What's new
By:
Filters

The Major Flaw in Knowledgism

alex said:
THATS MY WHOLE F'ING POINT!

How is an entity supposed to make a "free will choice" when in the influence of ITS PROCESSOR!?

Would you ask one of your processees to go into business with you or become personal friends in the glow of their awakening awareness? It seems a situation that needs a bit of distance to mitigate the obvious chance of influence.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Yes, actually, if one of my "processees" wanted to go into business or something, afterwards, I wouldn't have any problem with that. I'd be suspicious of transference, but I would look into it, discharge any possibility of that, and then go ahead. I see your point better, now, though.

Well, for me the whole thing is theoretical, because I don't believe in bts (except as mockups that the person is creating, themselves, in which case, going to business with yourself isn't such a bad thing).
 
I do agree that Knowledgism mixes "spirituality" with "wordly affairs." That puts it in the category of psychology rather than in the category of spiritual philosophy.

.
 
uniquemand said:
Ah, I see. Yes, actually, if one of my "processees" wanted to go into business or something, afterwards, I wouldn't have any problem with that. I'd be suspicious of transference, but I would look into it, discharge any possibility of that, and then go ahead. I see your point better, now, though.

Well, for me the whole thing is theoretical, because I don't believe in bts (except as mockups that the person is creating, themselves, in which case, going to business with yourself isn't such a bad thing).
Click to expand...

In the case of knowledgism "spiritual teammates" is a good thing and I think that there is a culture of developing them and less a concern of the ultimate spiritual freedom possible in the desire for personal success and power and sphere of influence.

It is not inherently bad to team up with entities, but I think they should perhaps be dealt with along the lines of If you love them, set them free....

And if they return then that is cool.
 
Last edited:
BEST POST ON KNOWLEDGISM

Hi Alex,
I'm still a Scientologist, outside the Church.
I think your posts, many of which I've read, are of value.

I have decided to look into Knowledgism. I've read one book
on it and have two more on order.

I do agree with RogerB that you might look into it more
before assuming some things.
RogerB's thread "On the Subject of Knowledgism" is something
I'd recommend as it told me much more about the workings of
Knowledgism than even the first of Alan's books that I read.
His opening post in that thread prints out as 12 pages.

In trying to understand Knowledgism I seem to hampered by
the study of Scientology and LRH's viewpoints, most of which
I agree with.
I'm sure it will take much more study and maybe a course applied
before I'll be able to fully differentiate the two subjects, although
obviously they do have their identities and similarities also.

Another factor is that you probably have more hands on
experience with Scientology than I do.
 
alex said:
Just as you put a spin on Hubbards tech towards entities, characterizing it as disconnection.

I personally believe one needs a clean personal universe. Maybe an occasional guest, and certainly a "third dynamic" personal universe too. But at the core there must be that space of complete self determinism or freedom from influence.

Of course that it not the end all of goals, but a necessary component in functioning fully as self. Some bit of consciousness that is truely and solely ones own.

I believe the third dynamic would better be formed from entities that dont have the history and possible ill effects of previous fixation and possible feelings of personal debt towards their liberator.

The spiritul teammates thing has a ring of spiritual multilevel marketing to it. Amway of souls.

imo
Click to expand...


Does the Church of Scientology have its members as its "spiritual teammates"?
 
alex said:
In the case of knowledgism "spiritual teammates" is a good thing and I think that there is a culture of developing them and less a concern of the ultimate spiritual freedom possible in the desire for personal success and power and sphere of influence.

It is not inherently bad to team up with entities, but I think they should perhaps be dealt with along the lines of If you love them, set them free....

And if they return then that is cool.
Click to expand...


Is Knowledgism going for "siddhis" in your view?

.
 
Vinaire said:
Does the Church of Scientology have its members as its "spiritual teammates"?
Click to expand...

In my experience? No. The Church is at controlling bodies now days.

My early experience of scientology was more in that vein though.
 
Vinaire said:
Is Knowledgism going for "siddhis" in your view?

.
Click to expand...

It doesnt seem that that is the goal. More like big powerful game winners with abilities as the avenue, rather than awakening abilities to further progress beyond the game.

That is one on the key difference in my opinion between scientology and Knowledgism, scientology the philosophy was all about getting out of the trap, while knowledgism seems to want to win in it.

But then I personally enjoy human life.....so its not a bad thing in itself, but also the goal of transcending it is important.
 
alex said:
It doesnt seem that that is the goal. More like big powerful game winners with abilities as the avenue, rather than awakening abilities to further progress beyond the game.

That is one on the key difference in my opinion between scientology and Knowledgism, scientology the philosophy was all about getting out of the trap, while knowledgism seems to want to win in it.

But then I personally enjoy human life.....so its not a bad thing in itself, but also the goal of transcending it is important.
Click to expand...

It's only a trap if you forget that it's a show.
 
uniquemand said:
It's only a trap if you forget that it's a show.
Click to expand...

And that forgetting goes so deep that I have never met someone who has got out.

We are so deeply ingrained into the material realm that we dont even see it to a large extent. Our agreement with it is much more fundamental to how we exist than something we can just exteriorize from.

It is still our frame of reference if we exteriorize from it.

And the next frame of reference is a spiritual realm that is equally a "show". We are also deeply ingrained in to it, we operate in it simultaneously with our "Human" lives....although it is more subtle, harder to perceive with the overwhelm of information from the Physical...



And beyond that? I suspect more.
 
alex said:
And that forgetting goes so deep that I have never met someone who has got out.

We are so deeply ingrained into the material realm that we dont even see it to a large extent. Our agreement with it is much more fundamental to how we exist than something we can just exteriorize from.

It is still our frame of reference if we exteriorize from it.

And the next frame of reference is a spiritual realm that is equally a "show". We are also deeply ingrained in to it, we operate in it simultaneously with our "Human" lives....although it is more subtle, harder to perceive with the overwhelm of information from the Physical...



And beyond that? I suspect more.
Click to expand...

We govern and are governed by our reality. We see what we believe we can see. If you insist on sticking to a concept of "exterior" or that there is no solution to understanding, there your understanding will end because that is all you will see.

It may be that you are in a stage just prior to observing these objectifications in their true light-which will involve discovering why you believed them in the first place. Hang in there!
 
nexus100 said:
We govern and are governed by our reality. We see what we believe we can see. If you insist on sticking to a concept of "exterior" or that there is no solution to understanding, there your understanding will end because that is all you will see.

It may be that you are in a stage just prior to observing these objectifications in their true light-which will involve discovering why you believed them in the first place. Hang in there!
Click to expand...

Kinda my point, exterior is only a reference to a concept of un exterior, not a freedom from the concept.

Being "exterior" still validates that which you are exterior from.
 
alex said:
Kinda my point, exterior is only a reference to a concept of un exterior, not a freedom from the concept.

Being "exterior" still validates that which you are exterior from.
Click to expand...

Free from a concept? Are you tied up by a concept or tied up in belief of a concept? Who ties you up? Who and what unties you?

It sounds like you are BSing to me.
 
nexus100 said:
Free from a concept? Are you tied up by a concept or tied up in belief of a concept? Who ties you up? Who and what unties you?

It sounds like you are BSing to me.
Click to expand...

Holding a concept is a belief, is reality, is what ties you up.

Not bs'ing...

Actually when I "cog'ed" on the futility of exteriorization was a big move forward.

Being exterior is simply a validation of the existence and reality of what one is exterior from, not a solution to it.

It is solely self which creates its own experience. (including the perception of others creation.)
 
alex said:
Holding a concept is a belief is reality is what ties you up.

Not bsing...

Actually when I "cog'ed" on the futility of exteriorization was a big move forward.

Being exterior is simply a validation of the existence and reality of what one is exterior from, not a solution to it.

It is solely self which creates its own experience. (including the perception of others creation.)
Click to expand...

I disagree. I do believe real communication is possible, and by this I mean that when we perceive someone else's creations, if we are just INTERPRETING them, rather than perceiving them, then, yes, that would mean you were creating your perception of their creation. However, if you actually perceive what they created, then real communication has occurred.
 
uniquemand said:
I disagree. I do believe real communication is possible, and by this I mean that when we perceive someone else's creations, if we are just INTERPRETING them, rather than perceiving them, then, yes, that would mean you were creating your perception of their creation. However, if you actually perceive what they created, then real communication has occurred.
Click to expand...

Attention is the creation of the recipient of communication.

I do not disbelieve in the existence of others! Real communication is possible and not reliant on physical means either.

Interpreting is thinking not perceiving.

Perception requires the focusing of attention.
 
alex said:
Attention is the creation of the recipient of communication.

I do not disbelieve in the existence of others! Real communication is possible and not reliant on physical means either.

Interpreting is thinking not perceiving.

Perception requires the focusing of attention.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree. Attention is receptive intention. The intent to receive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top