KHTK Essays

[Vinaire]

...

I just have to comment that your use of UNKNOWABLE irks me, every time I see you use it I want to substitute the word UNKNOWN in its place. Just because something is UNKNOWN does not make it UNKNOWABLE. If you restrict your meaning to MEST universe detection, well fine, but I don't think you are restricting it in such a fashion, are you?

...

How can you know something that is not manifested yet? You can only know your speculation about it?

Even saying that "something" is not manifested yet, is a speculation because there is nothing indicating that what has yet to be manifested can be characterized as "something."

Thus, we have a handy concept of UNKNOWABLE. One can only know one's speculation about it.

UNKNOWN can be known because it has the characteristics of being able to be known.

UNKNOWABLE has no such characteristics.

.

 

[Vinaire]

...

The BACKGROUND is NOT UNKNOWABLE! It is BACKGROUND. There IS a background. To me that means we know about it, don't we? IS implies exits. Insistence on MEST is rather silly. Why this insistence that for something to EXIST it must be MEST? We've got a background. Now just because you cannot assign known qualities to it other than "background" still doesn't mean it is unknowable nor even that it doesn't exist. You can assign it at least one quality - "container of universe, (background)". To say one cannot know more than that about it EVER is pushing it a bit. Especially when I/We might very well be said container (and I do believe that to be the case)

...

Then BACKGROUND is "something," and it is a manifestation.


Yabadabadoo

 

[Vinaire]

You EXIST right? Is your conscience experience a process taking place inside this universe?

Homer's "The Proof" is a brilliant piece of work.

http://www.lightlink.com/theproof/

(the Valentine's Day links on that page give a very nice explanation of things.)

and http://www.lightlink.com/theproof/cgi/show.cgi?lcc-scalar shows how you can have this universe inside a zero-dimensional container. Quite lovely.

So we have a manifestation called "Homer Smith"
And we have another manifestation called "Homer's Proof".
And we have all these other manifestations that are so pretty.

But, can you conceive of "absence of manifestation"
Where anything that you conceive of is a manifestation?

Please see

Essay #3: KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE

.

 

[Leon]

For awareness to be there, there must be something to be aware of even if that something is a vague sense of "self".

Anything that is sensed has to have some dimensions, even if they are vague, otherwise it cannot be sensed.

Anything with dimensions is SPACE, no matter how vague or flimsy it is. Even Hubbard equated awareness with space. The above sequence provides an expalanation for it.

Energy is simply a play in the "fabric" of space. Thus, any play of awareness would be ENERGY at this flimsiest of levels.

As energy gets fixed into a structure as in "standing waves" we have MATTER. Thus, a relatively fixed structure of awareness that is perceived as "self" would be an example of MATTER at this flimsiest of levels.

How this space-energy-matter system called "I" behaves would produce the flimsiest of TIME in which this "I" would persist.

So there is your emergence of MEST as "thought MEST."

.

These appear to be certainties for you, for me though they are nothing more than leaps into hoped-for truths.

Your first para: "For awareness to be there, there must be something to be aware of even if that something is a vague sense of "self"" is nonsense. One can be aware of being aware without there being "anything" that one is aware of. Any "sense of self" would come only much later, after one has declared that there is "not-self" in one's awareness field.

I'm not going to disect your proposition bit by bit, I merely observe that although these statements of yours satisgy you they do not even approach that for me. Your deductions and leaps of equations are simply too great.

 

[Vinaire]

With TROM and Homer's "The Proof" the adventure is on!

V, TROM's methods and your KHTK are quite well-aligned.

I'm so happy I'm out!!!!!

TROM is reducing all manifestations to certain basic principles and those are very good basic principles.

But those principles are manifested because all these manifestations exist. Hence, those principles are a part of manifestations.

Still, all we know is what is manifested.

KNOWABLE is that which is manifested. UNKNOWABLE cannot be defined because there is nothing manifested to be defined.

.

 

[Vinaire]

These appear to be certainties for you, for me though they are nothing more than leaps into hoped-for truths.

Your first para: "For awareness to be there, there must be something to be aware of even if that something is a vague sense of "self"" is nonsense. One can be aware of being aware without there being "anything" that one is aware of. Any "sense of self" would come only much later, after one has declared that there is "not-self" in one's awareness field.

I'm not going to disect your proposition bit by bit, I merely observe that although these statements of yours satisgy you they do not even approach that for me. Your deductions and leaps of equations are simply too great.

Yes, we can only be certain of what we create and identify with.

We are creating ourselves, and that is why we are so certain of "self."

Haha...

.

 

[Vinaire]

Well, no misunderstanding here. I've just used it as a shortcut to typing, you have been talking about our space-time universe using the words matter, energy space and time, MEST is just a short-cut.

And no, I don't think thought(by which I mean postulation or just plain thinking about something) is made of space-time. How can that which creates space-time be made of space-time? space-time IS a massively complex set of NOW postulates. We seem to have quite a knack for keeping enumerable balls in the air. God is a juggler. hehe

My current understanding of the way things are is: This time-space universe is a 4D projection of a zero-dimensional entity we call God which is who we are a part, the One-That-Is-Many.

Thought-MEST... too messy a concept for me. I prefer simplicities

What is watching the thoughts? What is looking at(experiencing) your conscience experience?

Can the watcher be seen?

Namaste

I believe that thinking in terms of a "space-time" system is incorrect. This leaves energy and matter out.

To me "space-energy-matter" is a single entity that goes through a cycle of BEGIN-CONTINUE-END. It is the movement of "space-energy-matter" through this cycle that produces TIME.

I know this concept is different from Einstein's concept. I know that this concept is also different from Hubbard's concept. But it is the concept that makes sense to me. I see matter as a codition of energy, and energy as a condition of space. To me, SPACE is not nothing. SPACE is a manifestation in its own right.

GOD is a label given to the UNKNOWABLE in an attempt to know the UNKNOWABLE. Then all sorts of attributes are attached to this label GOD. So we have GOD as a thought-package. But underlying this thought-package the UNKNOWABLE is still unknowable. Just because you have labeled the UNKNOWABLE doesn't make it knowable. You only know the label.

Thought can be described in terms of the characteristics called "space-energy-matter" and time. That is all I wanted to convey by the coined term "thoght-MEST". You may throw away this term if you find it messy. But my arguments above still stand.

The watcher is UNKNOWABLE.

All manifestations come from UNKNOWABLE speculating on UNKNOWABLE.

Namaste

.

 

[Vinaire]

"Spot thought-source."

thought-source: that from which thought arises/manifests.

Note: This is not asking for a prior cause; where the thought is causally related to some effect. It is asking you to spot Who/What manifests thought. I.e. a rock smashing on your foot is not the source of your thought "#$%^!!!"

Once you're happy with that.

Who is observing this thought-source?

Can this observer be yet observed?


When you are dreaming, who is experiencing the dream? What is lighting your dream? Are photons lighting the objects you see in your dream?

Consciousness is self-luminous.

The thought-source is unknowable. Only the speculation about the thought-source is knowable.

The observer is unknowable. Only the speculation about the observer is knowable.

The ultimate in every sense is UNKNOWABLE. Only the speculation about UNKNOWABLE is knowable.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Essay #1: BEGINNING

Essay #1: BEGINNING

Scientists have been struggling with theories about the beginning of this universe. But there doesn’t seem to be much analysis carried out about the concept of BEGINNING itself. A beginning is essentially a beginning of “something”. The moment there is something, the rules of mathematics, physics, metaphysics, logic, etc. come into play. When there is nothing, no rules seem to apply.

We can get an idea of the beginning of a day, the beginning of a city, the beginning of a meal, the beginning of life, or even the beginning of a universe. The common idea here is that of beginning.

The idea of BEGINNING is accompanied by the idea of END. “Beginning-End” forms a pair. They give meaning to each other. If there is a beginning then there also must be an end. If there is an end then there also must be a beginning.

BEGINNING and END together lead to the idea of CHANGE. From beginning to end there must be a change. Thus, we have BEGINNING – CHANGE – END. This has been referred to in ancient texts as a CYCLE. This cycle may be observed universally.

The cycle of “Beginning – Change – End” is a universal phenomenon.

The observation of “cycle” leads to further observations as follows.

(1) Change from BEGINNING to END.

(2) Change from END to BEGINNING.

The change from BEGINNING to the END can be observed in most things as being made up of successive events.

After the END such events cease to exist, and no event starts until the next BEGINNING. Thus, by definition, no event exists after the end of one cycle and before the start of another.

Thus, there is something and there is also nothing.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Essay #2: SOMETHING AND NOTHING

Essay #2: SOMETHING AND NOTHING

Beginning means a beginning of something. This something continues in one form or another until it ends. From beginning to end something is manifested. From the end of a cycle till the beginning of the next cycle nothing is manifested.

Beginning starts with the manifestation of something. A “something” can be the flimsiest of thought or the heaviest of heavenly body. It can be any manifestation whatsoever.

When “something” manifests successively till the end of the cycle, we get the sense of TIME. Thus, time is a secondary manifestation. Time depends on a primary manifestation appearing successively. Therefore, Time would begin with the beginning and would continue until the end.

Successive manifestation of something brings about the sense of TIME.

When there is no longer any manifestation, the cycle has come to an end. From the end till another beginning, there is no manifestation, and no time either. There is simply NOTHING.

NOTHING is “absence of manifestation.”

Science is a study of manifestations. The primary manifestation seems to have the aspects of space, energy and matter. The secondary manifestation seems to be time. So far science has not grappled directly with the absence of manifestation, or NOTHING.

Science presupposes SOMETHING to be there. It is looking for a “cause” that is supposed to exist before the beginning of the universe. That “cause” would still be something to be studied by science. Thus, that “cause” may very well be considered a part of the universe. Scientifically, before the beginning would be NOTHING.

Science cannot go into the beginning of universe as long as it presupposes SOMETHING to exist before the beginning.

Logic and Mathematics are based upon thought. Without thought there can be neither logic nor mathematics. Thus, logic and mathematics presuppose thought to be there.

Thought is just what is being employed in these essays. Thought is not NOTHING. Thought is “something” that would have to manifest at the beginning for logic and mathematics to be there. Therefore, neither logic nor mathematics can go before the beginning of universe. However,

Thought may look upon “before the beginning” as “potential of manifestation.”

The Big Bang Theory seems to confirm a great deal of observations; and it comes quite close to describing the beginning but it does not address the beginning itself.

To describe the beginning of the universe then, one may have to speculate upon the nature of NOTHING.

And that would give us another universe.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Essay #3: KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE

Essay #3: KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE


SOMETHING is a manifestation. When there is something, we can look at it and know it. NOTHING is absence of any manifestation. When there is nothing then there is nothing to look at and to know.

Thus, one can only know what is manifested. One may only speculate upon what is not manifested.

Thus, knowable would be the characteristic of a manifestation. When there is no manifestation then there is nothing knowable. We may regard that as unknowable.

The "unknowable" immediately invites a definition; and this definition may simply be the thought as the absence of manifestation. This thought immediately becomes known because any thought is a manifestation.

KNOWABLE is that which is manifested. UNKNOWABLE cannot be defined because there is nothing manifested to be defined.

We notice that there is no manifestation that could be regarded as unknowable. We may notice further that the thought of “unknowable” is, at least, knowable as a thought.

It is hard to conceive of unknowable. The ancients tried to describe it through the process of “neti, neti” meaning “neither this, nor that.” Then they said that even this description is not unknowable; and furthermore whatever remains after going through this process is not unknowable either. The ancients assigned to the unknowable, the label BRAHMA.

BRAHMA has nothing to do with a god. BRAHMA is simply a label for Unknowable. Ancients used fables to make the meaning of BRAHMA understood. They weaved stories in which BRAHMA appeared as a character, or in which BRAHMA was personified. But these were merely devices to help one conceive the Unknowable. The fact is that BRAHMA never was, nor will ever be anything other than a label for Unknowable.

On the other hand knowable is anything manifested from the flimsiest of thought to the heaviest of heavenly body.

KNOWABLE is the nature of SOMETHING that constitutes this universe.

UNKNOWABLE is the nature of NOTHING.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Essay #4: THE NATURE OF THOUGHT

Essay #4: THE NATURE OF THOUGHT


In the previous essay it was noted that one may only speculate upon what is not manifested (unknowable). These speculations immediately become knowable as manifested thoughts. To know the unknowable, one seems to visualize the possibilities of what could be there.

In general, thought is imagination of what might be there when one lacks direct perception. It is the forming of mental images or concepts of what is not present to be sensed. Language is not necessary for thought to form. Language simply provides symbolic expression to thought.

Thought is visualization. The purpose of thought is to give form to the unknowable.

Thought seems to be spurred by the unknown. It starts as “wonder” at the possibilities that could be there. One then starts to believe in some of these “possibilities.” Thought then proceeds as “inspiration” to bring those possibilities about.

The knowable is formed through visualization or thought.

A thought is not NOTHING. A thought is SOMETHING. A thought is, therefore, knowable as ideas. Even the idea of a mystery is a manifested thought. It is known as “anything that is kept secret or remains unexplained or unknown.”

If you look at a thought in your mind, and follow it all the way back to its beginning, you may find imagination. The words that you visualize are actually symbols used for thoughts. When you look at what these words represent, you will find mental images.

Words and symbols are a condensation of visualization or thought.

Visualization or thought is at the core of creation. The activity of creation may be studied by observing how mental images come about.

The ability to create is the ability to visualize an original thought.

Thinking compares and associates existing thoughts and come up with new thoughts that give further form to the unknown. As thinking evolves, the thoughts that are more consistent become certainties. Thus, thought is propelled forward by visualizations that are consistent. This is science. This is also art. Language may be completely bypassed in this process.

Thus, wisdom is generated. Thus, well-being, strength, wealth and order are generated. Thought becomes the bearer of all these things, or one may say that all these things result from the transformations of thoughts.

Reality is generated through an evolution of thought consistent with itself.

Thus, the secret of power, strength, persistence, survival, etc. lies in the consistency of what one imagines. This is the core of all that is sacred. This may be regarded as the essence of spirituality.

The way out of any problem, difficulty or situation then appears to be the recognition of inconsistencies and resolving them one by one. When no inconsistency remains, then no problem, difficulty or situation will remain either.

When a thought is consistent throughout it is like a laser beam that can penetrate anything.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Essay #5: THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE

Essay #5: THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE


By observing the emergence of thought, one may somewhat grasp the nature of existence. With the manifestation of thought we have some form of existence, no matter how flimsy.

Thus, existence comes about with a manifestation. A manifestation basically means that “something is being.” This fact of being, or existing, may be referred to by a new word BEINGNESS.

The fact of manifestation makes it immediately knowable. The fact that something can be known implies AWARENESS. Thus, beingness and awareness occur together. They are the essence of existence.

BEINGNESS AND AWARENESS MAY BE REGARDED AS THE SPIRITUAL ASPECT OF THIS UNIVERSE.

The awareness of beingness comes about in terms of space, energy, matter and time as described below.

A manifestation imposes a distinct awareness of itself in terms of its scope, extent or dimension. This overall sense of a manifestation may be referred to as SPACE.

A manifestation is alive. It has come into being. It changes and evolves. These changes are part and parcel of its nature. This sense of activity of a manifestation may be referred to as ENERGY.

Through that activity, a manifestation may acquire relatively static structure at certain locations in space. This structure may give a recognizable form to that manifestation. This sense of recognition of a manifestation may be referred to as MATTER.

Space-energy-matter may continue to evolve throughout the cycle from beginning to end. This sense of persistence and continuation of a manifestation may be referred to as TIME.

SPACE, ENERGY, MATTER AND TIME MAY BE REGARDED AS THE PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE UNIVERSE.

Beingness, awareness, space, energy, matter and time may completely define this system called the UNIVERSE.

“Spiritual” and “physical” are not two different universes. They are two different aspects of the same universe.

BEFORE THE BEGINNING, THERE SEEMS TO BE NEITHER BEINGNESS NOR AWARENESS. THUS, THERE WOULD BE NO SPACE, ENERGY, MATTER, AND TIME EITHER.

BEFORE THE BEGINNING THERE IS ONLY THE UNKNOWABLE. AND THAT UNKNOWABLE HAS NO BEINGNESS OR AWARENESS. IT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ANY DIMENSIONS, ACTIVITY OR FORM. IT DOES NOT PERSIST EITHER. IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE DEFINED OR VIEWED.

This is the simplest supposition one arrives at based on pure observation and thought.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Critique of LRH

Here is a critique of what LRH wrote in Scientology 8-8008 under the section BEINGNESS.

LRH says:

Space is not necessary to the beingness of a thetan when the thetan is above the tone level of 40.0 and can create space at will. He creates space to have specific beingness. At 40.0 space and beingness can be considered to be interchangeable. Beingness can exist without any energy or matter, which is to say, without time.

According to my understanding, space is a manifestation. Space is not nothing. The electromagnetic wave is the most basic representation of energy. To me, the electromagnetic wave is a condition of space itself.

If we find in space an analogy to beingness, then we may find in electromagnetic wave an analogy to the tone level. A tone is simply a condition of beingness.

At Tone Level 40, the beingness is in its most pristine form. There is no "condition" to it. The is analogous to space with its condition as an electromagnetic wave having a frequency of zero, or an infinite wave length.

Above this level there is no space. At this level space itself comes into existence. One may only speculate how space comes to be manifested. The first speculation is, "there must be some kind of a potential."

LRH now postulates a "beingness" called a "thetan" at this level. This "thetan" is assigned the attribute that it creates space at will. This is pure speculation. All we know is that space is manifested. That is all. How that space comes to be manifested is pure speculation on LRH's part.

"Thetan" is the label given to the UNKNOWABLE. Then attributes are assigned to this label. We come to know a lot about this label called "thetan". But underneath this label, the UNKNOWABLE is still unknowable.

Thus, a whole yarn is created.

By the way, "specific beingness" would simply be an identity.

PS: Creation of "thetan," as described above, is simply a dramatization of how "God" was created in Semitic religions. "God" is another label created for UNKNOWABLE to which are then assigned all kind of attributes.

.

 

[nexus100]

Here is a critique of what LRH wrote in Scientology 8-8008 under the section BEINGNESS.

LRH says:


According to my understanding, space is a manifestation. Space is not nothing. The electromagnetic wave is the most basic representation of energy. To me, the electromagnetic wave is a condition of space itself.

If we find in space an analogy to beingness, then we may find in electromagnetic wave an analogy to the tone level. A tone is simply a condition of beingness.

At Tone Level 40, the beingness is in its most pristine form. There is no "condition" to it. The is analogous to space with its condition as an electromagnetic wave having a frequency of zero, or an infinite wave length.

Above this level there is no space. At this level space itself comes into existence. One may only speculate how space comes to be manifested. The first speculation is, "there must be some kind of a potential."

LRH now postulates a "beingness" called a "thetan" at this level. This "thetan" is assigned the attribute that it creates space at will. This is pure speculation. All we know that space is manifested. That is all. How that space comes to be manifested is pure speculation on LRH's part.

"Thetan" is the label given to the UNKNOWABLE. Then attributes are assigned to this label. We come to know a lot about this label called "thetan". But underneath this label, the UNKNOWABLE is still unknowable.

Thus, a whole yarn is created.

By the way, "specific beingness" would simply be an identity.

PS: Creation of "thetan," as described above, is simply a dramatization of how "God" was created in Semitic religions. "God" is another label created for UNKNOWABLE to which are then assigned all kind of attributes.

.

Unraveling this line of thought would be like digging up the model for Mona Lisa.

 

[Vinaire]

People bought this yarn of "thetan" from Hubbard because they want to identify themselves with this idea of "thetan".

Besides, it is very uncomfortable to have the UNKNOWABLE staring at you.

This is why people have bought the idea of "God" also in all these millennia.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Unraveling this line of thought would be like digging up the model for Mona Lisa.

Thank you, Nexus. I was wondering what you think of "God" now.

.

 

[nexus100]

Thank you, Nexus. I was wondering what you think of "God" now.

.

The dumbest bastard on the block.

 

[Vinaire]

Further comments:

LRH says:

Space is not necessary to the beingness of a thetan when the thetan is above the tone level of 40.0 and can create space at will. He creates space to have specific beingness. At 40.0 space and beingness can be considered to be interchangeable. Beingness can exist without any energy or matter, which is to say, without time.

I think that looking at the analogy between space and beingness is a genius idea. The mathematical concept of FIELD may apply beautifully here.

Space may be defined as a field of awareness.

In this field of awareness, a viewpoint may simply be a formulation or a structure much like a particle in physical space.

For example, a viewpoint that I prefer is to look at knowledge for what it is no matter where it comes from. Focus on the source of knowledge is a distraction.

Beingness existing without matter would be like space existing without any particles in it. It would be awareness without any structures, such as, viewpoints in it.

Beingness existing without energy would be like space existing without any modulations in the form of electromagnetic waves. It would be awareness without any formulated direction.

It seems that primary manifestation would be space or a field of awareness. Prior to it is "no manifestation" or UNKNOWABLE.

This field of awareness may develop modulations and directions, much like electromagnetic waves traveling in space.

Some of these modulations may get locked up in the form of standing waves and this starts to provide a structure. Such structures or fundamental viewpoints in the field of awareness will behave much like fundamental particles in space.

More and more complex viewpoints may be generated in the field of awareness, much like more and more complex particles are generated through the combination of fundamental particles in physical space.

So, there is a subject of BEINGNESS that may be formulated on a basis somewhat similar to particle Physics.

.

 

[Leon]

It seems that primary manifestation would be space or a field of awareness. Prior to it is "no manifestation" or UNKNOWABLE.

.

I think you are too stuck on trying to reconcile what you learned in Scio with what you learned in Hindu teachings. This fixation you have on the prior cause being "unknowable". It is totally unwarranted assumption.