The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[afaceinthecrowd]

I'm kinda likin' this

Lakey wrote:



It was me that introduced the idea of "Potential" . . . and that it is a quality, faculty and attribute of spirit. As I said in that post, it was also a missing element in Alan's redo of Axiom One.

Vin then appropriately appropriated (Ya gotta love these words Winston!) this little notion of mine as perfect to resolve and describe what he was getting at, and it became part of his mantra on the thread.

The genesis of it is in the earlier post on the Oh! God!! thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...t=11238&page=5 post #46

Lakey wrote:


The whole thing is a moving target . . . the further my case advances, the more nuances I see.

I did write a lot about it back in 1990. That stuff is still lying around to publish. I did a whole number dissecting the propositions of modern science/physics as taught in universities which propositions contain some totally ridiculous stuff, lies and contradictions held as "valid."

Eventually I'll dust it off, but it would be too long and too inappropriate to post here.

Rog

I’ve "felt" for years that there are fundamental flaws in the Factors, Axioms, etc. Your New Axiom #1 I like and it “feels” better to me.

Vin word cleared me once at Flag…he was sent to cramming and I was sent to review.

I, for one, would love to hear whatever you think is appropriate and within your time budget.

Face

PS: I was just kidding about me being sent to review…his going to cramming was as much my fault as his…I just couldn’t resist talkin’ that Meta-shit with him and we actually were having a good time until Erlich blew a fuse. I liked Vin…whatever your opinion is about him, IMO, he’s very sincere, well intentioned and he is a very, very smart guy.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Rodent scurries by as Obama lauds Wall Street vote

AP – A small rodent runs in front of President Barack Obama as he delivers remarks on Wall Street and Financial …

Mitch McConnell "streaking" the conference in protest?


Mark A. Baker

 

[RogerB]

I’ve "felt" for years that there are fundamental flaws in the Factors, Axioms, etc. Your New Axiom #1 I like and it “feels” better to me.

Vin word cleared me once at Flag…he was sent to cramming and I was sent to review.

I, for one, would love to hear whatever you think is appropriate and within your time budget.

Face

PS: I was just kidding about me being sent to review…his going to cramming was as much my fault as his…I just couldn’t resist talkin’ that Meta-shit with him and we actually were having a good time until Erlich blew a fuse. I liked Vin…whatever your opinion is about him, IMO, he’s very sincere, well intentioned and he is a very, very smart guy.

Hey, I like Vin too. In fact I have a lot of regard for him because, as you say, he is so sincere. He also has done and continues to do a lot of good.

I, like some others, simply got a little worn thin on so repeatedly being misunderstood or misquoted or made something else of.

That's not "bad," just so very tiring to have to try and get through to help obtain understanding.

I find it perfectly acceptable that Vin has his views and beliefs that are not in accord with mine. As I have said, they are to be honored . . . . I'd just prefer that he didn't try and make my view of things appear to be other than they actually are.

Later on I'll dig up some of posts on Axiom 1 etc., from other threads. You've probably missed them as they were posted before I saw you shining face appear here.

ALso LRH's statements in the PABs about the "Postulates," The First Postulate," and "First, Second, Third and Fourth Postulates" is rather erroneous. The "First Postulate," in my view, cannot be "To Not Know" . . . because this would have prevented any connections, relationships and game.

The first postulate had to be in the vein of a positive such as: To Love, to Know, to Relate, or such . . . and then, subsequently, as that which was known, loved and related to began to be boring, unacceptable or unpleasant . . . then we made with the negatives!!

I dealt with this in my presentation to the FZ in Pasadena here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=14524

Rog

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Gonna ponder where this comes from in full but as a "first strike" ...

“The Source of Life is a Static of peculiar and particular properties.”

Well the first part of that is better, but that word “peculiar” does not ring true to me. It is in error. The axiom is however correct when it says “the Source of Life has particular properties” — even though it does not articulate them.

The use of "peculiar" is apt, Roger. As it has the sense of particular. The word peculiar is actually one of my pet favorites as to derivation.

It has a root meaning based on the latin word "pecu" with a meaning of "cattle" or "flocks" in the sense of livestock. It applied to any livestock, not just cows & other similar bovine animals but also including sheep, goats, etc.. Since cattle referred to a form of "movable property" a man's "peculium" was taken to mean his "moveable property" generally and in distinction of immoveable property such as land holdings. His "moveable property" was that property considered uniquely or particularly (i.e. in particle) his own.

Accordingly "peculiar" and by further extension has taken on the meaning of any characteristic unique to an individual, and can be applied synonymously in this sense with "particular". From this point a simple inversion makes out as "peculiar" any individual whose characteristics mark him out as "unique".

Thus we go from the characteristics of livestock to the quiddities of an eccentric, or as in the foregoing reference: "The Source of Life is a Static of peculiar and particular properties.”

If anything the quoted line might be criticized for redundancy.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Ted]

Gonna ponder where this comes from in full but as a "first strike" ...



The use of "peculiar" is apt, Roger. As it has the sense of particular. The word peculiar is actually one of my pet favorites as to derivation.

It has a root meaning based on the latin word "pecu" with a meaning of "cattle" or "flocks" in the sense of livestock. It applied to any livestock, not just cows & other similar bovine animals but also including sheep, goats, etc.. Since cattle referred to a form of "movable property" a man's "peculium" was taken to mean his "moveable property" generally and in distinction of immoveable property such as land holdings. His "moveable property" was that property considered uniquely or particularly (i.e. in particle) his own.

Accordingly "peculiar" and by further extension has taken on the meaning of any characteristic unique to an individual, and can be applied synonymously in this sense with "particular". From this point a simple inversion makes out as "peculiar" any individual whose characteristics mark him out as "unique".

Thus we go from the characteristics of livestock to the quiddities of an eccentric, or as in the foregoing reference: "The Source of Life is a Static of peculiar and particular properties.”

If anything the quoted line might be criticized for redundancy.


Mark A. Baker

At this particular and peculiar moment in time, all redundancies are referred to the Department of Redundancy Department for further review.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[lkwdblds]

Lakey wrote:



It was me that introduced the idea of "Potential" . . . and that it is a quality, faculty and attribute of spirit. As I said in that post, it was also a missing element in Alan's redo of Axiom One.

I'll be darned! All these months I have been crediting the wrong source, Vinnie instead of Rog! That is a very brilliant construct Rog! How do you keep something an infinite nothingness to which no adjectives can be applied and how can spiritual life arise from a nothingness. The concept of only potential spiritual attributes being contained in the nothingness solves the problem. Since they are only portential and don't exist per se, then it gives a means for Vinniy's theories to move forward. He should have acknowledged you Rog, for a brilliant piece of deductive work!!

Also, I like Alan's version better too. In all fairness to LRH, it is easier to imporove on someone else's work than to start from scratch as the originator did.

Vin then appropriately appropriated (Ya gotta love these words Winston!) this little notion of mine as perfect to resolve and describe what he was getting at, and it became part of his mantra on the thread.

Wouldn't appropriately misappropriated be the better choice of words?

The genesis of it is in the earlier post on the Oh! God!! thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthrea...t=11238&page=5 post #46

Lakey wrote:

"The whole thing is a moving target . . . the further my case advances, the more nuances I see."

Nice piece of writing, yes? Perhaps that's why Winston thought I was a novelist.


I did write a lot about it back in 1990. That stuff is still lying around to publish. I did a whole number dissecting the propositions of modern science/physics as taught in universities which propositions contain some totally ridiculous stuff, lies and contradictions held as "valid."

Eventually I'll dust it off, but it would be too long and too inappropriate to post here.

Rog

Using potential spiritual attributes rather than actual spiritual attributes themselves is a very clever construct. It uses the methodology of an ad hoc proof but it really is not ad hoc itself not in the least. It is a very clever construct to get around an almost insurmontable problem in one's theory.

How can attributes exist within an infinite nothingness. They don't. Only the potential for spiritual attributes exist but they have no substance, they are just unrealized potentials to start with. How beautiful is that as a solution to overcome an obstacle? It is so beautiful that it must be true!
Lakey

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Methinks it's a vole or mole...

Rodent scurries by as Obama lauds Wall Street vote

AP – A small rodent runs in front of President Barack Obama as he delivers remarks on Wall Street and Financial …

By MARK S. SMITH, Associated Press Writer – Thu May 20, 8:29 pm ET
WASHINGTON – In the midst of his battle with the titans of Wall Street, President Barack Obama was nearly upstaged by a rodent. Obama had just begun a Rose Garden statement lauding the end of a Senate filibuster on his financial overhaul when some kind of rodent dashed out of the bushes to his right, just outside the Oval Office.
As photographers snapped away in the sun-drenched garden, the critter scurried straight past the gray podium with the presidential seal and made a bee-line for another set of bushes to Obama's left.
It's not clear if the president could even see the streaker, but he didn't show any reaction. And he concluded his statement minutes later, returning to his office without answering a few shouted questions on other topics.
Once he was safely inside the Oval Office, a fierce debate erupted among the photographers and reporters who'd witnessed the dash. Was it a rat or a mouse? Or maybe a mole, or some other kind of related creature.
Before long, experts had joined the fray.
"I would partially rule out rat," said Russell Link, a wildlife biologist who works for the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. "That's due to the lack of a tail that is typically equal to body length."
After viewing a photograph of the surprising scurry, Link said, "My suspicion is it's a vole, commonly called a 'meadow mouse' out our way."
In fact, this wasn't the first time a rodent's been spied in the White House, or even the Rose Garden.
Just last week, as camera crews set up for an Obama statement on the Gulf oil spill, what's believed to have been the same rodent made a dash across the famous garden.
The press work areas behind the White House briefing room have had at least one rat sighting, though that was before a multimillion-dollar rehab project finished by the Bush administration.
Moreover, rodents of all kinds are pretty common in Washington. From time to time, city officials issue alarms about surges in the rat population when residents put out extra-big summer piles of garbage.
Washington is, after all built, along a river, on what used to be a malarial swamp.

It looks like a vole or mole to me, short tail, shape of head, little or no ears to speak of, coloring etc. Maybe it just wanted it's time in the spotlight! Mamma Obamma did create an organic garden on the white house grounds, you know! Gonna have critters in it!

 

[RogerB]

Lakey,

Vin did acknowledge me at the time. And then, as would be correct, he embraced it in all his later dissertation . . . for as you say, it was so brilliant

However Vin, of course, was applying the notion in the sense you have emphasize as this did resolve a conundrum that stemmed from his beliefs in the Hindu/Buddhist teachings. My use of it had additional, in my view, larger connotations. Look at this from my original post:

"This is a big concept. The stem word, of course is potent. And the original definition of it as an adjective is: that has power; potent. A modern adjective definition is: that can, but has not yet, come into being; possible; latent; unrealized; undeveloped; opposed to actual. The noun definition is: something potential; a potentiality.

Mark,

It must be the Ozzie in me and our particular and peculiar bent on the use of our Queen's English . . . . . the derivation of the word, of course, we never used nor its ancient meanings but the modern usage and definitions we particularly applied were as I see in my trusty American Heritage Dictionary, the first of which states: 1, Unusual or eccentric, odd. The rest of course are in order as you point out.

So, hands up anyone who thinks their essence, attributes or characteristics are "peculiar"? (And if so, let me warn you, you'll have trouble with immigration trying to get into Oz!)

Rog

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Haw!

 

[Winston Smith]

Lucy Beagle dug in the ground and came up with a vole/mole! She has a vewy good nose...sorry no pics. But I might come up with a Lucy pic later.

 

[Leon]

“Life is basically a static.”

The axiom is correct as it stands. Though it does need to be understood in the context of the definiton of static as given by LRH, viz

“That which is but which has no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time. It has the quality of being able to create or uncreate mass or energy, and to locate itself within a created space or timestream. The simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothing. It is a no-thing, but it is not nothing. A static is Life, and Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say no-thing we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor.

A Static is considered in Scientology to be more basic than a thetan - A thetan is “inside” the universe and is playing the game of life. A Static is considered to be “seperate” to the universe and is not involved in it.” [This is a composite of various definitions he gives in various places.]

One needs to clearly differentiate between “nothing” and a “no thing”. Static is, but it is not a thing and it is not nothing. It is a no-thing.


“The Source of Life is a Static of peculiar and particular properties.”

What Mark wrote about the meaning of ‘peculiar’ is correct. I have always understood the word having the additional meaning he gives - maybe Ozzies need a better school education; when did they ever speak the Queen's English anyway..

BUT . . . .

“NEW AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY AN EMANATION STEMMING FROM A LIFEFORCE PRESENCE.”

does not make a lot of sense to me at all as it stands. Maybe if one clarified it a little and said “Life within the universe is basically an emanation . . .” then it would be better. But as Alan has it it really says no more than that “Life is an emanation of Life”. It also contains the silly idea that the origin of life is a “force” of some sort - a “lifeforce presence”. Present where?

= = = = =

Later on Roger, you refer to something you raised in an earlier posting you - “Also LRH's statements in the PABs about the "Postulates," The First Postulate," and "First, Second, Third and Fourth Postulates" is rather erroneous. The "First Postulate," in my view, cannot be "To Not Know" . . . because this would have prevented any connections, relationships and game.

The first postulate had to be in the vein of a positive such as: To Love, to Know, to Relate, or such . . . and then, subsequently, as that which was known, loved and related to began to be boring, unacceptable or unpleasant . . . then we made with the negatives!!

I mentioned to you at the time that this cannot be true, since you leave you the object/subject of what is being postulated. To know what? To love whom? To relate to what? All of these must have been created before you could know them or love them.

You never answered this at the time. Perhaps you’d like to do so now.

[BTW I’m not suggesting LRH was correct in what he gave. He wasn’t.]

First postulate can only be the presentation of oneself as a being. “Here I am. WOW!” From that, and the similar presentations of all others, all else can follow. One is only then a “peculiar and particular being within a game” and one can then love this or that, seek to know this or that, and so on, and thereby play the game one has entered.

= = = = = =

Going back now to the original suggestion in this phase of the thread, from that link to the guy who reckons he’s on to it and that the basic building block of everything is this little bubble-ball standing wave thingy that flows in and out at the same time - well, what can I say. I suppose I could say that it all really begins with this little black dot that I have eight inches in front of my nose and everything in everywhere logically follows on from that. And no one could ever disprove it. [And that's what's wrong with it.]

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Wanderlust...

I think it must be love...it's mole/vole mating season! This explains it all. Would love to see a Lucy Picture!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

So, hands up anyone who thinks their essence, attributes or characteristics are "peculiar"?

(And if so, let me warn you, you'll have trouble with immigration trying to get into Oz!)

Rog

Why? The whole bloody continent s renown for taking inordinate pride in being "peculiar"!

Here have a brew on me ...


Mark A. Baker

 

[Winston Smith]

I think it must be love...it's mole/vole mating season! This explains it all. Would love to see a Lucy Picture!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Cutie pie!

Aw, sweet little Lucy! I just want to hug her and pet her! Thank you!

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

It's all about ME

There is an over one thousand acre nature preserve near my house. It was purchased by a rich woman and her husband a long time ago. When they were alive, they set up trails, had stables for use by horse owners, summer camps, goats, organic gardening, many other community cherished activities. Since they have both been dead a decade or so, the board of directors, in charge of continuing the good deeds has gotten rid of the horses and drastically cut back on use in general. Their most recent activity was an attempt to rezone over 200 acres, so that 200 houses could be built. Acreage in our area is worth over a million an acre. It seems that the board has gone out of their way to become the opp term of what the creators of the area had conceived and created in their lifetimes.

In our little city, there was a huge beautiful old tree in the town center that was cut down some ten years ago, so that the Kiwanis Club could plant a new tree that they could put their plaque on saying they planted the tree. I'm not making this up. The tree they planted died within a couple of years. We now have a cement planter box with a plaque stating that this tree was planted by the Kiwanis Club in the center of our downtown. Of course, there is no tree in it.

Last year a guy, who spent most of his adult life researching and working with spiritual matters, and had a little organization to further others' assimilation of his knowledge, kicked the bucket. Last week, the two people, who inherited the control of his group and property, gave pink slips to a couple of people (old farts), who were around and contributing 15 years ago. -- Long before the new bosses ever even heard of the subject or the group.

Whether all the ethics stuff of Scientology is true or not, I'm not about to assert. I will say that "power change" rings true for me.

There seems to be a selfish desire to not do what is right, but do that which will mark a territory, location, or organization as "MINE" -- because I know better, am smarter, better than the person or people that came before.

A four letter word starting with "F" and ending with "K", followed by the word, "'em" comes to mind.

 

[lkwdblds]

I've noticed this trait as well.

There is an over one thousand acre nature preserve near my house. It was purchased by a rich woman and her husband a long time ago. When they were alive, they set up trails, had stables for use by horse owners, summer camps, goats, organic gardening, many other community cherished activities. Since they have both been dead a decade or so, the board of directors, in charge of continuing the good deeds has gotten rid of the horses and drastically cut back on use in general. Their most recent activity was an attempt to rezone over 200 acres, so that 200 houses could be built. Acreage in our area is worth over a million an acre. It seems that the board has gone out of their way to become the opp term of what the creators of the area had conceived and created in their lifetimes.

In our little city, there was a huge beautiful old tree in the town center that was cut down some ten years ago, so that the Kiwanis Club could plant a new tree that they could put their plaque on saying they planted the tree. I'm not making this up. The tree they planted died within a couple of years. We now have a cement planter box with a plaque stating that this tree was planted by the Kiwanis Club in the center of our downtown. Of course, there is no tree in it.

Last year a guy, who spent most of his adult life researching and working with spiritual matters, and had a little organization to further others' assimilation of his knowledge, kicked the bucket. Last week, the two people, who inherited the control of his group and property, gave pink slips to a couple of people (old farts), who were around and contributing 15 years ago. -- Long before the new bosses ever even heard of the subject or the group.

Whether all the ethics stuff of Scientology is true or not, I'm not about to assert. I will say that "power change" rings true for me.

There seems to be a selfish desire to not do what is right, but do that which will mark a territory, location, or organization as "MINE" -- because I know better, am smarter, better than the person or people that came before.

A four letter word starting with "F" and ending with "K", followed by the word, "'em" comes to mind.

I have observed things being done in the same way as the examples you give. Actually, that is one area where Hubbard and now DM have acquited themselves very well. When C of S takes over a building, they go out of their way to keep the old name of the building and retain the basic architecture. Sooner or later, they remodel their buildings and they go out of the way again to maintain the theme and spirit behind the original structure in its furnishings.

More in line with your post would be the battle the City Council in Los Angeles waged, with the backing of the ACLU, to have the tiny cross removed from the City of L.A. Seal.

First is a link to the current City Seal:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_City_of_Los_Angeles

Next is the seal the way it used to be. The second seal contains an article with it. The cross was not only removed from the City Seal but it was also taken off the top of the Original Mission building which initially was a Catholic Church in the fledgling City of Los Angeles during the 18 and 19th centuries. The Mission building is no longer being used as a church but has been preserved as a cultural landmark or museum and since the building is now secular, the ACLU waged a battle to get the cross removed from its top and they were successful in doing so. Thank God for the American Civil Liberties Union, they are really protecting our Civil Liberties by getting the crosses taken off of historical landmarks (excuse me while I vomit).

http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/crosscontroversy.htm

Up until about two years ago, the seal, as shown in my link, had a tiny cross in it to signify the Catholics who founded the City back in 1781. The City Council voted 3 to 2 to have the cross removed and in the Wikepedia article, the seal is not shown and absolutely no mention is made that is once was part of the seal. A group of interested parties, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and even Atheists fought the City Council and tried to have the cross within the seal retained on historical grounds. The ACLU entered the fray and with their clout, they were able to win the legal battle and the cross was expunged from the seal.

The ACLU does not want any kind of Christian symbol on anything at all which is in the Public Domain. They will spend millions in legal fees to enforce their preference, which they base upon Separation of Church and State. They care nothing about the people who came before them and created cities and missions under the banner of the Catholic Church. They do not care whether the citizens would prefer to retain a tiny cross on the seal for historic reasons. Their stated goal is to enforce the separation of Church and State and they have a smug anointed attitude that only they "know best" what is best for society and they will do whatever it takes to enforce their wisdom.

I think there are enough similarities here, Carmelo, that my example is on topic with your post. Do you agree?
Lakey

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Their stated goal is to enforce the separation of Church and State and they have a smug anointed attitude that only they "know best" what is best for society and they will do whatever it takes to enforce their wisdom.

I think there are enough similarities here, Carmelo, that my example is on topic with your post. Do you agree?
Lakey

and generally speaking, most of those "good citizens" are proud of what they do.

Our City Council recently succeeded in getting rid of the family owned garbage company that has served the city for 70 years (even before it was a city). A lot of residents went to the council meeting to voice our displeasure. The mayor said, he did read emails or listen to voters' opinions. The new garbage company will have GPS on their trucks, so that they can more accurately collect garbage. The old garbage company just knew the streets and the people.

It really is a violation of the non existence formula. Instead of finding out what is wanted, these people dictate what we should have. By that same logic, LRH created the grades and OT levels. "This is what you need." The way auditing was done pre standard tech was finding what the PC's goal for the session, each individual session, and then helping them get that.

Some of us, never lost sight of that methodology.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

At this particular and peculiar moment in time, all redundancies are referred to the Department of Redundancy Department for further review.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

TKU

Hey, I like Vin too. In fact I have a lot of regard for him because, as you say, he is so sincere. He also has done and continues to do a lot of good.

I, like some others, simply got a little worn thin on so repeatedly being misunderstood or misquoted or made something else of.

That's not "bad," just so very tiring to have to try and get through to help obtain understanding.

I find it perfectly acceptable that Vin has his views and beliefs that are not in accord with mine. As I have said, they are to be honored . . . . I'd just prefer that he didn't try and make my view of things appear to be other than they actually are.

Later on I'll dig up some of posts on Axiom 1 etc., from other threads. You've probably missed them as they were posted before I saw you shining face appear here.

ALso LRH's statements in the PABs about the "Postulates," The First Postulate," and "First, Second, Third and Fourth Postulates" is rather erroneous. The "First Postulate," in my view, cannot be "To Not Know" . . . because this would have prevented any connections, relationships and game.

The first postulate had to be in the vein of a positive such as: To Love, to Know, to Relate, or such . . . and then, subsequently, as that which was known, loved and related to began to be boring, unacceptable or unpleasant . . . then we made with the negatives!!

I dealt with this in my presentation to the FZ in Pasadena here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=14524

Rog

Hey thanks, Rog…I appreciate this. I’ve spent some time in the past reading some of your posts on the threads with Vin and others but this is a real help.

I’m gonna listen to and digest your FZ presentation and related Posts over the weekend.

By the way, that’s a very impressive ‘stache you were sportin’.

Face