"The first REAL OT Level" enemy line?

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I wasn't trying to insult Alan personally.

I meant that the whole view of spirits as omnipotent in the physical universe is bullshit, in my opinion now.

Fair enough. You have to cut me some slack - as an Englishman I naturally think that manners are frightfully important, but I'm getting over it since joining this forum. Also, I'm a big fan of Jane Austen. :)

We don't need super-human powers to be spiritual.

That super-human powers thing was used by Hubbard to get people to fantasize about "OT" and how great it would be to fly around and read people's thoughts and strike effective Glare-fight blows to the psychs, and other evildoers. It's kid's fantasy.

Super Powers have NOTHING TO DO with spirituality of any kind.

In my opinion.

Now.

Well, in this case, I quite like your opinion. Maybe it works in reverse - we get super powers by being spiritual - we don't have to use them if we get them. A craving for super powers smacks of immaturity - many Scns couldn't win a glare fight with a glowworm. But a longing for a greater ability to express oneself is a positive thing.

No doubt, Hubbard talked about OT powers as if they were an everyday occurence and easily within reach. Some people swallowed this hook, line sinker and copy of the Angling Times. I can't exclude myself from this set.

Right now, I'm very sceptical that these kinds of abilities could be manifested in this particular universe to any great degree. In universes far less dense and alter-ised, I believe they could.

At the end of the day, one can always be a God in one's own universe. It just needs the ability to mock-up. Sadly, I think I'd share the fate of Rimmer in the Red Dwarf episode Better Than Life . :melodramatic:
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Fair enough. You have to cut me some slack - as an Englishman I naturally think that manners are frightfully important, but I'm getting over it since joining this forum. Also, I'm a big fan of Jane Austen. :)
Nice. A Jane Austen reference.

She did that one movie....4 Weddings and Funeral... didn't she?

Just kidding. I love Jane Austen, too. She was so American.

As for manners, I think you should continue to consider them frightfully important.

Because there is nothing worse than an Englishman unleashed from his manners.

Well, in this case, I quite like your opinion. Maybe it works in reverse - we get super powers by being spiritual - we don't have to use them if we get them. A craving for super powers smacks of immaturity - many Scns couldn't win a glare fight with a glowworm.
LOL!!!

But a longing for a greater ability to express oneself is a positive thing.
Agreed. There is nothing super-human in that.

No doubt, Hubbard talked about OT powers as if they were an everyday occurence and easily within reach. Some people swallowed this hook, line sinker and copy of the Angling Times. I can't exclude myself from this set.
Neither can I.

Right now, I'm very sceptical that these kinds of abilities could be manifested in this particular universe to any great degree. In universes far less dense and alter-ised, I believe they could.
I don't know of any other universe than this one.

It's hard enough to find out how to be the best person you can be, to live the most meaningful life you can live, in this one.

So I don't worry about other ones any more.

At the end of the day, one can always be a God in one's own universe. It just needs the ability to mock-up. Sadly, I think I'd share the fate of Rimmer in the Red Dwarf episode Better Than Life . :melodramatic:
I don't know Rimmer.

Does he have bad breath?
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I don't know of any other universe than this one.

It's hard enough to find out how to be the best person you can be, to live the most meaningful life you can live, in this one.

So I don't worry about other ones any more.

Not a bad philosophy. If someone can't live a good life in this universe they won't make much headway in any others that may exist.

There is some truth in "the way out is the way through" but then there's always the door. :)


I don't know Rimmer.

Does he have bad breath?

Thanks, I didn't know people could tell over the Net. Is there some special "olfactormeter" you can plug into a USB port?

Rimmer is a character in the British sci-fi sitcom Red Dwarf. In the episode I mentioned the characters find a virtual reality game called Better Than Life.
They put on VR helmets which sink electrodes/sensors into their brains and are then transported to a holographic world that is completely real to all their senses. One character is particularly vain - in his game he has a wardrobe that crosses an international dateline and has Marilyn Monroe pestering him for sex all the time, which he aloofly ignores. Rimmer is a character riddled with deep-seated psychological flaws and self-loathing - while everyone else is having the times of their lives, his ideal world turns into a self-created nightmare. They tried to make a US version of this show - they were insane. It's strictly British humour.
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think we are human beings. And I think that we do not need super-human powers to be spiritual at all.

As usual Alanzo you have things ass-backwards!

We are spiritual beings - and these are not super powers.

Most of us have difficulties being human - because there are so many human identities we resist being.

Alan
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vinaire

Sponsor
I wasn't trying to insult Alan personally.

I meant that the whole view of spirits as omnipotent in the physical universe is bullshit, in my opinion now.

We don't need super-human powers to be spiritual.

That super-human powers thing was used by Hubbard to get people to fantasize about "OT" and how great it would be to fly around and read people's thoughts and strike effective Glare-fight blows to the psychs, and other evildoers. It's kid's fantasy.

Super Powers have NOTHING TO DO with spirituality of any kind.

In my opinion.

Now.

One is SPIRITUAL only to the degree that one is not MECHANICAL.

Human is the resultant of two super-human powers in opposition. It is being mechanical.

.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
One is SPIRITUAL only to the degree that one is not MECHANICAL.

Human is the resultant of two super-human powers in opposition. It is being mechanical.

.

Please define 'mechanical'

I would consider Ron's description of 'beingness' as 'mechanical'; with the 'reactive mind' and the Thetan as 'cogs' in a machine.

Not very spiritual.

All 'implants' and billiard-ball style 'determinism'.

100% Scientific and 'standard'.

*I* would see this obsessive fixation on 'certainty' as itself a terrified attempt to 'control' reality (and self)

Comfortable spirits don't *give a fuck* about whether they're 'pulling the strings', since they reject the strings in the first place :)

Zinj
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I think this is bullshit.

I think we are human beings. And I think that we do not need super-human powers to be spiritual at all.

You contradict yourself. One may cite various outpoints. Contrary facts for example.

Why not say what you mean by spiritual?

Is this a capacity of an animal?

What sort of " animal" is that?
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
You contradict yourself. One may cite various outpoints. Contrary facts for example.

Why not say what you mean by spiritual?

Is this a capacity of an animal?

What sort of " animal" is that?

Interesting point. There may be some truth to saying that 'The ability of spirit is to contradict itself', since what's *real* in a spiritual sense is *always* 'unspeakable'.

However, anything that *can* be explained, by that theory *cannot* be spiritual.

Packaged 'Certainty' that's '100% Standard' is *inherently* unspiritual.

Zinj
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Interesting point. There may be some truth to saying that 'The ability of spirit is to contradict itself', since what's *real* in a spiritual sense is *always* 'unspeakable'.

However, anything that *can* be explained, by that theory *cannot* be spiritual.

Packaged 'Certainty' that's '100% Standard' is *inherently* unspiritual.

Zinj


What does CERTAINTY mean to you?
 

beyond_horizons

Patron Meritorious
What does CERTAINTY mean to you?
I spose for me it means, the ability to sift through the universal noise and successfully navigate around 'cow pies' and get to the point of know or don't know while being perfectly satisfied with the process. :)

By the way, I like your approach to math.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I spose for me it means, the ability to sift through the universal noise and successfully navigate around 'cow pies' and get to the point of know or don't know while being perfectly satisfied with the process. :)

By the way, I like your approach to math.

I totally agree. I had that certainty before I got introduced to Scientology, and I found that certainty expressed in my understanding of Data Series.

I think that I navigated my way through Scientology in such a way as not to get adversely affected by it. I came out a winner.

Thanks for your comment re my approach to math. Currently I am putting together materials for a new math website.

.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
What does CERTAINTY mean to you?

On the one hand, I can see 'certainty' as a kind of 'direct' knowledge, usually an experience and related to what would usually be seen as 'revelation'.

A divine inspiration.

An analog might be what Castaneda called 'seeing'. It's a rare experience and utterly convincing, but, also dangerous, because the 'information' is greater than the vessel that contains it (the being) and in many, if not most cases, this can lead to misleading truncation and re-interpretation into less adequate forms.

In my experience that kind of 'direct knowledge' cannot be successfully communicated between beings. However, it often happens that individuals will recognize the 'cog' in others. The revelation itself is 'unspeakable', but, there can be a resonance between two who realize the same thing.

An 'Aha!' experience of recognition.

Another kind of 'certainty' is what I see in Scientology, or other 'organized' belief systems. That one is an axiomatic 'stable datum' which is shared by people. A 'set' of 'Stable Data' which, like pounding square pegs through round holes results in a 'common' and shared (but mutilated) 'certainty'.

Zinj
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Please define 'mechanical'

I would consider Ron's description of 'beingness' as 'mechanical'; with the 'reactive mind' and the Thetan as 'cogs' in a machine.

Not very spiritual.

All 'implants' and billiard-ball style 'determinism'.

100% Scientific and 'standard'.

*I* would see this obsessive fixation on 'certainty' as itself a terrified attempt to 'control' reality (and self)

Comfortable spirits don't *give a fuck* about whether they're 'pulling the strings', since they reject the strings in the first place :)

Zinj

Please see the following essay that I wrote sometime back:

CAUSE, EFFECT AND STIMULUS-RESPONSE

.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Please see the following essay that I wrote sometime back:

CAUSE, EFFECT AND STIMULUS-RESPONSE

.

Is there something particular I'm supposed to take from this?

What you call 'The Cause' bears little resemblance to 'cause' as commonly used, which means that your 'by definition' means that it's by *your* definition.

I suppose in some way, what you're calling 'The Cause' parallels a western idea of 'God', but, it has little to do with commonly used 'causality'.

What you call 'stimulus' does resemble the usual usage of 'cause' (with a small 'c') but whatever you're trying to 'communicate' seems hopelessly mired in what appears to be a parochial competitive dichotomy between what you call 'semitic' religions and 'eastern' religions.

Much of what you appear to want to state axiomatically is of dubious 'certainty' :)

What you're presenting is certainly *one* way to see things, but, I see it as of little value to me personally.

Zinj
 

haiqu

Patron Meritorious
Another kind of 'certainty' is what I see in Scientology, or other 'organized' belief systems. That one is an axiomatic 'stable datum' which is shared by people. A 'set' of 'Stable Data' which, like pounding square pegs through round holes results in a 'common' and shared (but mutilated) 'certainty'.

Zinj

The only way someone who was in Scientology for more than five minutes could be in that condition, would be to have read the statement, "What is true for you, is true for you" and taken it literally. And then, deciding the statement to be untrue for them - as is their Ron-given right according to this very statement - catch themselves in a mental hammerlock of Catch 22 proportions.

Once they eventually untangle such a mess and realize the subtle humo(u)r in LRH's works, it all makes sense. And then their case progress can start in earnest.

LITERALNESS = STUPIDITY

haiqu
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
The only way someone who was in Scientology for more than five minutes could be in that condition, would be to have read the statement, "What is true for you, is true for you" and taken it literally. And then, deciding the statement to be untrue for them - as is their Ron-given right according to this very statement - catch themselves in a mental hammerlock of Catch 22 proportions.

Once they eventually untangle such a mess and realize the subtle humo(u)r in LRH's works, it all makes sense. And then their case progress can start in earnest.

LITERALNESS = STUPIDITY

haiqu


Good point.

Anyone can call themselves a Scientologist. The idea is that you use the tech to improve conditions for yourself and others. I've met people who had barely had any auditing who were Scientologists to a far greater degree than some high on the pre-OT levels. Membership of the IAS does not make you a Scientologist, it just makes you a member.

Similarly, I've met Christians (or people who call themselves such) who wouldn't know a quote from the Bible if you hit them with it.
 

Veda

Sponsor
The only way someone who was in Scientology for more than five minutes could be in that condition, would be to have read the statement, "What is true for you, is true for you" and taken it literally. And then, deciding the statement to be untrue for them - as is their Ron-given right according to this very statement - catch themselves in a mental hammerlock of Catch 22 proportions.

Once they eventually untangle such a mess and realize the subtle humo(u)r in LRH's works, it all makes sense. And then their case progress can start in earnest.

LITERALNESS = STUPIDITY

haiqu

If there weren't so many casualties, it would be funnier.

I do appreciate the wry humor, though, in LRH coaxing people into calling themselves "thetans," without ever realizing the joke is on them. Those are the best kinds of jokes really, the ones the victim never recognizes.

I still don't get the humor in 'Keeping Scientlogy Working', or in LRH as "Commodore" with "Command Intention," or placing children in the ship's chain locker, or the Fair Game Law, but then I'm still bogged down in things, such as taking, "tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed" literally.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
If there weren't so many casualties, it would be funnier.

I do appreciate the wry humor, though, in LRH coaxing people into calling themselves "thetans," without ever realizing the joke is on them. Those are the best kinds of jokes really, the ones the victim never recognizes.

I still don't get the humor in 'Keeping Scientlogy Working', or in LRH as "Commodore" with "Command Intention," or placing children in the ship's chain locker, or the Fair Game Law, but then I'm still bogged down in things, such as taking, "tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed" literally.

Agreed about the unfunny aspects, but, beyond that, in practice the 'true for you' and 'only accept what is real for you' reminds me of Henry Ford's maxim that you can get a Model T in any color you want, as long as it's black.

Zinj
 
Top