Rene Descartes
Gold Meritorious Patron
I was reading something in the latest issue of Freewinds and it made me realize that my SP natter towards LRH would not be complete without a thread of this nature.
The article by LRH is called Admiration The Universal Solvent excerpted from The Factors: Admiration and the Renaissance of Beingness lectures, lecture of 23 March 1953 "What's Wrong with the PC and How You can do Something About it"
He is talking about the universe and energies and terminals and flows.
A nice piece provided one isn't trying to nitpick things like I am doing here.
He gets to a part where he states admiration is actually a flow" Now here's the quote that I am pulling from the rest of the paragraph.
"It's actually a flow because you can make it. That's why it's actual. But you can make it and observe it and that's actual, see; not necessarily real, but actual."
Hmm, must be that semi-colon after "see" that some transcriber messed up on.
I mean really Ron, something is "not necessarily real" but it is "actual"?
Maybe that's the probelm with our viewpoint on OTs. The OTs are not necessarily real OTs, but they are actual OTs.
I'd like to see the scale he is pulling that from if he has "not necessarily real" equating to actual".
Somebody get me a shot of Jack Daniels please.
Rd00
The article by LRH is called Admiration The Universal Solvent excerpted from The Factors: Admiration and the Renaissance of Beingness lectures, lecture of 23 March 1953 "What's Wrong with the PC and How You can do Something About it"
He is talking about the universe and energies and terminals and flows.
A nice piece provided one isn't trying to nitpick things like I am doing here.
He gets to a part where he states admiration is actually a flow" Now here's the quote that I am pulling from the rest of the paragraph.
"It's actually a flow because you can make it. That's why it's actual. But you can make it and observe it and that's actual, see; not necessarily real, but actual."
Hmm, must be that semi-colon after "see" that some transcriber messed up on.
I mean really Ron, something is "not necessarily real" but it is "actual"?
Maybe that's the probelm with our viewpoint on OTs. The OTs are not necessarily real OTs, but they are actual OTs.
I'd like to see the scale he is pulling that from if he has "not necessarily real" equating to actual".
Somebody get me a shot of Jack Daniels please.
Rd00