Why Can’t You See What I See? Or, Can You?

Friday night, Shelley and I went to the State Fair and watched a rock concert.  There were several thousand people there and in the dark during the show I was looking around and wondering why I could not assume the viewpoints of the people that I saw.  I was looking at them;  I could see their bodies;  I could see from their postures and faces how they were reacting to the music;  but I could not see what they saw.  I thought, “I’m gonna write a post on this and ask the question.”

I consider assuming the viewpoint of another to be a high ability and necessary for spiritual growth.  What do you suppose is the reason we cannot see what others see?  Or, Can you?

Advertisements

512 thoughts on “Why Can’t You See What I See? Or, Can You?

  1. The basic block seems to be the fixation on self… either your own self or somebody else’s self.

    When a viewpoint is resulting from a fixation on self, and one doesn’t know about it, then it is very difficult to expand that viewpoint. The idea of ‘my viewpoint’ or ‘another person’s’ viewpoint seems to have that fixation.

    Each self has it’s own experience, information, hypothesis, theory, principles, axioms, etc. To get another’s viewpoint, one has to know all that stuff associated with that self. This gets very complicated, and it can never even be achieved. Besides, one needs to ask oneself, “What purpose is accomplished by assuming another’s viewpoint?”

    The most efficient way is to go beyond self and simply look at what is there without any filters of. experience, information, hypothesis, theory, principles, axioms, etc. All that one needs to focus on are the inconsistencies. One can draw upon consistencies as needed without even thinking. One only needs to track down the inconsistencies. This is much easier to do in the current Age of Information. Then situations resolve very fast.

    This process becomes more efficient if others around you are applying it too. This is what seems to be happening on this blog.

    .

    • Why Can’t You See What I See?

      This is because we all are looking through filters and those filters are different from person to person.

      SOLUTION: Encourage people to look without filters with the help of KHTK Looking.

      .

        • This is in my reality to do with the idea of “key-out” and “key-in” vs the idea of dissolving vs the idea of “near and far” — I am seeing some other ways this can be looked at.

          The main upshot is that the frames of reference of our reality are infinitely large in number. Each frame of reference has its own particular iteration and hence its own “rules” even if varying by only infinitesimal amounts. My look at the “reactive bank” is just different than it was and I don’t know about it moving in or out or anywhere. I seem to zoom in and zoom out. This is my perception. I can look at something from near or from far. Both of these are my own considerations. A frame of reference may be consistent from far but less consistent from near.

          I know this is a jumble of words. I will try to do better later but have to get out the door and am trying to wade through all these wonderful posts and don’t want to give any of them the brush-off but to understand them since everyone has put so much of themselves into their work. These comments by everyone are mostly a treasure of realities. I really love the abundant energy !

  2. Do you know what I saw … I see the upper torso in the frame and I see the lights below creating the lower half … symetrically .. as if the singer has become a larger than life person. As because I am spiritually awakened … I could see what many didn’t .. in my first glance. Thanks for sharing.

    • I like that. This is what I was driving at on two other threads I just wrote having to do with perception. I took and posted the photo you remark on but I didn’t see what you saw until you pointed it out.

      Thanks for reading and feel free to post links to your works here.

      • Thanks Chris …do read my book … you will teach yourself to open your mind like I did …there’s another world that you never get to see otherwise. That’s sad ..to have a potential within you and not know it exists.

    • “do read my book … you will teach yourself to open your mind like I did …there’s another world that you never get to see otherwise. That’s sad ..to have a potential within you and not know it exists.”
      Lady, that is what I call a nasty negative way of communication because what you say: if you do not read my book than you will never know therefore you are doooomed for ever. Your kind of communication promots loss, fear. NEGATIVE IT”S BEST!

      • Read the identical on Tony’s Underground Bunker and I thought about same as you but didn’t reply. Good on ya 🙂 Maybe a troll or ego maniac going to threads spreading negativity? S/he doesn’t know who their talking to.

      • I am guided by God and I stand by what I write …. you however can go with your own choice … so why does going without reading my book scare you so much … if all is well with your world .. you need not fear what I write. Some lessons of life are tough to swallow … if you care to read the many articles that I have written .. you will see that I too came out of fear by studying my book. My MasterMind is a true gift for mankind … but you have the freedom of choice for your own life. Please move on if this does not resonate with you .. for there are many in this world who would like to understand how to bring back beauty into their lives. This is for the tough at heart … for you have to first admit that there is something wrong before you can get it straightened. Some people do not see the things staring them in the face and wish to push it all under the carpet. Grace is in acceptance of ourselves as willing to learn .. to bring back love.

      • kocart ….”’The only way the universe is experienced is by one single viewpoint, unshared”’
        Let us in what you mean by that.. I dont get it at all.
        If there is one single viewpoint, lets say that is ”light” if that viewpoint is unshared than there is only one viewer…. so how Chris’s question is answered?
        You have said nothing, in my reality.. which makes any sense to me…..

      • Chris I have re-read that sentence about 20 times,, I could not get reality on it, in fact there is contradiction there..
        As you know my understanding.. Valuation –as-ising is instantaneous.. I just can’t get it…

      • Ever wonder why you get up every morning in the same skin–you can’t get away from being you? Your experience of the world is equally singular. And in no case is observation of the world done in any other way.

        • There are MAJOR reasons we can’t experience others universe because there are immense amount of collected agreements existing and being kept alive up to this very day… that WE DO NOT INTERFERE WITH PRIVATE SPACE OF OTHER BEINGS…
          Beside those agreements there are thousands of other considerations are in existence why we can’t or we won’t, why we are not allowed to SEE into others universe.
          It is a complicated item, so complex that it takes years of sessions just to get some reality what holds us back..
          Interestingly when finally one can do that the interest is no longer there because one just knows what is there..

        • Elizabeth says:

          There are MAJOR reasons we can’t experience others universe because there are immense amount of collected agreements existing and being kept alive up to this very day… that WE DO NOT INTERFERE WITH PRIVATE SPACE OF OTHER BEINGS… Beside those agreements there are thousands of other considerations are in existence why we can’t or we won’t, why we are not allowed to SEE into others universe. It is a complicated item, so complex that it takes years of sessions just to get some reality what holds us back.. Interestingly when finally one can do that the interest is no longer there because one just knows what is there..

          Chris says: This is an excellent and interesting comment. Please say more about “we do not interfere with private space of other beings.” Give a bit more of your reality on what or why “privacy” is important. And is this privacy consideration on the part of the viewer or of the person being viewed, or both?

  3. My quick comment is that you have to be able to BE that person or some would say walk in their shoes. See the the view from their prospective. That’s where empathy comes in and the ability to duplicate plus grant Beingness to others and yourself. That’s my take.

      • Personally I stay away from people who take things too seriously or make life so complicated. I will remain simple and love life while communicating however best I know how. It’s just my opinion, that’s all. Take it serious or lighten up. It’s always easy to point to someone else’s words, methods or take on it. I fully grasp it as I may and you’re welcome to your view.

      • Vinaire: I have never seen anybody BE another person, or totally assume another persons viewpoint. It is a very complicated situation here that we need to fully grasp.

        Chris: Maybe so, but the idea of duplicating viewpoints is a clearly sought after goal of communication in the idea of ARC=Understanding. Maybe the rub is in duplicating meaning a “copy of” rather than “same as.” ARC incorporates the idea of near and far as the quantitiy of affinity. So we would be considering whether “nearness” can arrive at “sameness.” Or whether affinity can infinitely approach but never quite arrive. In math, 0.999. . . can be considered to be the same as 1. Can it also in philosophy?

        • Communication occurs via sounds, words, body language and perception (agreement, filters, programming) of those things. There is a great improvement in perception when KHTK Looking is practiced.

          Viewpoint is usually buried under a lot of things. It is hard to discover the real viewpoint. The whole Tone Scale seems to be the manifestation of these vias between two viewpoints.

          .

      • Good ole’ Ron stuff. Imagination or mock ups. You certainly can if you try to see another’s perspective, like the old saying “walk in his shoes” to understand, or just develop empathy = understanding. When I say Be that person I mean look at from his point of view, where it comes from. How can one see pan-determined, same principle.

    • Just go over the self-analysis lists executing the items non-judgmentally with KHTK approach. Make sure you understand the item and just look at what comes up. If nothing comes up then simply move forward to the next item.

      You will find that not only one goes through the Self Analysis lists much quickly, but the gains come much faster too. This gives one opportunity to iterate this lists more times in a session. This increases gains per session.

      ..

      .

  4. Vinaire. “I don’t stay away from anything or anybody. I do my best to to see things as they are.”
    I choose the wrong word with “stay away” I mean avoid. I see if I’m in a peculiar situations I will avoid, same with some people. Common sense.
    I like when links are provided to either entertain or educate unless it becomes more of proselytizing and seen on many threads. That’s a narrowing of views, to only one. Of course it can be helpful, but too much puts some people like myself, off. It’s just a viewpoint.

  5. A viewpoint is a point in space that is being used as a reference point relative to which other points in space are being viewed.

    A point in space has fundamentally a lattice type characteristic depending on how that space is being considered. Points in space may then acquire further characteristics depending on additional considerations attached. A crude analogy could be given in terms of pixels on a computer screen, which are given the attributes of color, hue, intensity, etc. From close up, each individual pixel may not mean much, but from distance one may perceive picture, text, symbols, etc.

    It is a very pure and simple affair when one is looking from a point without any filters. The viewpoint has simple spatial characteristics. But when filters are present, they modify that viewpoint and distorts the view accordingly.

    We are used to talking about a person’s viewpoint. Here we seem to have a point in space that has acquired characteristics imposed by the filter of ‘self’. This makes it very difficult to assume that viewpoint unless you have some way of completely knowing those characteristics. Those characteristics will include certain unwanted feelings & emotions, indoctrinations, beliefs, fixed ideas, and other considerations. Scientology does not go into these details and makes us believe that it can be done easily as a matter of fact. But is that true?

    So, when self is there, there are also filters associated with it. There is person A’s filter. There is also person B’s filter. If person A wants to assume person B’s viewpoint then he must account for both his own as well as other person’s filters. This does not seem to be an easy task.

    But the task becomes easier as the filters are dissolved. That would the direction in which telepathy may become possible. In this case there would be total transparency, no withholds, nothing to hide, etc. on both side.

    Maybe when the “four unknowables” are able to dissolve their filters, they may be able to communicate freely and telepathically with each other.

    🙂

    • V…. when no filters are in existance than one can view things as there are without any problem…. but of course your method what you have so far used cant erase those filters therefore you-self cant see without your filters and you dont believe somebody else can who has used auditing to erase all the filters is this evaluation… yes, same as yours was the above post.

      • What makes you say that KHTK Looking cannot erase those filters? It is the same looking that underlies auditing. The only difference is that KHTK Looking allows the mind to dissolves its filters in a natural, orderly sequence. It is smooth like calculus.

        In KHTK Looking:

        (1) One can sets aside the filters that one is aware of.

        (2) That enables one to spot inconsistencies, which one could not spot before.

        (3) With inconsistencies resolved more filters come to view.

        (4) One can now set aside these filters too, and spot more fundamental inconsistencies

        This may take some time but this is the direction to take to become aware of all filters, so they can be set aside.

        KHTK Looking is calculus of auditing.

        .

        • sorry mate i wont buy your reality and you could never convince me in the thousand life times that it works and here is the why:
          V….. I know why I have a problem with the “FILTER” you are talking about.
          FILTER, filtering = screening, sieve- sieving separating, sorting out, categorization, grouping, tagging, labeling,
          Filtering is not as-ising but sorting out therefore accordingly that SORTERS reality and just picking over the existing data available and keeping what that sorter-‘’the one who filters’’ thinks it is a “better view point” and dismiss the rest as garbage….
          But the SOERTER THE PERSON WHO FILTERS DOES NOT AS-IS THE MATERIAL!!

        • Elizabeth, there is a small confusion between yours and Vin’s language regarding filters. You two are agreeing but not using the same words. When you say “as-is a mass” this is what Vin means when he says “dissolve a filter.” Each of you agrees that dissolving mental masses in the form of considerations, etc., is a good path to greater enlightenment. Vin is not promoting filters as a benefit.

    • V ..””Maybe when the “four unknowables” are able to dissolve their filters, they may be able to communicate freely and telepathically with each other.””
      who are these 4 unknowabless ? If one know there is something there and one even know how many in numbers than that person surely knows who are those unknowables..

    • Vinaire says: So, when self is there, there are also filters associated with it. There is person A’s filter. There is also person B’s filter. If person A wants to assume person B’s viewpoint then he must account for both his own as well as other person’s filters. This does not seem to be an easy task.

      Chris says: You are right, maintaining a lot of plates spinning on sticks is difficult but engrossing. The human, more than other life forms seems to obsessively try to do this. If he is without built-in safety shut-offs, he may obsessively build these activities until he completely implodes.

  6. This is a reponse to the following post by Elizabeth:
    comment-791

    I am sorry that you are sorry. There is going to be no effort on my part to convince you of anything.

    I simply like to put down my observations. If I do not put them down here, then I’ll put them down somewhere else.

    Geir totally misunderstood my intentions because of his filters, and he banned me from his blog. That was a very interesting phenomenon.

    Now the action seems to be here on Chris’s blog. His feedback, either here or on my blog, has always helped me.

    I am glad to have Rafael here too.

    .

    • No way… I say you should go someplace else, I have leaned a lot because our communication.. and I DO HOPE WE CONTINUE OUR FEIENDSHIP!.
      Just because we dont agree that means nothing…. who ever said we need to do that?
      Geir was wrong, totally, he should be closing his blog for the lack of commentors if he would act toward every one like he had toward you.
      No pussy cat… lets continue… you like it here, I like it here… just because I have different reality that do not means mine are better, mine are only better for me… hehehe… only for me..

        • my dear I dont insist, I demand!!! hehehe… who I am going to fight with if not you?
          you know V… most people has a problem because they can accept the fact that they are very different- means live in their own reality and that has nothing to do with the other persons.
          Each persons universes are so, totally different, people dont dare to admit that fact… if they would than they belive communication would not be possible..

      • By the way, I don’t care about agreement. I only care about resolving inconsistencies as I see them. So far this has worked for me beautifully. There are so many things I want to write down, but it takes time.

        .

        • I do understand that since i feel the same way… I also know that no two paths are alike… and as i said before you can hit me with your reality any time i have no problem or ARCb’s with people… with nothing and that is fact..

      • Oh! I shall soon be hitting you with inconsistencies that I see in what you sometimes write. Maybe you just don’t duplicate what the other person is writing.
        You certainly haven’t duplicated me on the concept of filters.

        .

    • V…. hehehe.. you put your foot in it big time!
      ”’Scientology OTs seemed to be focused on boosting self with “abilities” rather than dissolving self. That is a big inconsistency as I see it.
      The OT’s do not boots self with abilities… not at all. When one regains abilities after when the walls-inabilities are as-ised=dissolved than those abilities are there to be have “if” one want to achieve something… but one is not that ability.. You really have no idea how auditing works… yet you want to make it wrong.
      You can only make something wrong if you know about it… real real well..

      • It is not nice to present yourself as right and the other person as wrong. It is better to spot the inconsistency as precisely as possible and talk about it. You may not agree with this following discussion policy but I intend to apply it as much as possible.

        Discussions and what needs to be avoided

        The primary ability that brings about as-is-ness is LOOKING as in MINDFULNESS. That ability is unique as it goes beyond self. This is ability that brings about auditing. All other abilities seem to be related to self and designed to create effects in the MEST universe for self. Such abilities keep the self there by adding to its structure.

        This is how I see it.

        .

  7. Here is another observation:

    The general purpose is to continually and efficiently resolve situations that one encounters in life, or even to prevent situations from developing.

    The proper approach toward achieving this purpose does not involve assuming other viewpoints. It rather involves dissolving the inconsistencies cluttering the viewpoints one is interested in.

    I have explained it here

    KHTK LOOKING: AN OVERVIEW

    .

    • I will not go into your blog and read it, if I want to have different reality on the subject is at hand than I have a session on that item. Since you even want to correct how i express my self.. well lets forget that.. Your proper aproach and mine are very different..

    • Vinaire wrote:

      The proper approach toward achieving this purpose does not involve assuming other viewpoints. It rather involves dissolving the inconsistencies cluttering the viewpoints one is interested in.

      I think this statement clearly addresses the OP.

      Agreement does seem to be the as-is adding of considerations while looking seems to be the as-is removing of considerations. As-is’ing seems to either create or dissolve a frame of reference depending on a person’s intention.

      I have used this language incorporating Hubbard’s word as-is for many years. Is there another word, possibly regular dictionary word which means the same thing?

      • I would simply use the terms “adding” and “dissolving” per plain English.

        Agreement is resonance of considerations, which generally requires change and/or addition of considerations rather than a dissolution of them. In case of dissolution one may use “leveling” as well, which would be to make it consistent with the background knowledge.

        .

      • According to the American Heritage “the third person singular present indicative of the verb.
        Be — as is. In it’s simple state: as it stands.” One can figure, figure or just let it Be, as it is. Of course one has to look at it, whatever it is.

  8. “KHTK Looking is calculus of auditing.”

    Normal mathematics addresses changes in finite number of steps. Each step is finite in size. This leads to approximate results. For example, you want to calculate the distance a car with accelerating speed will cover in a certain amount of time. Since the speed of the car is changing, you may divide that total time into finite number of periods and take the closest speed in each period to calculate the distance traveled, and then add all those distances to get the answer.

    This would be an approximate answer. But the accuracy of this answer will increase as you increase the number of periods, with each period getting smaller. This will give better approximation of speed and, therefore, the distance traveled in each period.

    Calculus addresses changes continuously in infinite number of steps, where each step is of infinitely small size. This provides the ultimate limit in accuracy in calculations that involve varying quantities.

    A calculus of auditing will continuously audit restimulations as they occur and not wait till one gets into session. This is KHTK Looking.

    .

  9. A Scientologist is generally looking from the viewpoint cluttered with Hubbard’s theories. His own viewpoint is not there. He is operating with the datum that there are no inconsistencies in Hubbard’s theories. This datum has become a filter.

    He would be able to recover his own viewpoint if he starts looking at Hubbard’s theories non-judgmentally, and sorts out all the inconsistencies that are there.

    .

  10. Here is what I see:

    .

    KHTK AXIOM ZERO: THE ULTIMATE REALITY (Ů) IS UNKNOWABLE.

    Note: The symbol Ů represents the ultimate reality as unknowable. Ů underlies the concept of infinity (∞) in the sense that the limit of infinity cannot be known.

    Defintion: Matter, energy, space, time, individuality, cause, effect, and the capabilities to consider, postulate, opine, etc. are all aspects of what is manifested. The ultimate cause of manifestation is unknowable.

    .

    KHTK AXIOM ONE: SPACE IS A MATRIX OF CONSIDERATIONS.

    Definition: Matrix is something that constitutes the place or point from which something else originates, takes form, or develops.

    Definition: Consideration is that, which is deemed to be there; a thought or reflection.

    .

  11. I just happen to go to Geir’s site, and to the thread SCIENTOLOGY IN USE. It was interesting to see how much enturbulation is going on there, and how little discussion is going on any worthwhile subject. It seems to be worse in terms of conflicts than when I used to be there.

    It was also enlightening to find out that, according to Geir, I was one of the four worst offenders in using Straw Man tactics. I guess my use of “Unknowable” was regarded as a Straw Man by Geir.

    Anyway, that is how I see it. You may not see it that way:

    (1) I do not find much theta on Geir’s blog.

    (2) There is very little discussion on a worthwhile subjects happening on that blog.

    (3) I do not think that I can learn much from being on Geir’s blog.

    (4) Geir seems to have many issues related to ego.

    (5) I have no desire to be on Geir’s blog.

    .

        • To help a friend who needed understanding, and to tell him that he is a very fine being and it dont matter that he is not a scientologist. that is Valkov..
          Also my article, opened new doors, new reality for others and one of them was Geir…
          Also humor is good thing to have, having humor allows one to see things in different light..
          To understand how people are effected- and react to blogging, how they fight to preserve their only view points. There is lot to see while one partake in communication cycle.

        • Eliz “…………….. Also humor is good thing to have, having humor allows one to see things in different light..
          To understand how people are effected- and react to blogging, how they fight to preserve their only view points. There is lot to see while one partake in communication cycle.”
          Exactly!

      • E: “To help a friend who needed understanding, and to tell him that he is a very fine being and it dont matter that he is not a scientologist. that is Valkov..
        Also my article, opened new doors, new reality for others and one of them was Geir…”

        I would never assume that Valkov needed help in this case, especially if he didn’t ask for it. It would be quite egoistic to think that Valkov needed help.

        Why do you think that he needed your help?

        .

        • i will not walk on that path you just indicated that I should.. your line of questioning is not OK.It seems you have not learned enough about me, how I stand and believe in in order to have communication with, in other word you just pissed me off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • There is always ego present when one is speaking out. Total absence of ego may be in total silence.

          Ego seems to be a variable quantity, different under different circumstances. A sharp reaction with no understandable thought, seems to be an indication of a hurt ego.

          .

        • Vin, Yeah, there’s a lot of arguing about nothing right now.

          Re: Valkov — Even if someone asks me for help, and people routinely do, it is not always immediately evident to me that they actually need anything from me, or if they are only trying to get me to do for them what they should do for themself.

          On the other hand, if I see someone off in the ditch and I’ve got a tow rope and driving a 4×4, I might just pull over and ask if they could use some help without their asking. That’s how I see Valkov just now.

          Just now, in the case of Valkov over at Geir’s, he was being a pigheaded ass as he sometimes (and I sometimes do) does. Then he pulled out the sick-card as a way of back-pedaling from his being an ass. The thing is, I believe him. I think he’s been sick and acts cranky as a result. I had been being kind of tough on him so saw an opportunity to also back-pedal out of being tough on him. Regardless, he stopped being an ass and really that’s all I wanted anyway.

          I also think he’s failed to pursue some ideas of his about what he could become through using Scientology. That’s his take on it. I just think a person should try what seems like a good idea

            to them

          and shouldn’t let their service facsimiles stop them. So I encouraged him to pursue his own path. To me that’s help, and really, to me, he was asking for it. Upshot? I don’t think it was egotistical for Elizabeth to assume that she or I could help another through some positive validation to try to get them to keep going.

          Why didn’t I encourage him to try KHTK instead? I guess it’s because I think it’s important for a person to walk their own path and for me, that’s how I understand Valkov’s desire at this time. Plus, since we are on the subject of ego, do you think that his ego is going to acquiesce to your ego? Anyways, I wrote too much to get my ideas across.

        • (1) I no longer feel like giving unasked for help to anybody. I help only when somebody asks for it.

          (2) If I see somebody in distress I always ask them if they need help. If they do not then I leave them alone.

          (3) If somebody is obvious distress, and help needed is of physical nature, then, of course, I would help to the best of ability.

          (4) It the psychological help that I would not give unless somebody specifically asks for it.

          (5) Even then I would never give any advice. I would simply get them to look per KHTK discipline. See Helping Somebody with KHTK Looking

          (6) In general, I write about “KHTK Looking” taking inspiration from Buddhism and Scientology. If somebody wants to follow it, that is well and good.

          (7) I emphasise KHTK Looking. You may say I beat the drum for it. But this is general and not specifically directed at anybody

          (8) If somebody asks me any questions about “KHTK Looking” and inconsistencies, I do my best to answer it as clearly as possible.

          (9) If somebody specifically asks me for help with idenics sessions, Only then I give Idenics sessions. I don’t charge for the sessions.

          (10) I love discussing and pointing out inconsistencies as I see them. It is not directed as advice to anybody. It is up to others how they want to deal with my observations.

          (11) Sometimes, in a conversation, if I see an obvious inconsistency I point it out. It can obviously upset some people as it did Elizabeth recently. Hopefully, it will level out and a fruitful discussion may follow.

          .

        • Here the subject of discussion seems to be “When and how to help others.” I would apply my discussion policy fully to keep the discussion clean.

          I apply the discipline of “KHTK Looking” when helping others by seeing and understanding what is there, and not assuming anything. For example, In the case of Valkov I would not assume anything about the kind of help he needs because it is very subjective. It is very different when the nature of help is physical.because the help needed is obvious.

          I don’t use the idea of service facsimilies because that is being judgmental. I don’t have to tell them to pursue their own path. That is judgmental too like any other advice. I think that one is being egotistical to the degree one is being judgmental and making assumptions about others, no matter how good one’s intention is.

          “Ego” is an interesting subject and I shall be looking at it more closely. There seems to be a direct correlation between being judgmental and being egotistical.

          .

        • Vinaire: I don’t use the idea of service facsimilies because that is being judgmental.

          Chris: I like the term “Service Facsimiles.” This is a really useful terminology for a particular type of filter…

        • Let me back up a step and say that if you are saying that one shouldn’t call out a service facsimile on another person, then I do agree with you. This is very judgemental, evaluative, and invalidative.

          But for myself, I was referring to using this terminology to locate and identify filters of this ilk on myself. This is useful for me and honestly has gotten me the greatest case gain of any one thing including OW’s to date. Let me copy it here because the definition is short and so that we are on the same words: service facsimile: a consideration that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to survive.

          This is deeper than it looks on the surface.

        • It seems OK if one wants to apply the idea of service facsimile to oneself, but even then I would be very careful. This concept has the capability to drown one in figure-figure.

          I prefer observing things as they really are, not just as they seem to be.

          .

        • Nope. Doesn’t work that way for me… But it takes a little work to get the hang of it. Normal grade chart processing only scratches the surface of this ocean deep “level.” I wouldn’t call it a level because I can always find myself applying a fallacy to life based upon a false major premise. This is a tool one can use to siev and catch out ones fallacies and also False Data Stripping for the same reason. These are dynamite but just don’t seem to get much traction in the COS since they would bust things wide open. I am thinking that the service facsimile may be at the core of ego.

        • Vinaire:

          For example, In the case of Valkov I would not assume anything about the kind of help he needs because it is very subjective. It is very different when the nature of help is physical.because the help needed is obvious.

          Chris: I think that you are right. I also think when a fellow complains about his failed purposes, describes his physical ailments and complains about the effects and treatments for them that he is inviting help. Nevertheless, I said my piece over there. You read it. I am done with it unless Valkov were to initiate further comm on this subject to me.

        • My 2 cents on this Chris is people need communication. Valkov needed to give and take along with the others. That’s the purpose I think of threads and blogs, to be in communication with another and others. Someone to talk and someone to listen and reply. Whatever, it is helpful, just to know someone cares about another. That’s why I do like some links for entertainment but to just suggest a book or something to read, is not what most want or need. They want to hear another’s opinion and have discourse on the subject. Also it helps many get off some charge or they find where some of it is stored. Not that it replaces auditing, but personal communication is a solvent and improves life, period. We all have our own viewpoints and background, so it’s nice, better yet, great, to be able to comm to another live person even if it’s through time and the internet. A new world, with new tech and a new way to help another and to be helped.

          Happy Halloween! Getting to the grueling hour. 🙂

        • Possibly true. It may also be true that all discussion may stop so that there will be nothing to moderate. I am much happier writing on your blog since you stopped moderating the comments as heavily as before. Really, it doesn’t matter to me as I try to stay mindful that this is only blogging and writing comments back and forth to each other. Mostly we are talking out loud so we can hear the sound of it and see how consistent what we think sounds when its said out loud… maybe that’s just me. I’m trying not to take myself too seriously.

        • You are not being moderated on my blog at all simply because both you and I are in compliance with Discussions and what needs to be avoided.

          Geir is not mindful of this discussion policy at all on his blog. He criticizes others as using straw man instead of pointing out the inconsistency in what is actually being discussed. This causes distraction as predicted by this policy.

          .

        • Regardless of whether you have observed clearly what is happening at Geir’s blog, your comments seem to me to violate What Needs to Be Avoided, point #2.- Focusing on participants instead of tackling the data being presented in a discussion. To correct this, we would need to return to a specific comment and relate how it seems inconsistent to us, rather than painting the whole blog with a single brush stroke.

        • It depends on how you are looking at it. In this discussion on Geir’s Blog, the participants are just you and me at the moment, There are others who are listening in. None of the participants in THIS discussion are under focus. We are strictly focusing on the activity in Geir’s Blog. If you find anything inconsistent that I said in this discussion, I shall be glad to look at it.

          .

    • Those “discussions” come and go. Geir seems bored with what he was doing before so has changed up the format and gotten some new people to participate. Valkov and Marildi kind of brought their true believer selves to the fray and the whole thing kind of fell off the tracks with no one changing their minds.

      A week or two ago I wrote that I stopped by to read Marty’s blog. This was the first time I had gone over to look what was going on since he censored my original 5 posts two years ago. I was surprised to see you (Vinaire) posting there. Do you find more Theta present at Marty’s than at Geir’s?

      • Way to go Liz … ❤
        Chris, I has been Very interesting watching Marty's threads with V on them. I just wish he would come on over to Tony Ortega's blog.

      • Nobody should be trying to change anybody’s mind in discussion. All one has to do is clearly note the discrepancies or inconsistencies, and keep bringing them up with a closer look each time.

        But if the discussion policy is in violation, that is not going to happen.

        As far as Marty’s Blog goes, I find the topic The Masters very interesting. That is pretty much the only thread that I wrote on. I was also testing the waters there. I found major inconsistencies in Marty’s responses to my posts.

        So far none of my posts have been censored by Marty, but lately I haven’t felt inspired to write on Marty’s blog again. It seems that not many of the people there (including Marty) are capable of looking at LRH Tech deeply.

        .

        • And thus you now can see the value and consistency of being a true believer. When one truly believes, one’s own fixed ideas become the standard to measure consistency by. This is beautiful if you look at it. Self-stylized, self-standardized, self-administered consistency.

        • Vinaire, I wasn’t pointing to an inconsistency in what you said about Marty’s blog, I was pointing out support for what I wrote about context. Marty provides the context for his blog and very carefully moderates this context. Frankly, I am surprised that your challenging comments were allowed through. Maybe he sees you as benign; a curiosity; the easily refutable counterpoint so he can hold the view that he is being open, I don’t know. As you read, your comments are not well received being almost totally ignored or being given the brush off with “look up your words.” No one wrote, “oh Vinaire, I never looked at that way before! Thank you!” And the idea that they did not write this to you is in support of my comments about the importance of context. To me, the comments on Marty’s are consistent in that context.

        • You may be right. I was on a wave-length, which was not recognized as a threat to Marty’s agenda. It was too unreal.

          But they will come to recognize “KHTK Looking” as a threat if it becomes popular. They are not interested in knowledge.

          .

        • To me, what you’ve written is tricky. To say that they are not interested in knowledge is a conjecture at best and over into the straw man category at worst. This is why I am harping on “context” today.

          I think they are interested in their own knowledge within its own context. They are interested in having their own certainty no matter what composes that knowledge and certainty. This is the service facsimile and the computation in action.

          I am very sure that if you write on Marty’s blog that they are not interested in knowledge that you will get a disagreement going if your comment even makes it through.

        • Let me then say that their focus is on politics of the situation of Scientology and not on possible inconsistencies in the philosophy of Scientology.

          .

        • Yes, I agree and even their politics are ridiculously inconsistent outside their frame of reference. To me, reading their politics, they cannot wait to start up yet another fiasco such as the COS.

  12. to Vinaire, (or anyone interested)
    1. Would increasing knowledge be the result of increasing considerations, or;
    2. By erasing considerations, or;
    3. Both adding and deleting considerations, or;
    4. Neither, because something else is going on, or;
    5. Changing them or replacing them with different considerations than they were before?
    6. Is any knowledge other than considerations?

    • 6… cognitions are not the same ”’knowledge”” as the learned stuff.
      2, if erase consideration and what is erasing that consideration is a cognition than you have a undiluted no lie based knowledge… the true reality and that is not a consideration, my old friend.
      5 would be like putting back your dirty shorts.. yak..

    • (1) I don’t think anything ever erases completely. It just changes form. For examples, when you erase matter it may transform into energy. When you erase energy it may transform into space. When you erase space it may transform in the direction of unknowable, or things yet to be discovered.

      (2) To me what brings knowledge is erasing or leveling of inconsistencies and not the amount of data or considerations one has. What the erasing of inconsistencies transform into, I do not know. But I shall call it consistency, understanding, or a feeling of harmony and relief.

      (3) I look at knowledge in terms of leveling of inconsistencies, but the interesting thing about this is that a decrease in inconsistencies at a level may uncover many more inconsistencies at a deeper level. So there are more than one dimension to knowledge. Developing better understanding at deeper levels is definitely moving in a positive direction.

      I hope I am making sense here.

      .

    • At this point I consider all knowledge as considerations. Making some of them our favourites or giving some of them more importance is just the basic structure of any given game.
      The importance of knowledge is only relevant to the particular game we are playing.
      There is no absolute knowledge.
      Maybe the only important thing about it is to be mindful of it as a structure of considerations and what is the game which underlies those considerations.

      • To me, this is a really excellent point Rafael and goes hand in hand with my observation that context, otherwise known as frame of reference means everything to understanding. This is not a new idea from me but has been being an increasingly important observation to me.

        The example of Scientology and other religions where true-belief plays such an integral part in the workability of the placebo effects, helps me understand this very important phenomena of context. I am noticing that any discussion of truth without context is a very blind alley. I am not sure if this is universal but I am right now looking for an exception to this “universal” truth.

        Written another way to both Elizabeth regarding cognitions and to Vinaire regarding inconsistencies, I think both these tools require context. It is the context which provides the backdrop, also the bedrock, also the foundation on which we judge our thoughts.

        • Inconsistencies provide their own context. One can’t observe inconsistencies without context. The nice thing about inconsistencies is that it circumvents the claim of truth, untruth or proof.

          Either one sees an inconsistency or one doesn’t. In any case there is always closer looking if there is disagreement.

          .

      • Have knowledge: a collection of knowns. A recollection of something past. REcollect. Collect – gather together. And –llect is from lecture, (to pick out, select, enumerate) and lexis (speech, diction) and logos (word, speech, thought, account).

        It is so bizarre. Gather WHAT together —

        • Maria I must express my concern about your appearance: you look a fright, something left over from Hallowing. You are purple and have one EYE only! And short tentacles? You cut something contagious or you have eaten some persons who were poisonous?

      • @Chris I had not seen the relationship between context, frame of reference and game, and also how the placebo effect occurs inside the person´s own frame of reference, this is very interesting……the frame of reference is the reality from the person´s point of view, and if the placebo fits in there it becomes real too…..the person believes healing comes from a real source out there, but that reality is been created by them……..cute! They agree with the frame of reference and it becomes their reality……..and grows as they see it working…..
        Now what happens if I disagree with something, even if it seems consistent to me? I bet the placebo effect would work too; Then consistency probably goes deeper than agreement, it is real for them because it seems to be consistent…….

        Our reality is what seems to be consistent for us

    • Chris: This is in response to questions 1 to 6, a jumble of ideas that are little more than data or ways of viewing rather than a finished statement.

      What if you view it from an angle that one HAS knowledge i.e. POSSESSES knowledge – knowledge being a thing that one collects up and keeps like a big coin collection. And you just go around increasing the coin collection i.e. My knowledge is greater and bigger than others and I have learned more i.e. collected more. i.e. more is better. And the activity is tagging one coin as more valuable than another coin or better than another coin.

      Under this scheme, two people debating could be resistant to one another`s ideas and opinions because changing one`s mind could result in an impoverishment of one`s possessed knowledge. In other words the coin collection is valued along with the things one possesses, one`s car, friends, wife, husband, children, pool, money etc.

      Under this having scheme, you would have to keep it all under your thumb, where no one else can get it and take it away from you because it is your property and possession. PRIVATE property.

      What is strange about this is that if you really look at all these things you have, they cannot exist without reference to every other thing. So all you can really do is attempt to seize an instance of coalesced processes and fix it into place so that you can hang onto it as a possession and convince others that you do possess and they are not to touch it without your permission. i.e. you have captured it and you own it and they don`t. But you could trade with them.

      Ignorance is: lack of knowledge, unacquainted; mistaken, misunderstood; unnoticed, unawareness, inattention. An archaic term for ignorance was nescient — not know.

      Barbarism is uncivilized, uncultured, ignorant.

      Who I am = what I have. I have more than you do = I am more valuable than you are. I always have to have more or I am losing what I have.

      • This is great Maria. Possessing knowledge and possessing real property are kind of the quantum to the macro of one another. Could you say?

        Explore the idea of POSSESSES. How does one possess knowledge and where is this knowledge kept? Is it hidden in plain sight or hidden behind a wavelength or a digital address that only we possess for ourselves?

        What about false knowledge or written another way, knowing something wrongly? Is there such a thing? And how does it compare to the certain something of “correct” knowledge?

        Would you then say that more knowledge is more of a certain something and that less knowledge is less of that certain something? Is this knowledge physical? On this question, if I take a vote, I think Elizabeth will vote “no” and Vinaire will vote “yes” but maybe I should let them express themselves.

      • I have nothing coherent on this. Just this thread that dangles in front of me to pull on and explore.

        True and false. In the coin collection, there would be both true and false and everything in between. One is valued. The other is devalued. Everything in its place, a castle with rooms and dungeons and what not. True is valued. False is not. Both exist. its the order that counts in a scheme of I am = what I have. EXPLOSION. Now they are all swirling around in disorder, blown to pieces.

      • We can posses knowledge, but also knowledge can posses us (when we consider certain knowledge as an absolute truth, or when we cannot see outside it)

  13. Regarding oneself to be an OT and then suddenly reacting with upset, and carrying on with that upset, seems to be quite inconsistent.

    I associate tolerance, and a contemplative demeanor from a spiritually developed person.

    .

        • Vin, this is a little bit of a thought stopper and is kind of an example of what I am referring to by picking up fallacies using the computation. The computation can be a self-installed “red herring.” For instance, in this comment of yours, we both agree there is an inconsistency between our views but saying that our backgrounds and exposures are different does not address those inconsistencies. We also agree on things, but the reason is not particularly that our backgrounds and exposures are the same.

          We should look at this more closely.

        • Thank you Vinaire. Well I am thinking that my perception of the correctness of another person’s behavior belongs only to me. It seems unfruitful for me to create filters; create standards by which to measure another’s behavior so that I can then know whether their message is valid.

          People’s thoughts are all over the place. They are omnipresent as the physical universe. For an example, Elizabeth is crazy as a bat in a belfry. I don’t think she will disagree with me. Definition of a “cleared canibal” seems to me to apply to her. I will define it simply as a cleared canibal may be in very good case shape but still have the habit of eating people.

          So Elizabeth rants and raves and she is alternately kind and sensitive. I admonish her to “read twice and post once” but she ignores me and just “flames-on!” scorching everything — collateral damage be damned. She puts her blog up; she takes her blog down in a huff. She writes and debates comments; then she erases the whole thing.

          I can’t make sense of all that but I still enjoy her “walk the walk of the solo auditor.” And also I see a truth to her methods and she seems pleased with the result and her path is her own and not mine. I kind of evaluate her case like a Swiss cheese. Not nibbled a little bit on the edges but Big Holes drilled right through to the other side. I believe in her holes but maybe I think she has some cheese left. If this metaphor doesn’t make any sense to anyone, I do not blame you… Maybe only Rafael will get it.

          For me, being spiritually developed means that if anyone doesn’t get too ugly then I give it a pass and look in their writing for the consistency as well as the inconsistency — another topic for us to hash out. I am still thinking we are ignoring the tool of the consistency.

        • Chris, I am not interested in any standards. I only point out what appears as inconsistent to me.

          If does not appear as inconsistency to the other person, then fine. I just handle that inconsistency for myself and move on.

          .

    • Since you know how on OT behavior should be, you must have a MANUAL AT HAND and I am sure you have read that Manual from cover to cover by now and you know the Rules by heart because you are so readily point out what is the matter with my behavior.
      So please forward a copy pronto in order so I can learn the Correc Rules how the OT. behavier should be, because after all I would not want the population to be disapointed and shocked when I uphold the middle finger to be viewed in the public plaza!!!

      • Oy! I don’t think this is helping Elizabeth. Vinaire’s point about you getting easily offended is valid. This has been going on since I’ve been blogging with you and I think you know what I mean. We should all take a closer look at our own behaviors. Without applying any outside standards, I believe we can see the inconsistencies that erupt when we feel the sting of what other people write to us when they don’t agree and when they challenge us. I know I feel it. I notice the inconsistencies in my own feelings even if my behavior remains calm or unaffected.

  14. This is in response to Dee’s comment here.
    comment-962

    There is no communication when one is being completely judgmental and not granting beingness. Being judgmental and not granting beingness go hand in hand.

    Communication takes place when one is simply communicating what is actually there and not adding one’s filters to it by assuming, judging, speculating, etc.

    .

    • Yes, it seems that the judgement removes beingness, at least in the mind of the judge. Outward from the judge, the effects of the judgement are as profound as the judge has agreement.

      We can see this in a football game (you take your pick which type!). The referee blows his whistle, throws a flag and stops the game. He then pronounces something invalid and removes that invalidity from the game.

    • Vinaire, you would really get a lot out of the Communication and TR’s course. Also the basic communication definition. Or we can all go back to be robots but studying on the net.

        • To me judgmental is what one brings to the table in addition to what is really there. Those additives come from one’s sense of ego.

          My effort is to minimize such additives. If I have failed in that effort you may certainly point to the inconsistency generated as a result.

          I hope you will do that because that is how I learn.

          .

  15. This is in response to Chris’s comment here.
    comment-968

    .

    Chris’s definition
    service facsimile: a consideration that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to survive.

    Hubbard’s definitions
    SERVICE FACSIMILE,
    1. these are called “service facsimiles.” “Service” because they serve him. “Facsimiles” because they are in mental image picture form. They explain his disabilities as well. The facsimile part is actually a selfinstalled disability that “explains” how he is not responsible for being able to cope. So he is not wrong for not coping. Part of the “package” is to be right by making wrong. The service facsimile is therefore a picture containing an explanation of self condition and also a fixed method of making others wrong. (HCOB 15 Feb 74)

    2 . this is actually part of a chain of incidents which the individual uses to invite sympathy or cooperation on the part of the environment. One uses engrams to handle himself and others and the environment after one has himself conceived that he has failed to handle himself, others and the general environment. (AP&A, p. 7)

    3. it is simply a time when you tried to do something and were hurt or failed and got sympathy for it. Then afterwards when you were hurt or failed and wanted an explanation, you used it. And if you didn’t succeed in getting sympathy for it, you used it so hard it became a psychosomatic illness. (HFP, p. 89)

    4 . every time you fail, you pick up this facsimile and become sick or sadly noble. It’s your explanation to yourself and the world as to how and why you failed. It once got you sympathy. (HFP, p. 89)

    5 . that facsimile which the preclear uses to apologize for his failures. In other words, it is used to make others wrong and procure their cooperation in the survival of the preclear. If the preclear well cannot achieve survival, he attempts an illness or disability as a survival computation. The workability and necessity of the service facsimile is only superficially useful. The service facsimile is an action method of withdrawing from a state of beingness to a state of not beingness and is intended to persuade others to coax the individual back into a state of beingness. (AP&A, p. 43)

    6 . that computation generated by the preclear (not the bank) to make self right and others wrong, to dominate or escape domination and enhance own survival and injure that of others. (HCOB 1 Sept 63)

    .

    Looking at Scientology Axion #1, it is obvious that the whole Scientology philosophy is based on the preservation of individuality (self). The idea of Service Facsimile is consistent with that.

    The basic inconsistency here is that one is trying to preserve something which is a constructed consideration. Buddhism goes beyond self or individuality. Nirvana is extinguishing this attachment to self.

    .

      • Chris I love your compliments…. If i would be consistent than I still would have the Bank because that is consistent.

        When analyzing anything, any persons behavior the ‘’’analyzer’’ analyzes his/her very own understanding, very own reality,

        That act of ’’analyzing’’ is in hope that the analyzer can ‘’figure-figure’ ’out what could be, what it means what is front of him and then comes to conclusion from the best of his/her ability-reality what is there. And with that act finished a new label been put on the same old item!

        If one is looking for consistencies, should stay within the boundaries one’s very own mind, there for sure will not find anything out or ordinary—inconsistent!!!

        If one is looking for consistencies in the behavior pattern of a Free Being surly will find dissatisfactions frustration because consistencies’ uniform behaviour only existing in the IMPLANTED BEHAVIER: THE MEST UNIVERSE, in THE BANK.

        • Hi dear, all is well here.. I too need to do something like taking a shower and eat..
          By now I am tired being labeled bad by people because of being different. What happens when some people dont understand something put it down as bad. Why not just see it as different? because it is just that and nothing more..
          But by putting it down, that the diffent is ”bad” than that gives them a good feeling that they are ”good” better than any one, know more, and what they know have value. BECAUSE the other person is ”bad” than there is no value there’
          I would say that kind of thinking has lots of insecurity hidden someplace.

        • Tsk, labels! However, I don’t think a clear cannibal would be able to make an analysis of the consistency of the bank. He would just keep eating and killing away with no remorse or bank imho, he would not have a better way or know why. And possibly we all were at one time or another. Hardly in PT except in some other country. I know, I know, you didn’t really mean it as such. 🙂 but the cannibal in me comes out occasionally to take a bite.

    • I already did point out the consistency:

      The basic inconsistency here is that one is trying to preserve something which is a constructed consideration.

      You may not see this as an inconsistency. But I think that anything created may also be destroyed, To try to preserve something created is inconsistent because one should be able to create it whenever one wants.

      .

    • Vin, I mis-wrote “service facsimile” and then supplied a definition for “computation.” It was the Scn def of computation that I was wanting to highlight. Every service facsimile contains a picture and a computation. The definition of computation which I supplied with comment #968 gets me a lot of traction.

      Computation: “a consideration that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to survive.”

      • Here is the Tech Dictionary definition (for Tech Dictionary, please see under Suggested Links on Vinaire’s Blog):

        COMPUTATION, technically, that aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to succeed. The computation thus may mean that one must entertain in order to be alive or that one must be dignified in order to succeed or that one must own much in order to live. A computation is simply stated. It is always aberrated. A computation is as insidious as it pretends to align with survival. All computations are nonsurvival. Computations are held in place wholly to invalidate others. (AP&A, p. 41)

        The inconsistency here is in the very idea of survival. It is said that TIME is the basic aberration. That means focus on survival is the basic aberration.

        There is no focus on survival when one is simply focusing non-judgmentally on what is there.

        .

        • Yes the idea of survival is aberrated, but what do we mean by aberrated? Hubbard says it amounts to a crooked line; a bent line; not a straight line.

          There doesn’t seem to be a straight line in Nature. No fractal equation nor cellular automata allows for them either. At the quantum I am unaware of any straight lines.

          Possibly there is something wrong with the idea of a straight line as well? Making “straight lines” in construction work is both difficult and second nature to me. The question comes to mind that if two points describe the ends of a line, can three points be perfectly aligned in this universe?

        • Hubbard may have meant “something containing inconsistencies” but didn’t quite know how to say it. An equivalent phrase may be “something containing outpoints.”

          .

  16. This is in response to Rafael’s comment here.
    comment-969

    This is a universe of matter, energy, space, time and consideration. All considerations may be grouped under knowledge. Of course, there would be matter, energy, space and time attached to that knowledge. For example, the consideration of TABLE would carry with it the concept and different forms of table.

    Importance and games are probably another layer of consideration. What really matters to me is the inconsistency among this knowledge.

    It seems that as the inconsistencies resolve the knowledge simplifies.

    .

    • I would dare say all knowledge is inconsistent, and is the raw matter of our stable data, our filters and even our viewpoints. Finding the basic considerations for me amounts to finding the basic inconsistencies, or, reseting the computer back to zeroes, including the software and the operating system altogether. That would be a real nice reset.

      • Vinaire
        Anything imagined (presumed, speculated, expected, visualized. etc) would be an inconsistency.
        Rafael
        Exactly, when we are really looking, all inconsistencies coming to us are earlier considerations which were made in an effort to know what is there, ( Or could it have been to put something there), right?

        Now, when we get a stream of intuition, and get a revelation, I feel we are not just looking anymore, we somehow get in contact with the point of creation of what we are trying to know.

        So, knowledge would be the sum of all considerations made in the effort to know, and when the final moment of as-isness comes, all knowledge vanishes with it, leaving creativity itself as the basic manifestation of it all. If it is okey with you, the first manifestation after the Unknowable. 🙂

        And, then, again, all knowledge comes out as being inconsistent.

        • Rafael, What you are saying makes sense.

          At the level of intuition, we are getting touch with knowledge that is there prior to self coming into being.

          After self comes into being, the level of knowledge.we have is created considerations. At this level we have the effort to know. At complete as-is-ness, it is this level of knowledge that vanishes, and self reduces to a perception-point.

          Later, as space is as-ised, the perception-point merges into the prime manifestation.

          Beyond that I can’t even imagine.

          .

  17. It is interesting to see Geir’s blog calming down a bit. Geir seems to be quite free in assigning the label “Straw man” to others. This seems to be an interesting device to distract people from actual discussions. Not much real discussion seems to be taking place on Geir’s blog.

    .

    • I posted a comment on the topic “Amazing person: David Miscavige” on Geir’s Blog. This is an interesting topic .

      All my comments are moderated on Geir’s Blog, maybe because I am expert on using Straw Man (just kidding!).

      Anyway, the comment I posted is in response to dankoon’s first comment. It is as follows:

      DM is simply adhering to the key datum of Scientology philosophy as described here:

      Scientology Axiom # 1

      The ultimate reality in Scientology is INDIVIDUALITY. That is DM’s expression.

      From another perspective, This is worshipping SELF, or selfishness.

      .

      In the past Geir has criticized and censored my posts on his blog because I use links to articles on my blog to provide details on the point I am making.

      He has expressed his objection as, “I am promoting my blog at his expense,” or something like that.

      But I never looked at using links that way. It was simply providing details, which one my look at if one wants to.

      .

      • You are still welcomed at Geir’s. I didn’t really understand his frustration with you in the same way that you just wrote it. Anyways, that might be a fruitful looking item to look at. No point in re-hashing here what never resolved there.

        Regardless, post your links here. I like your blog and look at it all the time. A Point: I know that if you have already written an essay on a subject that it may seem tedious to write again the same material on someone else’s blog and the temptation to do like a hyperlink answer is strong. But I think you will get a better response to cut and paste some earlier writing that answers the comment rather than answer with only a hyperlink. This sends the blogger on a research project which they may not do and may ignore.

        • Vin, That is an assumption that you don’t need to make. I am looking at some similar negative assumptions that I make to see why I do it. The reason that I find will not be out there, but in here (tapping my temple with finger).

        • This is an exercise in assuming another’s viewpoint. Obviously, one is speculating on the considerations that make up the other viewpoint, and one’s own considerations are mixed up in it.

          Well, this is what goes on all the time in the social world. I thought I’ll take a crack at it since this is what this OP is all about.

          🙂

  18. Oh Chris thank you…. keep it in mind being a cannibal was a very short period in my very long deversified activities in the Universe and it was not a profitable carrier, first of all there was no promotion to be head and secondly it not qualified as a business venture either because the merchandise — well we run out of it. hehehe

    so I stick with Oracle..

  19. WHy would any of you think I am upsett? Just because I express my displeasure my way.. doing that really indicate that I am upsett? NO… I just express my reality the way I think. If somebody say I have on ego, than why cant I say that else is on ass? Are we not on equal footing here? Is it ok to say ego, but something wrong with to say ass?Please do re-valuation..

    • Elizabeth, Nothing wrong for you to express yourself within a wide range of emotion. What people notice; what people equate — “tit-for-tat” is generally agreed to be how the reactive bank — thinks and reacts. This is the reaction from people that you are getting. If this is not truly a “bank reaction,” then people still think that it is anyway.

    • Really, upset is a very vague and ambiguous term, often used for any response that is seen to be amplified in some way or producing some kind of discomfort. But its real meaning is to do with being thrown into mental discomposure.

      When a being is surrounded by masses and energies that can be thrown into restimulation, high volume or high velocity emotions can discompose everything, getting them whirling around or stirred up into a confusion. Its like dropping a bomb into the middle of it all.

      However, if there is nothing to be stirred up, then there is no such effect and no upset or discomfort has occurred. It doesn`t mean that there are no high volume or high velocity emotions possible, it means that these emotions have become inextricably associated with restimulation.

      The idea is that a spiritually evolved individual would never experience any discomfort and so would never manifest emotions that would produce discomfort in another individual thus stirring up that other`s masses and energies, setting them into motion and producing an overwhelm. The rest of the idea is that the individual who still has masses and energies can`t help themselves and so others must be careful around them so that they are not upset. It doesn`t matter if they have been deliberately choosing to provoke, the spiritually evolved individual is supposed to know that too and not respond to it — response of any kind to the provocation is held up as evidence that the evolved person is just as bad as they are. So they poke and poke and poke at you until you decide you`ve had enough of this poking and poking and poking and then when you take steps to get them to knock it off, they gleefully point out that you have become the effect and therefore you are not cause. What`s missing here is that it is impossible to be only cause. If you are only cause then they are only effect and vice versa. Also missing is understanding that if there is massive cause there is massive effect possible too.

      It looks like they are playing a game and can play such a game, but really they are not capable of playing such a game — its very serious especially when the results can ricochet around their universe for prolonged periods of time. So you get a big protest because if you know everything then you`d know that too and you`d know that you are supposed not do that anymore. And you`d know that it is a serious problem for them. And so on.

      At least that`s how I think it through. Might not be how others think it through. Might not be particularly truthful in any context but when caught up in a time space continuum surrounded by energies that can be triggered without one`s choice to trigger them.

      • Yes, Elizabeth does get thrown into mental discomposure now and then, and then she generates inconsistencies in the general perception. She starts to swear, instead of calmly responding to what is there.

        A spiritually evolved person is mindful and can easily as-is any provocation. He or she is not centered on any “self” and simply provides a calming effect by helping as-is any restimulation.

        .

  20. Chris I dont know anything about having more knowledge or having less knowledge, I know only in my reality that is: One can have different reality on any subject… and most of the time have wide range of reality sort of expanded, more than one sided knowledge. so that you might call more knowledge.. that would work.
    But the basic-basic reality abouth what is infinite is same for every one.

    • Elizabeth says, “But the basic-basic reality about what is infinite is same for every one.

      Chris says: I’m conflicted about that statement because I tend to both agree and disagree.

      On the one hand, I agree because my current premise of my existence is that at my most basic existence, minus the ego, and even though I don’t know something like this for sure; when “I” dissolves then the underlying essence is zero or unity. Is this the same unity that you are? I think so, that’s why I call it unity. So therefore, this zero or unity or infinity or unknowable or unmanifestation, for me, is the same for everybody… I don’t know if this is the truth but it seems consistent and makes perfect sense to me.

      On the other hand, I disagree because at the other end of a spectrum beginning with zero and then adding MEST increasingly for infinity, hmmm, that word infinity as in without limit pops up again), becoming more and more complicated; solid; folded; more identification; This is the MEST of your “reactive bank” Elizabeth and this seems to be the same for everybody too.

      Now I have just made everything equal everything and made everything the same for everybody, or have I? Elizabeth? Anyone?

      • Chris, ”when “I” dissolves then the underlying essence is zero or unity. Is this the same unity that you are? ” yes, to express my self very scientificly, in a very knowledgeble manner to impress you”’ Yap, here if we would have a backside would not make any difference who is holding whos’ hehehe.
        But kidding aside.
        I have friends we talk about this and it is a interesting subject we have come to the same conclusion… We create-experience, we can say I created it, yet at the same time we are aware that the whole universe and every being can say I created this…. I can say I am Elizabeth Hamre and say this body is my anchor and have reality in that same moment un-known number of beings can say the same about this body across the universe. We do not have ownership, and ownership is not on issue.
        We create-experience and that is that… no confusion, no doubt.
        On the OT levels and on NOT’s while one solo audits, learns about beings- who dont have the body, who they are, what is their role, and in my reality they are same as you and I but dont have a body at a present time.
        I call them Free Beings.. On the OT levels one become aware of the spiritual universe..
        it is because of that basic knowledge I gained there I could expended the knowledge I have now. We not only audit self, but at the same time others too.
        The ”Higher” cleaner” one becomes by erasing considerations=walls barriers we become more aware and we realize what is really happening, I do recomend to continue with the bridge,,, because in the material and in session which are conducted in the way one can find all the answers to the questions. To have the true reality, one needs first hand experience.

      • You People have a MIS-UNDERSTANDING….. NOT MY METHOD is being compiled… IT belongs to LRH… I dont claim I invented something new.
        I just have different reality on the RUDIMENTS and I have recognised it value and Paolo, the senior C/S read some of my postings [somebody has sent them to him] and simply realized that I have achieved what other are looking for. So he wanted to know what I have done.. in order to have such on results.

      • To me basic-basic reality is unknowable. What is same for everyoe is the departure from it.

        When “I” dissolves. it is the fixation that dissolves. It is then replaved by complete fluidity. The knowledge is still there, and so are the considerations. But the fixidity is no longer there.

        .

  21. Elizabeth said: Maria I must express my concern about your appearance: you look a fright, something left over from Hallowing. You are purple and have one EYE only! And short tentacles? You cut something contagious or you have eaten some persons who were poisonous?

    I got into a fight! I won.

    Don`t worry. It was just a valence.

  22. From the OP:

    …but I could not see what they saw. I thought, “I’m gonna write a post on this and ask the question.”

    I consider assuming the viewpoint of another to be a high ability and necessary for spiritual growth. What do you suppose is the reason we cannot see what others see? Or, Can you?

    How do you know that you cannot see what they saw? Do you have be looking from the same time and space and through their physical system? i.e. through the same physical and psychical loci of them? When you see a rock show, how do you know what you see or do you see only what the body registers, or are you talking about the composite or collection called the body?

    Is assuming a viewpoint always characterized by vision? or the specific senses of the body? By the collection of body mind spirit universe? Is it possible to see or view or experience even that which the other is not aware of but is unknowingly responding to?

    How can it be your viewpoint if you think it is their viewpoint. Do you mean that you keep your own viewpoint and simultaneously assume their viewpoint which is separate from you? If it is separate then you haven`t assumed it have you?

    I have so many questions.

      • Sorry to butt in but this is very interesting to me…….at this moment I consider assuming a viewpoint as looking at something from a stable datum ( A piece of knowledge which belongs to us)

      • From the Tech dictionary
        1. a point of awareness from which one can perceive. (PAB 2)
        2. That thing which an individual puts out remotely, to look through. A system of remote lookingness- we´ll call it just remote viewpoint. That is a specialized kind of viewpoint. And the place from which the individual is himself looking, we call flatly a viewpoint. (2ACC 17A, 5312CM07)
        3. Evaluation is the reactive mind´s conception of viewpoint. The reactive mind does not perceive, it evaluates. To the analytical mind it may sometimes appear that the reactive mind has a viewpoint. The reactive mind does not have a viewpoint, it has an evaluation of a viewpoint. Thus the viewpoint of the analytical mind is an actual point from which one perceives. Perception is done by sight, sound, smell, tactile, etc. The reactive mind´s “viewpoint” is an opinion based id another opinion and upon a very small amount of observation, and that observation would be formed out of uncertainties. Thus the confusion of the word viewpoint itself. It can be a point from which one can be aware, which is its analytical definition, and it can be someone´s ideas on a certain subject which is the reactive definition. (COHA, pp. 208-209)

        • Rafael a small bit here…. the spiritual being sees 360 degree and not using the eyes or any body part as a sensor. One can see everything to the tiniest detail in color of course and know also the meaning of that creation The original postulate which causes that creation. in that moment total duplication takes places..

      • Thank you Maria. I’m not ignoring anyone. It’s been a long couple weeks and I’m peeking at the blog in between. During the day I’m typing on my phone, etc.,.

        Assuming a viewpoint? My flash answer is that means going to that location and looking from there. That just makes a bunch more questions tumble out, doesn’t it? I may not write on this until morning once I’ve decompressed from the day/week.

        • Come for a visit.. more likely you will find a few while being here.
          but while you have writen that , i was writing these for you.
          Maria, when I was being audited in Dianetics, Betty was auditing me and no matter how she maneuvered the auditing questions I could not get into some incident we both know it was there and I was willing yet I could not see it..
          That same incident had come up over the years and I still could not get into it.
          I was solo auditing about 20 some odd years when the same mass has come up but I still could not see any pictures, I still could not see what the Hell was sitting in my space.
          By this time was better than good auditor, nothing could pass by me so I thought I get help. I was not going back to the church so I went to a well-known DR. in Seattle a hypnotherapist. WE slugged away for 18 hours. The lady did her best so did I and we could not find the item. I knew it was there…I felt it. So I give up than I figured whatever, it will come when …
          2 years back I went for a late evening walk and I went into session…. It hit me that mass like a ton of brick, I cried, sobbed for hours and taken me 3 days to sort out as-is that mass..
          I Think this story has a “moral “ [ Chris was looking for it yesterday, but I refused him having one]
          We can only find- have the answer to our questions when we are ready for it…

        • What a nice experience, story that was and thanks for sharing it. Good moral! Doesn’t get better than that.

        • thanks love, I new I had a moral burried someplace… they are not easy to find sometimes.. how you doing, it is after 2 at your house!
          I was just writting to a friend who is also solo auditing and I was just bragging that I was invited to a private group by the Senior C/S of Italy…
          Dee, this should impress you because the usual ”highly trained”” ivory tower snobs- people dont talk to me..
          Paolo seems like a different kind of bird because he had translated the Walk of the Walk of solo auditor and has it plastered on the front page of the most well known intalian blog.
          Also he asked for all the information how I work and what commands etc I use and he will make bulletins out of them after my Ok-ing them.
          So… I am pleased that I amable to help.

        • WOW, that’s super! Love the Italianos. Cheers! Sure would like to see it when finished.
          Watched the Dan Koon videos on Greir’s that maildi posted.

        • Liz, Will just do that, Cheers!
          I love to lurk and see opinions. Yours I almost always read through as they are so spiritual and theta. I my not get it all but get what I need. 🙂

    • Ok Maria, I will tell you what I know.. You heavier pictures, energy masses around you which are your own considerations-agreements will overwhelms the lighter pictures..
      There are hundreds of considerations the persons have which act as a denial, a counter postulate why one can’t see the same thing as the other persons sees.
      You see it, but it gets lost and you do not trust your knowledge your senses that yes, you are seeing it, experiencing the same thing in the same moment of creation.

      • About “seeing”:

        Is this a strictly visual perception, which could be made into a holograph if accurately described?

        Does this “seeing” include registration of the “other” viewpoint’s additives to and omissions from the viewed field, which may be mixed in from either imaginative or recalled reference information?

        Is this “seeing” restricted to the field of focus of the “other” viewpoint? i.e. if the “other” viewpoint sees only what is within a 2 mile square field and nothing else, is the “seeing” also restricted to a 2 mile square field?

        Does this “seeing” include additional perceptions such as gravity, density, heat, position, emotional states, mappings, sound, wavelengths and phenomena not received by the physical body (yet present)?

        If one detects or perceives more than what the “other” viewpoint recognizes, does this still count as “assuming” the viewpoint of another? Or must the deficiencies / filters of the other be faithfully duplicated? i.e. what if the other is not seeing all that is there or is seeing more than what is there?

      • Another question:

        Does the “seeing” include the other viewpoint’s past and current assumptions, experiences, attitudes, beliefs, speculations, values, self-image, inner workings, interactions with other viewpoints that are present, future expectations, etc. ? If you color this with your own, does it still count as a faithful “seeing” or “assuming” of another’s viewpoint?

      • Another question: If your “assumption” of the “other” viewpoint shifts or alters what that other viewpoint “sees” does this still count? Or does this have to accomplished without changing the “other” viewpoint?

        i.e. do you have to be able to distinguish between what is “yours” and what is the “others” and accurately identify these as separate viewpoints? And if your assumption produces changes, do you have to be able to identify those as being different from the original viewpoint? Is that even possible?

        Also, if there are multiple “other” viewpoints affecting the mix, then do you have to be able to identify those and cull them out to say you have accurately distinguished the specific viewpoint that you are assuming? And what if the “other” viewpoint thinks that those “other” viewpoints are his? Are they his now?

        I told you I had a lot of questions!

        • I see a viewpoint to be a specific vector generated from a grouping of a set of considerations.

          A viewpoint comes into being and then it dissipates, as those consideration keep grouping in different ways.

          .

  23. In response to the following post from Maria:
    comment-1050

    I have looking at the various definitions involved here. It seems to me that

    BEINGNESS = existingness or manifestingness

    BEING = Manifestation of a set of considerations from which new considerations may be extended.

    SELF = A “center of beingness” analogous to “center of mass” in Physics. It is the “weighted average” of all considerations that make up the being, and which seems to be concentrated at a point.

    VIEWPOINT = The “weighted average” of a subset of being, which seems to be concentrated at a point.

    Assuming another’s viewpoint could be gathering up all the considerations that one sees as making up the other viewpoint, and taking it from there.

    .

    • These are all nouns. A noun is word used to name predominating and persisting qualities, the mode of a set of information i.e. the value(s) or quality(s) in the set that occurs most often or with the greatest frequency. The product or result from a process.

      …ness is a word-forming element denoting action, quality, or state, attached to an adjective or past participle to form an abstract noun. So is …ing – which is used to form nouns from verbs and to denote completed or habitual action

      So BEING is not a thing at all. BE — ING. Be = action. ING = habitual.

      Habitual – recur — run again. Frequency — recurring emanation. Emanate – flow out. Process – the way; continuous and recurring flow producing results (nouns).

      Flowing, flowing, flowing — signal — sign — Sign is from the PIE root *sekw- “point out” and is the root of SEE.

      Pointing out habitual frequency cat! Do you see it? There is is again! I see it! Cat! Catting is happening. Catting, catting, catting, catting.

      Source of the way.
      I am the way.

      True — faithful (agreeing with a certain standard – recurring signal)
      Source of the truth
      I am the truth.

      Life — from PIE *leip- “to remain, persevere, continue; stick, adhere”
      Source of the life.
      I am the life.

      I am the way, the truth, and the life.
      Sourcing. surging, rising
      Repeating, amplifying, signaling
      Receiving, cognizing, knowing, noticing

      Note: “a song, music, instrumental music; a musical note,” nota “letter, character, note,” originally “a mark, sign, means of recognition,” which is perhaps related to notus, pp. of noscere (Old Latin *gnoscere) “to know” (see know).

      I sing my song. I have no words. Are you receiving? Can you sing along?

      • Maria. you have qualitis I am missing and there are occasions when I very much would like to have those qualities… If I would than it would be possible for me to understand better or even totaly duplicate different universes… but yes i can sing along! I only can do that if there are no words….

      • BEING, as in “spiritual being” is grammatically a gerund (a verb form used as a noun). So, it is a thing. I see it as ‘individuality’ manifested as a set of specialized considerations.

        By the way, I am toying with the idea of doing PhD in philosophy from Harvard, if possible. The area of my interest is the interface between Physics and Metaphysics. I can see this as an investigation into SPACE. I am revising KHTK AXIOM ZERO with that in mind.

        .

      • BTW — you are certainly NOT in retirement! Perhaps it would be more accurate to suggest that you are finally able to pursue what you truly love.

        • Nobody is ever truly in retirement. And, you are right,, it is a shift for me into pursuing what I really enjoy. I enjoy simplifying knowledge.

          The route of Physics seems to be matter, energy, space and time. The route of Metaphysics seems to be considerations. These two subjects are really intertwined with each other. It would be interesting to see how considerations are intertwined with matter, energy, space and time.

          What does one see when one looks at CONSIDERATIONS more closely?

          .

      • Consider:

        From com- “with” (see com-) + sidus (gen. sideris) “constellation” (see sidereal).

        Sidereal: from L. sidereus “starry, astral,” from sidus (gen. sideris) “star, constellation,” probably from PIE root *sweid- “to shine” (cf. Lith. svidus “shining, bright”).

        A laser consists of a gain medium, a mechanism to supply energy to it, and something to provide optical feedback.[7] The gain medium is a material with properties that allow it to amplify light by stimulated emission. Light of a specific wavelength that passes through the gain medium is amplified (increases in power).

        For the gain medium to amplify light, it needs to be supplied with energy. This process is called pumping. The energy is typically supplied as an electrical current, or as light at a different wavelength. Pump light may be provided by a flash lamp or by another laser.

        The most common type of laser uses feedback from an optical cavity—a pair of mirrors on either end of the gain medium. Light bounces back and forth between the mirrors, passing through the gain medium and being amplified each time. Typically one of the two mirrors, the output coupler, is partially transparent. Some of the light escapes through this mirror. Depending on the design of the cavity (whether the mirrors are flat or curved), the light coming out of the laser may spread out or form a narrow beam. This type of device is sometimes called a laser oscillator in analogy to electronic oscillators, in which an electronic amplifier receives electrical feedback that causes it to produce a signal.

        ———————————————————————–

        ‘Adam and Eve’ cylinder seal

        Post-Akkadian, about 2200 to 2100 BC
        From Mesopotamia

        The tree, serpent and figures carved on this greenstone cylinder seal suggested to George Smith, an Assyriologist working in the British Museum between 1840 and 1876, that the scene was related to the Old Testament story of the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden.

        In fact, the seal shows a scene that is common on seals of the twenty-third and twenty-second centuries BC, with a seated male figure (identified by his head-dress of horns as a god) facing a female worshipper. The date palm between them and the snake may be symbolic of fertility, but there is no reason to connect the scene with the story in the Book of Genesis.
        ————————————————————————

        notice the waves behind each figure. notice the waves collapsed at the base of the tree.

        😀

        Angels sing btw – choirs of them singing!

        I sing!

      • Bhagavad-Gita

        dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna inserted in Mahabharata, from Sanskrit, “Song of the Sublime One,” from Bhaga, a god of wealth, from Skt. bhagah, lit. “allotter, distributor, master, lord,” from bhajati “assigns, allots, apportions, enjoys, loves” (related to Avestan baga, O.Pers. baga “master, lord, god”) + gita “song,” fem. pp. of gayate “sings, calls,” from PIE root *gei- “to sing” (cf. Avestan gatha “song,” Lith. giedoti “to sing”).

        I sing!

      • I forgot to mention that I looked at laser because I looked at holography. You need a laser for holography.

        Also my posts are mixed up. There is a post on presence that belongs in this series. sorry!

      • Light:

        In common with all types of electromagnetic radiation, visible light is emitted and absorbed in tiny “packets” called photons, and exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics.
        In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.

        Let there be light!

      • Oh my. this is an eye opener:

        instant (n.)
        late 14c., “infinitely short space of time,” from O.Fr. instant (adj.) “assiduous, at hand,” from M.L. instantem (nom. instans), in classical Latin “present, pressing, urgent,” lit. “standing near,” prp. of instare “to urge, to stand near, be present (to urge one’s case),” from in- “in” (see in- (2)) + stare “to stand,” from PIE root *sta- “to stand” (see stet). Elliptical use of the French adjective as a noun.

        LOL!

        erg (n.1)
        unit of energy in the C.G.S. system, coined 1873 by the British Association for the Advancement of Science from Gk. ergon “work” (see urge (v.)).

        Ergon is the root of ENERGY

    • The earliest root of the word Presence:

      praeesse “be before (someone or something), be at hand,” from prae- “before” (see pre-) + esse “to be.”

      Present: being there and face to face and at this point in time.

      If you translate praeesse from Latin to English using google translator, it translates it to superintended. In another translation: I am in command.

      Command — from mandate — from commission — commit — from L. committere “to unite, connect, combine; to bring together,” from com- “together” (see com-) + mittere “to put, send” (see mission).

      Apparently built right into the language.

    • Your answers are completely acceptable and welcomed. And I do understand that it is your reality, how you see the universes.

      • Maria…. my best.. my reality, I hope it helps… please let me know, and when I see you I take the pay out of your hide…
        ”Is this a strictly visual perception, which could be made into a holograph if accurately described?
        What one view is not in the PAST recreated thing not coming from the memory IT IS IN THE NOW; it is seen but not with the eyes so it is not seen but experienced in the same fraction of the second as it is created… the experience is the creation.. We experience our own postulate.. The creation-experience is like holograph because it is still within the boundaries of the Physical Universe and one can postulate and that postulate is energy… very light weight.
        Since only NOW exist that is a fraction of a second that creation-experience exists in that frame only… NOW DO NOT LAST… can’t last. Only solid form can last as is in MEST.
        PS:: just had a cog. The confusion is created because in the MEST Universe everything is SEE-n with the eyes, in the MEST universe the body looks and the eyes see’s the pictures.
        In the Spiritual Universe one do not SEE, one cant SEE because one do not have eyes to see with.
        But that mocked-up created item is perceived in its total glory, how it was postulated into existence, that is the experience it self.. Please forget the eyes and observe things without them… that would help to understand.
        Exp: in the recall, one don’t ‘’see’’ with the eyes, it the Spiritual being who perceives that recall in the NOW, but that recall is not in the past but it is VIEW IN THE MOMERNT OD NOW..
        2
        ”Does this “seeing” include registration of the “other” viewpoint’s additives to and omissions from the viewed field, which may be mixed in from either imaginative or recalled reference information?
        I never observed other view ever mixed with a singular frame -view point, no I never detected 2 creations over lapping each other in the same moment of creation-experience.
        But while auditing I have incredible experiences when a picture on incident was recalled and in that recall, contained many different other realities, dozens and dozens of them”” in connection”” of the original what I was viewing and has surfaced and had cognitions on them too. These experiences were in same case-sessions which ended with hundreds of cognitions and each of this individual cognition held a frame of picture-different reality but still it had a connection to the main recall. .
        Never have I seen two pictures-holograms in the same frame in the same moment of NOW.
        By the way the consideration what is ”imagination” long has vanished when the uncertainties were gone about the universe..
        I no longer have imagination because I have become aware of what accurately ”imagination” is.
        3
        “Is this “seeing” restricted to the field of focus of the “other” viewpoint? i.e. if the “other” viewpoint sees only what is within a 2 mile square field and nothing else, is the “seeing” also restricted to a 2 mile square field?”
        One view point at a time… while one views-experiences that viewpoint-creation than that exist only in the NOW one is only can be AWARE IN THE NOW, not in the future or in the past or in looking into distance since those are considerations and only NOW exists and can be experienced.
        4
        ”Does this “seeing” include additional perceptions such as gravity, density, heat, position, emotional states, mappings, sound, wavelengths and phenomena not received by the physical body (yet present)?”
        Ears pick up and measure the sound, yet i have experienced the sound of the universe, more than once… yes pulls and pushes gravity can be experienced but order to have that experience one has to be ”SOMETHING_SOMEBODY” a piece of energy-body in order to be have involvement such as gravity=moving forces.
        Emotional state: you got to be human in order to have one of that baby.
        Positions can be seen of course how the heavenly bodies are in the space but one has no sense of distance.. We do not measure.
        I never experienced heat, and I have experienced volcanos, suns, other stars, living energy flows, black holes, birth of suns and I have not noticed so far any blistering on my invisible bottom…hehehe.. and no radiation effects have been noted either.
        I am not the body therefore I am not on effect of something which only could affect the body..
        PS; heat, cold what is, are a consideration too.
        5
        ”If one detects or perceives more than what the “other” viewpoint recognizes, does this still count as “assuming” the viewpoint of another? Or must the deficiencies / filters of the other be faithfully duplicated? i.e. what if the other is not seeing all that is there or is seeing more than what is there”
        There is only one view point at the time exist, can be experience.
        When the viewed is ”’viewed” it becomes a personal experience in the moment of NOW.
        There are no filters; other considerations exist in the moment of now.
        Others, filters, deficiencies, are just considerations.. They don’t exist at all.
        Your mine, others, owing, belonging, somebodies, not mine: they are considerations-belief.. they don’t alter the moment of experience.
        Maria, have an experiment of your own: in a fraction of time see what you can experience: here I am holding up for you a flower. What did you see in that moment? What you have seen was in ”now”.

        6
        ”Does the “seeing” include the other viewpoint’s past and current assumptions, experiences, attitudes, beliefs, speculations, values, self-image, inner workings, interactions with other viewpoints that are present, future expectations, etc. ? If you color this with your own, does it still count as a faithful “seeing” or “assuming” of another’s viewpoint?”
        I believe and my reality is that your above question could be best explained by somebody who talks MEST since those are considerations
        What is faithful ”seeing” for me is in the NOW and have total reality what that is therefore it has nothing added to it, not altered in any way, it will not persist and solidify in matter form.

        7
        ”Another question: If your “assumption” of the “other” viewpoint shifts or alters what that other viewpoint “sees” does this still count? Or does this have to accomplish without changing the “other” viewpoint? ”
        You looking with the eyes,, what the eyes see: if the head turns the view point to shifts, since the eyes are photographic lenses and nothing more. The eyes are instruments and are part of the machine=body which is among other many things is a sensor a measuring device, collector of information.
        Maria, it is no interest to me what other sensors-bodies eyes can see..
        Since they Can’t see more than What my sensors eyes have seen.. The seeing with eyes has no value, no real meaning because whatever those pair of lenses seen it implant material.

        8
        ”i.e. do you have to be able to distinguish between what is “yours” and what is the “others” and accurately identify these as separate viewpoints? And if your assumption produces changes, do you have to be able to identify those as being different from the original viewpoint? Is that even possible?”
        No, I create-experience at the same moment of now… I have reality that creation-experience could be created by somebody else or thousands of other somebody else… but that does not make any difference.
        I too can say I have created it, or can say I view somebodies creation… but these are just considerations, and are totally meaningless. The fact is: there is a creation -experience in the moment of now…
        If there is a created continuum which you call ”change” of course I would know what that is and it is different from the original moment..
        But even if one creates a continual pictures… each frame is still only exist in that fraction of time in the now… can’t be any other way. The PAST or the FUTURE can’t be experienced: only the NOW exist.

        9
        ”Also, if there are multiple “other” viewpoints affecting the mix, then do you have to be able to identify those and cull them out to say you have accurately distinguished the specific viewpoint that you are assuming? And what if the “other” viewpoint thinks that those “other” viewpoints are his? Are they his now?”

        Nothing can effect a single view point…I just don’t have reality on your first question.
        When one perceives -experiences in the moment… that is on act or observing, It can only happen frame by frame.
        When viewing something than they are yours, and if you consider that they are your than they are, if you consider you have stolen it yet while you viewing it is still only yours.
        If you say this belongs to Sam, this is his creation… but what you see, view- experience is only experienced by you and not by Sam.. You can’t experience somebodies experience… no such a thing.
        Everybody have a view point… that is totally theirs how they see the universe, that is their very own universe and no one has a true reality what is in that universe.
        That is why you have no idea how I see your black cat and I don’t no either how you see your black cat.
        I don’t even know you have one, but you can tell me you have one… so you could have one in the Spiritual universe, but not in the MEST universe,

      • Watching movies on TV and eating popcorn!

        Wow. That was such a thorough answering of my questions. Thank you so much for sharing what you know and how you experience! For the most part, my experiences are similar although I don`t think I have the level of clarity that you do — more vague for me and I certainly haven`t been able to fully describe as you have. That`s great! Thanks again!

      • Elizabeth: from what you have said and from my own reality, I have written a summary which I put under Vinaire`s comment above, my write-up ends with:

        I sing my song. I have no words. Are you receiving? Can you sing along?

  24. V… ”this is called imagination or visualization”” would be possible that there is more than one reality on the same considerations : what is? Is it possible that each being experiences are unique… and therefor cant be compared? Is it possible, that your knowledge is uniquly yours only and no other person has the same reality what ” is” that but you?

  25. Chris
    “Elizabeth, From a little bit of distance, the complaints of people can seem like little bitty squeaks.

    My love: go showel snow in the Sahara and while you are at it do build a nice big black snow man.
    PLEASE DO UNDRERSTAND I LOVE TO GALLOP FREELY ACROOS THE STEPES, I love to thunder, I love to dramatize, I love to role in the invisible muck same way as attending the garden party of the fairies.
    It is fun, to thunder, it is joy to sit on the edge of the universe and do nothing but watch the creations slideing by.

  26. For R: the yellow monter with one eye
    “We can posses knowledge, but also knowledge can posses us (when we consider certain knowledge as an absolute truth, or when we cannot see outside it)”
    Posses knowledge? you talk about learned stuff here? If the answer is yes, than you can bet that one eye of yours and you will win..
    But if you talking of knowledge which are considerations… than that is not the same.. that knowledge do not contain mass-energy therefore do not exist in the MEST universe cant be possessed and it cant stick to anything or any one.
    What would be absolute truth, name one…. I bet you cant..

    • E: I guess you are right. Maybe it boils down to control: considerations are created and structured with a purpose, but, as cause becomes effect, it becomes bounded by them.

      So maybe is better to see it from the viewpoint of having control over our own considerations, or being controlled by them.

      How do you like that?

      • nah….having control over something equaly make you a slave what you control… so yellow one eyed thing you, think of something better… something which will not hold you or you have to hold..

        • R, you still have lovable pink bunny ears… hehehe… so what do you have which do not contain energy— not made out of anything therefore lasts for eternity: Never can be less, but it can grow..has value which cant be measured or compared with solodity… here you go kid… cry into your pillow… see if I care..

      • Ha ha ! Guess I’ll go to bed sulking 🙂
        No problem E I was joking
        It’s ok I was not saying it was my viewpoint, I was just trying to describe a condition see? All is well, I’ll go to bed smiling 🙂

      • I consider knowledge out of considerations a type of MEST- related knowledge, (a group of organized considerations which has a created form or structure)
        knowledge out of cognitions to me would be something actually above knowledge……. like creativity itself, and there I´m sure we agree 🙂

        • Sorry Rafael, I have blown the answer since I ment to say””cognitions”. I am not with it is seems. I have been so blown out I can hardly speak.. never mind thinking forming sentesces…do forgive!

        • Rafael I agree with you… Even if I seem disagree, I still agree, Words dont mean a thing… they are worthless. They have no value, not where I am at…. i am what you are still is…. that never will change..

      • Vin says
        Could somebody please give me an example of “knowledge out of cognition.” as opposed to “knowledge out of considerations.”
        R says
        I´d say E by that means Intuition

        • I have had lot of intuitions out of looking outside the sessions. In fact I don’t think in terms of sessions any more. It is just life. 🙂

          .

        • Chris ””Elizabeth, you pull the trigger of invalidation instantaneously.”’
          I wonder what that sentence means… a double barrel shut, gun, a 44, a tank?
          Chris I write how I see things you write how you see things… so where that takes us? I dont have bad intention when I express my reality., I still accept others reality, I just express my thought on that same matter.. but MY THOUGH DO NOT CHANGE WHAT I HAVE READ… not one little bit.

        • Chris
          “So you say but how do you know?”
          Location don’t change for intangible infinite, location only can be established for matter and only than if other matter is in existence and these can be observed at the same time.
          Now… for infinite cannot travel go to places can’t be inside or outside of anything…. But ASSUMES A VIEW POINT how the inside of volcano looks like of how the sun looks like outside… It is assuming that view point and experiencing that inside of something gives on illusion that the being is inside……. Nonono… No one can go anyplace only body can walk from point A to point B…
          LRH had no reality on this and I know he made a big mistake talking about exteriorisation… Full of bull. When one erases all the view point what one consider-believe is inside than there will be no more inside, and when all the believes are erased what is outside means by doing that the being can experience all that at the same moment… interesting phenomenon, when one erases all believes about death, dyeing of being born, birth etc. than there is no more life or that existing for that being…
          WE CHANGE viewpoints… we create that and experience that creation at the same moment and that moment is in NOW…. We can’t go back into the past… we can’t see the future… BUT WE ASSUME THE VIEW POINT and we say-consider that we are there … can’t be done my dear friend.
          Auditing as in session we as-is the old unwanted considerations which are ‘’’we are here, or we are there, we can’t do this, or we can’t do that, and when those stuck assumptions are erased which did not allowed us see differently——create-experience than after the eraser of the stuck considerations we can again have different viewpoints and experience new creations.
          What are stuck viewpoints? When the being can only experience the something over and over and can’t get out of that condition… that is being stuck means. Like having sinus problem…
          Can’t see or feel anything outside of that… total attention –concentration being stuck with that energy mass. After the eraser of that mass…. he has a different reality- different sensation. He did not go anywhere only view point-reality has changed.
          So you ask how I know. From experience…

        • I am glad sweet pea… You and I we float about the same universe..
          At the present time I am on the war path, somebody stepped on my toe very hard… I protest very stongly.. I dont like cheaters…. Shoot any way you like but heavens sake do it openly…This is the time when I get the fire going over the pit really hot and I get ready to roast that bogger….
          If any of you believe that OT behavier is quiet gentle, sedate… like mother Theresa used to be…. news for you folks…. Nothing is quet, gentle in the universe…. Behaiver, how to behave is a enfoced control mechanizem which is given… it is a addition how to, Only exist on Planet Earth/. Behavier is a walled in reality, I am surprised so few times it is mentioned in blogs..

        • Thanks Eliz. Boy that’s a hot one. Reminds me of my hubby. He had nice manners and behaved civilized. But don’t step on his honest toes, he’d stomp on the boggers too. It wouldn’t happen often but when needed he was there. Sort of like the fire in the belly, but not in mest?

        • There’s really no trick or OT ability to “thundering” and being “on the warpath.” Not in my reality anyways. We both had old-school upbringing — Lots of anger and thundering from generations grooved in by two world wars. I can also do this with a Tone 40 honed from years of practice; However, as I have learned some of the finer arts, I routinely don’t need or want to stomp my foot to get attention. (Now please take your shoe off the table, Kruschev. haha)

        • Civilized person means: to behave in the acceptable manner according to the agreed upon ideas-considerations by all…
          Civilization itself is implanted item, being in certain area which were created ‘’from’’ here to here’’ than a new implant taken over new civilization has begun..… Than a new movie rolled [ implant-illusion] in once more and that implant was the age of machinery—the computer age…. hehehe… good one.. All these has given on illusion of creating continuum..
          Meanwhile there is no time; since one can only experience a fraction of a moment which is ‘‘now”. Behavior is only an item a consideration same as any other and not part of the spiritual universe but belongs to the MEST universe

        • I agree that being stuck in a civilized valence is unhealthy. However, deliberately putting thumb-tacks on the teacher’s chair is not proof of youthful exuberance. It is just inviting the teacher’s wrath.

        • Agree that you experience your own experience. I always acknowledge you and your knowledge of yourself. On the other hand, you don’t have the benefit of my experience and so don’t know what I know, can’t do what I can do, can’t be me or know me. Your telling me what I know; what I don’t know… what is right and what is wrong is a mistake and it throws cold water on the conversations.

        • Ego is an interesting phenomenon. After a while one starts to look at it as a phenomenon with scientific detachment. Why get uncontrollably emotional about it?

          .

        • Eliz, right. Sometimes one does not see it in themselves, but Only in others. Called self-awareness.

        • Yes Eliz, I do remember reading that. “Higher one will be going up on the Bridge will be attacked more frequentaly..”
          Now in V’s statement “I was not trying to hurt either EH or DE. But there is hurt. Fascinating” Just another Eval!. He just doesn’t get it, but Ok. There’s no hurt on our part, frustrating at times, but just communicating and seeing it as it is…..

  27. Considerations are ubiquitous, self-evident and axiomatic.

    Dictionary defines a consideration as a careful thought, a decision, or something that is to be kept in mind in making a decision, evaluating facts, etc. But, more generally, a consideration is the outcome of looking carefully or thoughtfully. The moment one looks and considers, a consideration comes into being.

    The concept of consideration is so basic that it may be said that the human consideration of unknowable, is what finds its expression in the concept of God.

    .

  28. There are so many good answers and even more good replies to the OP that I hardly know where to begin.

    I had nightmares about Maria’s question about what do I mean by “assuming another’s viewpoint,” (joke) but really it did work on me and my flash answer after a sleeping on it still seems to retain some consistency. I wrote, “going to that location and looking from there.” Then of course comes the questions about “go” and how does one “go over to another’s point of view?” My broad answer without supporting argument but just in plain language is that it is done by gradient steps.

  29. In the OP, I wrote that my wife and I went to a concert. This involved travelling for miles to arrive at the appointed venue. Everyone else at the concert did this same step. This consensus moving closer together brought thousands under one roof and to that degree, we each saw what everyone else saw.

    This movement is fractal meaning moving by small discrete amounts. The fractal movements are rapid so they can seem continuous. We seem to be able to move closer to one another’s point of view, but we seem to never be able to perfectly duplicate the other’s point of view. We can get very very close. We can get close enough in meaning and in understanding to cooperate in the buildng of great projects such as sending rockets to Mars and overseeing their operation even at a distance; however, we never perfectly duplicate the other’s point of view; never achieve perfect empathy while the inconsistencies of considerations are involved.

    My conjecture is that when all considerations are dissolved we might then achieve unity and thus “see what others see.” For in that state, we will know even as we also are known.

    • And thus the idea of dissolving considerations?

      What happens when you exactly match a frequency? Or when you illuminate one? Or take one or more sides out of the oscillation by no longer emanating it? If you generate a higher frequency?

      Perhaps its to do with resonant frequencies which are not the same thing as a matching frequency:

      Resonance occurs when a system is able to store and easily transfer energy between two or more different storage modes (such as kinetic energy and potential energy in the case of a pendulum). However, there are some losses from cycle to cycle, called damping. When damping is small, the resonant frequency is approximately equal to the natural frequency of the system, which is a frequency of unforced vibrations. Some systems have multiple, distinct, resonant frequencies.

      Resonance phenomena occur with all types of vibrations or waves: there is mechanical resonance, acoustic resonance, electromagnetic resonance, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), electron spin resonance (ESR) and resonance of quantum wave functions. Resonant systems can be used to generate vibrations of a specific frequency (e.g. musical instruments), or pick out specific frequencies from a complex vibration containing many frequencies (e.g. filters).

      Maybe each individual produces their own frequencies which become involved with resonant frequencies. Their individual tune or tone or melody if you will.

      Tune in? If you are thoroughly tuning in then it would not appear as OTHER.

      • Maria, you make so many good points and ask so many good questions in a row that I must try to parse them out to answer to them.

        Rather than describe hypothetical situations as metaphor, I should just write about my own experiences and realities as a result of solo auditing. Thus, the short version of what I am clumsily trying to communicate is that I think that all beingnesses are MEST. I think that the beingness of self which we also call the ego is the most solid and intricate of all the beingnesses.

  30. Fixation of self (shame and blame) is a distraction that provides a wonderful array of justifications. A viewpoint is basically a subset of self. Attempts to understand another’s viewpoint is just another form of this fixation.

    Instead of focusing on self or on viewpoint, if one focuses on dissolving inconsistencies, then life situations resolve must faster and new situations are prevented from developing.

    .

      • Any bank exists only in terms of perceptions, experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, self and inconsistencies associated with each of them.

        .

      • Self as a thing defending, protecting, etc self as a thing, yes.

        Self as source. presence, way — not so much..

        None of these things have any particular value except to protect a construct that resulted from source emanating. The entire gamut of attitudes, tones, emotions, etc. appear to be wholly concerned with constructs and their persistence or destruction. The garden of good and evil. The garden of every thing.

      • Maria, you are consistent about the entire gamut of attitudes, tones, emotions, etc. being wholly concerned with constructs and their persistence or destruction.

        .

      • Vinaire says: There is no self as a source. Source is unknowable. Self is a constructed via.

        Evidently source is unknowable to you at this time. Therefore it is unknowable to you. I cannot agree to this descriptive (which is based on the dichotomy knowable versus unknowable) for source — this is more dichotomy, dichotomy is entirely in the set of collection of nameable things.

        Leave it there, for there is no word in the English language that fits, for words are all labels to be affixed to processes and frequencies, manifestations and phenomena — source manifests, it is not manifest. Dichotomy does not apply to source.

        And that`s the best I can do for description at this time.

        I`m quite sure you can get some excellent traction from taking this definition. But it doesn`t work for me.

  31. My beingness of Self as ego, being the most recent of my selves manifested is the most complicated layer of self to pierce. It is infinitely folded and being automatically created ongoing by considerations which are being held in place by more considerations holding these machinations in place. The growth of ego exceeds the rate of population growth in China by many orders of ten. I consider the rest of the usual dynamics 2 through 8 to be the earlier selves.

    My auditing works like this: I reduce my ego by noticing it and noticing that I am creating it. Since it has no life of its own besides my persistent creation of it, then once I stop creating it, it’s existence ceases. This is the as-isness of destruction and this is the sum total of destruction — to cease creating the considerations that we are creating something. This is also the placebo effect. Once I stop considering that I am creating something, that something ceases.

    • I am adding this from you above, so my response makes sense. You said: Rather than describe hypothetical situations as metaphor, I should just write about my own experiences and realities as a result of solo auditing. Thus, the short version of what I am clumsily trying to communicate is that I think that all beingnesses are MEST. I think that the beingness of self which we also call the ego is the most solid and intricate of all the beingnesses.

      I really like it when people write about their own experiences and realities.

      It is also my experience that a being–ness, is a thing. yet, the act of be is not a thing even though it produces changes throughout things and the relationship of things. I think of ego as grooved-in responses and reactions to things and the relationship of things based on the concept I am this way and I am that way. This is how I am and who I am and what I am, all in the province of ego. I think this is the major trap, the confusion between ego-self-beingness-I and the pristine be (not the thing, the verb). Only the ego-self-beingness-I can dissolves.

      Be here. Where? Here. Pristine here — that isn`t a location or time. Only the things and their succession and procession say that it is. Be-Presence — be-presence is not IN successive now now now — which is the linear appearance of consecutive change . Be-Presence is not IN here — which is the persisting recurring repeated creating sensation of location and relation and association.

      Maybe try this – Get the idea of making an idea. Carefully note where and when this takes place AS it manifests. This is the instant between and or before manifestation. It is noticeable. Increase that instant if you can. The gap between and just preceding successive shifts. its pristine. Notice how easily one slips from one mode to the other. Real now to Present time.

      Anyway that`s what I notice. It has been my open door. Way. Truth. Life.

      And trust me, I am not talking religion here!!!

      But it is fascinating to see how it gets twisted in the same way as everything else.

      Hopefully all these words haven`t completely mangled and mislead!!

      • Maria: I think of ego as grooved-in responses and reactions to things and the relationship of things based on the concept I am this way and I am that way. This is how I am and who I am and what I am, all in the province of ego. I think this is the major trap, the confusion between ego-self-beingness-I and the pristine be (not the thing, the verb). Only the ego-self-beingness-I can dissolves.

        Chris: And I think this ego goes very deep. And would you say that what is ego about it is its activity of identification? I think you do as you just wrote as much. Therefore ego has its definition at the first cycle of identification — possibly at “I Am,” do you think? So this goes deep and as for the idea of a “pristine” be, well I think I get where you want to go with that, to clean up the dirty stuff from the ego? But how I prefer to think of ego is that it “just is.” Where there is “Is,” there is ego.

        If I’ve missed your point, I’ll try again. It is easier for me to cease judging my ego for good and bad and just let it be. As I audit, I cease practicing pieces of my ego. When I contact and cease practicing the considerations which are at the root of my bad practices, my unethical behavior, then my behavior automatically improves without enforcement.

        Nope, no religion here either.

      • Sadly, the effort of communicating instantly leads to speaking in the first person.
        The first person voice is called — I. It is an identification that is a device of language and always misleading.

        — I will reword your statement and take out the first person voice because it is misleading.

        You said: If I’ve missed your point, I’ll try again. It is easier for me to cease judging my ego for good and bad and just let it be. As I audit, I cease practicing pieces of my ego. When I contact and cease practicing the considerations which are at the root of my bad practices, my unethical behavior, then my behavior automatically improves without enforcement.

        Reworded:

        (from) Expressing! (to) Expressing!:
        Possible missing. Letting. Manifesting auditing ceasing manifesting manifesting. Manifesting contacting considering deciding withholding judging freely.

        — missing?

        — getting?

  32. There seem to be some properties of CONSIDERATIONS as follows:

    (1) The idea of “beginning” is basically a consideration. It gives rise to the consideration of “before the beginning.” Thus a consideration tends to generate more considerations.

    (2) The consideration of “beginning” also seems to give rise to its opposite consideration of “end.” The opposite considerations always seem to occur as a by-product of any consideration.

    (3) As one looks at the considerations of “beginning” and “end,” a third consideration of “change” seems to arise. Thus, widely different considerations may interact and generate a new consideration.

    Can you come up with some more properties?

    .

  33. I seem to have settled on the following:

    KHTK AXIOM ZERO: THE ULTIMATE REALITY (Ů) IS UNKNOWABLE.

    .

    I propose the following:

    KHTK AXIOM ONE: THE KNOWABLE HAS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME, AND CONSIDERATION.

    .

  34. Maria, Tune-In? Yes, good analogy. Misunderstandings to me seem to be the result of my simply not caring enough to tune-in another. This can be as simple as humming a tune with or in-harmony with another.

    • Vinaire says: That is true, because Cause is just a consideration.

      Are you 100% sure that is true?
      It could be just another consideration!

      True — False. Dichotomy again. 100% true. 100% false.

      100% ________________0______________100%
      False Neither True

      100%________________0_______________100%
      ????? Know

  35. Vinaire says: That’s fine. You may give source some knowable identity, That’s up to you. But I cannot say what source is with 100% certainty because absolutes are unattainable. There is apparent source, of course. But what lies behind it, I don’t know.

    To be wholly accurate here, I am not giving source an identity, nor am I saying what it is or even that it is within the terms of the manifest.

    I am using this word — source — as a label — a name — so I can make references. The name is simply a word for reference and does not speak to or result in identity. Names don`t change things, they simply refer. I could use unnameable as a label I suppose, unfortunately that is so sweeping in concept that it could apply to any manifestation for which there is no naming possible.

    The name cat, for example, is completely misleading. It implies that there is this separate concrete thing with a fully discrete existence, which is an impossibility. Take away the ground, the air, the sky, the sun, the galaxy, the photons, the electromagnetic radiation, the backdrop, the observers of the cat and there is no cat. It has nothing to hold it in position, nothing to light or not light it, no shape is possible, no boundaries, etc. The components of the molecules are continuously shifting, charges changing, cells dying, cells growing, and instant by instant its not the same thing as it was. i.e. the cat you saw at 11 am is NOT the cat you see at 1 pm. But you still call it Herbie and you still say it is THE cat. Continuous observation at work. Observing is not a thing. The report of what was observed is a thing, framed in language to report the signals observed AS they appear in present time.

    Every individual quantum particle (of astronomically high numbers even in something as small as an amoeba) is switching between an on-off or appear-disappear state aggregated in such a way as to look like it is persisting. On-off and appear-disappear is itself misleading and no more than a statement that on or appear isn`t continuous in the focus of awareness of the observers. It could well be that the observing process is not working at intervals, not the other way around!

    It gets tedious describing what cannot be described using words of a language that describes manifestations — a language is constructed and built up through the use of dichotomies that are inaccurate or even misleading. Something — nothing is simply a spectrum of a dichotomy. Known — unknown — again a dichotomy. 1 and 0. -1 and 0. 0 depends on 1. Then there is null. pristine. uncharted. In programming you have to deliberately allow for the difference between null and zero. Null generates an error if you don`t. No charge is present and no charge has ever been present in that field. (Ignore the sloppy wording on this).

    So I use this word source for reference for now, this working of observing. Perhaps a better wording would be expressing-inexpressible Or source-observing. Or source-making. inexpressible-source. Or way-truth-life. Awfully clumsy any which way you word it.

    The idea of ultimate reality is a useful idea that can be used to identify non-ultimate reality. Nothing more. It may or may not be knowable or unknowable.

    Ultimate: last, final, fundamental, perfect, pinnacle, unconditional, absolute, complete. Corollary: first, starting, auxiliary, flawed, nadir, conditional, qualified, incomplete.

  36. This one is for Elizabeth — I thought you`d like this quotation from Burnell`s works.

    BERSERKER FOR FREEDOM
    by George Edwin Burnell
    Delivered January 1903

    The ego clutches for dominion and gets it, plus slavery. For how can there be dominating without dominated? The stock answer is by mastery over self, by self-government. But this is cad. If the self is mastered then it is not free, and if it is free it has no master, and self-mastery would be self-existent slavery. The fact of it is there is no slavery at all but the slavery a man puts upon himself. There is no bondage so severe as self-bondage, bondage to your own conscience and convictions.

    The god is all for freedom, and has it, plus rhapsody. The god is free from his own magnetism. He knows that no one but himself can bind or loose him. He knows that his only enemies must be of his own mental household. He knows that he alone exists. This cures him of the plague of self-mastery. Therefore he lets himself alone, and makes rhapsody a business.

  37. Something which always amazes me is how very mundane my own questions seem to me after reading what someone better sourced pipes up. I want to think that my thoughts and maunderings are avant-garde but then I realize that I am not particularly further along than any of the ancients, and my questions? Old news.

    Which brings up something I’ve wondered for a while which is man destined (I am trying to not use the word doomed) to maunder about his existence generation after generation? Is the satisfaction of breakthrough reserved for each and only each person who slogs their way out of their identity crisis?

    • Dooming! Maundering! Destinying! Man-ing.

      I expect so. After all a man is comprised of endless generations (dissolving and resolving; uniting and dividing) — you are not the man you were an instant ago. Goes with the territory.

      Now women — we`re different! LOL!

      • Yes! Of course, it goes without saying that I was writing about men and not women!

        Years ago I thought that “man was put here for the express purpose of working out his own salvation to his own satisfaction. But now that I am enlightened and above it all, I seem to have returned to the same conclusion.

  38. Chris, I am bringing this earlier post I made to the bottom for the sake of reducing confusion!

    You were speaking of I, the ego earlier. This is my response:

    Sadly, the effort of communicating instantly leads to speaking in the first person.

    The first person voice is called — I. It is an identification that is a device of language and always misleading.

    – I will reword your statement to me and take out the first person voice because it is misleading.

    You said: If I’ve missed your point, I’ll try again. It is easier for me to cease judging my ego for good and bad and just let it be. As I audit, I cease practicing pieces of my ego. When I contact and cease practicing the considerations which are at the root of my bad practices, my unethical behavior, then my behavior automatically improves without enforcement.

    Reworded:

    (from) Expressing! (to) Expressing!:
    Possible missing. Letting. Manifesting auditing ceasing manifesting manifesting. Manifesting contacting considering deciding withholding judging freely.

    – missing?

    – getting?

  39. I`m bringing this one down here too, because it ended up in the wrong spot ARRGGGH!

    Vinaire said: That is true, because Cause is just a consideration.

    Are you 100% sure that is true?
    It could be just another consideration!

    True — False. Dichotomy again.

    100% __________0__________100%
    False———-Neither———-True

    100%_________0__________100%
    Unknowable ———-Neither———-Knowable

    • Vinaire said: That is consistent, because Cause is just a consideration.

      Are you 100% sure that is consistent?
      It could be just another consideration!

      100% ________________0______________100%
      False———————–Neither———————True

      100%________________0_______________100%
      Unknowable ————–Neither——————–Knowable

      100%________________0_______________100%
      Inconsistent ————–Neither——————–-Consistent

      100%________________0_______________100%
      Effect——–————–Neither——————––Cause

      or maybe it should be:

      100% ________________0______________100%
      True———————–Neither———————-False

      100%________________0_______________100%
      Unknowable ————–Neither——————–Knowable

      100%________________0_______________100%
      Consistent ————–Neither——————–-Inconsistent

      100%________________0_______________100%
      Cause——–————–Neither——————––Effect

      or maybe it should be:

      100%________________0_______________100%
      Consistent ————–Neither——————–-Inconsistent

      100%________________0_______________100%
      Effect——–————–Neither——————–—Cause

      That`s the problem with dichotomies and consistencies.

      Null is missing in all of the above.

      • What I have stated is consistent with the considerations I hold, as far as I can see at the moment. Of course, it can change if you point out an inconsistency that I also find to be an inconsistency.

        What may appear inconsistent to you may not necessarily be inconsistent for me. That can happen.

        .

  40. The following may be some material for a new thread:

    It may be interesting to look at the macromolecule as a genetic computer, and how a psychedelic drug may affect its operation.

    .

    Here is what I have on brain waves:
    Delta wave (0–4 hertz): A high amplitude brain wave… usually associated with the deepest stages of sleep.

    Theta wave (4–7 Hz): Tends to appear during drowsy, meditative, or sleeping states… but not during the deepest stages of sleep.

    Alpha wave (8–12 Hz): Dominate during wakeful relaxation with closed eyes… reduced with open eyes, drowsiness and sleep

    Mu wave (8–13 Hz): Most prominent when the body is physically at rest… suppressed when one performs or observes a motor action

    Beta wave (12-30 Hz): States associated with normal waking consciousness

    Gamma wave (25-100 Hz): May be implicated in creating the unity of conscious perception

    It seems that brain waves move toward a higher frequency as the brain wakes up more and more. Finally, at the level of “Gamma” one is increasingly operating with intuition in resolving inconsistencies continually.

    .

  41. I plan to try out the following for size:

    KHTK AXIOM ONE: THE KNOWABLE HAS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE, TIME, AND CONSIDERATION.

    Corollary: There is no knowledge beyond matter, energy, space, time and consideration.

    We perceive and experience matter, energy, space and time, which forms the basis of our knowledge. Anything beyond this, which one postulates to be knowledge falls into the category of consideration. So, I believe, this axiom covers the whole scope of knowledge. What is beyond this scope is unknowable as covered by AXIOM ZERO.

    This would encompass Scientology Axiom #1, because the “Static” as postulated by Hubbard, is knowable as the consideration of individuality.

    .

    KHTK AXIOM TWO: SPACE EVOLVES INTO CONSIDERATIONS, ENERGY AND MATTER.

    KHTK AXIOM THREE: TIME MEASURES THE EVOLUTION OF SPACE.

    .

    • May be we should have AXIOM TWO as follows:

      KHTK AXIOM TWO: SPACE EVOLVES INTO CONSIDERATIONS, ENERGY AND MATTER, WHILE TIME MEASURES THAT EVOLUTION IN TERMS OF DURABILITY OF FORM.

      .

    • I can`t help thinking that there is a set of underlying axioms, even to these, for these start with an axiom that one can determine truth. I have found a very thought provoking work, The Book of Health and Science of Truth from 1902 by George E. Burnell, that I have been studying. I obtained a reprint of it from the University of Michigan Libraries collection.

      Here is the first quotation from the chapter entitled:

      AXIOMS OF REASON

      I. The inquiry is into the truth

      An axiom of the reason is discerned by the inability of the mind to conceive of the opposite; the notorious movement of the threshold of consciousness is not found to be actual, but apparent.

      The identity of reason and faith is perceived by understanding that consciousness must be an authority as a test of truth; the value of reason is seen in the demonstration of the Socratic axiom that humanity errs only from its mistaken judgments; the power of reason is evident from the fact that the goddess has but to show herself to take sovereignty.

      It is announced that this is the proper inquiry for all who find I themselves a tendency to master or abandon changing things, and the inevitable inquiry for all who would discern immortality, happiness, and freedom.

      In the providence of things there must ever be presented to the reason problems that seem beyond its ability to solve until it has been brought to function all there is in its constitution; when all the kinks are out of the consciousness, then satisfaction and mastery set in; there is not the least warrant for supposing that the reason has done all it can while a single perplexity lasts.

      Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

      Truth is the most perfect virtue,
      And the highest good in itself,
      Not troubled by matter,
      Not encompassed by a body,
      Naked, clear, unchangeable,
      Venerable, unalterable, good.
      —Hermes

      The true self which is free from sin,
      Free from old age and fear,
      Free from death and grief,
      Free from hunger and thirst,
      Which desires only what it should desire,
      Which imagines only what it should imagine,
      That it is which we must search out,
      That it is which we must understand,
      He who has searched out the true self,
      Obtains all worlds and all desires.
      —Upanishad.

      Vinaire: I am wondering if you would like to publish this series of axioms on your blog for discussion. I believe that it fits in with what you are doing and will serve to augment and clarify what you are working on. If so, I can email the text as I type it up. There are 16 axioms.

      • This line: It is announced that this is the proper inquiry for all who find I themselves… should read

        It is announced that this is the proper inquiry for all who find in themselves…

        Sorry about the typo

      • Maria, I think you may be a suitable partner in this crime of concocting some axioms here.

        Looks like I am using Chris’s blog as a laboratory of ideas, and then publishing what seems to be consistent on my blog. I am doing that because not many seems to comment on my blog for the apparent fear that their posts might be edited or deleted.

        This is from the discussion policy on my blog:

        “This blog is designed for research and discussion. It is the policy of this blog to discourage the above four behaviors promptly to save the discussions from getting derailed.”

        So, if the behaviors pointed out in the discussion policy are avoided, one can write whatever one wants on my blog to forward a discussion.

        .

      • I am going to publish what you wrote above on my blog. I am sure it will lead to a discussion on what constitutes “truth”.

        So, that may lead to a still more basic axiom.

        🙂

      • I thought you might Burnell`s approach. I will simply email the remaining 15 axioms to you as I get time to type them up. They are best taken in sequence — taken out of sequence, they don`t make sense or at least they are very difficult to comprehend as he defines as he goes along — they build upon one another.

        • Well, if these axioms are to be taken in sequence then I would rather discuss the first axiom to a good point of consistency before publishing the remaining axioms.

          The first axiom from Burnell contains the word “truth” and that is troubling to me. I cannot regard this axiom as fundamental until the concept of “truth” is clarified..

          .

  42. Pingback: AXIOMS OF REASON « Vinaire's Blog

  43. Chris said: I am happy to cooperate and help in any way which will further these discussions.

    I asked Vinaire to put it on his blog because he has very specific rules about discussions that will help to keep it on track — its a very “dense” dissertation, and very very focused.

    I would love it if you would post it on your blog too — I believe that it would elicit all kinds of responses and that would be delightful!

    I would also love it if you (and others) would participate on the discussion on Vinaire`s blog too. I love your viewpoints and I think that you often cut to the chase in a really good way!

  44. Let me respond to the following more completely:
    comment-1289

    EH: “perfect evaluation…one must have one in order to recognise one.”

    Vinaire: “Ha…ha! Very true!”

    DE: “Eliz, right. Sometimes one does not see it in themselves, but Only in others. Called self-awareness.”

    EH: “Hi Dee, I wonder if you recall LRH said it some place… Higher one will be going up on the Bridge will be attacked more frequentaly…”

    Now this is an interesting conversation. I was not trying to hurt either EH or DE. But there is hurt. Fascinating.

    .

    • Hubbard, indeed, felt attacked. And he was convinced that he was going higher on the Bridge. He was the first and the greatest OT. In his view, Buddha was at the most a keyed out Clear.

      Hubbard then wondered why was he getting attacked. He wondered about that till the end.

      .

    • I think that the skill that made LRH very popular, was that he could make another feel very important. LRH even made that skill the centerpiece of his philosophy, called Scientology.

      Geir employs that skill too.

      .

    • Scientology, at OT levels, is all about boosting individuality.

      DM considers himself to be a very able and unique individual, like Hubbard did, and on a path to become a still greater individual… greater than anybody else.

      Of course, he can prove that through his intelligence, his quickness, and his actions.

      Look at DM’s pictures. He is very much “there”. He is in your face.

      .

    • V… you are assuming , you are reading into something which is not there.. I dont feel hurt I just dont want to post here any more because it is miss-understood so aften what I said.. I feel I dont do good here.. I just dont want to be causing bad feelings… that is all. I am not angree, not upsett, Again if that is not understood than what? I am not even believed that I am not upsett. so what is the point posting..??????????

      • Elizabeth, your claim of “not being hurt” seems to be inconsistent with the reaction, “perfect evaluation…one must have one in order to recognise one.” meaning, “Don’t point at me, look at yourself.”

        Let me say that this may be a peculiarity of mine to look at the above as an inconsistency. This may not be an inconsistency for you. That is very possible.

        .

        • v… how you see me that is your reality and not mine.. It is your assumption…That do not means it is my reality.. and i really dont care to explain my reality what makes me tick any more..go have a ball- no matter what angle you look at my behavier, my way of talking, that will still remain your reality and not mine..If you say i have on ego… fine by me… if you say i am irational, that too is fine by me..
          PS; I explained my reality more than once about why i talk -write the way I do but that explanation is not accepted…what more do you want?

        • Eliz, My take is that V wants you or others, completely under his control or squashed. Period. Consider the source. IMHO

        • Eliz, One can still have fun on a thread or in conversation, knowing full well that it’s impossible to win with some people. That’s what I like about your comments, is in playing the game, as long as you’re interested to play it. When it becomes impossible or too negative then we quit, and look for positive gain with positive people.
          Seriousness has it’s place but so does humor and taking the serious with a grain of salt, shall we say, is wiser, IMO. I’ve lightened up so much more thanks to you dear friend, life and threads are more joyful.. 🙂

        • Thanks Chris. Advice is always free and taken or not, listened to or not. Don’t really matter. Advice is, if it fits wear it, if liked.
          I found the same applies and was true for me in the 25 years between scn stints in the wog world and it wasn’t always easy to see, but it’s there too.

        • Elizabeth, rather than evaluating any single datum, I am simply looking at an inconsistency. It is not a matter of any person’s reality.

          My experience has been that people use justifications to hide inconsistencies from themselves. What you are saying right now is what you have said many, many times before when you get into a corner.

          Please be honest with yourself in looking at this inconsistency.

          .

    • I think I have been wrong all along. EGO is the wrong term to use here. The correct term is EGOTISM.

      Egotism is the drive to maintain and enhance favorable views of oneself, and generally features an inflated opinion of one’s personal features and importance — intellectual, physical, social and other…

      Egotists have a strong tendency to talk about themselves in a self-promoting fashion, and they may well be arrogant and boastful with a grandiose sense of their own importance. Their inability to recognise the accomplishments of others leaves them profoundly self-promoting; while sensitivity to criticism may lead on the egotist’s part to narcissistic rage at a sense of insult.

      It seems like Hubbard suffered from egotism.

  45. the following copied from Vinaire’s blog:
    vinaire On November 9, 2012 at 9:17 AMPermalink | Reply
    I thought it goes well with Buddha’s:
    Observe things as they really are, not just as they seem to be.

    Chris Thompson On November 9, 2012 at 9:24 AMPermalink | Reply
    Yes it does, but my point is that seem seems to be the closest we are going to get to what is until our clock speeds are accelerated by dozens of orders of magnitude. I would really like you to spend a minute on this because it remains my hang-up; my problem with what appears to me an inconsistency with our entire discussion on reason… Rafael? Maria? Elizabeth? Please give a minute to my problem here. Possibly it resides completely within me and so doesn’t need an external resolution. And maybe that statement I’ve just made with reference to internal/external is junk as well.

    vinaire On November 9, 2012 at 5:40 PMPermalink | Reply
    I think that the concept of ‘What is’ is relative to the context because there are deeper and deeper understandings as one widens the context. That is what happened to Scientology Axiom #1 when the context got widened by the use of “neti, neti.”
    So, “as they really are” is relative to the context of reality. The phrase “as they seem to be”, in my opinion, is the reality alloyed with considerations added by the viewpoint.
    Hope this makes sense.

    Chris: These comments above are once again very close to the question as relayed in the OP. Anyone with input on these comments is welcome to post them here.

  46. Came across this post.Interesting thought. I’m going to ponder this and then get back to it. I honestly feel that the ability to step out of oneself is a gift that perhaps only few of us get blessed with but then I”m not sure and will return to this.

  47. Geir Isene wrote: “But how on earth, or elsewhere, is it possible that we see almost the same universe? Sure, there are differences in our views, but how could our views be so similar?” That is a really good question. It boils down to “How do we keep our observation/creation in sync?” It’s almost like we decided to agree upon some basic laws of the universe and with so many viewpoints agreeing, the reality became so strong that we stopped doubting its seemingly absolute objectivity. If this was the case, there would be room for free will in the universe. There would be room for you —a viewpoint capable of any and all creations.

    • The answer lies in how the SELF is formed in the first place. There are considerations existing before the SELF is formed, and these considerations are then shared after the formation of “selves”. This is being taken up currently in the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT (The last three sections are about to change again.)

      .

  48. Geir Isene wrote: Reality lies in the eye of the beholder. And when many agree, feeble reality becomes very real indeed. Right here we may just be touching upon the essence of reality — agreement. “But wait a minute,” you may object, “there is surely a real world out there!” Really? Are you sure? Quantum Mechanics cast doubts upon that certainty. Man’s most successful theory to date has shown that whether an electron is a particle or a wave depends on what you want to see. In fact, anything could be decided whenever consciousness views the physical world. Reality on a subatomic level is created by observation. The act of observing determines what is seen.

    • It seems true that in the act of observing is a mechanism which triggers what is seen. But it seems a leap in the double-slit experiment to say that the observer is determining whether the electron will be particle or wave. In other words, observation triggers but does this necessarily indicate that a free will is present? Can the outcome be swayed toward one or the other by the observer? Not exactly. The observer can decide to put detectors there or not and in doing so will collapse the interference wave to discrete particles. We should look at these implications more.

    • Reality is like an onion. There are layers upon layers. As one “observes things as they are” these layers start to come off and the reality starts to change in the direction of simplicity and forthrightness.. It is a very interesting adventure.

      .

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s