On the Subject of Knowledgism

Vinaire

Sponsor
Wow! You can be a serious thinker, alanzo!!!

God is like DM. He does not have to follow his own policy.

Or... God! it is confusing...

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Some thoughts from what Roger quoted:

Various models, such as those in Scientology, or in Knowledgism, come about in response to handling certain type of situations. The more specific a model is, the more specific is the situation it is designed to handle. Also, the more specific a model is the more assumptions it makes about the condition of the client, and directs the client accordingly.

The more brittle something is the more it shatters when impacted. Brittleness comes from rigidness and lack of flexibility.

Nothing can precede time, because the very idea of proceeding starts with the idea of time. Nothing can precede space because the very idea of awareness starts with space.

Infinitude has nothing to do with size. It has to do with limitlessness.

One may only speculate why some original intention or desire arose; but that is just a waste of time.

.
 

RogerB

Crusader
HOWZIS?

Dear Rog,

You seem to feel invalidated. It was not my intention to make you feel that way.

Vin,

No, not invalidated. I consider you too good a friend and too much a gentleman to be invalidated by you. Just that I was being a little more demonstrative than the last time we had this conversation about “my beliefs.”

You see, it is perfectly wonderful that we do and can exchange views on all this; but we have a lot of readers following what we write, and my feeling is that what is stated should be characterized correctly for the benefit of those readers. That is why I strongly emphasized the distinction between what I have experienced and done as fact versus belief.

Certainly, I am not vain enough to expect others to accept as truth what I write merely because it is written, but what I do personally insist on is that it be correctly characterized so that others can properly deal with what is presented.

You see, I on occasion refer in my writings to my “my current view (of the point in discussion),” or “my opinion is,” or “from what I can currently see, my feeling is,” and such. These distinguish my opinions and beliefs from my findings of observable experience and fact that I invite others to investigate.

It is an important point, I feel. It enables folks to proceed on a proper basis after reading what is written.

Vinaire said:
Obviously, I have not lived your life. And, therefore, I cannot totally duplicate your viewpoint. I am sure you are speaking truth from your viewpoint. I have no doubt about that. But it is not my truth because my viewpoint is different.

Of course, and that is why we can enjoy our chats—and which would be far more fun and accurate in the flesh—and which others, it seems, also get a kick out of.


Vinaire said:
My truth is based on my experience. My current viewpoint has resulted from that same experience. I have a scientific background. From that background I know that new discoveries are made from uncovering something that was taken for granted up to that point.

How did the Theory of Relativity come about? Einstein simply questioned the following hypotheses of Classical Mechanics:

(1) The time-interval (time) between two events is independent of the condition of motion of the body of reference.

(2) The space-interval (distance) between two points of a rigid body is independent of the condition of motion of the body of reference.

He questioned it because he found that the exhaustive experimental investigation as well as theoretical physics showed that the velocity of light was constant whether the observer was stationary or moving at a uniform velocity.

Newton was right from his experience and his viewpoint. He spoke truth. Just because Einstein expanded upon that truth does not mean that Newton was wrong.


Ah, yes, our Albert E.

I too have a scientific background and nature. Apart from my early efforts in biology, and the functioning of the human body due to my interest as a trained athlete, my real love is physics (and relating it to the spiritual interface and derivation).

And in that vein one should look at a little of the history of the subject of physics and the point of change following the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein’s theories, and subsequent tests thereof. (I write about it in one of my books.)

By the way, Einstein got his Nobel for the “discovery” that light was composed of discrete quanta with mass. Guess who first stated light was composed of discrete particulates? Our friend Newton, even though he also is famous for having demonstrated a wave form of light and that sunlight is composed of a spectrum of different colored lights.

Actually, this post will get a little too long if I get into this subject here . . . . we’ve got to consider poor ol’ Paul’s scrolling finger . . . . .

What I’ll do is do a write up on the Einstein point of change in physics, and the fact that both the Russians (1970) and the US Geological Survey and US Navy (1956?) etc all have disproved Einstein’s assertion that the speed of light is a constant. Though it’s true others have shown with different experiments that, in certain circumstances, the theory holds true.

I’ll post it over on your “Oh, God!” thread where it will sit better with your dissertations on this issue.


Vinaire said:
So, please don’t take my differences with you as I am invalidating your truth. I am not, and I have no intention of doing that. I am simply stating my truth.

As above I don’t. And you are a gentleman for caring that I might be.


Vinaire said:
I start from the theoretical state of BRAHMA as my basis, which I do not assume to know. I consider this state to be beyond any and all considerations. So, against the background of BRAHMA any consideration would stand out sharply.

And so would any experience!

Any postulate, consideration, or experience can then be contrasted against the theoretical state of BRAHMA as being additive to BRAHMA, because BRAHMA is beyond anything that one can be aware of. Thus, any processing, activity or area would also be additive to BRAHMA.

To me, any additive to BRAHMA can be described using the concepts of space, energy and matter (each being an increasing degree of condensation), and the concept of that degree of condensation as time.

From this perspective, it doesn’t matter if something is a belief or an actual experience, it is still an additive to BRAHMA, and it can be described by the concepts of space, energy, matter and time.

Now, you may disagree with what I accept as my starting point, and that is fine. I do not expect anyone to agree with this premise. But this premise prevents me from falling into any pitfalls of assumptions.

I know that this stand causes emotions within you as well as within Alan. Well I have to simply accept that as something to be observed. So, you are getting emotional. OK.


Vin, my friend, I totally dig your viewpoint, actually. I’ve been there :yes:

As to “emotions” . . . nah, “your stand” doesn’t cause such:no: :) I dig your position and view of things and, you’ll notice, I’ve not tried to counter or characterize it . . . . I’ve only simply put an additional or alternative statement of perceptions and knowledge there for consideration. :yes:

In one of his write-ups and lectures, Alan actually gives a neat exposition on emotion: E for the effort needed to be added to get or keep an idea or communication in motion across to another, or to keep (oneself) in motion in the pursuit of an intention when being impeded. . . i.e., to get and/or keep something in motion to its destination or outcome one often has to add effort. This equals E for effort plus motion = Emotion.

Vinaire said:
BRAHMA does not exist as a manifestation. And any manifestation can be described in terms of space, energy, matter and time. That is all I am saying. This may be something as non-intuitive as the changing perception of space and time in the Theory of Relativity.

I think if I reword this, you’ll find we’re actually in accord on a point:)

What if I said: BRAHMA exists, but has not manifested anything. Its act of manifesting brings into being changes of conditions of existence.

Of course, the big question is: Who or what is BRAHMA!

Howzat, gentlemen of the gallery of observers?

Rog
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

Of course, the big question is: Who or what is BRAHMA!

Howzat, gentlemen of the gallery of observers?

Rog


That makes me feel that I am not getting across.

If I say, "BRAHMA is beyond identity (neti, neti)" would that make sense to you?

Ah! The desire for something tangible...

Vin

.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Hey . . .

That makes me feel that I am not getting across.

If I say, "BRAHMA is beyond identity (neti, neti)" would that make sense to you?

Ah! The desire for something tangible...

Vin

.

Hey, who's suggesting BRAHMA is an identity?

I'm saying it, as do you and I, exists . . . . and that it has the capability (or potential) of decision or postulation . . . . and when that capability is manifested, conditions of existence change.

This reminds me of physicists trying to define "energy." You know they have never defined or articulated what this stuff called energy is composed of? In essence, their definition of energy is: "That which does work." And that is the end of it!

Jeeezzzuzzz . . . but what is the stuff of it, of which it is constructed or composed? :no: No answer!

R
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Hey, who's suggesting BRAHMA is an identity?

I'm saying it, as do you and I, exists . . . . and that it has the capability (or potential) of decision or postulation . . . . and when that capability is manifested, conditions of existence change.

This reminds me of physicists trying to define "energy." You know they have never defined or articulated what this stuff called energy is composed of? In essence, their definition of energy is: "That which does work." And that is the end of it!

Jeeezzzuzzz . . . but what is the stuff of it, of which it is constructed or composed? :no: No answer!

R


There is no he, she, it or any other pronoun for BRAHMA. At the most "it" may be identified as the background against which anything and everything could be identified as being manifested, including the assumed identification of BRAHMA that I have stated above.

BRAHMA simply helps one identify anything that is considered, assumed, created or mocked up.

Thus, I see Alan's story of God, as something considered, assumed, created or mocked up at some level.

Let's take the often used statement, "God is all powerful." Firstly, one is trying to identify something unknown by the word "God." Secondly, one is identifying that something by postulating "all powerful."

What does "all powerful" mean? One is postulating it from the viewpint of MEST universe. "All powerful" would mean THAT which can not only control the MEST universe in any way that it wants, but even create and destroy it.

Now, this is simply a postulated ideal scene. It is something considered, assumed, created or mocked up to define the unknown "God."

Then one starts to believe in what one postulated as something permanent.

.
 
Last edited:

Spirit

just another son of God
Re: You Are Way Cool, EP



Folk who came in after about 1965 got a very different type of Scn and Org than we oldie, oldies from the 1950's to '65. Everybody was an auditor in those days . . . you did not have "management" running unreality on the scene.

Scn is really not ALL bad . . . yes, it is incomplete as a tech; yes, it contains some very grave, damaging errors (the really, really bad tech shit began in mid-1963) and bad Org shit began in 1965 and became an art form by 1966-67.

So it would be false of me to be wholly down on it and to wholly criticize it. Though it does now merit colossal criticism for its current practice. And yes, Hubbard had his flaws. So what! So did Albert Einstein and Issac Newton! Though the sad truth is, eventually, the "Old Man" went off the deep end . . . some say they saw it occur due to his research on R6 (GPMs).
Roger, This is a excellent summation of Scientology. So the Super Tech of 1963 is not so super.:no:
 
Last edited:
Top