KHTK Essays

[Leon]

My opinion is that Hubbard has been very astute in reorganizing existing knowledge. He filtered away a lot of irrelevant stuff. But there are either inconsistencies in his work, or ambiguities. These kinks needs to be ironed out.

I find the following definition of viewpoint quite consistent and unambiguous:



My understanding is that if there is awareness then there must be a viewpoint, and there must also be perception.

When there is awareness of self, one is perceiving self in some manner, and one has a viewpoint from which one is perceiving self.

I believe there is a NULL viewpoint that is beyond beingness, awareness, space, time, energy and matter. Maybe Hubbard tried to describe something like it with the term "Static" but then he also attributed a beingness to "Static." In that respect, a NULL viewpoint is different from "Static" because it is beyond any beingness. The language is inadequate to express it.

Maybe a NULL viewpoint assumes beingness later and that is the kind of viewpoint we are most familiar with. But I feel that a viewpoint dissociated with any and all beingness is possible. I would like to consider that as the state of Nirvana... but then this is just a consideration and not the real thing.

It seems impossible to describe anything beyond consideration, because any description would be a consideration.

.

This - in red above - is one of my objections to this concept. If the null state has no beingness then how can it assume a beingness "later"? What does "later" mean in a state where there is no time? How can a decision "to be" be made by a such a null point where there is no awareness? The whole idea collapses on this. There cannot be a "nothingness" that suddenly pops into being
an aware viewpoint

I believe that beingness and awareness always "existed", though perhaps not in this universe as we now know it.

I also believe that Hubbard derived his concept of static by considering what there could be that was in every way not what is here in the mest universe. So, it has no matter, has no energy or wavelength, no space and no time. But awareness . . . this is not included here for the simple reason that awareness is not "in" the universe at all. So it can (and did) exist before the universe did.

The idea of no time is also trouiblesome. I can get that there is some sort of meta-time - a greater or more basic time-stream than this one. But no time which then somehow becomes Time - so there is a before and after - makes no sense at all.

 

[Vinaire]

This - in red above - is one of my objections to this concept. If the null state has no beingness then how can it assume a beingness "later"? What does "later" mean in a state where there is no time? How can a decision "to be" be made by a such a null point where there is no awareness? The whole idea collapses on this. There cannot be a "nothingness" that suddenly pops into being
an aware viewpoint

I believe that beingness and awareness always "existed", though perhaps not in this universe as we now know it.

I also believe that Hubbard derived his concept of static by considering what there could be that was in every way not what is here in the mest universe. So, it has no matter, has no energy or wavelength, no space and no time. But awareness . . . this is not included here for the simple reason that awareness is not "in" the universe at all. So it can (and did) exist before the universe did.

The idea of no time is also trouiblesome. I can get that there is some sort of meta-time - a greater or more basic time-stream than this one. But no time which then somehow becomes Time - so there is a before and after - makes no sense at all.

Nirvana, Brahma, Static, NULL viewpoint are all illogical and incomprehensible from a viewpoint embedded in the universe of considerations.

I am looking at the universe of considerations as a superset of the physical universe. The universe of considerations includes all that is spiritual and physical. What lies outside the universe of considerations cannot be viewed from within the universe of considerations (let's call it UC for short).

Your objections are coming from a viewpoint that is within UC. That is natural. You are trying to apply the logic of UC to what may exist beyond UC. Concepts like beingness, awareness, space, time, matter, energy, spirtual, physical, etc. exist only within UC. Can these concepts be applied to THAT which is beyond UC is only a matter of conjecture.

The best we can do is to invent a place holder for "beyond UC." NULL viewpoint is just such a placeholder. Probably NULL viewpoint has nothing to do with what we understand to be a viewpoint in UC. So, the use of "viewpoint" in "NULL viewpoint" is just a projection. We can just as well use a different term, such as "Osh kosh," in place of "NULL viewpoint".

I do not know how UC comes about. From the argument I presented in the essay "Does the universe have a beginning?" one cannot determine the answer to that question from within UC. From a viewpoint within UC, UC will always appear to be there.

I know that any reference to "NULL viewpoint" cannot avoid the considerations of beingness, awareness, space, time, matter, energy etc. and that is enough to raise objections such as yours. And I have nothing to counter your objections. I can only point to the inherent weakness of talking about anything that lies beyond UC.

.

 

[Leon]

I agree with this post of yours, in particular the last sentence.

Be well.

 

[Vinaire]

You be well too, Leon.

I have polished up my thoughts about the null viewpoint on my blog.

THE NULL VIEWPOINT

Leon, you did contribute to this essay by asking the right questions. Thank you.

.

 

[Vinaire]

First and foremost, a person should be concerned with his own behavior and then with the behavior of others. When his own behavior is appropriate in his own estimation then he may go about correcting what he thinks is lacking in the behavior of others. He should avoid being a hypocrite.

This applies to correcting what he thinks is lacking in the behavior of Scientologists or of anybody else.

Futhermore, a person should be concerned first with his own knowledge and then with the knowledge of others. When his own knowledge is appropriate in his own estimation then he may go about correcting what he thinks is lacking in the knowledge of others. He should avoid being a hypocrite.

This applies to correcting what he thinks is lacking in the knowledge of Scientologists, and the knowledge contained in Scientology itself.

I try to apply the above to myself as best as I can. I may not be perfect but my intention is to follow what I have written above.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

First and foremost, a person should be concerned with one's own behavior rather than with the behavior of others. When one's own behavior is appropriate then the person may go about correcting the outnesses in the behavior of others.

This applies to correcting the outnesses in the behavior of Scientologists or of anybody else.

Futhermore, a person should be concerned with one's own knowledge rather than the knowledge out there. When one's own knowledge is appropriate then the person may go about correcting the outnesses in the knowledge of others.

This applies to correcting the outnesses in the knowledge of Scientologists, and the knowledge in Scientology itself.

I try to apply the above to myself as best as I can. I may not be perfect but my intention is to follow what I have written above.

.

Where does this 'should' come from? Is this a principle of your 'own' ethics/morality? Or, have you discerned it as a universal truth to which all should be held?

It seems pretty fallacious in that it seems to imply that one should not concern himself with the 'outness' of a serial killer until he himself is 'outnessless'. 'Should' we not resist a burglar as long as we have unpaid parking tickets? Let Hitler rape Poland until our own nations are paradise? Allow Scientology to steal, defraud, imprison, abuse, corrupt and lie until we can present ourselves as paragons of virtue?

In *real* terms, you're presenting a mandate for non-existence, inactivity, apathy and catatonia.

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

Where does this 'should' come from? Is this a principle of your 'own' ethics/morality? Or, have you discerned it as a universal truth to which all should be held?

It seems pretty fallacious in that it seems to imply that one should not concern himself with the 'outness' of a serial killer until he himself is 'outnessless'. 'Should' we not resist a burglar as long as we have unpaid parking tickets? Let Hitler rape Poland until our own nations are paradise? Allow Scientology to steal, defraud, imprison, abuse, corrupt and lie until we can present ourselves as paragons of virtue?

In *real* terms, you're presenting a mandate for non-existence, inactivity, apathy and catatonia.

Zinj

That "should" is coming from my sense of ethics. It is where all "shoulds" come from. Your "shoulds" are coming from your sense of ethics. Don't tell me you have no "shoulds". Look at your "should" regarding Scientology. So, it doesn't make sense why you are questioning that.

If a person is not a serial killer himself then he can certainly look at the outness of a serial killer and attempt to handle it. But if one is a serial killer then one better overcome one's own outness before bashing or trashing others for serial killing. Bashing and trashing doesn't get one anywhere anyway. It requires intelligent analysis, investigation and concerted effort to handle an outness of that magnitude.

I don't think I am suggesting what you are dubbing-in there.

.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Posted by Vinaire
That "should" is coming from my sense of ethics. It is where all "shoulds" come from. Your "shoulds" are coming from your sense of ethics. Don't tell me you have no "shoulds". Look at your "should" regarding Scientology. So, it doesn't make sense why you are questioning that.

If a person is not a serial killer himself then he can certainly look at the outness of a serial killer and attempt to handle it. But if one is a serial killer then one better overcome one's own outness before bashing or trashing others for serial killing. Bashing and trashing doesn't get one anywhere anyway. It requires intelligent analysis, investigation and concerted effort to handle an outness of that magnitude.

I don't think I am suggesting what you are dubbing-in there.

Lol, keep going Vinaire.

Hopefully this thread will end up in Grudge as well.

 

[Vinaire]

Lol, keep going Vinaire.

Hopefully this thread will end up in Grudge as well.

If a person has the same outness that he is trying to correct in others, I don't think he or she will go any distance in correcting it.

This is my opinion.

.

 

[Badass]

First and foremost, a person should be concerned with one's own behavior rather than with the behavior of others. When one's own behavior is appropriate then the person may go about correcting the outnesses in the behavior of others.

This applies to correcting the outnesses in the behavior of Scientologists or of anybody else.

Futhermore, a person should be concerned with one's own knowledge rather than the knowledge out there. When one's own knowledge is appropriate then the person may go about correcting the outnesses in the knowledge of others.

This applies to correcting the outnesses in the knowledge of Scientologists, and the knowledge in Scientology itself.

I try to apply the above to myself as best as I can. I may not be perfect but my intention is to follow what I have written above.

.

I still see a problem on this one.
How do you decide what is appropriate behavior?
What is appropriate behavior for you may not be so for another. To begin with, people in different games will have different rules of behavior, and within a game people might have disagreements too.
You would have to go to a very basic level like the golden rule and things like that, and even then you could not have a right to impose them, except when they are affecting others. Otherwise you would depend on the other person´s desire to reach an agreement with you.

You have to find first the very basic rules which apply to all games and then just show them to whomever might be interested. Failure to follow them would be against the well being of the person itself, and again you cannot enforce agreement, just hope the other being is able to see the consequences.

And what is an outness in knowledge?
Here you also end up showing earlier agreements, and depending on the other person willingness to observe them.

Same with created knowledge, you depend on agreement (Not enforced, hopefully), when you get involved with others.

Correcting others, most specially on a forum of free thinkers like this, sounds like a risky, and probably ill fated, pursuit.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

If a person has the same outness that he is trying to correct in others, I don't think he or she will go any distance in correcting it.

This is my opinion.

.

My opinion is that people should concentrate on their own outnesses and much less on what they perceive to be other peoples outnesses.

 

[Leon]

There's so much good in the worst of us

And so much bad in the best of us

That it ill behooves any of us

To criticise the rest of us.

 

[Vinaire]

My opinion is that people should concentrate on their own outnesses and much less on what they perceive to be other peoples outnesses.

I agree with that and I would like to see this happening with many people on ESMB including myself.

That will reduce unnecessary bashing and trashing of others.

.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

This applies to correcting the outnesses in the behavior of Scientologists or of anybody else.

-snip-

Do you use Scientology lingo such as outpoint http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outpoint and outness http://www.thefreedictionary.com/outness when communicating with non-Scientologists?

 

[AngeloV]

Please define 'outness' to those of us who have not read the 'tech' dictionary for decades. I find using scientological terms obfuscates rational dialog.

Further, who gets to determine another person's 'outnessess'?

 

[Vinaire]

Please define 'outness' to those of us who have not read the 'tech' dictionary for decades. I find using scientological terms obfuscates rational dialog.

Further, who gets to determine another person's 'outnessess'?

I thought outness was an ordinary English word, but I just checked and it is not. So, I guess, we should use the phrase "something that is out (lacking)". Different people may have different idea of what "something that is out" is.

PS: I thought it was an Americanism. I learned the British English in India. I came across Scientology soon after coming to States in 1969. Scientology slang was the same as American slang from my point of view.

.

 

[Vinaire]

I have corrected post #65 as follows:

First and foremost, a person should be concerned with his own behavior and then with the behavior of others. When his own behavior is appropriate in his own estimation then he may go about correcting what he thinks is lacking in the behavior of others. He should avoid being a hypocrite.

This applies to correcting what he thinks is lacking in the behavior of Scientologists or of anybody else.

Futhermore, a person should be concerned first with his own knowledge and then with the knowledge of others. When his own knowledge is appropriate in his own estimation then he may go about correcting what he thinks is lacking in the knowledge of others. He should avoid being a hypocrite.

This applies to correcting what he thinks is lacking in the knowledge of Scientologists, and the knowledge contained in Scientology itself.

I try to apply the above to myself as best as I can. I may not be perfect but my intention is to follow what I have written above.

I would correct it further as needed.

.

 

[Badass]

I have corrected post #65 as follows:



I would correct it further as needed.

.

Correct what is out (Lacking) in the behavior of others
Correcting what is out (Lacking) in the knowledge of others

How would that be different from being a police of thought?

 

[Vinaire]

Correct what is out (Lacking) in the behavior of others
Correcting what is out (Lacking) in the knowledge of others

How would that be different from being a police of thought?

Do you know of anybody who has not tried to correct what they found lacking in themselves and others?

Ex-Scientologists are trying to do that to Scientologists and Scientology. Parents are trying to do that to their children. Christianity has been trying to do that to Hindus, Muslims have been trying that to Christians, and so on.

This is normal human behavior per my observation. How one goes about correcting is different from person to person.

.

 

[Vinaire]

I still see a problem on this one.
How do you decide what is appropriate behavior?
What is appropriate behavior for you may not be so for another. To begin with, people in different games will have different rules of behavior, and within a game people might have disagreements too.
You would have to go to a very basic level like the golden rule and things like that, and even then you could not have a right to impose them, except when they are affecting others. Otherwise you would depend on the other person´s desire to reach an agreement with you.

You have to find first the very basic rules which apply to all games and then just show them to whomever might be interested. Failure to follow them would be against the well being of the person itself, and again you cannot enforce agreement, just hope the other being is able to see the consequences.

And what is an outness in knowledge?
Here you also end up showing earlier agreements, and depending on the other person willingness to observe them.

Same with created knowledge, you depend on agreement (Not enforced, hopefully), when you get involved with others.

Correcting others, most specially on a forum of free thinkers like this, sounds like a risky, and probably ill fated, pursuit.

I think each person has a sense of what is appropriate and what is not. I haven't met any person who does not have that sense.

To answer just ask yourself, how you decide what is appropriate behavior.

I never said that "appropriate behavior" should be the same set of behavior for everybody.

I can see you telling me in your post what is appropriate behavior and what is appropriate knowledge. If you don't believe me read your post as if somebody else has written it to you.

.