Jon Atack vs the axioms

And in this corner, wearing green and yellow, are the Dianetic Axioms... Oh, you can hear the bellowing of the crowd as the contenders approach each other - Jon wearing shining trunks of logic lashes out with a bottle of scotch and an evening with Hubbard, and the axioms parry with a body blow of self evident truth and an upper cut of the viewpoint of dimension. The fight is a bloody mess - syntax dripping from the contenders, even the lowly typo finds its way into the fray, as the Scientology Axioms attempt to tag team Jon in a heroic body slam, which he narrowly averts.

It's one of those posts like his and Chris Shelton's attack on past lives that rankle and elucidate.

I never really had a problem with life being a static - it makes a certain amount sense, and space being a viewpoint of dimension? Why not. it seems simple enough to me, but apparently it is a tautologic mess. Whatever. I think it has a certain beauty in its brevity. Compare it to actuality. Space is a lot of unbounded volume whose limits are unknown or are expanding at the speed of light ever since the big bang.

But, Jon - carry on. I like shock and awe as you point out the flaws I skimmed over on the well taped path out of the sticky dark.

Mimsey

Ali-vs-Liston.jpg
 

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
Viewpoint of dimension....yeah... No.

One of those phrases that never made any sense even after hours word clearing and demoing

I seem to recall another one from one of the KSW series that had, I think, the phrase "lose to use" or something like that. I was sure it was a typo.
 
Viewpoint of dimension....yeah... No.

One of those phrases that never made any sense even after hours word clearing and demoing

I seem to recall another one from one of the KSW series that had, I think, the phrase "lose to use" or something like that. I was sure it was a typo.

Look at it like this: You are the viewpoint. What you are looking at is the dimension ( space )

In other words, space is being defined as: that which you are looking at. Granted it's a nebulous definition, but isn't space rather nebulous anyway? No one can say where its borders are. So it might as well be defined as that which you can see. Even the vaunted Hubble can't see the edge of space - it's too far away.

Voila.


Mimsey
 
Last edited:

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
What it comes down to is that space is a product of consciousness.

I have no difficulty with that.
 

Operating DB

Truman Show Dropout
It's a relief to find out that most people had the same difficulty I had when struggling to understand the axioms. And they were written while Hubbard and Perry Chapdelaine were drinking scotch? So as to make sicnetology seem like it had validity by making it sound science-y? It shouldn't surprise me, but damn!
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
What it comes down to is that space is a product of consciousness.

I have no difficulty with that.

It always amazes me when people come along and make bald statements like that. Do you mean consciousness actually 'creates' space, or are you saying that there is some aspect of the universe that we have chosen to designate as 'space'?

Space is something that various thinkers have attempted to define down through the ages. One (though I hesitate to call him a real thinker) said space was 'a viewpoint of dimension'. Plato, Leibnitz, Aristotle, Descartes and many other thinkers have described it in different ways, but here you are to sort out this horrible mess and unequivocally state what space really is. I just think that is a little arrogant to say the least.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Before I start racking my brain with this stuff, I want to say that I think I know who the "charming Irish auditor" Jon refers to was. Assuming I'm right, I won't name her because Jon doesn't, but she was one of the good people of this world. I hope she's OK now whatever she's doing.
 
Last edited:

Elronius of Marcabia

Silver Meritorious Patron
What it comes down to is that space is a product of consciousness.

I have no difficulty with that.

So you altered Source and now your giving verbal data :omg::thumbsup::clap:

Axioms and the Looping Logics according to "Sauce" but at least we now know the
true sauce of source. :booze::booze:Scotch
 
It's a relief to find out that most people had the same difficulty I had when struggling to understand the axioms. And they were written while Hubbard and Perry Chapdelaine were drinking scotch? So as to make sicnetology seem like it had validity by making it sound science-y? It shouldn't surprise me, but damn!
They wrote the Dianetic axioms, not the Scientology Axioms, "Perry Chapdelaine told me that he co-wrote the Axioms of Dianetics with Hubbard, for precisely that reason: Hubbard wanted something that “sounds scientific.”

Those other puppies, and the incomprehensible "Flying Ruds" HCOB were likely written by man's best friend, hisself, prolly when he had risen above the bank.
Mimsey
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
And in this corner, wearing green and yellow, are the Dianetic Axioms... Oh, you can hear the bellowing of the crowd as the contenders approach each other - Jon wearing shining trunks of logic lashes out with a bottle of scotch and an evening with Hubbard, and the axioms parry with a body blow of self evident truth and an upper cut of the viewpoint of dimension. The fight is a bloody mess - syntax dripping from the contenders, even the lowly typo finds its way into the fray, as the Scientology Axioms attempt to tag team Jon in a heroic body slam, which he narrowly averts.

It's one of those posts like his and Chris Shelton's attack on past lives that rankle and elucidate.

I never really had a problem with life being a static - it makes a certain amount sense, and space being a viewpoint of dimension? Why not. it seems simple enough to me, but apparently it is a tautologic mess. Whatever. I think it has a certain beauty in its brevity. Compare it to actuality. Space is a lot of unbounded volume whose limits are unknown or are expanding at the speed of light ever since the big bang.

But, Jon - carry on. I like shock and awe as you point out the flaws I skimmed over on the well taped path out of the sticky dark.

Mimsey

Ali-vs-Liston.jpg

I stood in the bathroom and looked at myself in the mirror. I convincingly described my point of view and realized that what's true for me is true. Then I opened the medicine cabinet and reached for my medication.
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
And in this corner, wearing green and yellow, are the Dianetic Axioms... Oh, you can hear the bellowing of the crowd as the contenders approach each other - Jon wearing shining trunks of logic lashes out with a bottle of scotch and an evening with Hubbard, and the axioms parry with a body blow of self evident truth and an upper cut of the viewpoint of dimension. The fight is a bloody mess - syntax dripping from the contenders, even the lowly typo finds its way into the fray, as the Scientology Axioms attempt to tag team Jon in a heroic body slam, which he narrowly averts.

It's one of those posts like his and Chris Shelton's attack on past lives that rankle and elucidate.

I never really had a problem with life being a static - it makes a certain amount sense, and space being a viewpoint of dimension? Why not. it seems simple enough to me, but apparently it is a tautologic mess. Whatever. I think it has a certain beauty in its brevity. Compare it to actuality. Space is a lot of unbounded volume whose limits are unknown or are expanding at the speed of light ever since the big bang.

But, Jon - carry on. I like shock and awe as you point out the flaws I skimmed over on the well taped path out of the sticky dark.

Mimsey

Ali-vs-Liston.jpg

Mimsey,

Can you provide links for both of these? Looks like someone provided a link for Atack but how about the past lives stuff?
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Viewpoint of dimension....yeah... No.

One of those phrases that never made any sense even after hours word clearing and demoing

I seem to recall another one from one of the KSW series that had, I think, the phrase "lose to use" or something like that. I was sure it was a typo.

The Scientology axioms certainly don't explain how life or anything else begins, since they start with something already there.

But I liked the phrase 'viewpoint of dimension.' From an artist's concept, taken outside the axioms and for a different purpose entirely, it was the idea of painting a distance perspective onto a canvas, like this:

John-B.-Mannarini-Times-Square-Perspective-Stretched-Canvas-P15057121.jpeg


There is no true dimension. It's still a flat picture, but there is a 'viewpoint of dimension' by whomever looks directly at the picture. An illusion of dimension, basically.

Perhaps all along this was the hidden message in the Scn axioms - there is no true dimension to them, but just an illusion, an imagined dimension, that in reality is still simply a flat picture.
 
Mimsey,

Can you provide links for both of these? Looks like someone provided a link for Atack but how about the past lives stuff?
I don't happen to agree with them, but everybody is entitled to an opinion. I am having trouble finding the one by Chris - he said or wrote it about 2 -3 weeks ago if I recall correctly, possibly in one of his critical Q& A's which you can find at his you tube channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF326xyA0QHI7Z5xAwKQDJg If you open one up, and drag the cursor across the bottom, you can go from one blue question to the next till you find it. Or you can email him.

Jon Attack, was easy - Here you go:

http://tonyortega.org/2015/10/25/jo...t-lives-dont-pass-the-giggle-test/#more-26311

As an aside, and why I believe in past lives, is A: I had a past life recall when I was in high school, prior to any exposure to the concepts of reincarnation or past lives. B: When I was on course on lines many years ago, I was practicing running R3R in my head and (idiotically) used dates instead of fruit answers ( move to 1736 instead of move to 3 grapes) and I turned on a whole track incident, and instantly my whole viewpoint on life changed. As I looked around the room, I knew who I had to get, who was no threat to me etc. I had flipped into an SP valence. It took 2 -3 days to wear off. C: There were a few other recalls that happened in session that were pretty convincing, many were dub in, and I discounted them. D: I have been exterior a few times.

Best,

Mimsey
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Axiom 1: Life is basically a static.

Well, this is supposed to be axiomatic, so there should really be no 'basically' about it. It either is a static or it is not... Static is noise on the radio, so that you can't make out what's said and what the hell it's all about. With that in mind I'd conceed that life in Scientology is a static!

:yes:
 
Axiom 1: Life is basically a static.

Well, this is supposed to be axiomatic, so there should really be no 'basically' about it. It either is a static or it is not... Static is noise on the radio, so that you can't make out what's said and what the hell it's all about. With that in mind I'd conceed that life in Scientology is a static!

:yes:
Like this?
[video=youtube;pB4G9WBYMFo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB4G9WBYMFo[/video]
 

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
So you altered Source and now your giving verbal data :omg::thumbsup::clap:

Axioms and the Looping Logics according to "Sauce" but at least we now know the
true sauce of source. :booze::booze:Scotch


If my altering source and giving verbal data are important to you then clearly you are still in the true believer mindset.

I'm not.
 
Ever since Einstein published his Special Relativity theory, we have known that space and time are aspects of spacetime, and cannot be defined independently. Hubbard's axioms take us back to the dark ages, when science did not exist. They just emphasize that Hubbard knew fuck all about science.

The axioms, supposed to be self-evident truths, are just self-evident drivel.

Mike
 

Gib

Crusader
Ever since Einstein published his Special Relativity theory, we have known that space and time are aspects of spacetime, and cannot be defined independently. Hubbard's axioms take us back to the dark ages, when science did not exist. They just emphasize that Hubbard knew fuck all about science.

The axioms, supposed to be self-evident truths, are just self-evident drivel.

Mike

WC Fields explains it well:

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

I like that word "baffle"

Here is WC Fields explaining the Bridge to Total Freedom.

“If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.”
W.C. Fields

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/340982-if-you-can-t-dazzle-them-with-brilliance-baffle-them-with

:thumbsup:

No clears, no OT's, no soul astronauts.
 
Top