M.U. On The dynamics, my thoughts.

[Gadfly]

During TR0, I went exterior also, but my perceptics were not a bright as yours. I also had the physical universe vanish for a few moments and then it came back with brighter perceptics, then it went away and came back with even brighter perceptics. Each time the MEST universe vanished I could only percieve a field of static. I was blown out. As you stated before, it was in the beginning of my Scn experience.

There was a change that took place during this period of time, but near death experiences a few years later surely were a factor: I developed a stronger telepathic ability and an ability to heal, along with some unique abilities when emotionally charged. I do not think you would believe me if I told you the rest of the story. You mentioned exagerated claims by Scientologists and I am sure you would feel that I was doing just that. I did have witnesses to the events. This abilty to influence MEST while emotionally charged has diminished somewhat (for now). Restoration of these abilities is one of my objectives.

Oh, I have the view that all sorts of strange things can and do occur. Healing, telepathy, telekinesis, etc. I just don't have the view that you/we/any of us can bring them about through any methods or practices in any consistent fashion. What these are and how they happen is NOT explained by Hubbard's paradigm (though some or many feel that it is). And surely, bringing such specific abilities into existence has NEVER been covered adequately by Hubbard - other than vague general claims of "OT" - that umbrella term that envelops all para-Scientology.

I am glad that you mentioned that the MEST universe disappeared. A static is out of time and space, and when there is NO object of observation, one experiences the purest degree of this.

As soon as one is there with any universe, and especially begins moving about in time and space within it, you are FAR from existing as a static.

This notion of exterior with full perception, is like wanting to be a static, but still having time and space, energy and mass. To me it is downright goofy!

 

[Gadfly]

Hmm, I don't know Gad, it seems to me that this quote is refuting your definition of reality. I just may be a stupid doofus, but it seems to me that what you are calling "reality" is what Bertrand names "appearance" and that Aki is talking about reality per this quote. You seem to be arguing for the "common sense" definition while Aki is opting for reality being "what is actual".

To me reality, as we experience it through the physical senses, always IS "appearance".

There is no such thing as experiencing "as it really is", not that you or me will ever experience.

 

[Spirit]

Oh, I have the view that all sorts of strange things can and do occur. Healing, telepathy, telekinesis, etc. I just don't have the view that you/we/any of us can bring them about through any methods or practices in any consistent fashion. What these are and how they happen is NOT explained by Hubbard's paradigm (though some or many feel that it is). And surely, bringing such abilities has NEVER been covered adequately by Hubbard - other than vague general claims of "OT". That umbrella term that envelops all para-Scientology.

These abilities did not fully manifest until after a near death experience. I actually died for a minute or so until some asshole appeared and told me to go back. No white light. Just sounds of pure joy and ecstasy coming from an unseen realm. I really was pissed when I picked the body up again.

 

[Gadfly]

Thus, it is consciousness that one can have a perfect certainty on. No perfect certainty can be had that there really exists something "out there" using the "machine" we call a body.

I think I have sort of said the same thing when I have said that the ONLY "truth" or "legitimate reality" is awareness (that which is conscious).

From it all else is derived. There is no doubt that as far as subjective things are concerned, such as values, meanings, significances, and ideas, that it all comes from "within". While these inner states might be influenced by "out there", they are not "caused" by out there.

And, yes, in terms of any experience of "out there", one only gets bits and pieces, limited by the sensory apparatus and context of any experience of perception.

But these bits and pieces are plenty to easily live, play, and get on with things. But they are NOT an accurate representation of "what is" in any absolute sense.

Since consciousness is the only thing one can have perfect certainty on, some might assume that thus, the "thetan" or "static" could pervade something, without the uses of a body and senses, and know it with full certainty. It is getting late, and I don't have the time to explain, but THAT notion is utterly goofy.

You don't know "things", meaning that you are not directly familiar with them. You either know the sense-data about things, or you know your IDEAS about things.

I just started reading philosophy, because I know that others have covered all of this already. I am on Plato's Republic right now, and I am going to take it forward, one philosopher at a time. I have been having some amazing WOW moments (not so much with Plato, but with Russell's book, and another I read on Kant).

I am loving this whole idea of "what can we be certain of, if anything", and "how do we arrive at such certainties"? For the first time in my life I am digging into my own mind, and WATCHING HOW I arrive at these various certainties. I will talk about this later, but I had an AMAZING experience examining the "ability to extrapolate general principles from specifics" (inductive reasoning). If I was near an E-Meter I would have exhibited a Dial Wide Floating TA! I saw something in a way I had never before seen it. It made me realize that I really needed to spend some serious time with real philosophy. This doesn't have to do with "proofs" and "logic" but watching your own mind as it does what it does to arrive at knowledge and certainty about all sorts of things "in here" and "out there".

For example, you can experience a few examples of 2 apples plus 2 apples results in 4 apples, and then 2 bananas added to 2 more bananas give you 4 bananas, and at some point BANG! Quantum Leap! You KNOW that for all cases, for ANYTHING anywhere, 2 + 2 = 4. I did this with some other idea, and I watched as I took the quantum leap from specifics to the general principle. Or move back a little further, and examine a wide number of examples of induction, until you KNOW this way that a mind can and does operate by induction.

Obviously, you cannot experience every possible example of 2 somethings plus 2 more somethings equal 4 somethings. While you START with sense data, and experience, you jump a hurdle at some point and KNOW the "truth" that for anything anywhere, that can exist as unique things, 2 + 2 = 4.

This can happen without ever using the numerals or number symbols. Just place 2 objects on a table, place 2 more next to them, and then move them all together (set of 4). Do it over and over, and at some point the mind can apprehend that relationship. BANG! Quantum Leap through the mental process of induction. I am starting to see that MANY truths involving relationships, especially that are spread out over time and space, begin with experience but transcend specific experience and form into a general principle. But I am only just starting to dig into this.

The thing I am dealing with is trying to figure out if these truths exist ONLY in the mind, which is how it seems to me, or somewhere else (like Plato's universal "forms").

 

[PirateAndBum]

To me reality, as we experience it through the physical senses, always IS "appearance".

There is no such thing as experiencing "as it really is", not that you or me will ever experience.

Do take the time to read Homer's "The Proof" (the left hand links are the "formal" proof and the Valentine Lectures have less rigorous logic.

It's a real mind bender. Groking it produced some interesting mental creaking and is doing so as I read it again. LOL

 

[Gadfly]

These abilities did not fully manifest until after a near death experience. I actually died for a minute or so until some asshole appeared and told me to go back. No white light. Just sounds of pure joy and ecstasy coming from an unseen realm. I really was pissed when I picked the body up again.

Cool!

Did a Scientologist order you back to the body, and yell at you for "doing a bunk"!

I would say that the Universe always gives us what is perfectly right for us at any time. I know that sounds so New Age stupid, but that seems true to me. I suspect that you needed to come back, for some reason in regards to your own personal growth and development.

 

[Spirit]

Cool!

Did a Scientologist order you back to the body, and yell at you for "doing a bunk"!

I would say that the Universe always gives us what is perfectly right for us at any time. I know that sounds so New Age stupid, but that seems true to me. I suspect that you needed to come back, for some reason in regards to your own personal growth and development.

Well, he wasn't a Scientologist but he was damn sure a joker. Once I was back in my body, he told me to me to come back. I could still see him, but could not get back out.

 

[Spirit]

Do take the time to read Homer's "The Proof" (the left hand links are the "formal" proof and the Valentine Lectures have less rigorous logic.

It's a real mind bender. Groking it produced some interesting mental creaking and is doing so as I read it again. LOL

groke: A frightening creature most frequently used to scare children.
"Eat your carrots or I'll let the groke out again!"

What does groke mean when used in the above form?

 

[Gadfly]

groke: A frightening creature most frequently used to scare children.
"Eat your carrots or I'll let the groke out again!"

What does groke mean when used in the above form?

From Wikipedia:

To grok /ˈɡrɒk/ is to intimately and completely share the same reality or line of thinking with another physical or conceptual entity. Author Robert A. Heinlein coined the term in his best-selling 1961 book Stranger in a Strange Land. In Heinlein's view, grokking is the intermingling of intelligence that necessarily affects both the observer and the observed. From the novel:

Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthling assumptions) as color means to a blind man.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines grok as "to understand intuitively or by empathy; to establish rapport with" and "to empathise or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment". Other forms of the word include groks (present third person singular), grokked (past participle) and grokking (present participle).

In an ideological context, a grokked concept becomes part of the person who contributes to its evolution by improving the doctrine, perpetuating the myth, espousing the belief, adding detail to the social plan, refining the idea or proving the theory.

+++++++++++++++

Hubbard's idea of "pervasion" is similar, but Heinlein's concept takes it to the MAX!

 

[Spirit]

Thanks Gad, I Googled it but only found the noun definition.

 

[Aiki]

No, it didn't. Of course, this involves a traditional deep philosophical debate with many brilliant folks arguing each side.

I say NO, because sound is defined as:

the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium

If the organ of perception isn't there to be stimulated, there can't be a "sound". It takes both. Again, it involves a relationship. There might be waves traveling through the air right after the large tree banged against a large rock, but until these waves act upon some organ of perception, there is "no sound".

A simple finding of studies in Quantum Physics is that the observation of any phenomena changes it into something it wasn't before it was observed. The simple act of looking at it CHANGES IT.

Things change as they are viewed.

As I pointed out, the truth of this object that can appear as a circle, as an ellipse and as a line, is that the FULL REALITY or TRUTH is:

The knowledge that embraces ALL of them, the circle, the ellipse, and the line, and includes the understanding and basic importance of the relationship between what is looked at and how it is looked at.

It is like a CHEMICAL REACTION. Experience is the result of adding together some observer and something to be observed. But the reaction will NOT always be the same. And I for one LOVE how there can be so much variety, that can instantly switch just by changing how I am looking.

What a strange definition of sound. That's a definition of hearing.

Overintellectualizing is what intellectuals can be guilty of. In other words....getting too complicated.

That's not too hard to understand is it? I shouldn't think anyone can be insulted by that statement of mine. Too complicated means less confront. That's real to me.

So all this 'the renowned expert said therefor who are you to argue' type statement is nonsense. Such has been the view of many folk throughout the ages. The common folk, many being very aware, tend to laugh at such intellectuals. They are too busy keeping it real.

In my view there is extant in human intellectuals in or out of church a great big misunderstanding of perception itself. Caused by their lack of spiritual reality as opposed to intellect.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Gadfly]

What a strange definition of sound. That's a definition of hearing.

Overintellectualizing is what intellectuals can be guilty of. In other words....getting too complicated.

That's not too hard to understand is it? I shouldn't think anyone can be insulted by that statement of mine. Too complicated means less confront. That's real to me.

So all this 'the renowned expert said therefor who are you to argue' type statement is nonsense. Such has been the view of many folk throughout the ages. The common folk, many being very aware, tend to laugh at such intellectuals. They are too busy keeping it real.

In my view there is extant in human intellectuals in or out of church a great big misunderstanding of perception itself. Caused by their lack of spiritual reality as opposed to intellect.

Peace.Aiki.

First, that definition was taken directly from an online dictionary, and it was the first definition.

It is only strange to YOU. Please don't take your own weird ideas and project them onto the world and realities of all others.

Second, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia rounded up and shot all the "intellectuals".

Hubbard denigrated the intellect as a way to bypass any careful and honest criticism of his subject. Hubbard didn't want people learning about real thinking skills (there are actually such things), and instead simply wanted his followers to ACCEPT what he said - without analysis or question. The intellect is a part of the mind, that can, like anything, be greatly exercised, expanded, improved, greatly used, and also greatly misused. Most people have never gone through any sort of mental discipline required to stretch the muscles and strengthen the "intellect".

Many people give intellectuals a bad name because, simply, they can't themselves grasp what they are talking about. So, they make it "not them", and attack it.

The truth is that very often descriptions and essays by very smart people are complicated because what is being looked at and described is ITSELF complicated. I studied advanced differential equations in college. It is necessary for any competent application of electronics. Most of the electronics that are taken for granted today wouldn't exist without that advanced math. And, most people can't understand it much less do well at it.

Sure, there is no doubt that some thinkers "think too much" in ways and about things that are irrelevant. But, more than a few very sane and observant people have shown that what passes for "common sense" is NOT AT ALL a correct perception or understanding of what is actually going on.

Simple Example: Matter is solid.

Just about every person out there KNOWS with full certainty that matter is solid. Go bang on the table. It IS solid. How can any sensible person say that all perception is wrong and that it is not solid? We all agree on our perceptions. IT IS REAL! It exists as solid as I say it does! (picture Khrushchev banging his shoe in a table at the UN)

Except, the simple fact is that even today most "common people" cannot understand how and why all matter is largely empty space, and the ILLUSION of solidness is due to the highly excited and quick vibrations of the "particles", "waves", "clouds" or "strings" making up the matter itself. In fact, matter is NOT solid at all. It simply appears to be solid, due to the nature of own own limited experience and sensory organs.

Solid doesn't exist as most people assume it to. The concept of things existing as waves and as particles, seemingly at the same time, and vibrating at very fast rates, IS a more accurate description of the building blocks of reality. Most people can't follow how this is so, much less grasp the math that describes such activity.

The simple truth is that reality often will be discovered to NOT be what it appears to be, and for things of the physical, mental and spiritual realms. What is experienced and obvious by perception is often NOT "what it really is". But, one needs to delve into this and really LOOK, without bias or prejudice (or fixed ideas and pet beliefs).

As I see it your last sentence is a very wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black. Take the last sentence, look at yourself in the mirror, and read it.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

'Verbal data'!! ( )

Nope.. We're writing it ain't we!?

 

[Aiki]

First, that definition was taken directly from an online dictionary, and it was the first definition.

It is only strange to YOU. Please don't take your own weird ideas and project them onto the world and realities of all others.

Second, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia rounded up and shot all the "intellectuals".

Hubbard denigrated the intellect as a way to bypass any careful and honest criticism of his subject. Hubbard didn't want people learning about real thinking skills (there are actually such things), and instead simply wanted his followers to ACCEPT what he said - without analysis or question. The intellect is a part of the mind, that can, like anything, be greatly exercised, expanded, improved, greatly used, and also greatly misused. Most people have never gone through any sort of mental discipline required to stretch the muscles and strengthen the "intellect".

Many people give intellectuals a bad name because, simply, they can't themselves grasp what they are talking about. So, they make it "not them", and attack it.

The truth is that very often descriptions and essays by very smart people are complicated because what is being looked at and described is ITSELF complicated. I studied advanced differential equations in college. It is necessary for any competent application of electronics. Most of the electronics that are taken for granted today wouldn't exist without that advanced math. And, most people can't understand it much less do well at it.

Sure, there is no doubt that some thinkers "think too much" in ways and about things that are irrelevant. But, more than a few very sane and observant people have shown that what passes for "common sense" is NOT AT ALL a correct perception or understanding of what is actually going on.

Simple Example: Matter is solid.

Just about every person out there KNOWS with full certainty that matter is solid. Go bang on the table. It IS solid. How can any sensible person say that all perception is wrong and that it is not solid? We all agree on our perceptions. IT IS REAL! It exists as solid as I say it does! (picture Khrushchev banging his shoe in a table at the UN)

Except, the simple fact is that even today most "common people" cannot understand how and why all matter is largely empty space, and the ILLUSION of solidness is due to the highly excited and quick vibrations of the "particles", "waves", "clouds" or "strings" making up the matter itself. In fact, matter is NOT solid at all. It simply appears to be solid, due to the nature of own own limited experience and sensory organs.

Solid doesn't exist as most people assume it to. The concept of things existing as waves and as particles, seemingly at the same time, and vibrating at very fast rates, IS a more accurate description of the building blocks of reality. Most people can't follow how this is so, much less grasp the math that describes such activity.

The simple truth is that reality often will be discovered to NOT be what it appears to be, and for things of the physical, mental and spiritual realms. What is experienced and obvious by perception is often NOT "what it really is". But, one needs to delve into this and really LOOK, without bias or prejudice (or fixed ideas and pet beliefs).

As I see it your last sentence is a very wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black. Take the last sentence, look at yourself in the mirror, and read it.

First, where the definition comes from is irrelevant. I like millions of others disagree with it, otherwise how comes there's two camps and lines of thought about it.

Second, I write my views thanks, projection???

Third, mentioning nazi's rather proves my point......over intellectualizing was the cause of nazi's in the first place. Then people used their intellect and gave their orders to do whatever they did.

You have your ideas on intellect, made by intellect, backed by intellect. Good for you. Then you should be able to tell the difference when I say over intellectualizing.

What others be they hubbard or whoever said about the matter is not and nothing to do with me saying so we can dismiss that comparison.

You probably think that you 'use your head' in other words think. You equate head with thinking and mind. That's a western cultural and intellectual belief. Not so in eastern philosophy. Funny thing is those who think intellect and that kind of reasoning and dualism is king tend to commit most atrocities. They think war is useful and right. They don't seem to recognize it's mad.

Academics deal in theories and data and science. They even intellectualize on it. Not the same as over intellectualizing. Plus it still stands that making over complicated means not confronting. Their is a big difference between that and something being complex. Big difference.

Banging on a table you see it is solid yes. But you are banging with a solid thing called a hand. You can of course just look at it and see it is so. So it is. Isness. saying it isn't is delusion. So best go back and redefine what REAL means in this context rather than deny it and come up with intellectual falsehood as I see it.

There are many definitions, working definitions, desriptive definitions, technical definitions etc. So first you had better know what type of definition you are using rather than try to make one definition wrong. Secondly the reality, the realness is talking about something no matter how much space is in it or how much movement is inherent in it. It's talking about form. The table has a specific form and thus real. When you see any form you are seeing a reality. They all have a solidity or they wouldn't have form. The eye can only see what is it's limitations due to it's mechanism. That don't mean you can use a microscope and say it's not real. Just means you can see more forms in that form and what they appear to be doing. Then you intellectualize about it.

So common folk know this even if they never did it. They are not dumb. Thinking they are is intellectual snobbery.

So reality doesn't end up not what it appears to be because no matter what else you discover the table is still a table. It has more to it if you look inside it but that doesn't then magically make it an illusion or less apparent. It's just as real. You just got some more realities, on another via I might add.

You use perception like an intellectual is very perceptive. Intellect has nothing to do with perception and is mostly subjective. It's all using tools, things, eyes microscopes, whatever to receive so 90% reception you call perception. That's not very perceptive at all and therefor not much common sense or indeed wisdom or ability in the broad scale of things. But is considered so alas.

The starting point for all is that we ain't very perceptive and thus we are pretty dumb. Those who think intellect finding out more and more without improving own ability to perceive directly are thus no wiser, only apparently so.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Aiki]

Let's get a nice new definition here for the sake of clarification.

PERCEPTION: To reach and become aware of without the using of physical things (ears, eyes, telescopes) etc.) or mind.

That should do nicely.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Bill]

Let's get a nice new definition here for the sake of clarification.

PERCEPTION: To reach and become aware of without the using of physical things (ears, eyes, telescopes) etc.) or mind.

That should do nicely.

Peace.Aiki.

Whose definition is this? Is this just your private, personal definition, or are you pretending this is some universal definition?

Bill

 

[Gadfly]

Let's get a nice new definition here for the sake of clarification.

PERCEPTION: To reach and become aware of without the using of physical things (ears, eyes, telescopes) etc.) or mind.

That should do nicely.

Peace.Aiki.

Whose definition is this? Is this just your private, personal definition, or are you pretending this is some universal definition?

Bill

I am not going to even try to have a sensible conversation with this poster.

THAT definition of perception is so off-the-wall and absurd. Let's define cats to be dogs, cars to be trees and ideas to be TV sets.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Could it be he is referring to the perception of the thetan sans reactive and analytic minds? The axiom about the static has the power to postulate and perceive? Mimsey
Edit - or is it the thetan putting out gold flitter?

Mimsey

 

[Aiki]

Whose definition is this? Is this just your private, personal definition, or are you pretending this is some universal definition?

Bill

Well I don't own it Bill but I did just write it so you can call it mine. As with everything written it's a viewpoint of the writer.

A point from which to view. You don't have to, your choice.

In any field you are given points from which to view. Do you know in the world of martial arts there are many such points given from which to view on advanced levels.The whole coloured belts system came from a martial art system based on the colours of the chakras.

So for any discussion of any meaning anyway its best to view first from the definition given or else just reject it. Your choice. I don't own it and I don't own you.

Peace.Aiki.

 

[Bill]

I am not going to even try to have a sensible conversation with this poster.

THAT definition of perception is so off-the-wall and absurd. Let's define cats to be dogs, cars to be trees and ideas to be TV sets.

Agreed. If you can make up any old shit as a "definition", nothing is left to discuss.

Bill