Give us what we need

The above is Peter Heppner anno 2012. This one is from 1991. Again, interesting lyrics:

How long have you been free
In this world of hate and greed
Is it black or is it white
Let’s find another compromise

And our future´s standing still
We’re dancing in the spotlight
Where is the leader who leads me
I’m still waiting …

Leaving home …
And god is on your side
Dividing sparrows from the nightingales
Watching all the time
Dividing water from the burning fire … inside

Leave a light on in the night for me, that I can find you
Remember when we both where young and reckless and so curious …

Now you’re hiding from your child … a new day’s dawning
Remember that you felt alive, sometimes …

And god is on your side
Dividing cruelty from tenderness
Watching all the time
Dividing fiction from reality

Move in circles walk on lines no human being in sight
Calm the winds and calm the seas
Let´s try another kind of peace
Who fights this holy civil war
A million men in uniform
Wo ist der Führer der mich führt?
Ich warte immer noch …!

Leaving home …
And god is on your side
Dividing presence from our history
Watching all the time
Dividing deaf men from the listening ones

Leave a light on in the night for me, that I can find you
Remember when we both where young and reckless and so curious …

Now you’re hiding from your child … a new day’s dawning
Remember that you felt alive, sometimes …

And god is on your side
Dividing cruelty from tenderness
Watching all the time
Dividing fiction from reality

Move in circles walk on lines no human being in sight
Calm the winds and calm the seas
Let´s try another kind of peace
Who fights this holy civil war
A million men in uniform
Wo ist der Führer der mich führt?
Ich warte immer noch …!

Leaving home …
And god is on your side
Dividing presence from our history
Watching all the time
Dividing deaf men from the listening ones

Leave a light on in the night for me, that I can find you
Remember when we both where young and reckless and so curious …

Now you’re hiding from your child … a new day’s dawning
Remember that you felt alive, sometimes …

And god is on your side
Dividing soldiers from the fisherman
Watching all the time
Dividing warships from the ferryboats

344 Comments

  1. truth is, i donno what inspired to you this vid to get into your
    universe if you still have a separate one, i preferred an earlier
    one which you put it here….also, as you wrote earlier, it is in plain view…just view, without any ‘point’ not as it is in the above song…
    shall we go into QP? (just to ease it a bit, the music is not bad)

    • marianne: “. . . truth is, i donno what inspired to you this vid to get into your universe if you still have a separate one,. . .”

      Chris: I’ve been puzzling over this comment which I believe is the one Marildi agreed with and which got our new fight started. Can you explain to me what you are implying?

  2. From “Life of Pi”
    pi: can i ask you something?
    writer: of course.
    pi: i’ve told you two stories about what happened out in the ocean. neither explains what causes the sinking of the ship and no one can prove the story is true and which is not. in both stories the ship sinks, my family dies
    writer: true
    pi: so which story do you prefer?
    writer: (pauses then smiles) the one with the tiger. that’s the better story.
    pi: thank you, and so it goes with god.

  3. Geir, do you think the lyrics of this song are an expression of nihilism?

    “…Give us what we need
    Lies we can believe in
    Truth’s not honesty
    Give us what we need
    Lies we can believe in
    Truth is not the key”

    Nihilism:
    “Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

    “Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.

    “Nihilism can also take epistemological or ontological/metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist.”

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

      • HI.. I thought I throw this here in the pot.. You never know who has the need of it. Todays Cognition;
        FREE FLOATING … not being connected, letting go, not within the fixed –stationary unmovable boundaries: being EXTERIOR.
        I had sessions on LRH’s definition out-body experiences on exteriorization or interiorization. I have had many wins but today I realised I never looked at the concepts of FLOATING or FREE FLOATING and now having session on this and related areas I had new understanding of what we do when we decide to let go of being anchored to any object: which include having a human bodies.
        I have found many many reasons why the person sticks to the body and why it is so difficult to let it go: we use illnesses, old age, violence: like hearth attack, heavy stroke, all sort of accidents, being shut, committing suicide, overdosing on drugs, we do all sort of things in order to severe the connection and to be able to float freely once more.
        Over the years in session I have found that there are many reasons we carry ‘’weight’’ and one of them is to hold us in stationary position: to keep ones space.
        To become stable to remain in one place: to have a permanent surrounding we have done lots of things on the track because we are spirits- we don’t have a body, we don’t have a weight therefore we had to invent different means to stabilize self to remain in position: Example: Life span—conceived-born-living-and ending it; death of the body, with this we have invented “time” having past and deciding that we have future this two consideration alone gives “continuum..” Rolling pictures seeing them one after the other also hold us in position.

        Anticipation of the ‘’future’’ what is yet to come is a good anchor..
        We use thousands of these anchors to hold us in what by now we believe is real and solid therefor to FREEFLOAT once more, to “””exteriorise””” at will one need to remove all the believes-considerations one has why wants to remain within the boundaries whatever those may have been created by each individual.

        The belief of BEING in a SOLID BODY and BEING THE BODY IT SELF IS ONE OF THE MOST PROFOUND –WEIGHTY CONSIDERATIONS WE BELIEVE IN, AGREED TO IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN STATIONARY POSITION AT ALL TIMES.

        PS: Not being, not existing, not being known, fear of such a conditions makes us hold onto solid beliefs.. therefor free-floating being exterior permanently from the MEST is impassible, and of course there are few thousand different concepts I could list but those need to be found by each individual.
        And words knowing them never ever freed any one.. never mind let them FREEFLOAT!

          • I think Marianne has it right. And since you are an artist, I believe you would agree with Rupert Spira that art is one of the ways that a person can experience that which is “permanent, ever-present, and eternal” – in other words, truth. Basic truth. And I would say that games can be played best when both relative and fundamental truths are acknowledged and experienced. Here’s Rupert’s explanation in less than 9 minutes:

            • Chris: “Because all TRUE artists agree with Rupert Spira?”

              I have a question for the posters here. Can you see the deliberate innuendo in the comment above? And if so, do you think it’s okay?

              From Wikipedia:
              “innuendo is an insinuation or intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion. In the latter sense, THE INTENTION IS OFTEN TO INSULT OR ACCUSE IN SUCH A WAY THAT ONE’S WORDS, TAKEN LITERALLY, ARE INNOCENT.”

              And do you get the covert intention behind Chris’ comment, as described at the end of the above quote (which I put in all caps)?

              Also, here’s the definition of “taunt”:
              “to say insulting things to (someone) in order to try to make that person angry. Synonyms: bait, hassle, haze, heckle, needle, ride.”

              The above comment of Chris’ is subtle (covert) enough – i.e. he’s merely using the word “true” and putting it in italics – that he’s counting on no one getting it as a 1.1 remark. Except me, of course.

              Or else he’s counting on others to think it’s no big deal, if they do observe that it is 1.1 innuendo. Is this really okay with any of you?

              I don’t think it’s fair to leave it up to Geir to set the standard and the tone of the interaction here. We’re all responsible as a group for what comes about, including the polarizing that is deliberately set in motion.

              I’m sure at least some of you are sharp enough to get that Chris’ words “true artist” are an allusion to “true believer” – one of the taunts he has repeated scores of times over a period of years now.

              He claims that his purpose is to make sure everyone knows how evil Scientology is. But as I noted on the last thread, he doesn’t bother to carry on this “vitally important mission” on the other blogs where I post the same kinds of comments – as do others. So, obviously, there is no other purpose than that of taunting and heckling on a blog where he is able to get away with it.

              Is this kind of thing really no big deal to any of you, just because you disagree with me about Scientology?

              Since so much was said on this topic in the previous thread, Chris is starting out being more subtle in his covert hostility – which is part of his usual pattern too. And if I just “let it go,” as I usually do for quite a while, he will get more and more bold with the innuendo and polarizing, because there is no objection being made by anyone, not even me.

              I’m just curious if any of you think it should be condoned when a poster continuously harasses another poster. Most of his comments are like the one above – which has nothing to do with what I posted, but he twists it into something to do with Scientology.

            • If you have a way of begging your questions and of chronic use of the “no true Scotsman fallacy” I don’t think you should have a problem with this. I write to what you write. I don’t call you names, acuse you of being evil or psychotic. I ask and write upon what you write. If I need to correct this because of a flaw with my logic or manners, I am willing. But if you want to complain because I point out a weakness in your arguments then I don’t feel I should be censored for that. I think you should argue better. I think that is because I read and understand what you write more carefully than you do what I write.

            • “Most of his comments are like the one above – which has nothing to do with what I posted, but he twists it into something to do with Scientology.”

              When I quote your writing and remark about it, it seems to me it absolutely has to do with what you post. I have not mentioned Scientology, you are. I don’t see how I am being covertly hostile when I am writing plainly for anyone to see.

            • One more time, I remarked on “true artist” and you are bringing up Scientology. Is my evaluation of your tactic not this type of fallacy? Aren’t you trying to persuade using this fallacious logic? Find another way to argue and I won’t have this leverage. Or listen and understand what others write rather than argue.

            • Excellent vid, Marildi. What impressed me, about this first time ‘encounter’, with Rupert, was his grasp of the fluid nature of ‘reality’. As a ‘born’ artist, in my own right, it was ‘easy’ (natural) for me to duplicate (and therefore understand) his presentation, especially that which highlights ‘sensitivity’, as being an essential
              requirement for the delivering of a creation, as envisaged by the artist / creator. Whether from the v/p of a/the Supreme Being, or seemingly that of the ‘humble’ artist, that quality (sensitivity), certainly has a bearing, on how ‘that’ message may/ may not be received. I candidly admit to mostly failing in that regard. :)

              Regarding the actual recorded interplay of the ‘discourse’ between Rupert and his ‘interested’ party, the lengthy comm lags
              and lack of acknowledgements, imho, spoke volumes, in terms of their relative capacities, to just BE there, in the moment, (in PT) and simply ‘duplicate’.— the very essence of ACTUAL communication. :)

            • Thanks, Calvin – so glad you appreciated it. I just watched it again and noted the line that I originally thought most related to the discussion here, which was “A real work of art will cut through all cultural conditioning and will deliver its message.” But what you said about his description of what it takes to be an artist was just as applicable. In other words, at both ends of the “comm cycle” of art – the artist and the “viewer” of the art piece – there is a transcendence of the world of relativity.

              Thanks for the ack. ;) And have a great day!

            • Marildi; — “Thanks, Calvin — so glad you appreciated…

              C. — I’m thrilled to see the ‘old’ Marildi –back!! The one who I know as super sharp, industrious, and doesn’t hesitate to call an ‘out point’ when she see’s it. But the ‘one’ I appreciate the most, is the lady who sends forth, that light of calm and compassion, that I have glimpsed from our limited interaction..

              Life can be just filled with that latter quality, you know, if we simply focus our attention there. :) Pleeeeze, whatever you do though, don’t end up going down that 64 year road I did;
              —Taking myself, others, and life, always toooo seriously?? :)

  4. When I understand that truth is relative, conditioned, and impermanent, then I can understand, “Give me lies I can believe in.”

    This is one centimeter above the playing of the game, and I don’t mean that cynically or negatively.

  5. Mr. Geir Isene, I have a few questions for you, and I hope you will be kind enough to answer. I ask these questions of you respectfully, and I do not intend to mock you for your answers, should you choose to give any. I will understand if you choose not to answer.

    In response to a question from the audience at Flag Down 2014, you answered that you would climb Scientology’s bridge all over again and at the same price. Is that true? And if you would do your bridge all over again, do you really believe it is at a fair cost? I think you said you would pay upwards of $250,000 to go up the bridge again, but please forgive me if I am wrong about that figure.

    And this is for something you can read free on the internet. All copyright claims aside, do you truly believe that the prices demanded in order to move up the bridge are worth the cost? If so, why? Considering that you can read all of the content for free on the internet, would you still pay a quarter of a million dollars to study it?

    Also, can you explain in wog terms what exactly you gained after completing OTVIII in contrast to what you had at OTVII? Can you explain in detail what you gained after completing OTVIII that you did not have before beginning the OT levels at all?

    Thank you.

      • Thank you for your reply. I have read your explanation of the OT levels and I have a few more questions for you, if you don’t mind:

        I read where you say, “It is not a new concept that people are possessed by lesser spirits” as an attempt to guard against criticism. The common “Scientology is just like any other religion” claim. But do you literally believe in Body Thetans, or do you interpret this in an allegorical way? Do you believe it is a fact that 75 million years ago, Lord Xenu blew up a bunch of aliens here on Earth? Do you believe there was a “Marcab Confederacy”?

        And, I’m sorry to switch gears on you here, but I note where you write this:

        Originally LRH thought that completing OT 3 would leave a person free of lesser entities (body thetans). Before the early 80′s those who had completed OT 3 would go on to the old OT levels 4-7 where they would start practicing spiritual abilities such as telepathy and exteriorization (the spirit going outside the body). But Hubbard got the realization that OT 3 was not the end-all of infesting entities.

        By your own admission, Hubbard was wrong about an OT level he released and was forced to add more levels to adjust. Considering that, would you say the levels could be corrected and streamlined rather than added upon? Could the number of levels be boiled down to 3, or 4 or 5? Essentially, what I’m asking is, if you believe Scientology actually works in principle, would it still work in a more concise version? Or do you believe these processes work only in the exact, word-for-word way that LRH described?

        • Jiminy Cricket, you asked: “Do you believe it is a fact that 75 million years ago, Lord Xenu blew up a bunch of aliens here on Earth? Do you believe there was a “Marcab Confederacy”?

          Recently I saw a good answer to that question in a post on the South African Blog. I think the poster was correct. based on what I’ve read about remote viewing. Basically, there may have been some “decoding errors” on the part of LRH, although his basic perception itself was correct – and that’s why the concept works for people on OT III. Here’s the post:

          ——————————–
          MaBű on May 17, 2014 at 11:58 pm said:
          OP: “regardless of whether or not the description of the OT 3 incidents and their consequences is real, I have found that the ‘tech’ of it – the procedure that a person is supposed to do concerning it – works. By that I mean that the procedures produce results.”
          .
          I think a good way to analyze this situation is assuming that, even though LRH detected something real, his description of the OT 3 incidents has “decoding errors” (an idiom used in remote view).
          .
          Decoding errors occur when a remote viewer perceives something that is real at the target, but the description of this perception is not entirely correct. The perception is real, but the description of it is only partially accurate. For example, if someone describes a city with tall skyscrapers as a mountain range, that is a decoding error. The perception is correct in terms of the topology, but the characterization of it as a mountain range is incorrect. Also, if a person places trees or animals in a barren natural landscape, that is a decoding error. The perception of a natural landscape is correct, but the conscious mind added things that it thought would be normal for a natural landscape.

          http://backincomm.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/the-scientology-ot-levels-and-the-state-of-ot/comment-page-1/#comment-8153

          ——————————–

          • Do you honestly believe LRH was able to look 75 million years into the past, and that the only thing he got wrong was his description of what he saw there? I can’t stress enough that I’m not trying to be rude and I’m not trying to mock you. I’m only trying to understand. How can you believe anything like this coming from a Science Fiction writer? I’m paraphrasing someone else’s line here, but if Stephen King suddenly started selling books on how to protect yourself from werewolves, vampires and other monsters, no one would take that seriously. That’s the kinda stuff he invents for a living.

            So, why is it that LRH’s followers discard his work as a science fiction writer and blindly follow his “discoveries” as he is describing an event from 75 million years ago? Or what he wrote about anything that happened on another galaxy? He wrote fictional stories like that by trade, but you’re telling me he managed to discover these things for real later on? He had no scientific proof to back any of this up.

            Did you, as a Scientologist, ever visit another galaxy? Have you ever heard another Scientologist describe their explorations of other galaxies millions of years ago, and did you find anything credible in what they were saying?

            • J.C.: “So, why is it that LRH’s followers discard his work as a science fiction writer and blindly follow his ‘discoveries’ as he is describing an event from 75 million years ago?”

              Only for the simple reason that it works for them – and that it has also worked for quite a few others. People disagree about how or why it works, but some do believe the OT III story is literally true – although not all of those agree that LRH got all the details right, such as the dates, for example.

              I remember one poster stated that she had not yet done OT III or heard anything about the Xenu story (as is usual for those in the CoS), but when she was on the L’s she ran that very incident and even stated the name Xenu to her auditor. Later, when she did OT III, it confirmed for her what she had recalled in the L’s session.

            • Jim, I guess you can call me the resident critic. Others will tell you that with me you are preaching to the choir. This is an unusual OP in that it seems to break ground we didn’t already cover.

              Yup. That space opera isn’t particularly a fun lie for me to believe anymore either, but it used to be. There were other lies I couldn’t believe in more so than the sci fi. Lies like I couldn’t be with my family, or that the future of the human race was more important than my daughter’s education, health, and welfare.

              Then through the years, the rest of the lies weren’t believable anymore either, because they weren’t fun. Placebo at its heart is a lie we can believe in.

              I find it serendipitous that you’ve shown up just now at this moment on this blog.

            • Transactional Analysis categorizes ‘games’ into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree games. In 3rd degree games there is likely to be tissue damage.

              Perhaps we could similarly categorize ‘lies’ according to 3 or 4 degrees of ‘reality’. The most painful ‘lies’ are the lies that are most ‘real’ – where you actually lose an arm, a leg, a job, a house, or family member(s). Kind of a gradient scale of lies…. Or maybe it’s already been done….? :-) But the distinctions are not clearly drawn in the English I learned…..

            • Pinocchio failed to observe that he had observed what he observed. At other times, he failed to observe that he claimed to observe that which he had not observed.

              It’s a good thing you are a word clearer, mar. There are probably a lot of people stuck on that part of that bulletin. Me included.

            • It’s all a matter of which definition for which “observe” is observed, is observed.

              Even more serious, however, is the serendipity that Chris observed. Jiminy Cricket – the conscience of Pinocchio – arrives on the scene on the topic of….lies!

            • I’m a day late and a dollar short as usual. That was my nick-name at one place where I worked….

              Let us not be ‘serious’ about The Cricket! Let us instead Rejoice! For we are perhaps approaching Theta! Is that not the ultimate Source of Serendipity?

            • Well I guess I’ll be hittin’ the hay shortly. It is almost 2 am here and I am working on going to bed earlier than I used to do.

              It was a pleasure wreaking all that reeking havoc with you! And even Chris chimed in, that staid old rascal!

            • Whatever your concept of ‘placebo’ is, I have never been able to align it with any definition of the word I could find. The way you use it, one might as well call your car key a ‘placebo’, but if you tried to use my car key to start your car, I doubt it would work.

            • You say ‘placebo’ out of a stubborn refusal to simply say that postulates work. The fact is, postulates are effective only when a person is able to make effective postulates. Otherwise they don’t work, and neither does ‘placebo’. You placebo guys are still mixed up about cause and effect, IMHO.

              Like that thing about ‘mental constructs’ vis-a-vis ‘actuality’. You blew from those posts in the last thread. There is nothing ‘abstract’ about ‘actuality’. The so-called “church” actually did break up your family. Nothing ‘abstract’ about that! It was not a mental construct you experienced. It really did happen, I am sorry to say. And I am sorry it happened.

              You are perhaps the “valkov-to-come”. But right now I am far more capable of criticizing anyone and everyone here, than you are. It is only out of the kindness of my heart that I often wrefrain from doing so! You are merely the wanna-be.

              Now, separate out the truth from the lies in my post! Before I wreak more! ( Clue: I left something unsaid, above, about your family.)

            • I use the word placebo to mean what happens when you decide a therapy will make you better and your belief makes it so. Is the placebo effect real or is it in your head? Well it is both. I am steering clear of the word postulate for the purpose of not blending it with those who may have the illusion of control and think their postulates can violate natural law. But if you like that word and we are communicating then I don’t care which word you use.

              I don’t know why we high-center (stick) on talking about our experience of the real world. Possibly because we don’t all experience reality the same. When I say abstract, I only mean what you think about what you are experiencing and not whether or not what you are experiencing is real. When I say real I guess I mean what can be measured, weighed, etc.,. Your example of my family problems because of the Sea Org is of course, real. How and what I think about that reality is my abstract. Here’s an example from Viktor Frankl, ““Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” And another, “When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.” Is that better?

              So there are processes going on about us and within us and we are integrated within and without those processes. How we abstract those processes is for me a layer on top of the OP. The OP actually delves deeper. It is the outside look at games. I like how it starts out like a prayer.

            • “Decision” equals “belief”? Don’t know as that’s true for me.

              Processes do go on. Heart beats, sun rises and sets, the Great Lakes turn over every few years…(they actually do) etc.

              I do not believe in the ‘placebo effect’ the way you seem to mean it. I have known too many people with cancer who supposedly ‘believed’, and whose Doctors supposedly believed, the ‘treatments’ would ‘work’, but the cancer grew and the people died anyway.

              My suspicion is the Doctors knew the actual stats about their treatments and were ‘lying’ and the patients actually knew the Docs were lying and felt wholeheartedly the cancer was ‘safe’ from any cure and they were going to die anyway.

              So I think this placebo and belief business is not what it seems.

              Many years ago I quit smoking with no withdrawal symptoms and no problems at all, simply by making a decision. But there was context, and it was a simple decision not involving any ‘treatments’ or outside agencies to believe in.

              One might ‘believe’ that scourging one’s self with a whip everyday will make one ‘better’ in some way, but actually one gets an infection from the raw wounds and dies…. where’s the placebo then? Perhaps that was one’s actual intent the whole time?

              I think the truth is placebo can apply, depending on where one is on the 8008 continuum, so really, substituting ‘placebo’ for some other words is no progress at all. It is a lateral evolution, which is really what virtually all biological evolution is – endless variations on the same themes, with not a transcendence of the same-old same-old among them.

              Whew. That sounds gloomy, doesn’t it?

            • Could be gloomy if we abstract it so, which is really my point. To me, mental and physical are subsets of a larger set – the universe. I don’t know if that is one step or what, I just think everything we know and everything that is, is part of one large system. I don’t even know or care how large that system is, it just seems there is always something larger or smaller.

              I’m not making a case for the power of positive thinking, prosperity Christianity, nor cures for cancer. I’m making a case that we can exercise our minds and we can get control of what we think about, and that we can live happily regardless of our circumstances.

            • If you are not making a case for ‘thinking’, positive or negative or anything in between, then I don’t see the use of the word ‘placebo’ at all.

              “A placebo (/pləˈsiboʊ/ plə-see-boh; Latin placēbō, “I shall please” from placeō, “I please”) is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect.”

              It seems to me you need a different word.

            • “It seems to me you need a different word.”

              Placebo doesn’t alter what is real or physical, it alters what is held in place by thought, by mental attitude. If Marildi’s statistic is valid, then about 30% of physical ailments are held in place by attitude, mental construct, however you want to say it. Then there are the peripheral complaints to the real organic ailment. My tinitus began bothering me a few years ago to the point where my anxiety about was rev’ing up. I sat myself down a few times and through looking at my complaint enough I was able to reason out that the tinitus was not a problem with my hearing exactly and that I could hear pretty good. So after that, I stopped listening to the cicadas” in my head and I have not had further trouble with the tinitus. Is the buzzing still there? Yes. But I do not need to pay attention to it as that part of it is under my control. This is one layer more than placebo, but you get my meaning?

            • I guess we’re not on the same page here. Medicos themselves include actual physical changes(cures, remissions, etc) sometimes resulting from administering ‘placebos’, not just ‘changes of attitude’ towards ‘unchangeable’ physically ‘real’ conditions.

            • Chris,
              “”Statistically, placebo and nocebo have a measurable effect. Why is this?”
              if I may put in 2cents?
              It is the belief that allows to happen that cure and nothing more: if I will believe in something now 100% because same or similar has happened before that same idea given now will work because I remembered subconsciously that it has worked before.

            • Yes, that’s what I am saying. But what about Marildi’s 70% that has no effect? What about their belief? I have to think that taking a sugar pill for a broken leg will not mend it. On the other hand, IF Marildi’s 30% have an ailment held in place by a consideration, and IF they believe in the placebo, then I believe they would experience a good effect from that.

            • “But what about Marildi’s 70% that has no effect? What about their belief?”

              Because it’s a probabilistic statistical reality, as per the above video..

              Note – what the interviewer refers to as “part 2″ is actually Part 4 of the whole series. By “part 2″ he means the second part of this particular interview of the series. So here’s “part 2″ the continuation of the above interview, in which he talks more about quantum physics, etc..

            • Hehehe so they have surveyed too many people who don’t have a belief in that. so they gotten 70%. But who takes placebo for broken leg? maybe to kill the pain.. that I can see, but to heal the bone… well I am not on expert on these. The bone will heal no matter what because we do have that basic belief in place already.

            • A sugar pill may not heal a broken leg however it may act as an ‘assist’ and speed the healing, just as other kinds of ‘assists’ do.

              The other angle is that ALL injuries contain a consideration that there is an injury in existence. If this consideration is removed and replaced by the consideration that no injury exists, or some such, then the injury will likely heal faster, yes?

              So my point is that replaced a word such as postulate or consideration by a word such as ‘placebo’ is pointless, unless it describes specific considerations, so why are e bothering?

              LRH described it all decades ago. Saying ‘placebo’ does not add any new information at all about the mechanics of how it all works.

            • “Statistically, placebo and nocebo have a measurable effect. Why is this?”

              I’ll throw my 2 cents into the pot (sorry about the mixed metaphor :) ).

              The answer is that basically, we live in a probabilistic reality, proven by quantum physics. Watch the last few minutes of this video from about 16:30. Or the whole 20 minutes if that much is too condensed.

            • But what we are talking about is precisely the alteration of ‘real, physical’ things and conditions.

              “A placebo (/pləˈsiboʊ/ plə-see-boh; Latin placēbō, “I shall please” from placeō, “I please”) is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient. Sometimes patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived OR ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT IN A MEDICAL CONDITION, a phenomenon commonly called the placebo effect.”

              When Geir, for instance, talks about ‘placebo’ I believe he is referring to something quite different from what you mean – he is stating his belief that basically ALL ‘effects’ are the result of a person’s ‘belief’ or ‘postulate’ in a fundamental sense.

            • “When Geir, for instance, talks about ‘placebo’ I believe he is referring to something quite different from what you mean – he is stating his belief that basically ALL ‘effects’ are the result of a person’s ‘belief’ or ‘postulate’ in a fundamental sense.”

              Maybe. I’ll let him answer that. What I believe is that what you experience belongs to you alone. Our free will seems to extend not very far beyond that. If I get control of that, of my ability to experience, and I develop the intuition to estimate and moderate the types of effects that I create, I will have become all the OT I can be. ( I am eating last night’s banana split that I found in the freezer as I write that. Sweet.)

            • According to me, there are 3 things that can happen here: I experience something. Then, I can make a facsimile of it, knowingly or unknowingly(automaticity), or I can develop some kind of ‘abstract’ or ‘mental construct’ of it, and then view this construct if I can ‘remember’ it. I use the words here to differentiate between degrees of immediacy, or ‘degrees of separation from’. This means how much ‘via’ is involved.
              My main point is that what I experience can be immediate, not a ‘mental construct’ of any kind, unless you view or define ALL experience as a ‘mental construct’. I am not of that school. In fact, I don’t really involve myself in looking at all these differentiations very deeply at all, as perhaps someone like Vinnie does.

            • J..C… when you get auditing and the most difficult concept is to understand that what we see in session HAS BEEN REAL, It was not just on imagination. that it has happened!!
              It has taken me more than few sessions going back on the track to believe in that, yes it has happened!
              We all have, we all live in different Universes…what is true for one person because it has happened to that person, that is not necessarily true real for me. This is a very very big Universe and we have lived in many different planets. Our experiences can be very different.

          • I, on the other hand, believe LRH was on drugs and “dubbed in” Xenu when he stopped by Lisbon on his way to the Canary Islands (Xenu being the name of a part of Lisbon). OT 3 works because of placebo and strongly so because the person starts doing some real mental gymnastics – and we know training and gymnastics to produce great results.

        • Your question reveals that you did not actually read my explanations fully as linked.

          But I will reiterate in brief: No, I do not believe in body thetans. Or Xenu. Or the Marcabians. And – I believe anything will work as long as the subject strongly believe it will. Some things are easier to believe, though – especially regimens that smacks of science, that has strong structure, cost a lot in blood and sweat and money and where everyone around you are throughly convinced. Like the peak of Christianity, or Buddhism in Tibet, or Scientology in the bubble, or… a lot of other stuff.

        • JC: “By your own admission, Hubbard was wrong about an OT level he released and was forced to add more levels to adjust. Considering that, would you say the levels could be corrected and streamlined rather than added upon? Could the number of levels be boiled down to 3, or 4 or 5? Essentially, what I’m asking is, if you believe Scientology actually works in principle, would it still work in a more concise version? Or do you believe these processes work only in the exact, word-for-word way that LRH described?”

          Me: 1) Either or is fine – or something entirely different and better and more efficient. 2) Sure, like OT 2, OT 5/6/7, OT 8. 3) Perhaps. 4) Certainly not.

          • Usually what I hear from ex-members or indies is that the parts of Scientology that worked for them were related to the basic concepts of Dianetics. The 1-on-1 auditing, mostly. This is easily understandable, as it’s basically a form of talk therapy. It can be exhilarating to get something off your chest and to talk about your troubles with another human being–with or without an a-meter.

            Originally, people were allowed and even encouraged to simply read a copy of Dianetics and use it for therapy with a willing participant. You weren’t required to be a member of any group or to pay exorbitant sums of money for auditing in any specific building. Hubbard himself recommended this. Does this not work today? If one had a checklist of questions to ask and knew how to read and properly record the needle fluctuations on an e-meter, would this not be adequate auditing?

            You speak of placebos and “lies we can believe in,” but why are the lies necessary to the process of auditing? Why should anyone be required to pay to hear a space opera about a galactic tyrant from a distant galaxy millions of years ago for auditing to work? If it really works, it should work without having any additional nonsense attached to it.

            And seeing as engrams are so central to Scientology, how can anyone justify the fact that Hubbard is blatantly lying to them? Is being lied to a good experience or is it a bad, engram-causing experience? Does it not implant an entirely new engram in your mind?

            • JC you are asking many intelligent questions but really if you were more familiar with the basic concepts of scientology the answers are obvious. LRH spoke/wrote a lot about truth/lies and many other dichotomies.

              Actually Ken Wilbur did too, as in his book “A Brief History of Everything”, I believe it is called. LRH lectures from the mid 1950s, like The Phoenix Lectures, cover a lot of this ground. Some of those were published in a book of the same name (The Phoenix Lectures), which interestingly enough, I understand the Church itself no longer sells. You can probably pick up a copy cheap through Amazon.

              As for a list of questions to use, those do exist, and they can be done with or without an emeter by any 2 interested people, or even by one person alone without any meter. I say ‘those’ because there are a number of lists and they are all contained in a book titled “Self-analysis”, along with the instructions for using them. It can be more fun to do them with another or others, round-robin style. No ‘church’ fees, records, or administration required or ‘organization’ required! Again, you can find this through Amazon for a few bucks.

              Additionally, many of LRH’s ‘group processing’ sessions were recorded and you can find these online or on CD, but they are usually part of sets of lectures. But perhaps searching for something like “scientology group processing” (Cds or ‘downloads’) might yield some up.

              Anyway, unlike Geir, you can see I have no reluctance to ‘telling someone where to go’ to find specific materials, if I know where.

              I am married to a librarian and I think I have a bit of reference librarian in me by nature anyway.

            • Hi Jim,

              If I may interject my opinion, at this moment, on this OP and at this time, not as a panacea, but as a simple and deep commentary on the human experience, we live-lives of abstraction. In this sense, by abstraction, I’m saying, “What do you make of it?” as in, “What do you make it out to be?” And the reason I put it out like that is because all you’re ever gonna have and all you are ever going to know is, “What you make it out to be.” It is existential. It is not elaborately beautiful, but it is beautiful in its simplicity, if you like simplicity.

              “A lie we can believe in” is not meant as a negative nor is it particularly talking about lying. It means that we lives lives of abstraction. My abstraction is not your abstraction, etc.,. It’s just my look at what is turning out to be an unusual OP.

              So spend your time enjoying your time. As my wife says, “Have a good time, all the time.” That’s all that ever really belongs to us. ~ Chris

            • Hi Jiminy Cricket. Intriguing questions asked of Geir. I have followed the ‘thread’. through from your ‘arrival’, to present comments. It is interesting that you have given no background, whatsoever, on yourself, up to this point. Does your choice of ‘monicker’, ‘Jiminy Cricket’ (JC), have any bearing on your anonymity, I wonder? :)

              –Now to my point: Your comment above — …..”how can anyone justify the fact that Hubbard is blatantly lying to them? Is being lied to a good experience or is it a bad, engram-causing experience? Does it not implant an entirely new engram in your mind?”

              One it tempted to now ask you: Was ‘being lied to’, about ‘Father Christmas’, ‘the Tooth Fairy’, ‘The Bogey man’, –or any other “lies that one can/could believe in”, anything necessarily ‘sinister’, in intent? –(and yes, the ‘intender’, would certainly have relevance, as to whether they sincerely wished to assist (HELP) or to harm, here.) (Do not Geir’s results, speak for themselves?)

              You then go on to ask: “Does it not implant an entirely new engram in your mind?” — I ask whether you have an accurate definition of the term, ‘engram’, as the basis of you question?

              Perhaps, ‘Jiminy Cricket’, you would be now prepared to grace us with some answers of your own?? :)

              Sincerely,

              Calvin B.Duffield Durban, South Africa.

  6. Interested, Chris? Hardly. The interminable slanging matches that have managed to fixate mostly only two participants (opponents) at a time, on this blog, (as well as many others, btw,) seldom hold much interest for said readers and posters, for any length of time, in my honest opinion. .

    The simple recognition in/of allowing the “participating other”, to just “be right”, according to their view/stand point, is ignored completely, in favor of the ongoing fixated game. of ‘proving the other wrong’.

    This cluster of ‘fixations’, (imo), makes more of a statement on the pertinent ‘sanity’ of the fixation/s, as held by the participants.

    That is simply to say, if we wish to participate in ‘discussions’,
    we need to keep in mind, the simple SANE formula of communication. ie, An acknowledgement is actually and END/ COMPLETION, to a cycle of communication.

    Chris, we ALL get caught up in/carried away, with the above ‘fixation/s’ from time to time, since the heat generated, seems to compromise any sense to it. But at the end of the day, bro’, for the sake of ‘sanity’, we do better by just ‘letting it go’.

    Does that answer satisfy, bro’ ?? :)

  7. M:“Geir, I think you should clarify whether or not you would do it all again at the current time, and in the Church of Scientology.”

    CT:”Why is this very important? Isn’t it more important what you think you would do about all this from this point forward?”

    Chris, there are times, like with this reply, that I see you manifesting a valence of protector to “Simon Bolivar”. I don’t think Geir needs your protection and he has said as much in earlier postings, so unless he solicits help, let him fight his own battles.

    As for your relative truth conflict with Marildi, she wrote:

    “And I would say that games can be played best when both relative and fundamental truths are acknowledged and experienced.”

    If you look at the metaphor Geir was playing with (acceptable lies), what M. wrote is a philosophical extension of “acceptable lies”.

    Those of the Scientology persuasion might even see a bit of a smile behind the “acceptable lies” metaphor and rush out with the applicable axioms.

    I believe that right now we are playing within the framework of relative truths that were created on a framework of basic truths.

    To put this as simply as possible, the physical laws of the physical universe are true within observational limits within our observable universe. They are relative truths. But that is no different from saying that the laws of football are true within a football playing field. Yet in another stadium a different game with different rules may be played. Different relative truths with at least one common, fundamental truth: we like games.

    Another common thing is that we, the willing audience, immerse ourselves into one of these playing fields and participate in the game by suspending belief about the true (un)importance of the game. Is the game important or unimportant? To any particular participant (player or observer) it may be either or neither.

    By now you probably see that I’m simply getting around to us beings as players in bodies where the actual lie about the actual reality of a body is made a relative truth by its perceived duration – that being a lifetime. But it makes for a game.

    On your way out of the stadium, please take the stairway marked “6 FEET UNDER” and turn out the lights on your way. In the meantime, enjoy the acceptable lies.

  8. Hi Marianne. Thanks for the warm welcome.

    MT:”……where is the ‘lie’ in it from then on when one knows in experience that it starts from Source, one is a ‘spirit’ and now uses a ‘mind’ and a body?”

    I would think that “…when one knows in experience that it starts from Source” one may have a strong inkling – a strong idea – of a fundamental truth but until one is just the Source with no connection to this game, then one is still contributing to the acceptable lie.

    When you’re stuck in the game, repeating “I’m not in the game… I’m not in the game.” doesn’t take you out of the game. Getting out of the game likely requires really knowing all the rules of the game – both the published rules and the unpublished rules. Knowing about the rule book is not the same as knowing the rule book.

  9. Before we stultify ourselves, here is a song from a much underappreciated genius singer/songwriter named Tim Buckley. He died at 28. This song is about his first marriage and first child, which he could not handle and walked away from…..

  10. Reflections in a Crystal Wind

    If there’s a way to say I’m sorry
    Perhaps I’ll stay another evening
    Beside your door, and watch the moon rise
    Inside your window, where jewels are falling
    And flowers weeping, and strangers laughing
    Because you’re dreaming that I have gone

    And if I don’t know why I’m going
    Perhaps I’ll wait beside the pathway
    If there’s a way to say I’m sorry
    Perhaps I’ll stay another evening
    Beside your door, and watch the moon rise
    Inside your window, where jewels are falling
    And flowers weeping, and strangers laughing
    Because you’re dreaming that I have gone

    And if I don’t know why I’m going
    Perhaps I’ll wait beside the pathway
    Where no one’s coming, and count the questions
    I turned away from, or closed my eyes to
    Or had no time for, or passed right over
    Because the answers would shame my pride

    I’ve hear them say the word forever
    But I don’t know if words have meaning
    When they are promised in fear of losing
    What can’t be borrowed, or lent in blindness
    Or blessed by pageantry, or sold by preachers
    While we’re still walking our separate ways

    Sometime we bind ourselves together
    And seldom know the harm in binding
    The only feeling that cries for freedom
    And needs unfolding, and understanding
    And time for holding a simple mirror
    With one reflection to call your own

    If there’s an end to all our dreaming
    Perhaps I’ll go while you’re still standing
    Beside your door, and I’ll remember
    Your hands encircling a bowl of moonstones
    A lamp of childhood, a robe of roses
    Because your sorrows were still unborn

  11. well I botched that in the copy/pasting…..

    Reflections in a Crystal Wind

    If there’s a way to say I’m sorry
    Perhaps I’ll stay another evening
    Beside your door, and watch the moon rise
    Inside your window, where jewels are falling
    And flowers weeping, and strangers laughing
    Because you’re dreaming that I have gone

    And if I don’t know why I’m going
    Perhaps I’ll wait beside the pathway
    Where no one’s coming, and count the questions
    I turned away from, or closed my eyes to
    Or had no time for, or passed right over
    Because the answers would shame my pride

    I’ve hear them say the word forever
    But I don’t know if words have meaning
    When they are promised in fear of losing
    What can’t be borrowed, or lent in blindness
    Or blessed by pageantry, or sold by preachers
    While we’re still walking our separate ways

    Sometime we bind ourselves together
    And seldom know the harm in binding
    The only feeling that cries for freedom
    And needs unfolding, and understanding
    And time for holding a simple mirror
    With one reflection to call your own

    If there’s an end to all our dreaming
    Perhaps I’ll go while you’re still standing
    Beside your door, and I’ll remember
    Your hands encircling a bowl of moonstones
    A lamp of childhood, a robe of roses
    Because your sorrows were still unborn

    • Hey Val, these poetic lyrics and you talking about being an old man reminded me of this wonderful story:

      “When an old lady died in the geriatric ward of a small hospital near Dundee, Scotland, it was felt that she had nothing left of any value. Later, when the nurses were going through her meager possessions, they found this poem. Its quality and content so impressed the staff that copies were made and distributed to every nurse in the hospital. One nurse took her copy to Ireland. The old lady’s sole bequest to posterity has since appeared in the Christmas edition of the News Magazine of the North Ireland Association for Mental Health.

      “… And now this little old Scottish lady, with nothing left to give to the world, is now the author of this simple, yet eloquent, poem traveling the world by Internet. Goes to show that we all leave “SOME footprints in time”…

      —————————————

      “An Old Lady’s Poem”

      What do you see, nurses, what do you see?
      What are you thinking when you’re looking at me?
      A crabby old woman, not very wise,
      Uncertain of habit, with faraway eyes?
      Who dribbles her food and makes no reply
      When you say in a loud voice, “I do wish you’d try!”
      Who seems not to notice the things that you do,
      And forever is losing a stocking or shoe…..
      Who, resisting or not, lets you do as you will,
      With bathing and feeding, the long day to fill….
      Is that what you’re thinking? Is that what you see?
      Then open your eyes, nurse; you’re not looking at me.

      I’ll tell you who I am as I sit here so still,
      As I do at your bidding, as I eat at your will.
      I’m a small child of ten …with a father and mother,
      Brothers and sisters, who love one another.
      A young girl of sixteen, with wings on her feet,
      Dreaming that soon now a lover she’ll meet.
      A bride soon at twenty — my heart gives a leap,
      Remembering the vows that I promised to keep.
      At twenty-five now, I have young of my own,
      Who need me to guide and a secure happy home.
      A woman of thirty, my young now grown fast,
      Bound to each other with ties that should last.
      At forty, my young sons have grown and are gone,
      But my man’s beside me to see I don’t mourn.
      At fifty once more, babies play round my knee,
      Again we know children, my loved one and me.
      Dark days are upon me, my husband is dead;
      I look at the future, I shudder with dread.
      For my young are all rearing young of their own,
      And I think of the years and the love that I’ve known.

      I’m now an old woman …and nature is cruel;
      ‘Tis jest to make old age look like a fool.
      The body, it crumbles, grace and vigor depart,
      There is now a stone where I once had a heart.
      But inside this old carcass a young girl still dwells,
      And now and again my battered heart swells.
      I remember the joys, I remember the pain,
      And I’m loving and living life over again.
      I think of the years ….all too few, gone too fast,
      And accept the stark fact that nothing can last.

      So open your eyes, nurses, open and see,
      …Not a crabby old woman; look closer …see ME!!

      • M… PS: it happens, the above to those who believe that they have one life only and they are the body..that they die with the body..
        and sadly to those too who know about auditing, who know that sooner or later the ”mind” will shut off, one will have less and less here as one’s purpose is lived become a memory and even those pictures of the past will fade and will vanish… yet they do not see the same will be their faith too… because the considerations they have about being a human contains those same commands which will make it happen for them too same as for that old lady..
        I see the same with my older sister who will be 77 in few weeks time. She lives the above poem.. that is her life now.. and I who have become free of those boundaries what makes the human a human. I on the other hand have a rich full life with total recall, and the knowledge that death do not exist nor old age and this life held only much value as I considered it had… there is no loss…
        Auditing has value which one takes when leaving the body.

      • I visit a fabulous craniosacral therapist named Karen weekly. She had a friend who died of cancer. The friend was REALLY pissed at getting this ‘disease’, as she had just gotten her life around to EXACTLY how she wanted it to be, and was really looking forward to living, and suddenly she was dying. About 2-3 days before sge passed, she had a dream: She was near or in water, and a bottle came to her with a message for her. She did not want it, and kept pushing it away, but it kept coming back. Finally she opened it and read the message, which simply said “I love you.” This pissed her off even more and she put it back in the bottle and threw it as far away as possible and it was gone. Then from the horizon came more bottles, thousands of them, tens, hundreds of thousands of them! And each one carried the message – “I love you”.
        Karen saw her the next day and she told Karen “Everything, EVERYTHING, you have is worth nothing! None of it, none of it, is worth anything!”
        Karen said her friend’s eyes were so bright they filled the room with light, and she was completely happy. She passed quickly after that.

        • I LOVE that story. :)

          It reminds me of what they say would happen if we knew the world was about to end – people would call up everyone they knew to tell them they loved them. :( :)

          Along these same lines is a little story about Aldous Huxley told by a friend of his. They were together on a lecture tour and on their way to the next city for the next lecture, Huxley said to the friend that he had to confess something – which was that after all these years there was only one thing he had learned. And when the friend asked what it was, Huxley said “to be kind to one another.”

    • Oh well, can’t seem to get the lyrics quite right…. The last line of the 3rd verse should be “While you’re still walking your separate way”.

      Darn lyrics sites, they sometimes just don’t get them all right……

      Is there a way to edit one’s own posts on these blogs?

  12. …i have always loved this vid by Geir but only now do i have AN
    answer to the Why: each instant one is creating life, one is giving and getting a possibility to feel, understand, love and live that creation….the number of what can be created and experienced
    looks to be infinite…
    so one’s task is to create life to the best of one’s skills…and as
    one is getting better and better at practising skills, one is contributing more and more to what can be felt, understood, loved
    and lived….

  13. Practising skills means doingness, which is livingness and also
    change which brings about more doingness, more livingness….
    here is an interesting vid of doingness-livingness as a flow-like
    experience…

  14. Let’s wake up Geir’s place.

    This is gem of writing that I ran across recently. It is “How to Make Our Ideas Clear” written in 1878 by Charles S. Peirce

    http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html

    This shows how Hubbard’s word-clearing falls short of mark because it depends entirely on definitions provided by authority. Word Clearing is not designed to question the definitions themselves in light of new facts of observation.

    .

  15. No discussion being allowed is a completely different objection than your objection to word clearing as such. And the objection to no discussion being allowed is a point I’ve made myself.

    If you’re just trying to make the point that we should be allowed to disagree about things in Scientology, I would concur. But word clearing itself has its place.

      • Your original statement was “This shows how Hubbard’s word-clearing falls short of mark because it depends entirely on definitions provided by authority.”

        As I’ve explained, word clearing doesn’t fall short of the mark in terms of its purpose. You have tried to assign it another purpose and there was no “filter” in my pointing that out.

        And I was a Flag Word Clearer too. :P

        • Fine job all round, Marildi. No invalidations, snide remarks, or serfacs employed, or even necessary.

          To be completely honest, I don’t think those tactics are ever necessary, if one is simply ‘in present time’ and fully willing to ‘duplicate’ and ‘grant beingness’, to the involved other. In which case, there would be no need for a ‘filter’, now would there?

          And as you have often made clear, It’s entirely possible to have fun, with anyone, without having to resort to the perceived ‘safety’ of the 1.1 refuge, wouldn’t you agree?

          Another ‘observation’ ( lol ) if you will? Who the hell ‘needs’ all the baggage of lugging around the above mentioned mental bric-a-brac, or ‘case’, unless it is serving the purpose of continuing a game of some kind?

          I prefer to be alert in the actual physical environment in which I am, at any given moment (in PT). This gives huge and obvious advantages, when compared to those that can’t/wont.

          Call it the working attitude of the ‘bodyguard’, if you will, but I find it is the only effective way to perceive threats of real danger, so as to act decisively if one expects to avoid becoming a needless victim, or worse, a ‘statistic’.

          And what to do?… the rest of the time when we aren’t ‘working’ / slogging / creating / learning (bumping our hedz) / comm’ing /
          (living & loving ) ???

          ….. Just one more thing really makes it ALL worthwhile (imho)

          —The incredible ‘lightness of being’ — a sense of humor! :)

          — ‘Laughter’, …. STILL the very best medicine for that life long malady called ‘LIFE”. :)

          • Now C.. if you would reread your above post.. would realise you have done nothing more than judge, evaluate., how things should be, expressing the optimum.. what would be the optimum acceptable by your standard everything other than your reality would be what?
            just putting in my nickel here, cant be 2cent since Canada no longer use copper cents.
            We have nickel, dime, loony that is $1 and twony that is $2 etc..

            • Yes, Racer, “duplication” came to my mind too. That baby had obviously listened to Elvis many times, and watched him on video. But here’s the thing – her duplication wasn’t just a matter of mimicking, like a robot. You could tell that the emotion in the music had REACHED her as a being. This is the subject of art again, as being one of the ways we communicate on a non-physical level. And a way we PERCEIVE things that aren’t physical – so I agree with you about “perception” and “awareness” being evident too.

              This might all be too “woo woo” for Vinnie, though. ;)

              Just kidding, Vin, I know from some of your posts that music reaches you too. On the other hand, from various things you write, I get that you have reduced everything – which would include music or other art – to a matter of interacting physical forces. Correct me if I’m wrong. ;)

            • Well, Marildi, the person in the picture ( ‘a baby’ ) is one SUPER aware being, as I saw her! Her comm cycle, including lots of letting Daddy know that he is definitely her number one, plus her ability to focus on what and ‘how’ Elvis was singing and making his moves (lots of mimicked head nods and a “whole lot ‘a shakin’ goin’ on”), was just too cute for words :) What mostly fascinated me was her obvious pauses, showing she was quite transfixed, while absorbing El’s performance. Just an amazing thing to witness. Even my own two daughters, who grew up with their music constantly filling their bedrooms, (and of course knew the songs off by heart, LOL,) never struck me as having THAT degree of focus and intent…. and they really only got into it way after leaving ‘ toddlerhood’. Kids seem to be surprising us more & more, with what ‘they’ are capable of learning I’m sure it all boils down to tons & tons of love, stimulation and generous high toned communication all around them! … (ps I KNOW it does!) :)

            • Bingo! One does not actually NEED a ‘reason’ to laugh, E..
              any more than one NEEDS ‘needs’ to evaluate, judge, etc.

              One simply ‘laughs’ without needing any motivation of any kind.
              ..it’s not necessarily an appropriate / inappropriate / crazy / comedic response either! It’s just simply an outflow of ‘energy’ which happens to let a person feel better after, then before! :)

            • My favorite comedians were and they still are Red Skeleton, than Terry Thomas.. They have had the energy flow which matched what they were saying. Their enery-space was pure delight, sparkles of creative energy, which tickled every sense like bubbles of fine champagne tickles the nose. they were fun.. exuded laughter spread joy with those innocent meaningless jokes . that was real …
              You don’t know me, therefore you cant possibly know what I think is fun, what makes me laugh. But you believe the person only have fun if doing the same as you.. C….”One simply ‘laughs’ without needing any motivation of any kind.”” go for it.. good for you.. I just feel what I feel and that feeling do not need to be expressed with hardy-hardy haahaahaa to show the world I feel good. So let it ride. please.

            • …yeah, we cannot possibly know what another finds fun…i have
              just listened to this music and i like it….yeah, i put here another
              one too…maybe some of you haven’t heard them yet and will
              also like them and thus we can share the fun…thank you Geir
              for giving us your Place that we can do it!….waiting for yor next
              post!

            • My deah E! Kindly perish the thought. I not only acknowledge your inalienable ‘right’, to feel, reject, decry, attack, obliterate, insult, stomp on, puke on?, retaliate upon, hehehe upon, etc, etc,- but listen up, dear fellow traveler / dweller (upon this orbiting planet we SHARE!!! (please note –grrrrr!) — If anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, so much as even d-a-r-e-s, to interfere with your reserved right & entitlement – then I will personally track them down, to show up quite unexpectedly on their door step! I will then proceed to physically drag them off to my awaiting ‘race-tuned’ motorcycle, and tie them onto the pillion with heavy duty restraints. Next, I shall strap onto him/her/it, a full face helmet with built in speakers wired to my on-board sound system. Does this seem like an appropriate setting for punishment? No?

              Wait, E…. this gets better — ha!

              You need to understand this, E! I’m not only faaaar from ‘normal’, in fact, by normal standards, I could be considered completely INSANE. Please allow me to spell out to you, — why?

              The ‘upsetter’ unsettler, of ‘E’, will need some ‘unsettling’ of their own, as completely ‘just retribution’, as far as I’m concerned. You see,(E) — when provoked incessantly, ‘C’ — just snaps! (crack!!!!)
              (that simply translates to — DON’T MESS with my mates, bub!)

              Okay, so back to the ‘retribution’ — delivered ‘C’s’ style, as only he knows how. (hehehe, to paraphrase ‘E’ hee hee!)

              Fire up our four-cylinder Yamaha R6 (top race tuned speed 295 kmph, @ 18,000 rpm). Now all kitted up, complete with our erstwhile ‘passenger’, we set off nice & ‘sedately’, flipping through the six-speed gearbox, with the wild gyrations and nervous flailing of hands, and strangle gurgling shrieks now barely audible, above the buffeting wind and the sweet sound of a race engine on full song. Ahhhhh yesssss, E. — you just have to experience that sensation, to know ‘heaven’ -(LOL)

              Oh, and what about the ‘passenger’, you ask? Well, ‘E’, you see, I don’t particularly care! I just know by now, that he/she/it, is completely frozen in abject ‘fear’, as I drop into a wide left hand bend at about 220 (on the clock) on the quiet stretch of one of my favorite open roads, where one is free to open ‘er up! (Oh, and that’s one of the’slower bends’), where we can then accelerate out of 4th gear to scream up to maximum speed on the completely open main straight of around 5kms, in top (6th) gear! Hehehe!

              Even better, I push ‘play’ on the bike’s sound system, to let rip on a ponderous mix of Freddie Mercury’s ‘We are the Champions’, interspersed with some selected audios of LRH’s M/U inducing lectures, COB’ s painful, monotonous ramblings, a clip uf der Fuhrer ranting about ‘Mein Kamphh’ , and an orated selection of both Alanzo’s and Vinnie’s more irritating postings.

              (Please Note, ‘E’ that I hear NONE of this ‘stuff’, at all… since it has been especially prepared and served through the head set of ‘THE PASSENGER’ )(The one, remember, who d-a-r-e-d to upset one of my ‘friends’.) (the best parts, E?– Well, they CAN’T shut off the audio, they CAN’T jump off the motorcycle and they CAN’T
              get me to slow down either!! hehehe ) –you like that, ‘E’ ??

              After a session of this ‘retribution’- I can assure you, (as only an adrenalin-junkie would know how! LOL) that our now nerve-shattered ‘passenger’, is then unceremoniously and literally ‘dropped off’ back home, in a now uncontrollable state of trembling and shaking, with eyes wide, mouth frozen in a ‘silent scream’, and ready for a nervous breakdown! HEHEHE!

              (I’ll let you have your leg back, to take a break now, Okay) :)

              (BTW, Red Skelton? Plenty of skits of him available, anytime on the ‘net….. Anytime that is, that you ‘FEEL’ the need ?)

              –C.

  16. Here is the MODEL OF REALITY that is coming into focus on Vinaire’s Blog:

    “Reality is essentially what is there, but the personal filters may distort it. However, filters are also part of the reality and so is the observer.

    “What is not part of the reality, I don’t know. So, it all boils down to understanding the nature of the infinite variations that reality presents, and building a model for this reality.

    “This model is coming into focus in terms of a filter separating the observed from the observer. The filter modulates how the observer observes the observed. But when the filter is gone then the observed and observer are gone too. In a sense, the very existence of the observed and the observer depends on the existence of the filter.

    “So, this is the wonderful reality made of observed, filter and the observer.”

    http://vinaire.me/2014/06/02/william-james-american-philosopher/#comment-23118

    .

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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