KHTK Essays

[Vinaire]

I have updated further what I wrote in post #65:

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.

A person who is trying to correct in others what he is lacking himself is not going to succeed.

If you are addicted to drugs it is highly unlikely that you can succeed in getting somebody else off drugs.

.

 

[Vinaire]

What I am saying is that one should be true to oneself.

Nobody can correct another by forcing his or her reality on that person. Nor can one correct another by bashing and trashing him.

The only way one can correct another is by being a good person and by setting a good example.

.

 

[Badass]

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.

.

OK
I agree with that,but to correct means to me an implication that something is wrong and a bit of a harsh judgement, is that required? What about focusing on improvement instead?

Components of behavior which can be improved.

Components of knowledge which can be improved.

Besides this could keep focus on, and clarify, goals.

Kind of placing attention on the right direction, too.

 

[Vinaire]

OK
I agree with that,but to correct means to me an implication that something is wrong and a bit of a harsh judgement, is that required? What about focusing on improvement instead?

Components of behavior which can be improved.

Components of knowledge which can be improved.

Besides this could keep focus on, and clarify, goals.

Kind of placing attention on the right direction, too.

To use the word "improve" in place of "correct" is fine with me.

I understand that the intention behind bashing and trashing is basically to "correct" or "improve" the other person. I just don't find it very effective or elegant. That is just my observation.

.

 

[Badass]

To use the word "improve" in place of "correct" is fine with me.

I understand that the intention behind bashing and trashing is basically to "correct" or "improve" the other person. I just don't find it very effective or elegant. That is just my observation.

.

I share with you the concern about effectivity, correct could carry a bigger impulse towards a handling, but here we are in the field of interaction with the determinsm of someone else, push or pull ?

Basically I believe what is needed there is the desire/agreement from the other person, can it be obtained by showing him the goals or by showing him the faults on his behavior/knowledge?

In practice probably a combination of both- as needed might work.

 

[Vinaire]

I share with you the concern about effectivity, correct could carry a bigger impulse towards a handling, but here we are in the field of interaction with the determinsm of someone else, push or pull ?

Basically I believe what is needed there is the desire/agreement from the other person, can it be obtained by showing him the goals or by showing him the faults on his behavior/knowledge?

In practice probably a combination of both- as needed might work.

Go ahead and try it out. There is plenty of opportunity available to you on ESMB. Per my observation, some people are good at bashing and trashing but not so good at sharp criticism.

.

 

[Vinaire]

My Observations

If a person feels that there is something lacking in another that should be corrected, then he should examine if he himself is lacking in that aspect; and if he is, he should also correct himself, while correcting the other person. It would be preferable if he corrects himself first.

This very much applies to ex-Scientologists who are trying to correct Scientologists, and if they want to succeed in their effort.

Any criminality should be corrected through the proper Justice System of the society. One should not take law in one's own hands arbitrarily.

.

 

[Infinite]

What does it mean when the author of a rule is himself disqualified from making the rule in the first place? We've just seen an entire thread - allegedly - based upon an intent to correct behaviour in others by those who practise the same behaviour.

Bollocks is what I call it. And anyway, its another example of where truth lies 180° in the other direction.

It is the action of others that causes us to become involved with them in the first place. We must make judgements about what is appropriate and act on them accordingly, regardless of our own past and current failings. If we all went about our day in some contrived navel-gazing bubble of our own worthiness we would stand around watching as children were placed into a ship's chain locker wondering whether or not we were suitably worthy to either understand what was happening or have the abilities to do anything about it. People in the real world, whether or not they were scoundrels, would react instantly to stop the child abuse occurring before their eyes.

The wording of this so-called "Null Viewpoint" annoys me as well. First, "Null Viewpoint" is an oxymoron, plus, the term "should" is best applied to oneself, and certainly not me. I'll do as I please, thanks very much.

 

[Infinite]

Ooops . . . I see now this is a collaborative thread attempting to distil already agreed concepts as they are discussed in the Independent Field. Fair nuff, I'll quietly sneak back out of the room and leave you to it. But, don't expect to not see me pop up wherever I see the application of this nonsense.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Ooops . . . I see now this is a collaborative thread attempting to distil already agreed concepts as they are discussed in the Independent Field. Fair nuff, I'll quietly sneak back out of the room and leave you to it. But, don't expect to not see me pop up wherever I see the application of this nonsense.

Don't waste your time Blippy ... come back to the bashing threads where we can laugh ourselves silly while we de-cult, and encourage lurkers to free themselves too.

Much more productive and way more fun.

 

[Vinaire]

What does it mean when the author of a rule is himself disqualified from making the rule in the first place? We've just seen an entire thread - allegedly - based upon an intent to correct behaviour in others by those who practise the same behaviour.

Bollocks is what I call it. And anyway, its another example of where truth lies 180° in the other direction.

It is the action of others that causes us to become involved with them in the first place. We must make judgements about what is appropriate and act on them accordingly, regardless of our own past and current failings. If we all went about our day in some contrived navel-gazing bubble of our own worthiness we would stand around watching as children were placed into a ship's chain locker wondering whether or not we were suitably worthy to either understand what was happening or have the abilities to do anything about it. People in the real world, whether or not they were scoundrels, would react instantly to stop the child abuse occurring before their eyes.

The wording of this so-called "Null Viewpoint" annoys me as well. First, "Null Viewpoint" is an oxymoron, plus, the term "should" is best applied to oneself, and certainly not me. I'll do as I please, thanks very much.

A rule can stand by itself. It may apply to the author as well. The principle of gravity applied to Newton.

One may do whatever one wants, but the success comes only when one is oneself free of the failing that one is trying to correct in others.

Hubbard failed to correct or improve others where he himself was failing.

.

 

[Vinaire]

It is interesting to watch people who are trying to correct others but are unwilling to be corrected themselves.

They are quick to judge others while they throw tantrums when they themselves are judged.

They have two different standards... one for others and another for themselves.

.

 

[Infinite]

A rule can stand by itself. It may apply to the author as well. The principle of gravity applied to Newton.

The "principal of gravity" is actually a Law of Physics; it occurs regardless of man's machinations. You will note, I'm sure, that Newton was as subject to the Law as anyone else, including the many thousands who have come after him and confirmed with their own observations and experiments that the Law exists. The Null Viewpoint Rule, on the other hand, is a concocted piece of nonsense which can easily be dismantled. It doesn't apply to me or to anyone else for that matter. The planet will not spin off its orbit if the Null Viewpoint rule were to have never to have been written. A far cry from gravity.

Thus, you are comparing apples with oranges, which is an entry level logic fallacy.

 

[Vinaire]

This is the latest post on my blog:

Going Beyond Counting

Hope you find it enjoyable.

Vinaire

.

 

[Leon]

I don't understand this at all:

# The ratio of the hypotenuse to an arm of an isosceles right triangle is a:b expressed in the smallest units possible.
# By the Pythagorean theorem: a2 = 2b2.
# Since a2 is even, a must be even as the square of an odd number is odd.

Why must a2 be even?

# Since a:b is in its lowest terms, b must be odd. Why so?

# Since a is even, let a = 2y.
# Then a2 = 4y2 = 2b2
# b2 = 2y2 so b2 must be even, therefore b is even.
# However we asserted b must be odd.

 

[Vinaire]

I don't understand this at all:

# The ratio of the hypotenuse to an arm of an isosceles right triangle is a:b expressed in the smallest units possible.
# By the Pythagorean theorem: a2 = 2b2.
# Since a2 is even, a must be even as the square of an odd number is odd.

Why must a2 be even?

# Since a:b is in its lowest terms, b must be odd. Why so?

# Since a is even, let a = 2y.
# Then a2 = 4y2 = 2b2
# b2 = 2y2 so b2 must be even, therefore b is even.
# However we asserted b must be odd.

# The 2 in "a2" is used as a superscript. For example, "a2" is to be interpreted as "a squared," or as "a x a." For clarity, let's write it as "a^2" since superscript is not available here. Then,

2^2 = 4
3^2 = 9
4^2 = 16
5^2 = 25
6^2 = 36
and so on...

# A ratio reduces to its lowest terms when all common factors are taken out. For example, 24:36, 18:27, 14:21, etc. all reduce to 2:3.

# In an isoscles right triangle, the two arms are equal. Let's call their measure b each. Let's call the measure of the hyptenuse a. Then from Pythagoras' theorem: a^2 = b^2 + b^2; or a^2 = 2.b^2

# An even number contains 2 as a factor. Its square will also contain 2 as a factor. Therefore, the square of an even number would also be even. An odd number does not contain 2 as a factor. Its square will also not contain 2 as a factor. Therefore, the square of an odd number would also be odd. Since a^2 = 2.b^2, we notice that a^2 contains 2 as a factor. Therefore, a^2 is even. Hence, a must also be even.

# Since a:b is in its lowest terms then a and b have no common factors. That is to say, if a is even (has 2 as a factor), then b must be odd (cannot have 2 as a factor).

Can you follow the rest?

.

 

[AngeloV]

This is putting some sort of 'significance' where there is none. 1 is the only rational number whose square (and thus it's square root) is equal to itself. This fact in itself implies there may be an exception to the 'even/odd rule' since 1 is odd and even at the same time and one should not be 'surprised' at this.

Also, I find your essay not very interesting as it is a rehash of the mathematics taught in high school math classes...unless of course that is your intended audience. They may find it interesting and helpful.

 

[Vinaire]

This is putting some sort of 'significance' where there is none. 1 is the only rational number whose square (and thus it's square root) is equal to itself. This fact in itself implies there may be an exception to the 'even/odd rule' since 1 is odd and even at the same time and one should not be 'surprised' at this.

Also, I find your essay not very interesting as it is a rehash of the mathematics taught in high school math classes...unless of course that is your intended audience. They may find it interesting and helpful.

Thank you for your comment.

.

 

[zsolt]

(1) There seems to be a gradient from observer at one end to brain at the other end.

I'm mostly a lurker here, but appreciating your work and loving your comments.
Sorry, but I feel, I have to comment on your above statement, because I don't think, it is correct. I think observer is not at the end.

This is a short excerpt from a good book, but you have to read it from the start to understand the full concept:

The attainment of enlightenment from ego's point of view is extreme death, the death of self, the death of me and mine, the death of the watcher.

The Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation by Chogyam Trungpa

This sentence is in the Disappointment section at page 9.

 

[Vinaire]

I'm mostly a lurker here, but appreciating your work and loving your comments.
Sorry, but I feel, I have to comment on your above statement, because I don't think, it is correct. I think observer is not at the end.

This is a short excerpt from a good book, but you have to read it from the start to understand the full concept:



The Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation by Chogyam Trungpa

This sentence is in the Disappointment section at page 9.

Thanks for the link to a wonderful book. I read the chapter on Disappointment. It is very clear to me that ego is a barrier to enlightenment and that enlightenment entails destruction of the ego. Expectations come from the ego. Such expectations pose a barrier.

When I used the word observer I had in mind a null viewpoint. This viewpoint is not based on any consideration. Therefore, there is no permanent beingness engaged in viewing. Any beingness and viewpoint is in a complete flux. They are coming into existence and passing out of existence on a dynamic basis. There is no permanency for any ego to develop.

My conception is that of an egoless observer or a viewpoint devoid of beingness.

.