How Dangerous is New OTVII (Solo NOTs)

[nexus100]

This concept of “team-mates” is very interesting. I have previously noted that a concentration in the non-physical medium of a spirit, as I see it, would be the spiritual being and that there could be other, perhaps lesser, concentrations. This would account for the phenomenon of team-mates and of course they would be in cooperation with the spiritual being, the main concentration.

Would they serve a function? Yes, indeed, they could have an important function. If Newton’s assessment is accurate, we have the spiritual being taking a back seat to the new emerging physical ego. But the emerging physical ego’s decisions and actions, could well deviate from the spiritual ego’s wants. The role of the team-mates could be to influence the emerging physical ego, to have it line up with the spiritual ego’s wants.

Just a thought.

Regards, David.

I think everything takes a back seat to look/create. One would have to decide to create a physical ego per the above, and the reality of emergence and deviation and whatever else is there. It would be not much different than deciding one needs a f--- buddy, wouldn't it? You can decide that, nothing wrong with it, but other than one more part of the game one is electing to create, what is the significance?

 

[mate]

Hi Vinaire.

A very interesting question.

As I use the word, being, I mean an entity, something which is discrete among many. Also an entity which is conscious, has awareness. Then of course, you could ask me what I mean by conscious and awareness. Which I would probably say something like the recognition of an external stimulus evidenced by its reaction, or something like that.

For example, I see all living creatures in the physical world as beings and have egos. In the spiritual world, all entities, I see as spiritual beings and have egos. The spirit itself, I do not see as a being. The being is the concentration in the spirit's non physical medium which permeates the whole of the physical universe and more.

This answer may seem a bit convoluted, but I suspect you'll get an idea of where I am coming from.

Regards, David.

 

[Vinaire]

Hi Vinaire.

A very interesting question.

As I use the word, being, I mean an entity, something which is discrete among many. Also an entity which is conscious, has awareness. Then of course, you could ask me what I mean by conscious and awareness. Which I would probably say something like the recognition of an external stimulus evidenced by its reaction, or something like that.

For example, I see all living creatures in the physical world as beings and have egos. In the spiritual world, all entities, I see as spiritual beings and have egos. The spirit itself, I do not see as a being. The being is the concentration in the spirit's non physical medium which permeates the whole of the physical universe and more.

This answer may seem a bit convoluted, but I suspect you'll get an idea of where I am coming from.

Regards, David.

Dear David,

Thank you very much for a well thought out answer. I can see that you have spent some time in the academia.

The only part of your answer I do not understand is how you are using the word "permeate." How can a non-physical medium permeate a physical medium? Is it possible for you to explain what you are looking at here?

Thanks,
Vinaire

.

 

[mate]

Hi Vinaire,

I was taking a viewpoint within the physical universe and permeates is the best that my physical universe language has to describe it. If I were able to look at the physical universe from the viewpoint of the spirit, and yes, the word viewpoint would actually be meaningless, as would look, I would know that the physical universe is contained within the, for the want of a better description, greater realm. Perhaps, I could have said, the physical universe is contained within the spirit, but I feel that the original statement using permeate better conveys the idea.

The real problem, I suspect, is my trying to show the relationship between the spirit and the spiritual being, based upon intellectual understanding rather than experiential understanding, which I have not yet achieved.

I trust this makes some sense.

Regards, David.

 

[Hatshepsut]

You may like the book " The Five Gospels" by the jesus seminar. They retranslated the new testament and St. Thomas, and had 200 plus
religious scholars vote on every saying Jesus said as to whether he said it in fact. Total of 91 saying were considered close to what he said. They had Thomas with 114 sayings, its a sayings Gospel.

No 29 they consider rightly or wrongly not said by jesus. They include
the third sentence as part of this saying:- " Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty." The saying as a whole is
known as " Flesh as poverty" Maybe they miss the point.

" .....does not square with these remarks [matt 11:19] that belittle the body and recomend asceticism."

Thankyou Terril, I will go to amazon and check for it. The Gospel of Thomas has had a lot of press in the past few years. In the past some of the historical volumes have been overwhelming for me. Translations from the greek into coptic into german into french into english etc. Today though I picked up a book I ordered by Jacques Lacarrrier, much simplified.

 

[Hatshepsut]

:confused2:

The real problem, I suspect, is my trying to show the relationship between the spirit and the spiritual being, based upon intellectual understanding rather than experiential understanding, which I have not yet achieved.

I trust this makes some sense.

Regards, David.

I guess that is the mystery of mysteries. Maybe its why some have chased the idea of Truth Revealed. As I was reading about the Individual Gnostic Intensive last night I could see how many people had done it... some several times. That experiential understanding has been the carrot of the ages. It is the philosopher's stone.
Everything in existence has a dual effort or it would not be persisting. In Excalibur Revisited Geoff Filbert called it the Nix and the Nix Un. Its the yin and yang. Being an Individual is a games condition...this is from Scientology. It is a movement from Know to Not Know. A being has mocked himself up. He has assumed an identitiy and this has incorporated in it something to move towards (a goal) and something to push against. . These two ideas are coincident at the moment of creation. For all valences (identities/games) to remain mocked up through time (including the valence of 'self') they must contain the active restim ot the thing they are trying to achieve and the thing they are pushing against. This is persistence. It's probably why you can even audit enduring masses. There has to be a dyad inherent in something to create its unmockability. I think that,s why the most sensitive PTS question is "Who or what has tried to unmock you?" The most serious unmocking to a being is when he runs into someone who is in direct opposition to his primary codes of goal. It gets right to the seat of him. When this threat is bad he mocks up mass or substitute selves compulsively. He's trying to remain unmockable.
On Grade I, Problems release, I got to a point where I was spotting the two postulates inherent in objects like a dog or a car. In my universe these vanished ever so briefly!

 

[Vinaire]

Hi Vinaire,

I was taking a viewpoint within the physical universe and permeates is the best that my physical universe language has to describe it. If I were able to look at the physical universe from the viewpoint of the spirit, and yes, the word viewpoint would actually be meaningless, as would look, I would know that the physical universe is contained within the, for the want of a better description, greater realm. Perhaps, I could have said, the physical universe is contained within the spirit, but I feel that the original statement using permeate better conveys the idea.

The real problem, I suspect, is my trying to show the relationship between the spirit and the spiritual being, based upon intellectual understanding rather than experiential understanding, which I have not yet achieved.

I trust this makes some sense.

Regards, David.

Thanks, David.

I see MEST universe composed of random motion as defined in Dn Axioms. Spirit is THAT which is aligning this motion according to its postulates. The Spirit cannot be defined in MEST term as it does not, itself, constitute of any motion.

The postulates are manifested as motion gets aligned according to them. Thus, beingness comes about, because beingness depends upon the primary postulate TO BE.

Beingness would be at the core of any manifestation. A wall is being, isn't it? Thus, postulates are manifested by motion getting aligned according to them. Scientology is manifested according to the postulates of Hubbard. The current form of Scientology is being manifested according to the postulates of Hubbard as modified by the postulates of David Miscavige.

Where motion is continued to be aligned there is a postulate in the process of being manifested. Where this effort is coming from, ultimately, cannot be known, just as Spirit cannot be known, but we may trace it back to postulates behind that effort. And that primary postulate may be termed as a "spiritual being."

A spiritual being is a "postulate" at the center of motion currently being aligned.

At the primary level "Hubbard" was a postulate, which manifested itself in the body of Hubbard, in the life of Hubbard, and in the works of Hubbard, including Scientolgy. It is like the sprouting of a tree from a seed. The seed is the primary postulate TO BE from which the tree comes to be.

If there is a spirtual universe, then it would be composed of effort (directed motion), and spiritual beings would be the primary postulates according to which the motion is being directed at many levels in many forms.

If MEST universe is still evolving, then there is a primary postulate at the bottom of it. That postulate may be termed as "God". But that would just be a cousin to "us" postulates. We would be the "advanced postulates" playing on the "ground postulate" of God.

Beyond all these postulates is the SPIRIT, STATIC, or BRAHMA, that cannot be known in terms of any motion, i.e. there is no motion that can be aligned to describe SPIRIT, STATIC, or BRAHMA, because THAT is the source of all motion and all postulates (primary or subsidiary).

This is how I see it at the moment.

Regards, Vinaire

.

 

[mate]

Hi Vinaire.

I do appreciate that you find the Axioms and Logics appealing. I myself find them an intentional obscuration.

For example, motion is a characteristic of space-time, but only one of many. Space-time must exist before there can be motion, so to use it an alternative for space-time is confusing, if not incorrect. Further a motion can only be random if it has not been inspected or not fully inspected. I personally believe that randomness is not an inherent characteristic of the physical universe.

Also, in my opinion, postulates (or decisions) would be meaningless outside of the physical (space-time) universe, as they are ego related. Nibbana/Nivarna/Brahma would be way beyond this.

Just a thought.

Regards, David.

Thanks, David.

I see MEST universe composed of random motion as defined in Dn Axioms. Spirit is THAT which is aligning this motion according to its postulates. The Spirit cannot be defined in MEST term as it does not, itself, constitute of any motion.

The postulates are manifested as motion gets aligned according to them. Thus, beingness comes about, because beingness depends upon the primary postulate TO BE.

Beingness would be at the core of any manifestation. A wall is being, isn't it? Thus, postulates are manifested by motion getting aligned according to them. Scientology is manifested according to the postulates of Hubbard. The current form of Scientology is being manifested according to the postulates of Hubbard as modified by the postulates of David Miscavige.

Where motion is continued to be aligned there is a postulate in the process of being manifested. Where this effort is coming from, ultimately, cannot be known, just as Spirit cannot be known, but we may trace it back to postulates behind that effort. And that primary postulate may be termed as a "spiritual being."

A spiritual being is a "postulate" at the center of motion currently being aligned.

At the primary level "Hubbard" was a postulate, which manifested itself in the body of Hubbard, in the life of Hubbard, and in the works of Hubbard, including Scientolgy. It is like the sprouting of a tree from a seed. The seed is the primary postulate TO BE from which the tree comes to be.

If there is a spirtual universe, then it would be composed of effort (directed motion), and spiritual beings would be the primary postulates according to which the motion is being directed at many levels in many forms.

If MEST universe is still evolving, then there is a primary postulate at the bottom of it. That postulate may be termed as "God". But that would just be a cousin to "us" postulates. We would be the "advanced postulates" playing on the "ground postulate" of God.

Beyond all these postulates is the SPIRIT, STATIC, or BRAHMA, that cannot be known in terms of any motion, i.e. there is no motion that can be aligned to describe SPIRIT, STATIC, or BRAHMA, because THAT is the source of all motion and all postulates (primary or subsidiary).

This is how I see it at the moment.

Regards, Vinaire

.

 

[mate]

Hi Hatshepsut.

Exactly, that is the problem we mere mortals have, the inability to step back and observe the whole, rather we get involved with detail without reference to the whole. The outcome is, of course, conflict. I suppose the real problem is that we are incapable of divorcing ourselves from the details sufficiently to view the whole.

Regards, David.

:confused2:

I guess that is the mystery of mysteries. Maybe its why some have chased the idea of Truth Revealed. As I was reading about the Individual Gnostic Intensive last night I could see how many people had done it... some several times. That experiential understanding has been the carrot of the ages. It is the philosopher's stone.
Everything in existence has a dual effort or it would not be persisting. In Excalibur Revisited Geoff Filbert called it the Nix and the Nix Un. Its the yin and yang. Being an Individual is a games condition...this is from Scientology. It is a movement from Know to Not Know. A being has mocked himself up. He has assumed an identitiy and this has incorporated in it something to move towards (a goal) and something to push against. . These two ideas are coincident at the moment of creation. For all valences (identities/games) to remain mocked up through time (including the valence of 'self') they must contain the active restim ot the thing they are trying to achieve and the thing they are pushing against. This is persistence. It's probably why you can even audit enduring masses. There has to be a dyad inherent in something to create its unmockability. I think that,s why the most sensitive PTS question is "Who or what has tried to unmock you?" The most serious unmocking to a being is when he runs into someone who is in direct opposition to his primary codes of goal. It gets right to the seat of him. When this threat is bad he mocks up mass or substitute selves compulsively. He's trying to remain unmockable.
On Grade I, Problems release, I got to a point where I was spotting the two postulates inherent in objects like a dog or a car. In my universe these vanished ever so briefly!

 

[Vinaire]

Hi Vinaire.

I do appreciate that you find the Axioms and Logics appealing. I myself find them an intentional obscuration.

For example, motion is a characteristic of space-time, but only one of many. Space-time must exist before there can be motion, so to use it an alternative for space-time is confusing, if not incorrect. Further a motion can only be random if it has not been inspected or not fully inspected. I personally believe that randomness is not an inherent characteristic of the physical universe.

Also, in my opinion, postulates (or decisions) would be meaningless outside of the physical (space-time) universe, as they are ego related. Nibbana/Nivarna/Brahma would be way beyond this.

Just a thought.

Regards, David.

Hi David,

I don't quite understand the following part:

Space-time must exist before there can be motion, ...

You use of the word "before" has to do with time itself. Besides, I cannot see how time can exist without motion. Could you please explain with a scenario.

As far as I can see, space, time and motion have to be simulataneous. You may call them space-time-motion for all practical purposes.

Thanks,
Vinaire

.

 

[nw2394]

You use of the word "before" has to do with time itself. Besides, I cannot see how time can exist without motion. Could you please explain with a scenario.

"Before" does not just mean at an earlier time. One word can be before another in a dictionary, for example.

 

[mate]

Hi Vinaire,

As I see it, time is simply a fourth dimension. "Life, as in all living things" perceives the fourth dimension as an agreed upon, unidirectional progression from "past" to "future" and most are in tune with this. A not-insignificant number of persons have observed the future and the past directly, using the technique of remote viewing. Some "prophets" have been remarkably accurate.

So time would not be dependent upon motion, it simply exists as part of the physical universe. On the other hand, motion can only occur where there is a dimension of time and an observer, who has accepted the unidirectional progression characteristic of this dimension.

At this point, I suspect you may well be thinking,"Then how did it start?" To this I would reply, "Why does it have to have a start? The physical universe has been "found" to have no boundaries and yet is finite in size, not unlike the surface of a ball, but with extra dimensions. Why wouldn't the Time dimension, be the same as the other dimensions? The dimension is no different, it is only one's perception of it"

Regards, David.

Hi David,

I don't quite understand the following part:



You use of the word "before" has to do with time itself. Besides, I cannot see how time can exist without motion. Could you please explain with a scenario.

As far as I can see, space, time and motion have to be simulataneous. You may call them space-time-motion for all practical purposes.

Thanks,
Vinaire

.

 

[Vinaire]

"Before" does not just mean at an earlier time. One word can be before another in a dictionary, for example.

I can see what you are saying. "Before" may be used for relative relationship of parts in a structure, in which all these parts are existing simultaneously.

So, we are looking at a conceptual structure which contains space, time and motion. Conceptually, motion derives from both space and time. When we are looking at motion we are looking at both space and time.

If there is no motion, there is no change of position in space, we have only awareness persistng. Here awareness is "space" and persistence is "time." But awareness can persist only if there is something to be aware of. If there is something to be aware of, then motion must have taken place.

So the very birth of space-time would involve motion. No-motion would simply be a freeze after the fact of motion. I believe, that we coin words like space, time, motion, etc. to look at the same phenomenon in different ways.

If David says, "... so to use it [motion] an alternative for space-time is confusing,..." there seems to be a confusion in David's mind in seeing the relationship among space, time and motion.

I hope I have now explained that relationship adequately above. If there is still some confusion we can discuss it further.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Hi Vinaire,

As I see it, time is simply a fourth dimension. "Life, as in all living things" perceives the fourth dimension as an agreed upon, unidirectional progression from "past" to "future" and most are in tune with this. A not-insignificant number of persons have observed the future and the past directly, using the technique of remote viewing. Some "prophets" have been remarkably accurate.

So time would not be dependent upon motion, it simply exists as part of the physical universe. On the other hand, motion can only occur where there is a dimension of time and an observer, who has accepted the unidirectional progression characteristic of this dimension.

At this point, I suspect you may well be thinking,"Then how did it start?" To this I would reply, "Why does it have to have a start? The physical universe has been "found" to have no boundaries and yet is finite in size, not unlike the surface of a ball, but with extra dimensions. Why wouldn't the Time dimension, be the same as the other dimensions? The dimension is no different, it is only one's perception of it"

Regards, David.

Hi David,

As I said above, "I believe, that we coin words like space, time, motion, etc. to look at the same phenomenon in different ways."

You and I seem to be analysing the same phenomenon differently. The phenomenon is the same but we are conceptualizing it differently. You are looking at the 3-space coordinates and time as the fourth coordinate. I have no difficulty with that.

In fact, I remeber Hubbard suggesting in PDC tapes that time itself may be divided into 3-cordinates like space is divided. So each one of us is trying to create a conceptual structure to understand this phenomenon. The truth is that

None of this conceptual structure is the phenomenon.

But, whatever this phenomenon is, I believe it has a starting point, a continuing phase, and an end point. Then another starting point, a continuing phase, and an end point... and so on.

This is the theory of cycles within cycles within cycles of Vedas. Remember those two mirrors facing each other!

.

 

[Ted]

Early Morning Thoughts

Hi David,

As I said above, "I believe, that we coin words like space, time, motion, etc. to look at the same phenomenon in different ways."

You and I seem to be analysing the same phenomenon differently. The phenomenon is the same but we are conceptualizing it differently. You are looking at the 3-space coordinates and time as the fourth coordinate. I have no difficulty with that.

In fact, I remeber Hubbard suggesting in PDC tapes that time itself may be divided into 3-cordinates like space is divided. So each one of us is trying to create a conceptual structure to understand this phenomenon. The truth is that

None of this conceptual structure is the phenomenon.

But, whatever this phenomenon is, I believe it has a starting point, a continuing phase, and an end point. Then another starting point, a continuing phase, and an end point... and so on.

This is the theory of cycles within cycles within cycles of Vedas. Remember those two mirrors facing each other!

.

Under the category of as-is-ness, I would say, matter, energy, space, time, motion, beginning, end, etc. occur all at once.

The observation of any aspect of as-is-ness (motion) is only possible through selective perception against the backdrop of no-motion or stillness. This is called is-ness or reality. People have different realities while observing the same, selectively perceptive aspects of as-is-ness.

This is really not esoteric. It is what good auditing is all about.

This is also why some threads seem to go on and on...

 

[Vinaire]

Under the category of as-is-ness, I would say, matter, energy, space, time, motion, beginning, end, etc. occur all at once.

The observation of any aspect of as-is-ness (motion) is only possible through selective perception against the backdrop of no-motion or stillness. This is called is-ness or reality. People have different realities while observing the same, selectively perceptive aspects of as-is-ness.

This is really not esoteric. It is what good auditing is all about.

This is also why some threads seem to go on and on...

I do get your point Ted. It is a contrast or differentiation that is important for as-is-ness to occur, and that is where, for me, the concept of BRAHMA comes in.

BRAHMA provides the contrast of absolute stillness. I don't think that "very important person Roger" has understood the concept of BRAHMA at all, in spite of his very important two visits to India.

Roger, probably, doesn't realize that I grew up India for a third of my life, absorbing the very fabric of philosophy and the philosophic life there. After that I have spent two-thirds of my life in United States that has included 2 years doing my Masters in Nuclear engineering at M.I.T., and 3 years working close to Hubbard aboard Apollo. Since leaving Sea Org in 1983, I have been working as an engineer in an Aerospace company with several innovations to my credit. Besides that I started a Math Club 15 years ago, which is still going strong... some of the young members ending up at Harvard. This Math Club has helped me earn VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR award in my community, and incorporation of this Math Club as part of the Youth Activites on the local public library. Now, Roger should know this all is very, very important and it gives me more chips on my shoulders if I decide to use them. Oh well! I just used one of them... poor Roger.

I do recognize these guys who try to put down ancient knowledge of the East to boost up their own self-importance. One of these days they will be as-ised.

But, Ted, your observation about some threads going on and on needs a comment. Good auditing goes on and on too as-ising this universe on a gradient!

.

 

[RogerB]

snipped . . . .

If David says, "... so to use it [motion] an alternative for space-time is confusing,..." there seems to be a confusion in David's mind in seeing the relationship among space, time and motion.

I hope I have now explained that relationship adequately above. If there is still some confusion we can discuss it further.

.

Bullshit Vin! David's statement taken in its whole and in the context he put it is correct; and there is no confusion in his mind on the matter.

You just don't get it . . . not only the precision of what he wrote, but the fact that you're again doing a nasty and destructive, evaluative put down of him.

Look at this statement of yours:

there seems to be a confusion in David's mind in seeing the relationship among space, time and motion.

I hope I have now explained that relationship adequately above. If there is still some confusion we can discuss it further.

What nasty arrogance, hubris!

For the record, outside of the physical universe, "time" and "space" can and do exist without any motion at all.

You are also in error in this statement from post #473 (among many others you've spouted on this thread) that:

But awareness can persist only if there is something to be aware of. If there is something to be aware of, then motion must have taken place.

How about a Being being aware of itself! And, further, we can do that without any motion whatsoever occurring!

Frankly, almost every person I've ever spoken to on the subject is very aware of themselves. The only exception being the truly idiotic; they are off into other fantasies.

Your postings on this thread, Vin, have on too many occasions been pure exercises in and examples of reductio ad absurdum.

Definition: The Latin phrase reductio ad absurdum means "reduction to the absurd."

And as such, they are dangerous in that they mislead folks . . and then you have the cheek to tell them they are confused!

Fact is, Vin, you know the tech on evaluation and invalidation . . . and you constantly misuse it, and do so with the use of bullshit!

Vin, you need to confront just how evil that actually is.

RogerB

 

[RogerB]

I do get your point Ted. It is a contrast or differentiation that is important for as-is-ness to occur, and that is where, for me, the concept of BRAHMA comes in.

BRAHMA provides the contrast of absolute stillness. I don't think that "very important person Roger" has understood the concept of BRAHMA at all, in spite of his very important two visits to India.

Snipped . . . . . .

.

I just finished a post citing material posted on this board to clarify some issues stated by others . . . . and woops! Vin had snuck in before me with some more of his essential "charm."

The difference between us Vin, is that you say BRAHMA cannot be known; whereas I have actually experienced the fact that it can be known.

I'm not into theorizing and ruminating at a distance from what is there to be experienced and known . . . . I have gone in and dealt with the essence of life.

RogerB

 

[Vinaire]

I just finished a post citing material posted on this board to clarify some issues stated by others . . . . and woops! Vin had snuck in before me with some more of his essential "charm."

The difference between us Vin, is that you say BRAHMA cannot be known; whereas I have actually experienced the fact that it can be known.

I'm not into theorizing and ruminating at a distance from what is there to be experienced and known . . . . I have gone in and dealt with the essence of life.

RogerB

Ah! So you have experienced Brahma. Wow! and here you are on this board acting like a peacock in heat.

Does anybody see an outpoint here... or is it just me who sees it?

Each one of us started out from the point of BRAHMA. There is nothing to crow about it. What matters is what one is doing now and how one is behaving. Being prima donna and dancing around, as you are doing, may be entertaining, but that's all it is.

Wisdom brings humility in my opinion, and not a display of ego and putting down of others who disagree as you are doing.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Bullshit Vin! David's statement taken in its whole and in the context he put it is correct; and there is no confusion in his mind on the matter.

You just don't get it . . . not only the precision of what he wrote, but the fact that you're again doing a nasty and destructive, evaluative put down of him.

...

Butt out, Roger, and take your enturbulated theta elsewhere.

I am having a discussion with David.

.