The Clear Contradiction

mockingbird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Leon , your argument seems to alternate between accepting scientific validation and saying it is not needed and...
Bluntly it is not coherent and logical . There exists no good reason why to me your ideas could not stand a logical Socratic debate recognizing fallacies if they are truthful . Your claims could evolve and be refined but that is part of the point of critical thinking and skepticism and putting the ideas out for your own and others examination . Unless you have a reason something else must replace looking at them . Will the magic disappear if we see it ? Is it real at all ? Just believing it and getting comfort from it in your mind is hardly a proof it is valid , especially if it is so flimsy it must be protected from debate by a special superstition .That sounds like a scam I once fell for for twenty five years that is an utter failure...hmm.

If your ideas are well formed they should be safe to talk about without fear, they are after all strong enough for you to attack mine with . I am only asking for the mighty magic to be out in the open , you know like my poor little theories that I , as feebleminded as I am , try to prop up .
Seriously , you apply one standard to others and another to yourself . But you are free to, just know I will call you out on it when you come around me .
 
Last edited:
Yeah, look, all over the place one can come across things one doesn't understand. And truly, there is often no real need for one to understand them at all. They can comfortably be left by the wayside.

Your bolstering arguments above are all noted and I have no disagreement with them. The example I gave of the lady who communicated with a rock was also followed up with scientific support for her proposals, so all is fine.

The issue is not about whether acceptable proof for the theory can be found afterwards, the issue is where did the telepathic communication come from in the first place. At best one could come up with theories and fabricated explanations for it but none of these would be "provable" either. So where does that leave us? Nowhere. Just with the fact that under some circumstances valid data can be obtained by unorthodox means. And I am proposing that those "unorthodox means" are in fact a valid method of thinking which is almost totally atrophied in most of us - due perhaps in part to the brainwashing we receive in our upbringing - but which can be developed further in all of us.


I have to go. More later.

From a prior Leon post: " Actually got into telepathic comm with the rock. And it opened up and told her the answers she needed. It utterly amazed her."

If there is no proof of where the telepathic communication came from WTF do you call it telepathic communication?????????????????????????????????

I have no problem with your argument about unusual ways that scientists (or anyone else) might use to inspire insight. In fact i used a very similar method to 'unblock' myself when I had to write an essay at university, on a subject that I could not relate to. So I am with you on that.

It is just using the imagination. To use imagination in that way is itself, insightful, and can lead to insights that might not show themselves with a more data centered approach. After the insight, then actual scientific investigation has to be applied.

I am glad this discussion has come up with you, because it shows the problem I have with you (and occasionally others) on ESMB. You are very rational and analytical and then suddenly you just take the leap into majic thinking.....in this case by claiming that imagined communication with a rock is "telepathic' communication, even while you are saying it is not provable how this 'telepathic' communication happened.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation




I don't like it when it gets too weird but to me she was just saying she relaxed, focused and "received the answers" ... IOW she just let her own thoughts pass over her until she received one that she felt could work, that may not be what she believes happened but it makes a lot more sense to me.

Rocks, stones and crystals are delightful and they're very relaxing to the touch but I don't converse with them.

:no:

The concept of the postulate (though I no longer use that word) was always one that I liked and I still use it to this day and in some areas of my life it seems to work really well, but I have no proof and can also see that it could just be coincidence, I don't mind which it is as long as I'm enjoying playing with it.

I don't want scientology to be the cause of destroying every single thing it touched (for me), some things were mine prior and remain so (now that I've sorted through the cult detritus) and others I'm happy to learn about but I will never be accepting of people using their homemade tehk on others ... especially for monetary gain.

They're fake therapists and wannabe gurus and they make me sick.


 

Ho Tai

Patron Meritorious
The birds they sang, at the break of day
Start again, I seemed to hear them say
Do not dwell on what has passed away
or what is yet to be ...

Leonard Cohen.
ITYIWT, I really like this from Leonard Cohen, whom I admire as a poet. But isn't dwelling on what is yet to be what we as humans do, to plan our lives and improve the lot of ourselves and our fellow beings? I understand how a bird might not have that viewpoint, yet even they need to build their nests.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
ITYIWT, I really like this from Leonard Cohen, whom I admire as a poet. But isn't dwelling on what is yet to be what we as humans do, to plan our lives and improve the lot of ourselves and our fellow beings? I understand how a bird might not have that viewpoint, yet even they need to build their nests.


Of course ... but in this case the key word (for me) is "dwell" (as in not to fix oneself or live in either the past or the future).

It's just his beautiful way of suggesting that we remember to enjoy the present moment.


:)
 

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
From a prior Leon post: " Actually got into telepathic comm with the rock. And it opened up and told her the answers she needed. It utterly amazed her."

If there is no proof of where the telepathic communication came from WTF do you call it telepathic communication?????????????????????????????????

I have no problem with your argument about unusual ways that scientists (or anyone else) might use to inspire insight. In fact i used a very similar method to 'unblock' myself when I had to write an essay at university, on a subject that I could not relate to. So I am with you on that.

It is just using the imagination. To use imagination in that way is itself, insightful, and can lead to insights that might not show themselves with a more data centered approach. After the insight, then actual scientific investigation has to be applied.

I am glad this discussion has come up with you, because it shows the problem I have with you (and occasionally others) on ESMB. You are very rational and analytical and then suddenly you just take the leap into majic thinking.....in this case by claiming that imagined communication with a rock is "telepathic' communication, even while you are saying it is not provable how this 'telepathic' communication happened.


Just as you are capable of discerning when it is your imagination and when not, so too we should allow her to decide when it is telepathic communication and when not. It is she herself who used that term to describe it. She was a very rational thoroughly scientifically trained person and was more than able to make such evaluations. By contrast who the hell is anyone else to decide and pontificate upon what she experienced?
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Just as you are capable of discerning when it is your imagination and when not, so too we should allow her to decide when it is telepathic communication and when not. It is she herself who used that term to describe it. She was a very rational thoroughly scientifically trained person and was more than able to make such evaluations. By contrast who the hell is anyone else to decide and pontificate upon what she experienced?




Leon,

Rational, scientifically trained people can also have mental health issues (temporary or eventually permanent).

Don't bother telling me to go and chase my pwerty butterflies either ... I'm already on my way.

:)
 

Leon-2

Patron Meritorious
MB,

I mentioned earlier that the two systems of thought are repellent of each other. They each deny validity to the other and for good reasons - as seen from the viewpoint of each.

The scientific protocols do not allow for the existence in reality of things (energies, whatever) that cannot be measured and quantified. It does not allow for Effects to precede Causes, insisting on the "arrow of time" pointing in one direction only.

With such prejudices in place on the one hand, and with the "magical" (not a term I like) thinking being so poorly understood and being still quite unpredictable on the other, I see no point in having any sort of a Socratic showdown which will demand of the other that they accept their view as being "false" and adopt the winner's ideas.

Please note carefully: BOTH systems are fully valid and workable, each in their own context and domain. Neither one, inherently, structurally, whatever, is able to cross over and make sense to the other. They are separate. Different. Topographically discontinuous. Repellent of each other.

And absolutely never can either system be used as a basis for evaluating the other. Can't be done.

And lastly, Auditing is an activity fully grounded in the "magical" domain. Not in the Scientific. Hubbard himself was grounded in the magick of Crowley. He was hopeless at university.

Connect the dots.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
I'm not laughing AT you, Leon. It was a helluvan argument and sort of left Mockingbird nowhere to go with it. Though I disagree with you, kudos to you for good debating skills, anyway. :biggrin:
 
Just as you are capable of discerning when it is your imagination and when not, so too we should allow her to decide when it is telepathic communication and when not. It is she herself who used that term to describe it. She was a very rational thoroughly scientifically trained person and was more than able to make such evaluations. By contrast who the hell is anyone else to decide and pontificate upon what she experienced?

Did I hit a button there?
 
.
.


I have telepathically communicated with Leon. I know this because I just know it and a scientist said that it worked for her with a rock, so it works for Leon and me.
Leon told me telepathically that everything he has asserted to be true on ESMB is actually false. Don't any of you dumbarses tell me I am imagining this. Leon can tell you why you should not do so.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
I gave up pet rocks when I stopped looking for religious figures in the clouds. I think I was five.

DB and Leon debate? Please? :begging:
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
Well well well.

I seem to have ruffled a few feathers again.

Please note - I have not knocked the value of logical scientific thought in any way. I fully support it as a method of arriving at good answers and workable technologies. All I've suggested is that is you look at what people are actually doing then you will observe that they also indulge in this other method of just "twigging" on the answer, or "zubbing" it, as some say. Most people fall on their arses doing this but some do seem to be very "lucky" and come up with amazing insights and results. It is a very unreliable thing to base your life on but it exists. People do it all the time. Whether it is right or wrong is beside the point - it is common practice as a method of "getting answers" among many many people. Which horse to bet on, who to marry, which book to read, telling jokes, dancing and "getting into the swing" of it, the list is endless.

I knew a hard-boiled university prof years ago whose field of Science (microbiology) took her all over the world lecturing t conferences and whatever in Europe and the USA. I once ask her to explain in plain language to me how she had come about a particular discipline over that she had made years before - the one which really set her up as a noted researcher etc. So she told me about it, how she battled and battled with the problem she had and was totally frustrated in cracking it. One night she was in her study and, she said, she just mentally gave up trying to figure this thing out. Just gave up. And so she asked a piece of borehole core (i.e. a chunk of rock that had been drilled out of the earth) what its story was. Actually got into telepathic comm with the rock. And it opened up and told her the answers she needed. It utterly amazed her. She tested the answers in practice later and they all proved to be exactly as they should. Then, knowing the answer, she was able to fill in the gaps with "research results" and presented the results and got all the cum laudes and accolades etc that were her due.

I expressed my astonishment at this and she said that since then she herself has been amazed at how common this sort of thing is in Scientific circles. Researchers will never admit it, or only seldom do, but it is well entrenched among them all.

Think of Kekule and how he unraveled the carbon atom. Think of Einstein riding on a beam of light to see what it did. Think of the many others all over the place who had "insights" and just "knew" where to look for the answers.

Yes, it is a poorly developed method of thinking - I agree to that - but it IS a method of thinking.



And - surprise surprise - there is also an entire system of physics that follows on from it. But I wont go into that now.

So she didn't come to it by using an advance hubbard tech method and then attempt to foist it upon people that had bought into the misinformation hubbard had supplied with the promise that "This is the way to think"?
 

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'm back


By focusing on the follow-up stage of what the guys do after their insight you effectively (or not) sideline the very part that is important here.

The atrophied ability I refer to is, I believe, inherent in all of us as a natural part of our make-up. It derives from a part of the universe that is structured into it. It is one we don't much understand but which needs development.

the workability of Scientology auditing is found though, in exactly that part. Dianetic "reverie" is nothing other than the same state that Kekule was in when he twigged on the carbon - not the atom, I think it was a molecule with carbon dominant. Hubs used this ability in people and with it got the results he wanted - alleviation of the condition. So OK, he never did the follow-up stage of finding some sort of corresponding sequential measurable what-nots to have someone peer-review. Saw no need for it.

But just as day-dreaming on a bus proved effective and just as being in comm with a rock proved effective and riding on a light-beam roved effective so, under the right conditions, auditing is effective. Equally. If someone wants to develop a scientific protocol to demonstrate it is that way then so be it. Or if they fail to achieve that then so be it as well. So f*ing what?

The fact that the methods can and do achieve results is something I have seen too often to doubt. Not in every case by any means, but often enough to be acceptable. An occasionally miraculously so. Fantastically so. Arnie will call it hypnotic induction. That's fine by me. Call it what you like.

Enough.

Those people all did it inside to themselves, they did not try to create a system to use on others. It was their own personal inner journeys and being such were not interfering with anyone else. That is where your revised tech differs. It is used on OTHERS by the auditor or whatever you call yourselves now.
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
I gave up pet rocks when I stopped looking for religious figures in the clouds. I think I was five.
I have seen religious figures in the clouds. I was about 19 years old and on an acid trip at the time. Leon doesn't mention whether or not the prof was 'on anything' when the rock started talking to her.
 
Top