knowing how to know?

That's not what the Axiom says and, remember, its an Axiom, a self evident truth, not some subjective interpretation of what it might mean if one were to "be the space". Its also a major fail in that it uses insufficient subordinate clauses to define the term and is non sequitur to the previous Axioms. As for Axiom One, what can there be to consider in the absence of anything to consider?
About all I did was to demo it / draw it and I understood it as he wrote it. To me it makes sense.

And as for the lack of distance = no communication, well I don't agree. It is just instantaneous. If you know your own identity, why can't you be in the same space as another being and communicate with them? Distance is a bit arbitrary anyway.

A static, meaning having no location in space or time, is what you would be if you aren't of this universe but created it. He does say static has a specialized meaning on one of the tapes - it's not at an equilibrium, it exists without outside influence.

My wife told me of a time (pre Scientology) when she stepped outside of space and time. You just are. There's nothing there. It was blackness. It's what you would have if you stopped creating reality.

If you decide what he says is greek, it will be. If you work at it, it can be understood. Whether it is true or not is another matter.

Mimsey
 

This is NOT OK !!!!

Gold Meritorious Patron
do i look like i have some sort of relationship with reason?

mimsey speaks out from atacks by way of ortega, a sort of a kingston trio sort of post short on downbeat and melody. how the fuck are my counterpoint licks gonna get in th pocket and rock the baby?

what "take on hubbard's cosmology?"

does one take on dante's cosmology in the divine comedy?

naw...

ya riff off a cosmology

the only question is did the cat lay in some lead lines you can jam in on

helatrobus rocks man!

helatrobus would make a great name for a passaic new jersey niteclub run by some syphilitic second cousin of the local cosa nostra underboss

Of all your defenses of Ron & Scientology - this is your greatest effort yet!

P.S. Who has Syphilis?
 

CO2

Patron Meritorious
When we moved into a new town about 10 years ago, we got settled and my wife and I went to a Chinese restaurant for dinner. First time in this new town. Flashing neon sign and all, looked ok from the outside.

We went in and found the rather big place was empty, dinner time. We were new in town and kind of shy so we just sat down. Ordered our meal and chatted a bit.

Our meals arrive in good time, all good, friendly service and all, place was clean.

We start eating, and well, not so good. The cook and the waiter, while we were eating, decided to sit down and chat with us, all friendly and good, except the meal sucked big time.

We paid our bill, left a tip. Only to never return.

The place is closed down now.

The lesson I learned was never eat at an empty restaurant during dinner, lunch or breakfast.

or as Yogi Berra said, "Nobody eats there anymore; it's too crowded."
 

CO2

Patron Meritorious
do i look like i have some sort of relationship with reason?

mimsey speaks out from atacks by way of ortega, a sort of a kingston trio sort of post short on downbeat and melody. how the fuck are my counterpoint licks gonna get in th pocket and rock the baby?

what "take on hubbard's cosmology?"

does one take on dante's cosmology in the divine comedy?

naw...

ya riff off a cosmology

the only question is did the cat lay in some lead lines you can jam in on

helatrobus rocks man!

helatrobus would make a great name for a passaic new jersey niteclub run by some syphilitic second cousin of the local cosa nostra underboss


Ken Nordine from the Cool Jazz era

[video=youtube;33f2etWfZQA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33f2etWfZQA[/video]
 
Of all your defenses of Ron & Scientology - this is your greatest effort yet!

P.S. Who has Syphilis?

well there have been popes afflicted with the disease...


wassamotta you? you disappointed with the stanley cup series?

it was an essay on pan determinism and various aspects of "OT"

like anchor points.

you remember when i spoke of the goal posts as tukka rask's anchor points during that surpassing performance against the penguins? i mean really. how many goalies have held an opposing team to two goals playing every minute of a best of seven series?

then...

you probably failed to note it but perhaps you recall with the bruins up 2-1 with about three minutes left a rampaging blackhawk stormed in and set the net loose. they ripped out his anchor points man; that's how you steal the lightning bolt he was riding from the moment they beguiled you back from your labor dispute ARCX with the game at the end of the third period of the seventh with the leafs

ahhhh...

they always hold out for the niteclub in passaic don't they?

tough cases on this board

good thing i don't have some C/S interfering with me...
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
About all I did was to demo it / draw it and I understood it as he wrote it. To me it makes sense.

I get that yours is a subjective interpretation and I do not doubt that, for you, it makes sense. However, we are talking about Axioms . . .


axiom

ax·i·om [ak-see-uhm]

noun

1 - a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2 - a universally accepted principle or rule.
3 - Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

. . . and, as such, they should require no explanation for anyone who encounters them (i.e: when an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results) and they can be easily verified. If we were talking about something else, say, "Articles of Faith", for example, I would be happy to consider the possibilities you suggest. But we're not. We're discussing the Scientology Axioms and your earlier statement . . .

. . . You can't prove (yet) that the factors are wrong. Or the axioms - man could be a spirit - a thetan, a naught, a prime mover unmoved, a potential, a cause, not located in space or time, or a 'unit" of theta coexisting with other theta, while considering that it is not co-existing but is located in the mest U . . .

. . . we haven't yet got to The Factors but we are progessing well on proving The Axioms to be false.

And as for the lack of distance = no communication, well I don't agree. It is just instantaneous. If you know your own identity, why can't you be in the same space as another being and communicate with them? Distance is a bit arbitrary anyway.

A static, meaning having no location in space or time, is what you would be if you aren't of this universe but created it. He does say static has a specialized meaning on one of the tapes - it's not at an equilibrium, it exists without outside influence.

You've skipped over the part where I pointed out that the Axioms mention only "static" in the singular and not more than one as you asserted above, (and also the "no wavelength" aspect, which I'll come to shortly). Accordingly, in what way is distance arbitrary? The only arbitrary aspect inserted, at this stage, is your conjecture that there are more than one "static". Further, communication cannot be instantaneous. (cf: Theory of Relativity - communication travelling faster than the speed of light goes backwards) In terms of what is ordinarily understood as "communication", then, again, time is required for that to happen. This is because communication requires meaning, meaning requires context, and, in turn, context requires sequence and, obviously, sequence requires time. It seems that in order to understand the Axioms you have had to defy the law of physics and dub in an imaginary scenario which extends well beyond the bounds of a "self evident truth".

The L Ron Hubbard Law of Commotion make its obvious that he would have said something contrary in other "scripture". I've read/heard various L Ron Hubbard dribble about the "static" and even the creation of the mest universe. Incident One, for example, is mentioned as part of the Xenu stuff and, IIRC, is described as the moment a thetan comes into the physical universe for the first time.

My wife told me of a time (pre Scientology) when she stepped outside of space and time. You just are. There's nothing there. It was blackness. It's what you would have if you stopped creating reality.

If you decide what he says is greek, it will be. If you work at it, it can be understood. Whether it is true or not is another matter.

Far be if from me to cast doubt upon your wife's experiences and her interpretation of them. I will just point out that for darkness to be perceived then wavelengths would have to exist which, of course, has nothing to do with Axiom One which specifically precludes that possibility.

So, just to recap, here's Axiom One . . .

AXIOM # 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

. . . what is "self evident" about that and how can this "static" postulate and perceive in the absence of any means to postulate and perceive nor indeed anything to actually postulate or percieve? Surely, even from a straight out common sense perspective, the statement, as an "axiom", is invalid.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
I get that yours is a subjective interpretation and I do not doubt that, for you, it makes sense. However, we are talking about Axioms . . . Accordingly, in what way is distance arbitrary? The only arbitrary aspect inserted, at this stage, is your conjecture that there are more than one "static". Further, communication cannot be instantaneous. (cf: Theory of Relativity - communication travelling faster than the speed of light goes backwards) In terms of what is ordinarily understood as "communication", then, again, time is required for that to happen. This is because communication requires meaning, meaning requires context, and, in turn, context requires sequence and, obviously, sequence requires time. It seems that in order to understand the Axioms you have had to defy the law of physics and dub in an imaginary scenario which extends well beyond the bounds of a "self evident truth".

...
So, just to recap, here's Axiom One . . .

. . . what is "self evident" about that and how can this "static" postulate and perceive in the absence of any means to postulate and perceive nor indeed anything to actually postulate or percieve? Surely, even from a straight out common sense perspective, the statement, as an "axiom", is invalid.
:clap: :clap: :clap: Nice. Thanks for taking the time to write this, Infinite.
 
Top