronomer at the Catholic University of Louvain. It is essentially a hebraic religious construction supporting a genesis of the universe as related in the traditionally recognized first book of the Pentateuch. It's scientific foundation is basically that of Edwin Hubble's (November 20, 1889 – September 28, 1953) idea of redshift (1929) (Doppler Shift phenomenon applied to that of light) and, hence, the notion of an expanding universe; the big bang start, of course, being originated by the hebraic version of "God's" creative impulse.

See this ESMB post for sound reasoning that the "big bang never happened"; Universe: The Cosmology Quest: Parts 1 and 2 of 2

 

[uniquemand]

According to Le Maitre hisself, it wasn't at all a religious idea. He opposed the Pope using it as such.

I would say not only did the big bang happen, but it will happen again, and probably already has.

See White Hole.

 

[Vinaire]

To put a beingness before beingness comes about, is circular logic.

BEINGNESS = BE + ING + NESS = EXISTENCE.

.

 

[uniquemand]

It's a circular cosmos. Circular logic applies.

I like to think of our little home as a Klein bottle.

 

[paradox]

....

See White Hole.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they have wandered off through equation after equation, and eventually built a structure which has no relation to reality."

Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)

:confused2:

 

[uniquemand]

Sure, except that the mathematics has been proven repeatedly, and over the years, various experiments have proven that it does apply to the real universe, surprising as that was even to the mathematicians. Forty years ago, black holes were considered artificats of mathematical theories. Now, they are acknoweldged as being at the center of mass of every galaxy. White holes come from the same theory, as do wormholes.

 

[paradox]

Sure, except that the mathematics has been proven repeatedly, and over the years, various experiments have proven that it does apply to the real universe, surprising as that was even to the mathematicians. Forty years ago, black holes were considered artificats of mathematical theories. Now, they are acknoweldged as being at the center of mass of every galaxy. White holes come from the same theory, as do wormholes.

Yes, of course. Despite the fact that not one (black hole, white whole, wormhole, dark matter, dark energy) has ever been physically observed; only "artist representations" or "artist interpretations." Yes, one can prove virtually anything one wants with mathematics, not unlike the case with statistics. Whether or not there is any actual correspondence with the physical universe. If you ever get a chance I do recommend viewing the Universe: The Cosmology Quest vid. If nothing else than just for kicks.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Yes, of course. Despite the fact that not one (black hole, white whole, wormhole, dark matter, dark energy) has ever been physically observed; only "artist representations" or "artist interpretations." Yes, one can prove virtually anything one wants with mathematics, not unlike the case with statistics. Whether or not there is any actual correspondence with the physical universe. If you ever get a chance I do recommend viewing the Universe: The Cosmology Quest vid. If nothing else than just for kicks.

Space, your basic space-defining color, is black. The color of a black hole, it's most distinguishing feature is that it's black. So, 'ow you s'posed to see 'em?

 

[Zinjifar]

Speaking of which though; I had a bit of an epiphany a while back. 'Dark Energy' is the centripetal force of the *universe* spinning. In *what* I dunno

Zinj

 

[paradox]

Space, your basic space-defining color, is black. The color of a black hole, it's most distinguishing feature is that it's black. So, 'ow you s'posed to see 'em?

Against a lighter background, I should think; nebula, ga-lax'-y, etc. And if it's the center of a ga-lax'-y or star that's referred to then that is unprovable one way or t'other except through mathematical modeling (which is the whole raison d'etre for their hypothetical existence anyways i.e. to balance or make work equations that otherwise don't work under mainstream cosmology; mainstream thinking says the majority of the physical universe is "missing," hence the mathematical constructs of dark this-n-that to show the missing stuff; alternately, Plasma Cosmology recognizes that plasma comprises 99.999xx% of the visible universe and quite adequately explains visible phenomena; therefore not as quixotic or exciting as science fiction imaginings perhaps, but much more realistic in term of common sense and what is actually observable; and just as fascinating in terms of the wonder of what we can actually sense with our limited human faculties of direct observation. Just sayin'.

 

[paradox]

Space, your basic space-defining color, is black. The color of a black hole, it's most distinguishing feature is that it's black. So, 'ow you s'posed to see 'em?

Actually, I think space may be colorless, more the nature of a colorless mirror, the blackness only having meaning in terms of what isn't there compared with the light that is there. But then I often enjoy talking through my hat, too.

 

[Vinaire]

Sure, except that the mathematics has been proven repeatedly, and over the years, various experiments have proven that it does apply to the real universe, surprising as that was even to the mathematicians. Forty years ago, black holes were considered artificats of mathematical theories. Now, they are acknoweldged as being at the center of mass of every galaxy. White holes come from the same theory, as do wormholes.

Mathematics applies to the real universe only to the degree that the same axioms are used to construct the real universe as well as mathematics.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Speaking of which though; I had a bit of an epiphany a while back. 'Dark Energy' is the centripetal force of the *universe* spinning. In *what* I dunno

Zinj

Enerrgy is just a form of space. Matter is condensation of energy.

.

 

[paradox]

Mathematics applies to the real universe only to the degree that the same axioms are used to construct the real universe as well as mathematics.

.

Yes. Or stated similarly, "Mathematics applies to the real universe only to the degree that the same axioms are used to construct, or corroborate and support real-world observations of the real (consensus) universe as well as mathematics." Using mathematics a priori to observation ... well, then you end up with a Stephen Hawking as the darling idol of mainstream cosmology/astronomy/physics; pure mathematical theory and hypothetical constructs absent any correlation to common sense, real-world physics.

 

[uniquemand]

Mathematics applies to the real universe only to the degree that the same axioms are used to construct the real universe as well as mathematics.

.

Sounds good, but you make it sound like the laws were created on purpose. I'm not at all sure that this is the case. My understanding is that there were a vast possible number of different ways that a big bang could have worked out, only one case of which works out with laws identical to those we currently have. There was a probability distribution covering lots of other possible outcomes, as well. I get these ideas from Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos", which is based in M-Theory.

It doesn't look intentional. And, it looks like there were a large number of possible outcomes other than this universe that could have been derived from the singularity, if the probabilities had collapsed differently.

 

[Vinaire]

Sounds good, but you make it sound like the laws were created on purpose. I'm not at all sure that this is the case. My understanding is that there were a vast possible number of different ways that a big bang could have worked out, only one case of which works out with laws identical to those we currently have. There was a probability distribution covering lots of other possible outcomes, as well. I get these ideas from Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos", which is based in M-Theory.

It doesn't look intentional. And, it looks like there were a large number of possible outcomes other than this universe that could have been derived from the singularity, if the probabilities had collapsed differently.

You seem to be talking mathematically. Read TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS by Lee Smolin. It talks about there being an infinite number of possible String theories, which amounts to saying, "Everything goes."

Maybe that's the case. As I said earlier, the scenario I like is that the Gage Theory points to the UNKNOWABLE, and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking points to a manifestation.

Thus, the basic axiom seems to be,

"Manifestation happens."

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Enerrgy is just a form of space. Matter is condensation of energy.

.

What's momentum?

Zinj