Papers on Spirituality - Peer Reviews

[Auditor's Toad]

It is interesting for me to observe how some people evaluate a piece of knowledge based on their opinion of the person who said it. They can't evaluate the knowledge for what it is. In other words, they can't think for themselves.

I think the root cause of this is the fixation on the being. This is interesting.

Heavenly bodies have gravity that seems to warp the space around it. Similarly, beings have the property of fixing the attention. They seem to capture the attention and warp the awareness around them.

.

No. I see figure-figure for what it is : figure-figure.

People are entitled to plow endlessly through their own figure-figure, but, asking me to listen to it, or God forbid, read it.... that's a bit too much.

So, no, I've read not more than a few sentence of any of it. Nor will it.
If it is anything but drivel then others will take a liking to it and sing praises.

That has yet to happen. It might......well, if some sock puppets get created to sing praise.

It isn't the 'poster' as the poster suspect - it is the posts

 

[Vinaire]

Yes, we should all let fourteen year old boys do open heart surgery. Why should we evaluate their knowledge based on who they are? We should just accept that they know, because they said so.

Your example is totally non-sequitur.

If two people talk about the same piece of knowledge. One person you trash and the other person you admire, then should the same knowledge be evaluated in two different ways?

.

 

[Vinaire]

Either some people are hateful or simply jealous, that they put out so much venom in their criticism.

Their criticism is oriented to pull the other person down, instead of providing additional data that would help the other person come up with better ideas.

Why are some people so hateful, I wonder!

Earlier I noted that hostility and ridicule are the weapons of the weak against something they perceive as "threats."

Apparently what I write is perceived as a threat by some.

Threat in what way, I wonder!

.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Your figure-figure is not a threat, it is just way too boring to read.

Comment on it? LOL !

 

[Mystic]

Don't leave out comedy.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Don't leave out comedy.

Somewhere past 150 posts with no interest shown I'd suggest
" interest in peer review of this topic is a non reading reading item ".

 

[Vinaire]

AWARENESS-THOUGHT-“I”

The key aspects of a manifestation are SPACE and AWARENESS.

The SPACE component of manifestation seems to precipitate as ENERGY, which then condenses toward becoming MATTER.

Similarly, the AWARENESS component of a manifestation seems to precipitate as THOUGHT, which then condenses toward becoming “I.”

“I” seems to be the residual of thoughts, which have taken a fixed form. It is made of condensed considerations, such as, "stable data" and "fixed ideas." Surrounding the “I” is more fluid region of thoughts, which may act as a system, called MIND.

.

The source of thoughts is not a BEING. A BEING itself is created of thoughts.

The source of creation is not GOD. GOD itself is a created manifestation.

.

 

[themadhair]

It is interesting to me how Vinaire always seems to ignore the content of my posts with one-liners.

I explained the folly of having no testable model.
I explained, using your example of Einstein, the stark difference in testability.
I pointed out one of the many strawmen you have used.
I highlighted a blatant logical inconsistency in your mode of thought.

A cursory and brief analysis perhaps, but more than enough to highlight problems that you need to solve.

You should note Vinaire how my post squarely addressed your ideas before I explained the problems that lead to them. But you won’t.

You are correct that this thread upsets me. It upsets for the same reason that watching someone drown in slow-motion would upset me. What we have here is someone, slowly and systematically, dismantling their own hold on reality. How could that not be upsetting to witness? And what do you expect me to do – stand aside and massage your ego while you do it???

 

[Infinite]

It seems we are lacking an essential definition without which no further progress can be made in this thread. Specifically:

peer (noun) 1. a being, human or otherwise, which agrees with Vinaire.

 

[Vinaire]

It is interesting to me how Vinaire always seems to ignore the content of my posts with one-liners.

I explained the folly of having no testable model.
I explained, using your example of Einstein, the stark difference in testability.
I pointed out one of the many strawmen you have used.
I highlighted a blatant logical inconsistency in your mode of thought.

A cursory and brief analysis perhaps, but more than enough to highlight problems that you need to solve.

You should note Vinaire how my post squarely addressed your ideas before I explained the problems that lead to them. But you won’t.

You are correct that this thread upsets me. It upsets for the same reason that watching someone drown in slow-motion would upset me. What we have here is someone, slowly and systematically, dismantling their own hold on reality. How could that not be upsetting to witness? And what do you expect me to do – stand aside and massage your ego while you do it???

I shall respond if you are professional and scientific in your criticism and do not bring in unnecessary emotions. The following is subjective, unscientific, and very unprofessional. It does not address the subject.

"It upsets for the same reason that watching someone drown in slow-motion would upset me. What we have here is someone, slowly and systematically, dismantling their own hold on reality."

.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

I'm almost bored enough to count the number of posts Vinaire has made to this thread.

Talk about bumping ones own thread !

Let this sucker live or die on the honest interest it can garner on it's own merit without being endlessly bumped by the author of it.

Sheesh.

Vinaire are you willing to let it run on it's own or must you keep it at the top of the board with your own bumps?

Everybody sees what is happening here .... wish you could LOOK at that.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Vinaire ! Congrats ! You have over 60 Posts on this thread !

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

AJ,

I understand the hostility in your voice (or in this case your written words expressing it) and I understand the reason for it. To which I would ask simply, if reading Vinaire's philosophical essays are so deeply and profoundly upsetting to you, why do you read them at all?

There are so many posts here on ESMB each day I cannot even keep up with them. Why not target posts of your liking to express your appreciation rather than target posts of your disliking to express your wrath?

If Vinaire were your youngest son and I were your oldest brother I would take you to the woodshed, not he. Lol.

Let the man be what he is. Just as I let you be what you are. I have read numerous of your posts with which I disagree and yet am not compelled to ridicule you in public. For the sake of all lighten up AJ.

Notwithstanding your present personal views of Yourself and Vinaire (and perhaps even I) we are all a part of this tapestry called life. And believe it or not we are all doing the best we can do, with the minds hearts and bodies we have.

Vinaire is not an evil man. He is a good man. Misguided? perhaps, Arrogant? perhaps, Wrong? perhaps. But he is Honest & Sincere. And who amongst us can lay claim to being anything more valuable (to each other) than this?

If now you are inclined to express you displeasure with me in the stead of Vinaire, I am fully prepared to take it. Lol!

mm&i

P.S. don't piss me off....Lol!

I wish someone had spoken to me like I spoke to Vinaire when I first got into Scientology.

Letting a person decieve themselves as much as Vinnaire does, or worse, trying to decieve others into believing one is enlightened and scientific, is not doing anyone any favors.

It is what Hubbard did.

Would you tell all the members of this board who were mislead and fell for the same self-deluding style of a con, who now criticize it on this board, that they should just let Hubbard be himself?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Auditor's Toad]

"It is what Hubbard did. "

Bingo,

 

[paradox]

I'm almost bored enough to count the number of posts Vinaire has made to this thread.

Talk about bumping ones own thread !

Let this sucker live or die on the honest interest it can garner on it's own merit without being endlessly bumped by the author of it.

Sheesh.

Vinaire are you willing to let it run on it's own or must you keep it at the top of the board with your own bumps?

Everybody sees what is happening here .... wish you could LOOK at that.

Sounds like you're confusing this thread with the rather ... foppish ... prima donna apollo 73 (or whatever it's called) blatantly stat-pushed thread (the OP refers to the thread as his "site," thinking it's his own "website" or something ).

Why stalk and troll-crusade vinnie?

 

[Alanzo]

Sometimes, when I write, the ideas come from outside the boundaries that I have defined for *I*.

Does that mean that I have misdefined *I*?

Or that the ideas come from someone else?

 

[Leon]

I have pondered on this question myself. Sometimes when I get an idea I sort of think "where did that idea come from?" and I get a sort of a feeling of a direction that it came from. And then I wonder too, where does the idea go to after have had it? Does it go to someone else?

Or am I just bozo? What do you think?

 

[paradox]

As one currently manifesting as an undoubtedly bubble-headed bozo myself, I like this metaphor from Wei Wu Wei (Terrence Gray)

A myriad bubbles were floating on the surface of a stream.
'What are you?' I cried to them as they drifted by.
'I am a bubble, of course' nearly a myriad bubbles answered,
and there was surprise and indignation in their voices as they passed.

But, here and there, a lonely bubble answered,
'We are this stream', and there was neither surprise nor indignation in their voices, but just a quiet certitude.

Wei Wu Wei (Terence James Stannus Gray, 1895-1986)
Ask The Awakened

For me, the "I" thoughts, the bubble story-of-me, all manifest [emerge] from, and return to, the ineffable unknown; "ineffable" only and simply because it is, itself, beyond the possibility of grasping-intellect and concept; metaphorically equivalent to silence [possibly better yet, stillness, as in "stilling the mind" by ceasing to stir thoughts and allowing it to settle like clear, undisturbed water]; and like music, speech, earth, fire, air, water ... the myriad "10,000 things" and so forth ... things of temporal manifested knowledge and knowing emerge from and return to "it."

That which is, which once experienced and accepted for the seeming paradoxical metaphorical "emptiness which is full" that it yet truly is; well, then, the temporal, sensation of "I" can be allowed its full measure of its temporal being. Without worry or fret over whose thought is whose or where the thinking comes from or goes. It's just not a particularly important or relevant question any longer, or worth questing and seeking after any longer. Naturally, it's okay, too, if that's where continued interest lies for whatever reason; whatever floats your bubble and all.

All the while keeping in mind that the words, like the maps, are not the territory.

 

[degraded being]

Sometimes, when I write, the ideas come from outside the boundaries that I have defined for *I*.

Does that mean that I have misdefined *I*?

Or that the ideas come from someone else?

It means that you are inspired.
And humble for not saying that God speaks through you.
Bless you.

 

[Vinaire]

Sometimes, when I write, the ideas come from outside the boundaries that I have defined for *I*.

Does that mean that I have misdefined *I*?

Or that the ideas come from someone else?

Why does it have to be someone else when it is not "I".

.