It dawned on me a while ago that I could not come up with an example of any quality that could not be satisfactorily expressed in some quantities. I was a bit puzzled by this, but other interests grabbed my attention and so I let it go. Today a stray thought led me to this question once more: Is there actually such a thing as a quality that cannot be otherwise expressed as a set of quantities?
And here’s a very cool Hugh:
240 thoughts on “Quality versus Quantity”
But can you feel the amount of theta?
yes, when not buried under quantity of Mest and using Mest as a disguise. .
Victoria theta can not be be a feeling the theta can”feel” that is on addition long as one has the body, or belongs in MEST, wedged in from all sides, the theta alway connected or experiences while in the MEST. If there is a amount of something than that is created first it can be measured than judged by saying it has quality. Quality and quantaty is MEST. Even in the moment of cognition the theta experiences the power wich erases the matter even that “pure” power and that is the pure-est form in the universe has quantaty and quality since it was created. Only the creater can not be measured. The Infinite.
Elizabeth, what you say makes sense. Experience can only be done in the MEST universe, which is composed of only quantities. And those quantities may have qualities assigned to them which are simply considerations (evaluations/judgments). Wow, there we have the physical universe (quantities) and the thought universe of considerations (qualities). Those considerations also have wave length (quantity) but are finer, higher waves than those of the physical universe and thus are not part of the physical universe – and that seems to be the key difference between quantity and quality.
And I would add that those wave lengths of thought can interact with the wave lengths of other thought as well as the physical universe wave lengths of energies and matter, and in that sense, at least, might be considered to be “in” or “part of” the physical universe. They are definitely composed of matter, energy, space and time and in that sense are part of “the overall, broader MEST universe”.
I think any wavelength by definition is MEST (wave = energy, length = space, travel = time).
“I think any wavelength by definition is MEST (wave = energy, length = space, travel = time).”
I meant exactly that where I said thoughts “are definitely composed of matter, energy, space and time and in that sense are part of ‘the overall, broader MEST universe.'”
Since the term “MEST universe,” by definition, does not include the energy of thoughts/considerations (or any other energies not so-called physical universe energy) I was using the term physical universe for MEST UNIVERSE (to avoid confusion) and “the overall, broader MEST universe” to include all M-E-S-T. “MEST universe” seems to actually be a misnomer (like theta universe, IMO).
P.S. Now that I think of it I guess matter wouldn’t be a component of thoughts, but in the mind as a whole there are mental masses and, again, the mind itself fits into “the greater MEST universe.” (MEST universe magnus? MEST universe grandia? Major vs. Minor? We need some new terminology for the Scientolgy-inspired New Thinkers. ;-))
Thetan has no quality it is intengible infinite, MEST in any form shape has quality, therefore can be quantity
Or therefore IS quantity. I can still not see any manifested quality that cannot be BETTER expressed in quantities.
“Or therefore IS quantity. I can still not see any manifested quality that cannot be BETTER expressed in quantities.”
Explain a bit more what you mean by ” . . . BETTER expressed in quantities.” I surely do not understand this statement.
For example, statistics have both quality and quantity. Is the statistic QUANTITY better or more important than the QUALITY? In this example, both are necessary for VALUE.
I see any claim of “quality” to any thing/manifestation as a generality because the underlying quantities are not clearly described. Like; “That is a strong quality blue” – can be better described by the luminosity at various wavelengths. Or; “That car has a high quality finish” – can be better described by the actual smoothness of the finish, the molecular structure of the outer layers, the distribution and luminosity of wavelength of the car paint.
You say a manifested quality is “better expressed in quantities.” I think it depends on what you mean by “better.” Yes, better in terms of a more objectively precise description of some manifested quality (now a quantity). But there also exists amongst us a lot of interest in someone’s value judgment about it – which is obviously expressed in terms of quality. So when Chris describes her blue eyes as “475nm eyes” she may feel it doesn’t communicate “specifically” and “precisely” that he thinks that exact color is beautiful – which for her would be a much “better” description. So I guess it depends on the opinions of those involved as to whether it’s “better” quantitatively or qualitatively.
But the vast majority of the time, a description that is completely precise quantitatively is probably neither needed nor desired and would be pointlessly pedantic! (Even though it might at times be a lot of fun or interesting in and of itself.) Anyway, I’m pretty you’re just making a point, which I do get. (But just in case… :-))
But even the value judgment is better described when quantized – as in how much better looking? Compared to Lisa? Or how much would you value that at?
“But even the value judgment is better described when quantized – as in how much better looking? Compared to Lisa? Or how much would you value that at?”
Absolutely could be so – but not necessarily. Again, a matter of opinion. Maybe she would not at all like being compared to LIsa. It might be “better” to leave well enough alone with a quality generality. Opinions and viewpoints reign supreme over quantities. Or, “Considerations are senior to mechanics.”
(You seem serious, but why do I feel like I’m preaching to the choir(boy)? :-))
Static is beyond both quality and quantity.
Viaire, you are righ
Only absolutely pure, unrestrained (out of any universe),……. potential.
Yes – but is then Quality = Potential?
Yes, that was my assumption, but now I´m wondering……..maybe quality is an added consideration of value or importance given to MEST after the fact of its creation, and maybe again it could done as part of an effort to orient its evolution into something which would eventually reflect our…….. spiritual characteristics…………
But value can be quantized in that it can be compared to other values.
Potential:the word it self is addition. As you said pure, Vinaire say static I say intengible, has no quality or quantaty
I probably agree with almost every post you have made here, but there is something I don´t quite get in your comments, you seem to use the concepts of theta universe, thetan, life force, the origin of power in the same level of static, intangible, no quantity and no quality, which would be undescribable to me.
Wouldn´t they belong a bit below the level of static? For example the Theta universe being something perceivable but much thinner than the mest universe, the thetan also very close to untangible but not completely, as long as it keeps any characteristic which makes it individual, the life force being something which begins to be describable, if only very vaguely.
Everything seems to be structured in the form of a pyramid with the origin of all things (quantities and qualities) at the top, and mest at the bottom. And the top being static, intangible, undescribable, unknowable.
We try to move on a gradient scale towards it, but as we move upwards it seems to be higher and higher, as an asymptote.
So the top of the pyramid is not really there?
Shall we keep trying to use gradient scales to get there? (analog models)
(Right now I was planning to propose Chris some kind of a model of gradient scales going from static all the way down to mest)
Maybe a leap of faith and jump into the void? (digital models he,he)
Maybe trying to look up towards infinity from the MEST side will never work.
How about looking from infinity down to mest? (Assuming a causative/creative position instead of an effect/created position, for example)
What about looking down from an absolute infinite which would include all possible universes and probabilities, and focusing intention in a definite way to create pyramids (or maybe spheres) of gradiently increased solidification and complexity, down to MEST?
Maybe that is the only possible possition from which it all can be known and understood. Assuming a creative position and creating it all over again.
Now…………. what is the difference between the wisest man and the crazyest?
One is creating all he sees and knows…………….knowingly and at will………..
The other only believes he is doing it………..ha ha ha!!!!
OMG, Rafael! Such an intellectual post! And I would say wise too – as well as I understood it, anyway (ha ha!). Even the asymtote part made sense (once I looked that up). You must have been working on this for a while!
I bet most readers were snowed to one degree or another – at least until we chewed on it a good bit (well, I should speak for myself). Anyway, pretty impressive product of thought, further enhanced by your playfulness, and I just wanted to acknowledge that. 🙂
Thank you, it is completely mine.
(I´m the crazy man on it! Ha ha ha!)
You are just too kind Marildi, I love all your posts, they are right on the mark. (As well as I understand them, also! ha ha!!)
This beautiful place just draws me in……………too many qualities, I guess…..
“This beautiful place just draws me in……………too many qualities, I guess…..”
And in great quantity too. 🙂
Glad you were drawn to this beautiful place – and don’t forget “like attracts like.” That’s an axiom ranging from the metaphysical viewpoint in the Law of Attraction to the quantum physics viewpoint of…well, whatever it is they’re talking about. 🙂
As a body yes.
As a thetan, its an irrelevant question. How can an absolute be quantified.
Maybe I can get a quality phone call from you tommorrow? now thats quantity!! lol
A certain number og quantifiable words over a quantifiable phone line coming later today (an a number of hours).
But – as Vin said; Static is beyond Quantity and Quality.
If we can agree on the most basic definitions of the words as being, Quality: “An inherent or distinguishing characteristic”.. and…Quantity (as being): “A specified or indefinite number or amount.” At first glance there would appear be no such a thing as ‘a quality that cannot be otherwise expressed as a set of quantities’. Intellectual common sense, 101.
However, given definitions are to words what emotions are to thoughts (which is to say, emotions exist independent of thoughts, just as meaning exists independent of words) the matter is not so easily intellectually resolved.
Brian says: ‘Thetan = Quality & MEST = Quantity’, and Isene responds: ‘But can you ‘feel’ the amount of theta?’
We say: “In the Silence & Stillness & Emptiness (of Your Being),
Your Presence of Life Awakens us All.
Quantify that (if you can, lol)
The consensus from earlier threads seems to lean towards the idea that “theta”, “concepts”, “ideas”, “considerations”,, etc are on very fine wavelengths, but nonetheless are on wavelengths. Thus could be measured.
No conclusions yet about “postulate”, or “intention”. Do those partake of any wavelengths?
Yes. By definition postulates (“a thinkingness or consideration”) and intentions (“the carrier wave”) do partake of wavelength.
It must – in order to affect reality.
Right. It’s “posted” and interacts with other posts (just like a blog thread, LOL).
No more esoteric to me, it’s all mechanics. Don’t know whether to rejoice or mourn. 🙂
That orange creature in the above post isn’t my usual one (a red and black) – but it was me! I had to type in my email address again for some reason and I made a typo. Anyway, this one should show it’s really me.
Valkov. They should have wavelenght since they exists in MEST.
Intention is the causative the basic energy=power which the being uses to create and the postulate is only secondary, is seating on the top, is the picture, what the being decided to do how to use that causative power. It could happen, translated in solidity the MEST or not again that depends on the being. It can remain=exists solely in the Theta universe where there is no solidity, Chris back to the stone thing. You got this one.
Even if the causative power is translated into solid form that form is just a “look alike” the causative power=intention is invisible part of the now solid existing creation.
And what about a “decision”? Does a decision, once made, persist?
Once again, yes. To postulate is “to conclude, decide…” “He posts something.”
(I’m used to this idea now, but it was kind of shocking at first!)
Now Valkov that is a loaded question, but yes it persists, here is a very good example, your track in the Universe, forgotten yes, but that do not mean do not exists decisions are a form of postulate but in the more solid form= heavier energies because into decisions confusion has entered. So one had to decide jump or not.
Trying to understand your question.
I read you stating that you’re observing the fractal nature of MEST.
Then I understand that if you can, you want to express the quality of something without there being a relevant quantity?
In our language, we pose off quantity vs quality sometimes as in desiring one or the other. But for me this is a misunderstanding and illogical comparison of similarities which are not similar.
Then again “blue” is a color quality which can be stated as quantity of electromagnetic wavelength.
Where you going? . . . a little more please.
Your cartoon touts “value.” This is another twist, isn’t it? And isn’t value something of the product of quality times quantity averaged by choices?
Hmm – equation 🙂
3. Price – not necessary to be monetary
__________________________ divided by:
Quality = Result / Expectation
Result is objective.
Expectation is subjective.
Hence, quality is subjective.
If so, then there is no objective quality – that would be a misnomer for quantities that simply are not yet defined.
See my response further down.
I see what you mean. Even “aesthetic” is of a certain wave length. It seems that anything and everything knowable in the physical universe is quantifiable and relative, with no absolutes – including qualities, which are actually considerations.
But this now seems to go against the idea in an earlier post of yours, where the attribute of value was attributed to any and every thetan as an absolute unrelated to physical universe considertaions (if I got it right).
But even the “qualities” of a thetan seems to be quantifiable; Per Science of Survival, a thetan possesses three “qualities”: Power, Intelligence, Tone. But those are quantities – the amount of power, intelligence and tone. Similar to the color blue which has a certain quantity of certain wavelengths of light reflected.
Could it be that the concept of Blue is quality while the actuality of Blue is quantity?
Hmmm…the concept of Blue. I can think better with the concept of Beauty – it can be conceived of in a wholly abstract way – whereas, it takes on a specific concrete form in its actuality in the physical universe, and that is always quantitative. Okay, I think I got what you’re saying.
This idea might also work when we say something possesses the quality of “art,” without meaning anything more specific or less general than that. So it seems to come down to the difference between pure concepts of qualities vs. expressions of those in the physical universe.
P.S. So as regards all thetans having value, how would the above apply? I can’t see how they could possess “a concept.” Seems meaningless.
Where I said “a concept” maybe I should have said “an abstract concept.”
Seems like every quality when manifested becomes quantity
That’s a good way to put it.
So the boundary between Not Real and Real would be the boundary between Quality and Quantity?
yes, seems so
Right Rafael – but even then it’s not. Because “potential” is something which can become. And as we have worn out before – static is a concept outside the physical. So we can say that there is “quality” to Static but that is an anthropomorphous description of something we cannot make real. MEST machines replicate both in quality and quantity.
A seed has potential – deterministic until nurtured by the gardener with the green thumb such as Elizabeth.
A child has “unknown” potential. Why? Because of the variable arising from the quality which resides in free will static? When a child grows up they become both a quality and quantity of human?
Before quality and quantity there is potential quality and quantity. I don’t think quality and quantity signify any boundary nor are they separable. Both are very real. Both arise from the unknown. Neither exist before manifestation.
But any manifestation of quality is in fact only quantities.
Yes quantities but not only quantities. This is why I think they cannot be either/or but must go together – both are aspects of MEST for where there is quality there is quantity and vice versa.
Maybe we should take a look at our considerations in terms of degrees.
And we come right back around to “orders of magnitude” and I feel myself tumbling endlessly through infinitely large and small space.
yes, but wouldn’t that still be an amount?
Well, yes, but only becomes an amount inside this universe.
I like your description (even if anthropomorphic) of potential as “something” which can become. What if this “something” is a universe (or maybe an infinite number of universes or probabilities) above mest but below static which collapse into mest reality when certain phenomena occur?
Hmmm, I´m not just leting my mind go, I´m brainstorming ok? hehe…..
Brainstorming? Yes both in quality and quantity! I am thinking down this very same line as you describe.
I am working to think without almost every type of line or border. You said “above mest but below static” – This is how I would describe my own universe.
Like the atmosphere described in layers of troposphere-mesosphere-stratosphere, there really aren’t any lines or borders.
Even body death, which we give so much significance.
We create those borders and then believe they are real.
That is also a relevant aspect of knowledge, which lines and borders exist only in our minds?
Could it be that whatever we are looking at from a position of effect can limit us, and whatever we look at from a position of cause cannot limit us?
That works in my mind just fine, but when I try to apply it at mest doesn´t quite
cut it. Seems to be going in the right direction, though.
A mind without borders…………………….I really like that!
Hey Valkov, good synopsis –
Intention: I am leaning toward intention being the so far invisible link between static and MEST. When I look for it, I can’t see it. Elizabeth says it “doesn’t exist” and I am being persuaded that it doesn’t because I can’t see it for the control circuit that it “obviously” is. LRH called it a “carrier wave” and this communicates to me as well.
I pick up the stone.
I throw the stone down.
I say I will pick up the stone, but I don’t.
I say I won’t pick up the stone, but I do.
My body moves or it doesn’t.
Difference? Intention – presence or absence of.
I believe Intention translates directly to the collapse of a set of wave functions.
You seem to find (a-ha!) satisfaction and significance in the wave collapse in much the same way I do the Mandelbrot Set. Both hold important significances and point us in directions. I continually see the Mandelbrot Set as a useful model for understanding the patterns of creation.
I need to spend some time researching the experiment which collapses the wave function. I need to know more about the experiment itself. For if it is true that the intention of the observer collapses the wave then doesn’t it indicate that the intention of the observer might expand the firing electron back to a waveform?
Would different observers affect the quality of the experiment differently?
We are on the same wavelength here 😉
Take a look at this book; Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness
By my understanding, postulate and intention are just two sides of the same coin, two different ways of naming a particular type of mental creation or thought – i.e. a postulate is “that self-determined thought which starts, stops or changes past, present or future EFFORTS” or “that thing which is a DIRECTED desire or order, or inhibition, or enforcement on the part of the individual in the form of an idea.” (Tech dict defs; caps are mine)
Intention seems to be the aspect (or quality, since that’s the OP subject) of a postulate that makes it a specialized type of thought (or, for that matter, a specialized type of concept or consideration): Postulate – “that self-determined thought which starts, stops or changes past, present or future EFFORTS.” and “infers conditions and actions rather than just plain thinks. It has a DYNAMIC connotation.”
Intention is defined as “the command factor” and “the carrier wave” in a verbalization (think about TR 8),. And it’s the “degree of relative beingness which an individual desires to assume as plotted on the tone scale.” The Factors do talk about the decision to BE, but only refer to postulates and considerations, no mention of intention per se.
To me, intention is essential to and part and parcel of the makeup of a postulate – it’s actually what makes it a postulate, as opposed to any other thought, consideration or concept.
And Geir’s mechanical description of intention could be an action definition for either intention or postulate. (An action definition is “one which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose.”)
When I consider the above definitions, the concept is straightforward and simple. Nothing complicated, elusive or esoteric about intention.
Difference? Presence of a positive postulate – WITH its necessary component of intention.
That’s based on the LRH definition of “control – positive postulating, which is intention, and the execution thereof.” (Axiom 57)
Chris, the above was in reply to your post ending in, “Difference? Intention – presence or absence of.”
“Is there actually such a thing as a quality that cannot be otherwise expressed as a set of quantity”
My two cents.
A decision a judgment was passed that established the quality. So quality is a consideration and can become on agreement. Anything quality and quantity is MEST related, a product of intention, from the infinite which cannot be measured .
OK, at first I was going to pose this question, to point towards the difference between quality and quantity:
What color is a mirror?
But then I decided this comes even closer to the truth:
What color are YOU?
No color is also a quantity. Any color is a quantity. Any (even none).
I don’t think so, at least not where I live.
I suppose next you’re going to tell me that “0” (zero) is a quantity, and not the absence of quantity?
That’s practically what your post above is stating….
A completely blue light is also zero red, orange¸ yellow light.
Definition of ZERO (Merriam-Webster)
a : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity
So zero red, orange, or yellow light means the is no quantity of those. There is an absence, or no presence of red, orange, or yellow light.
So, what color is a mirror? I would guess most people would say it has no measurable quantity or magnitude of color of it’s own.
You, of course, will probably come up with something different…..
But I will stick with the definition I posted – “0” denotes the absence of all magnitude or quantity.
Or this (Wordreference.com:
Zero; a point on a scale or instrument from which a positive or negative quantity is reckoned.
Yes, that is the second definition of ‘zero’ in the definitions below., I didn’t post it because it’s not the one I am focusing on here.
ze·ro [zeer-oh] Show IPA noun, plural -ros, -roes, verb, -roed, -ro·ing, adjective
the figure or symbol 0, which in the Arabic notation for numbers stands for the absence of quantity; cipher.
the origin of any kind of measurement; line or point from which all divisions of a scale, as a thermometer, are measured in either a positive or a negative direction.
a mathematical value intermediate between positive and negative values.
the lowest point or degree.
As a side note; Even the absence of quantity does not denote quality.
Interesting – Valkov.
Zero, a quantity, may be meaningless without its attached quality.
Blue, a quality, may be meaningless without its attached quantity.
Not really. The concept of blue is a quality (subjective) whereas the color red (manifested) is also zero blue (a quantity).
Chris, your phrase, “meaningless without its attached quality,” it seems could be applied to any quantity, not just zero. Isn’t this reflective of the fact that the physical universe is always viewed (or created) and at the same time considered/interpreted by beings, and thus anything and everything in that universe would have considerations of meaning attached to it? And yet those considerations would all align with the measurable relativity (quantities) of the physical universe – except maybe for the consideration of value (worth) which could be subjectively arbitrary.
And Geir, I’m not following what you mean by “the concept of blue is a quality.” Blue is by definition a sheer quantity as it is a certain wave length within the light spectrum, and that would seem to be the totality of any concept of it . Even the concept of beauty, would come down to sheer quantity if it is nothing more than an aesthetic wave length. So the other thing Chris said about a quality being “meaningless without its attached quantity” seems right too.
I guess the subjective or agreed upon attachment (in thought) of VALUE (worth) to any quantity/quality is the only thing that might be arbitrary or subjective and not part of or necessarily related to the physical universe itself – and yet value too is a quantity, a rating. So wow, nothing but quantity “as far as the mind can see.” Sort of like LRH said about the Q’s, “the level from which we are now viewing.”
And similar to the differention between physical universe energies and the energies of the mind – quantity and quality are just a matter of degree on the same quantity scale, with no inherent difference otherwise.
Chris, one of the meanings of ‘zero’, and the one I am focusing on here, is that it is not any quantity, it is the absence of quantity. What I am getting at, is the concept of a ‘static’ that is absent of any quantity, but has some ‘ability’ as LRH put it, or some ‘qualities’ in the sense of ‘inherent characteristics’.
Those are the definitions I am focusing on.
Valkov, you said, “…a ‘static’ that is absent of any quantity, but has some ‘ability’ as LRH put it, or some ‘qualities’ in the sense of ‘inherent characteristics’.”
I think LRH may not have said that about Static, but about theta. Otherwise, the definition of static is violated in giving it an attribute of any kind. Theta, on the other hand, although he gave it the definition of static at times, other definitions like the ones in SOS that give the qualities of power/intelligence/tone and ARC, would fit what you’re saying.
Yes to this.
Sorry Geir, Marildi, that’s not what the material I’m reading says.
From my1969 edition of The Phoenix Lectures, page 146, here’s an extended quote:
“Axiom 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
This is a peculiar and particular static, having these properties, and a further peculiarity, which we find in the next Axiom.
Axiom 2: THE STATIC IS CAPABLE CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.
You can’t measure this Static. When you find something which has no mass, no location, no position in time and no wavelength – the very fact that it can’t be measured tells you that you have your hands on Life itself.
You can’t measure it, yet all things measurable extend from it. From this Static all phenomena extend.”
Agreed. These are capabilities, but that still does not necessarily equate to Quality (re: OP).
Also, any output/result from considerations/postulates/opinions are measurable.
I left a word out of Axiom 2. It should read “The Static is capable OF considerations, ” etc.
Apparently you and I are referring to two different definitions of “quality”. I am talking about “inherent properties”, you seem to be talking about comparing things as on scales, as in “quality control”.
If that’s the case, we are just talking past each other, and I will abstain from that discussion, as it doesn’t really interest me. No offense intended.
“Sorry Geir, Marildi, that’s not what the material I’m reading says.”
I think we have to consider the modifier in “Life is basically a static” – “basically.” Otherwise, why wouldn’t LRH have simply said, “Life is a static.”
Also, the concept of having “potential” seems different to me than having an inherent, set quality. And potential infers time, so outside of the superimposed context of time, static is a zero – it is “basically” a zero.
One last try to get across what I mean.
What you refer to as ‘capabilities’ of Static, are among it’s ‘qualities’,in the sense of ‘inherent characteristics’. Only LRH called them ‘properties’. These abilities inherently ‘belong to’ the Static, thus ‘properties’.
Further, from CoHA,Chapter 5, Route 2, R2-41, “Via”:
“Remember: A static has no mass, wavelength, energy, location or time. But it can consider. And it has qualities. These qualities are it’s basic definition plus the top buttons of the Chart of Attitudes plus beauty.”
This is a different sense of the word “quality”, than the one expressed in this sentence, for example: “I would rather own one quality automobile, than two cheaper ones.”
Valkov, I think I get it now! Check out this definition of static: “The simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. When we say nothingness, we simply mean that it has no quantity. (5411CM05)” (Tech Dict)
You got me thinking and when I checked out the defs the one above really sorted it out for me. Thanks for the win!
And you are right that this is a different definition of quality, You said, “This is a different sense of the word ‘quality’, than the one expressed in this sentence, for example: ‘I would rather own one quality automobile, than two cheaper ones'” Right you are, that last is the def that has to do with “superiority or excellence.” And the one you are using (essential property) is again different from the one in Geir’s OP (distinguishing characteristic). (And there are other defs of quality – it can be a very tricky word.)
Anyway, thanks again for the win on a very basic piece of nomenclature. I’m VGI’s.
Valkov, just one further thought. This whole confusion about the Scn meaning of Static is probably due to essentially equating it with the physics definition, even though that definition itself was only referring to quantities. However, in the physical realm there’s nothing else to talk about, and we here are into the metaphysical realm – where there IS something else or it wouldn’t be “meta.”
Actually, my further thought today was this – when the confusions and questions about something LRH stated are cleared up, whatever he said usually makes total sense. And he did try hard not to change definitions that people were used to (and talks about that) and he rarely did – confusion or lack of understanding is usually our MU! And if he did change a definition, he said so from my experience. Anyway, it’s one of the best stable datums in the study of Scn – find the MU!
I wanted to make this comment to you especially because you are one of the most (if not the most) die-hard upholders of LRH and Scientology who posts here, and I appreciate that in itself, and also because you help so much to give a perspective to the discussion – as do other viewpoints. You are one of many on Marty’s blog, for example, but this one is where any and every viewpoint is freely expressed to a much greater extent, and that has been really good for me and for others I’m sure. Cheers!
You can express anything in the universe, quality and quantity are agreed upon considerations and you know that. Quality, quantity is part of the implant package. Here every body lives by those agreements.
Quality only there because you say it is there.
Now let say the rose is beautiful all who say the same, millions of people so we have here quantity of agreement the rose is beautiful. All these agreements exist here on this planet.
“ I am looking for manifested quality that cannot be better expressed in qualities.”
OK. LIFE FORCE cannot be expressed in quantity. Life-force cannot be measured, add too, taken away from. It is on energy which has no size shape, sustenance, wavelength, it is not created, cannot be experienced like snow storm. Since theta=self is intangible do not occupied space, therefore do not move.
We can hang a label on the being can be said quality but again you describe doing-ness which theta do so well. Life –force itself cannot be improved in any way. Even life-force exists only because we agree it exist. I am going along here and talking this out; do have a bit of patience.
HERE IT IS, Hip-hip hurray!
The best would be live the page blank and say let’s make the page even blanker.
I think I hit the nail on the head, go make that blank less blank or more blank The quality is established yet you can’t add to it taken away from it.
Perfection in every way, I known auditing was not for nothing. I am happy with that, Amen. Thanks Geir for the cog. 2 today one because of you and I “blame” Peter for the second.
I find “infinite” to be a quantity and therefore MEST as well. Including both infinitely large and small.
I find the concept of “infinitely large” to be an implant designed to give us a frame of reference in which to feel “small” and hopefully humbled.
Humbleness is helpful only in certain social settings. It is always an unhelpful attribute in our attitude toward life.
Yes, very good. So can you see the intention?
I think what you are coining is just fine.
Marildi, I agree with your assessment of inconsistent definitions. We now have the opportunity to define these basic concepts more correctly for ourselves. Though these discussions have ranged far and wide and often uncomfortably – dredging through the muck of our minds has been good practice. It has strengthened my certainty and revealed truths once again to me. I feel once again on a Path of Knowledge. Everyone here has contributed to this for me. Thank you everyone for the new twist to our favorite game. Thank you Geir for the venue.
This is a beauty of being free from the oppressive communication constraints of the Church.
Isn’t this so cool? – Both in quality and quantity?
Chris, every single thing you said expressed my own thoughts and sentiments exactly. Every single thing. 🙂
“Not really. The concept of blue is a quality (subjective) whereas the color red (manifested) is also zero blue (a quantity).”
hahaha! I see what you mean . . . bit of straw – maybe?
geek #1: Oh! I am so infatuated! She has most 475nm eyes I have ever seen!
geek #2: Really? Because I much prefer 510nm!
yup – that would be quite precise 😉
Precise, yes, but lacking in that other valuable commodity – the elusive quality of art, a chance for the imagination to play. (But I know, I know – even that is measurable quantity. Oh, well.) 🙂
I am in agreement with that one. There is quality to not quantifying everything, and to quantify that is to ignore the quality, unless quantifying is your Quality. 😛 The closest in the physical that i can think of that come close to quality at this point is dark matter.
You CAN break quality down to a quantified code . . . so long as you have at the other end of your comm cycle a “qualified” de-coder ring to re-qualify it.
MODEM: “modulate and demodulate” . . . something we do with electronic communication lines – take a quality of communication and digitize it, then to transmit it over a long line, we use a modem to modulate it or give it a wavelength which is more conducive to transmissions of distance and then at the other end we de-modulate it using another modem and change it back to digital for the computer which will then change it’s form back to analog so we can duplicate it. whew! now there is one nasty bunch of vias and I ask myself if that is the path I want to walk down?
But you know, there is nowhere on the chain I described where quantity and quality are divorced, is there, Geir’s Geeks? (nice ring to that hahaha!)
I have stopped believing in Analog. I believe the universe is discrete, hence everything is digital.
Victoria and Chris,
Chris says, “But you know, there is nowhere on the chain I described where quantity and quality are divorced, is there, Geir’s Geeks? (nice ring to that hahaha!)”
I was thinking the same thing, that there is always quantity involved in considerations of quality and vice versa. And I think Victoria is in humorous agreement in saying, “There is quality to not quantifying everything, and to quantify that is to ignore the quality, unless quantifying is your Quality”. LOL – but well said!
And, Chris, “Geir’s Geeks” does have just the right ring – I only wish I knew something about all this technical and physics stuff so I could qualify. Maybe “Geir’s Geeks & Company”?
Victoria, ya lost me on “dark matter.” But I’m guessing that qualifies you as a member. 🙂
The practical I would like to ask Geir to do tonight is to compliment his very beautiful wife, oops! I mean his “209458340592385203495820458!” — Compliment her in just this way tonight when you cuddle in bed. Then report back on your result! I think I can speak for the rest of us when I write that we all will be curious to know how that goes!
I am just hoping that you don’t end up with a <0nm eye! hahaha!
(Valkov! Where are you buddy – my jokes are getting thin! Reinforcements! A song perhaps?)
It will have to be the next tonight (I am in a different time zone, you know). I will dutifully report back.
Down in Robot City, you might think it’s play play play
Down in Robot City, you might think it’s play play play
But a Number 5 Robot he must work in all the night and day
Number 1 come by, give my work to me
Oil the flowers, fix the showers, clean the electronic trees
Shine the light, fix it right, now listen carefully
Don’t you go romancing with that pretty Number Three
and that’s why, why I got the Robot Blues,
Down in my heart compartment
Down in my old magnetic sole shoes
When I see that Number 3 I get charge all in my dial
When I see that Number 3 my piston fills with oil
You know what I’m talking about
But she likes that number 1 because he’s rich with
my toil toil toil
That Number 3 she charm the heart of any robot man
Moving her body like an old tin can
If I could get my claws on her
I would lubricate her free
I’ve got a perfect action why won’t she play with me
and that’s why, why I got the Robot Blues,
Down in my heart compartment
Down in my old magnetic sole shoes
Well I think I’ll get a ray gun
I will see what that will do
I think I’ll get a ray gun
I think I’ll get a ZZ Special Q
I will blast the Number 1’s gaskets
and his coils I will refuse to renew
He seen me coming, sneak up from behind
switched off my vision and he left me stone blind
I could not see to blast him
here’s the ending of my tale
He went of with Number 3 and I cursed to no avail
and that’s why, why I got the Robot Blues,
Down in my heart compartment
Down in my old magnetic sole shoes
Yes, I understand it can be a symbol for Static. And that is appropriate.
But in a discussion of quality v quantity, we would be referring to MEST. Did I miss something, er, uh, I mean did I miss nothing? hahaha!
So would anyone just chime in on my questions and statements below?
1. And so therefore, what quality or quantity can be assigned to INTENTION?
2. And Marildi – did you ever get a look at that intention? Not being snide. Curious as I have been looking like a bastard (double entendre deliberate) and I don’t see a thing!
A. I breathe in.
B. I breathe out.
C. I say I will breath in but don’t.
D. I say I will exhale but hold my breath.
E. Is there a quality or quantity to this? Is it digital as in On/Off? Or analog as in larger and smaller? Those aren’t the only choices.
3. I have been taught and have demonstrated to myself that the difference in this activity occurring and not occurring is intention. Again, is there any quality or quantity to my intention?
4. I also say that intention is before Theta. – I think. Let me see now, Static = zero; Infinite comes next; goddammit next; holy ghost next; Mother Nature (that’s you Elizabeth) comes next; and so forth. All carried forward from THE STATIC on the back of INTENTION. Right?
5. “Before the beginning was a Cause.” We’ve been taught and have been diligently trying to prove or disprove this, right?
6. Some of us assign This Cause to the STATIC because, frankly do we know where else to put this? Vinaire poo-poo’s this as unnecessary – assign a Cause I mean…, well anyway he did recently but since I said that he may need to change his mind.
7. INTENTION for me is primordial CAUSE. It seems to me the last vestige of OT which exists here round about the MEST universe. This is our original ability and our last remnant of free will. Maybe this should be the new thread – Aren’t we forgetting that Scientology is for rehabilitating one’s intention? Maybe we should get around to paying some more attention to this. The wave collapse that Geir is fond of and the Mandelbrot Set which I am so fond of require both quality of intention to pinpoint an electron and enormous quantity of intention to iterate and re-iterate the creation of an entire MEST universe. . . . or, does it?
8. Someone describe the exact moment of intention – star rate checkout style – in your own words and not copied and pasted. Get the demo kit.
A. Where does it come from?
B. Is it MEST?
C. Is it Theta? if so what do you mean by that?
D. What quantity and or quality is required and in what way?
Not trying to squirrel (god dynamic how I hate that word!) – I just already know that shit in books and would appreciate a fresh take right out of someone’s mouth who has been thinking about this issue of initiation.
9. Because Vinaire is gone missing I will wear his hat and doggedly deny and disallow any substance whatever to the STATIC until he gets back so I can then argue the other way.
Just the remnants of the day . . . I sure appreciate you guys and gals. Namaste.
(oh yeah, almost forgot – “hahahaha!”)
Chris, what a meaty post! With lots of tongue-in-cheek all the way through, line after line – hilarious!
Yeah, I’ve “looked” at intention. And I’m gonna tell you in my own words. (Get the demo kit. :-)) My understand is that intention is simply this – it’s the essence of a postulate. It describes what a postulate IS in a descriptive sense (redundancy intended, for emphasis). It’s what makes a postulate a postulate, which in fact is – an INTENTION directed at some past, present or future beingness, doingness, or havingness. A postulate “sticks” to the degree it has intention in it and in relation to the amount of intention in it as compared to any amount of counter-intention or counter-postulate of one’s own or anybody else’s. Your decision to pick up the stone is a postulate infused with intention. At the point you make that decision you have actually made a postulate with (or of) that particular intention.
It’s what you “put up” when you post a postulate. It’s the particles/waves that you post – so it is MEST, to answer your question, MEST created by theta. In itself it’s not an aspect of the being but a creation of the being, but that creation does reflect the power of the being. And increasing a being’s power is how and why Scn rehabilitates intention – it increases power.
This is all based on my understanding of the definitions and related references – as it has to be since these are words and words have specific concepts that they symbolize. Now, anybody is free to flunk this star-rate of mine and to point out what doesn’t align with the definitions and I hope they do if that’s the case! Because we appreciate you too and want to help you stop looking like a bastard (no double entendre intended.) Namaste. 🙂
P.S. Intention, more about: A being can generate/create/post a specific energy configuration and that particular manifested configuration now in the being’s “mind” can be viewed/looked at and thus named in two different ways. (1) Calling it a “postulate” points up the fact that it has indeed been created/posted. (2) Calling it an “intention” points up the fact that it is the result/manifestation of a certain desire/impulse/intention behind its creation/posting – to wit, the desire/impulse/intention to bring into existence a particular reality in the physical universe. And the configuration itself that has been brought into existence is what tends to (but may or may not) bring about that particular reality – due to all the mechanics involved in the Greater MEST Universe.
(God dynamic, I hope that makes some kind of sense.)
You are smart.
I’ll take that as a pass. 😀
yes, on a lot of things.
“…on a lot of things.” That is so inspiring.
And I love you too!
hahaha! We’ve coined a perfectly good new curse – “goddynamic!” (I had no hope anyone would get my raunchy humor)
You sure put a lot of good work on “my” problem. I am still lost. It is one of those nagging “almost” cognitions which worries me – feels important but I can’t quite make the crap come out.
I must give you a pass for writing “an INTENTION directed at some past, present or future beingness, doingness, or havingness. A postulate “sticks” to the degree it has intention in it and in relation to the amount of intention in it as compared to any amount of counter-intention or counter-postulate of one’s own or anybody else’s. Your decision to pick up the stone is a postulate infused with intention. At the point you make that decision you have actually made a postulate with (or of) that particular intention.”
Very well put. Very well duplicated and learned. The nagging that I feel in my mind is not because of a flaw in your definition. It is rather a scab that I pick at in my brain – I only pray it does not hide an artery underneath!
Geir’s comment about “amount of intention” is nagging at me too. Intention is like so much horsepower? Really? So intention must run the full spectrum of horsepower in this universe? That is very deep and wide.
0. This makes me think of inertia because if there is such a thing as an “amount of intention,” then it proceeds that it must need to be metered out according to the load.
1. Is there inertia in my own universe? At times, after a 6-pack or too short a night’s sleep, I would say YES.
2. But normally, or especially after a good night’s rest and a healthy BM, I would say there is NO inertia in my universe. Postulates are lightly-weighted decisions which carry sometimes awesome consequences.
3. So maybe these are body sensations produced by mental mass pressing in close around the body when I am feeling “bank-y”. . .
4. Maybe there is so little mass in the mind that the inertia is negligible. On the other hand, if my mind is composed of the “entire universe” that I perceive, then that is not negligible.
Chris, I want to reply to a bunch of stuff on your post. But in case I can still get this much “in the mail” and delivered today, I want to give you some homework (as a trained and experienced word clearer).
Here it is: take a look and find the earliest time you can when you had trouble understanding the word “intention.” Then, once you’ve spotted that time, look just before that for something you didn’t get. And either clear it up or tell me about it in your next reply.
This is an application of a piece of tech from a bulletin giving a “key datum” about MU’s and it works like a charm, in true LRH style. I’ve never tried to apply it long-distance but I’m thinking it should work with you – you have a lot of intention on the matter. 🙂
Thanks for noticing – I did put a lot of work into it. And that was at least in part as a result of your strong INTENTION to sort this out – that intention/postulate of yours is having its effect in the physical universe (a little “mass” for you, reality ;-)). But alas, I may be the only one who’s reaped any benefits so far – there’s a lot of truth to the idea that when you try to teach somebody something you learn it better yourself. (Think of the blasphemy I’m engaged in – teaching Scientology! I still feel kinda naughty, but free.)
Okay, in reading your post it occurred to me that you could have a confusion (that scab you keep picking at) on “intention” because of the fact that there are three definitions and you may be missing one or two (one type of MU is a missing definition). Here are the three:
(1) “an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result” My Scientological paraphrase would be – the act or instance of making a postulate (“determining mentally upon”) in order to achieve some desired reality (“some action or result”); the act of postulating.
(2) “the end or object intended; what one has in mind to do or bring about; purpose” This one is the desired reality. My example sentence – “Such and such just happened – that was my intention (or my postulate).”
Note that in both definitions, postulate is a synonym. The second definition is the one I’ve mainly been using.
(3) “a determination to act in a certain way; resolve” Example – to have a lot of (or little) intention/resolve
Okay, on to your list:
0. “amount of intention” As you can see this is definition #3. I haven’t particularly worked out the mechanics on this one. Care to give it a shot?
1. “inertia” – This is lack of intention, def #3 again.
2. “healthy BM” – Yeah, raunchy maybe – but candid (and funny!) Oh, I guess that wasn’t your main point. Ah, here it is – “postulates are lightly-weighted decisions.” I’ve heard this bandied about too, but don’t know of any reference on it. I’ve assumed it meant that one of these (a light postulate) was not made low on the scale at some level of heavy-energy wave lengths (like in the effort band), but at the high level of postulates, very light waves. And those are much more powerful waves, per LRH. (I can find the ref if you like.)
3. “mental mass pressing in” – Sounds feasible to me too.
4. This is that inertia thing again. See #0 above.
Over to you…
Amount of intention…
There either is intention or there is not. There is no “quantity or amount of intention”.
“Intention” is what a person does, no more and no less.
So if I intend the object to move and you intend it to be still – what determines if it moves or not?
Valkov, my dear fellow word-enthusiast, please see the three definitions of “intention” (from Random House) in my post just above yours. In discussing “amount of” we are using the third one: (3) “a determination to act in a certain way; resolve” My example – to have a lot of (or little) intention/resolve.
But you are totally right about “to do or not to do, that is the question” – in terms of the first definition: (1) “an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result” My Scientological paraphrase would be – the act or instance of making a postulate (“determining mentally upon”) in order to achieve some desired reality (“some action or result”); the act of postulating.
Valkov I can pretty easily be in this court. And if Geir is correct that it’s a digital universe then that is consistent with your all or nothing statement.
We each see what we create. Two argue over a stone. One says it moves one says it does not. Which does it do? It does what the two agree to. I think
For you can “say” there is a conflict for dramatic effect, but in the end the stone moves according to the intention which is agreed upon . . . maybe.
Or does it both move and and stay?
When the one says it moves and it moves, does not the other one agree that it moved even though he did not want it to move, grasshopper? hahaha!
And though I joke, this is consistent with what I am coming up regarding “intention.”
I think intention may not be physical for no matter how I look for it, I cannot see it nor visualize it. It may come forth from the Static. It may be the Source of what is physical.
I am sure of that I can turn it on and off. I can demonstrate it to myself. But it wells up from Nothing and when it turns on, something always happens.
Now if I’m wrong, or calling the right thing by a wrong name or vice versa, and it is physical, then I would want to say that it is the first manifestation OF physical and I have a problem with semantics only … See where I’m going?
It seems to me that cracking this completely would be huge. And just at this moment, I am more interested in how intention ties in with inertia.
Valkov you right, no quality or quantity on intention.
Chris, I think you are totally right when you say, “It may come forth from the Static. It may be the Source of what is physical.” But otherwise – you may be getting too complicated!
I think you’re right – it’s semantics. It’s a word. It has an exact, precise definition. And that definition takes into account that whole statement of yours I just quoted – including the mock-up in one’s mind (which is physical), and the effect in the physical universe (which is physical), and it all comes forth from Static.
The third definition of “intention” is one that I haven’t told you “in my own words”. And maybe that’s what you’re “picking your brain” about?
Chris, I goofed and put my reply to you just to the left of this thread, but you can answer here if you like. Take your pick, but it’s on this subject of amount of intention.
Goddynamic, how did I do that again? I give up.
Digital is long on quantity and short on quality “of its own.” But viewed almost exclusively through quantity – “I don’t see the Matrix anymore, I see ‘blond, brunette, redhead.”
But then its patterns are its quality, what shall we do with that? Seems not so exclusively quantity anymore – boy, that didn’t take long (to falsify?)
These two seem married to me.
It’s the iteration of the “Creation Formula” at the speed of the Planck Second or whatever clock speed ) which establishes standard for the speed of light.
and not the other way around.
“The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes.
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest. It becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown.”
The phrase means that mercy cannot be forced (a person cannot be ‘constrained’ to be merciful)
Valkov, humbled again by your deep pockets of references. Shakespeare! I better check him out of the library as well as the quantum book!
“Everything I am trying to discover has already been known.”
you are collapsing my wave
I am looking at it and wondering about it, then you make this flat statement and I am influenced.
Omg!…..Collapsing my wave!…..
Goddynamic you!, I´ve been stuck with this, laughing all afternoon!
Now I just can´t even put together a couple of ideas about gradients and intention, nor anything else. Maybe try tomorrow.
haha Rafael – Don’t laugh! I think I’m onto something with the wave collapse with that one! Maybe a Nobel!
ok – goddynamic you! is for humor – glad you laughed!
While you are looking at gradients and intention, can you slip “inertia” into that mix?
If the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences ever considers my vote for the Nobel Price in Physics……..Then you are on its way!! I still can´t help collapse in laughter each time I think of the wave collapse!
Of course I can slip inertia into the mix of gradients and intention.
like making a soup in Iron Chef, right? Hope it tastes good.
I believe intention is one of the primal ingredients for the creation of this universe, something which comes almost directly from “before (or above) the beginning”, very closely linked with pure potential or basic creativity.
Maybe intention is the first manifestation of potential, at tone 40 being the same as pure potential or causativity, and as it goes down in tone, strarts as space. Then after a dichotomy is generated, or after space branches off into two similar but somehow different or maybe opposite parts, intention takes the form of a vector or a flow of particles from one side of space towards the other. But now intention does not occupy the whole space, and other intentions or counter intentions can exist, and manifests as particles flowing in opposite direction and a ridge is created, giving mass and solidity to the original dichotomy, etc.
So intention, as it goes down in tone, becomes more entrapped and fixed, and solidifies.
First becomes a vector, then energy particles, then force, and then matter.
Maybe intention is the way in which pure potential manifests itself in this universe.
So inertia would be the amount of solidification of intention.
Here I´m purposedly just throwing my ideas raw, almost as they manifest as I try to look into this subject, with the hope that my own limitations do not become an obstacle for the appearance of new viewpoints which could be distinguished more clearly by other Geir´s geeks, so feel free to dismantle and destroy everything I wrote here in the hope that somebody could spot a small jewel of wisdom in the middle of all this trash! Ha ha!, now I will also analize this again, comparing it to reality.
Then, I´ll try move an ash tray with my pure intention, anl let you know if something happens…Good luck !
“Then, I´ll try move an ash tray with my pure intention” = TR 8 done by a true OT! At the very high tone level of Postulates – 30.0.
Your overall post expressed what I’ve basically been saying too – that intention is all wrapped up in the meaning of postulates, which is all wrapped up in the meaning of potential. And your ideas align with The Factors, and expand on them. Not only that but they happen to align with my other idea that intention and postulates are related to the tone scale – so how could I help but like it.
Just to quote one specific “jewel” (in the intricate piece of jewelry you fashioned): “Maybe intention is the way in which pure potential manifests itself in this universe.” This made me think of a certain philosophical idea that – everything of MEST is yet of spirit, all is spirit. And I myself have looked at it just that way. Plus, your statement is also a very good depiction of the 8th dynamic – the allness of all.
P.S. Sorry if I’m butting in on your comm cycle with Chris, but I couldn’t resist :-). Besides, he got me going on the subject of intention too, and now I’m into it. But the main reason is that you wrote a very plausible description (even though I probably didn’t fully understand all the mechanics you described, I admit!).
I couldn´t reply directly to your post, but I want to comment you reminded me of something Ron says in the lectures of Admiration & the Renaissanse of Beingness I think, regarding”everything of MEST is yet of spirit”, He says something like” space is a viewpoint of dimension, and that tells you immediately that MEST is alive” if I understood it well, the highest way to know something is by being it.
Thanks, Rafael. I’ll try to find that.
Valkov! “Robot Blues”
OMG! I am holding my side from laughing too hard!
Marildi: “I think we have to consider the modifier in “Life is basically a static” – “basically.” Otherwise, why wouldn’t LRH have simply said, “Life is a static.””
Chris: LRH wrote that statement around 1950 and then close to 1980 he revised the name of the basic auditing action on the bridge from “Life Repair” to “Livingness Repair.” His comment was that you “can’t repair life.” So I take from this that clear nomenclature was and is a pressure point that doesn’t seem to go away.
“…doesn’t seem to go away.” And nomenclature seems to be the basic mission we have taken on, I think you would agree.
Here’s a great definition: “A word is a whole package of thought.” (LRH)
a favorite quote!
How does this one looks?
Qualities exist only in our minds, and represent our effort to give mest a meaning.
Also, spiritual qualities give life a meaning.
So, I end up always with qualities married to quantities.
Sorry but no special quality free from quantity.
The highest I could go is explain it as an effort of life to see itself reflected (or not reflected) in something.
Quality is the meaning of Quantity.
I like that one.
You really know how to keep focused.
i agree on this with you and Rafael and Chris too. Rafael said it in his own way on a post where he said “qualities represent our effort to give mest a meaning.” And Chris too when he said, “Blue, a quality, may be meaningless without its attached quantity.” That inspired my own reply that it “could apply to any quantity…considerations of meaning.” Must be some truth to it if we all came to the same thing more or less independently.
Actually, about the broadest expression of this is that age-old question, “What is the meaning of life?” (I remember as a kid wondering what the heck the meaning of that question was. LOL!)
We are all on the same wavelength! 🙂
And that’s just the quantity viewpoint. But don’t get me started – I can get mushy (but there are worse qualities!) 🙂
hahaha! That was back when you understood the “meaning of life” before you had to grow up and quibble with yourself! haha!
This seems clearest.
I haven’t had a chance to read up on all comments by a long shot but I think you’ve nailed this one, Geir.
When I think of fine art, or the arts in general, I refer to LRH’s “Art is the quality of communication”. And, as we know, there are many factors which lead to real communication, thus quantity.
A work of art that is high quality, must first include many quantities…..paint, canvas, brush, intention, communication, distance, light waves, color spectrum, etc.
Yup. You’re correct.
Now, let´s integrate this equation (or find the derivative? my math is veeeeeery rusty)
Quantity evolves by increasing “density” of qualities (intensity and amount of them).
(Density of qualities would be the harmonization of many different waves)
And the limit when density of qualities tend to infinity would be……………………….
Back to pure potential?
(Was this post your thoughts on gradients and intention, hinted at yesterday?)
1. “Quantity evolves by increasing “density” of qualities (intensity and amount of them). (Density of qualities would be the harmonization of many different waves)”
If the above is a quote from Cosmology According to Rafael, would you add: “…and at some point of the evolution what became known as the physical universe was settled”? (Or is it ever actually settled…?)
2. “And the limit when density of qualities tend to infinity would be……….. ”
Wouldn’t the actual “limit” be that asymptote called the aesthetic wave? (Or is that particular wave still countless gradients away from the asymptote?)
3. “Back to pure potential? Static?”
Is there a difference? (Not a rhetorical question.)
And was all the above Rafael’s version of Genesis to Revelations and beyond? Better – Rafael’s version of The Factors through Total Freedom for Real?
Anyway, there you have it. I’ve dissected your entire post now, reducing it from an aesthetic expression that unites philosophy and art – to a dry analysis. (I left out the first line, no clue on that at all – except to guess that you qualify for the inner circle of Geir’s Geeks.)
Seriously – you just “integrated” metaphysics and physics and art. (Even science at its exquisite best, is art.) And if I’ve completely misconstrued your meaning, that’s just a “derivative” of your unquantified qualities. 🙂 And, I might add, the nature of art – everybody gets to have a take.
Once again, loved your ponderings!
P.S. Hmmm…“unquantified qualities.” Like mass and significance – should there be a balance between quality and quantity?
1 I believe the universe keeps evolving
2 The limit would be a theoretical infinite number of waves synchronized, or harmonized. An aestethic wave would be a very small (but powerful, because it penetrates everything) and harmonic, wave, as I understand it.
3 I´m not sure if pure potential and static are exactly the same, pure potential is imaginable, static supposedly not.
Balance between quality and quantity is a good question, I believe it would be equivalent to having a good game. Too much quantity would be very serious and solid.
For example, don´t take my ponderings seriously, if you are having fun with them that is a good balance!
Rafael, I did reply to this, a little lower down on the page – all the way to the left, by mistake. Just wanted to be sure you knew I appreciated your comment!
Ok Chris, this is my view of the whole tamale:
I´m trying to marry static with thetan here, and let it keep a status of unknowable, he he!
This would connect static with mest using a gradient scale
I would use a pyramid with the static at the tip and mest at the base
simplicity increases towards the static and complexity increases towards mest
The thetan almost at the top of the pyramid, in the closest position to static,
From static down towards mest:
Regarding Axiom 2 says the static is CAPABLE of considerations….etc
so, the only consistent situation here for me would be if the static can move back and forth from nothingness to somethingness. Each time it considers would also be asumming an state of beingness, and then would as-is the consideration and return to a state of no-beingness.
Of course, if the consideration persists………..well you know all the rest
From thetan up towards static:
Similar to the state of clear, the state of theta clear is described as: no further necessity for beingness, so, as the clear erases all data on his mind before starting a new computation(puts the computer on 0), a theta clear would erase all beingness before starting a new consideration (puts beingness at absolute zero)
Yes I know that no logic or consideration can be applied to static, unknown or unknowable, all rules break down at that point and there is no real connection between static and all the rest, it is some kind of event horizon, but still, that is the best I can come up with and I´m satisfied with whatever happens if I ever reach the tip of the pyramid……or not.
This connects with an inconsistency for me in Factor # 2:
“In the beginning and forever is the decision, and the decision is TO BE.”
If the decision to be is forever the static(or thetan) cannot un-be.
The thetan is condemned (some people consider a blessing, their immortality, but it also can be a curse) to exist forever with no determinism on the ultimate decision. Subject to play the games of beingness forever, hell for Scientologists is their fear to lose the bridge to freedom ofered by the CoS, etc.
Also, is TO BE the only possible first decision? what about TO KNOW?
The creation of the consideration of beingness cannot come alone, includes the idea of not-beingness, which is not the same as static, and fits very well with the digital concepts, and is also directly associated with awareness, know and not-know, so, what if the beginning comes in the form of a digital matrix:
first row beingness and not beingness : 1 , 0
in the second row know and not – know: 1 , 0
He he, Am I the crazy man of the story or what?
Now I am off for the weekend to see “The Matrix” and to study complex numbers.
So if I intend the object to move and you intend it to be still – what determines if it moves or not? https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/quality-versus-quantity/#comment-6529
Unintentional straw because we don’t truly know how it moves at all?
. . . and what was your wife’s response? Was she pleased or do you now have a 0nm eye? hahaha!
“So if I intend the object to move and you intend it to be still – what determines if it moves or not?”
Okay, I’m going to TR 3 my reply to you on this point, which you so far have not responded to. Maybe you’re doing a “life-continuum” type of thing on Vinaire, who is conspicuously missing these days. (Vinaire, where are you anyway?) Don’t you remember (as if you wouldn’t – ha!) how he would sometimes not acknowledge or reply directly on a comment made to him – and how we got our dander all up about that? [A-hem…] (Okay, I hope that was just the right amount (and not too much) of push to get your attention. ;-))
Actually, in the course of trying to explain my ideas I’ve come to think that the key thing that determines the comparative strength of a postulate is tone level – the biggest determining factor of which is amount of mass in the mind, which gets blown gradually with auditing with a corresponding raise in tone level. As an individual goes uptone the postulates he generates are lighter and lighter – composed of higher and finer wave lengths. And the finer the wave length, the more powerful the postulate is – increasingly so as it aproaches the tone level of “Postulates,” a very, very fine and powerful wave length, which is probably the best assurance of putting postulates (aka intentions) into the physical universe.
So whether the object moves or not depends first on who has the most powerful (finer wave) postulate. And that is probably modified by any related postulates of others not even involved – including the manifested postulates of the physical universe itself. For example, the object may be way too heavy for you to move – unless you REALLY have a powerful wave going, up there around Postulates. (Get the demo kit. I mean it. :-))
The above is based on the LRH references I know but is in part at least my own work-out.
P.S. Maybe I’m doing a “life-continuum” on Vinaire myself with my high volume of posts lately. I don’t know how he kept it up! Maybe he hit a point of wave collapse…
P.P.S. I just read Maria’s comment in which she quotes a definition of intention that I think aligns with the above – “degree of relative beingness which an individual desires to assume as plotted on the tone scale” That obviously woud correspond to tone level too.
Oh, wow, on a comm lag – that’s “degree of, so maybe there is something to “amount” of intention. I might have to revise my conception a bit…
Well, Chris, glad I warned you to take into account that not all of what I was saying above was based on LRH refs – and even those, of course, are my own interpretations.
Ha ha! (laughing at myself) On yet another comm lag – I take back the above as regards “amount” of intention, in relation to your intention to pick up the object. What an individual “desires to assume” is definition #2 of intention – the desired reality – and in that case, yes, the intention, the “relative beingness” desired, might be considered quantifiable as it is “degree of.”
However, we were comparing your intention with someone else’s intention, meaning the first part of definition #3 – “a determination (decision) to act in a certain way,” And I go back to the idea that this would not be quantifiable – rather, it’s a matter of whose postulate is lighter and thus the most powerful, having the higher (finer) wave length.
(Once again, I’m living proof of the notion that trying to explain something to someone better clarifies it for yourself – I hope!)
“it’s a matter of whose postulate is lighter” = quantifiable.
The postulates themselves, though, don’t have quantity – unless you think of wave lengths as quantifiable… Okay, FINE :-). But comparative “amounts”?
(Btw, did you have some reason for not posting my direct reply to Chris? All the many P.S’s got posted but not the post they were attached to, which is still in moderation.)
Sorry, it piled up.
Wavelengths are quantities just like any other length.
“Wavelengths are quantities just like any other length.”
Yes, I do get that. But are there comparable “amounts” of intention? Or even degrees – defined as “a stage in a scale of intensity or amount.” Maybe a subtle difference there, what do you think?
I don’t know. I am leaning towards intention being 0 or 1 (wavefunction collapse or not, deciding reality or not) and that other factors determine the actual outcome.
Got it, either it is or it isn’t. And in addition to itself, those other factors are included in what determines if it is the last wavefunction standing. (Humorously or not, can I phrase it that way?)
P.S. For me, the outcome is not only dependent on all the other factors but the power the individual’s own intention, the power of its wave length.
Well, That would be quantitative.
P.S. For me, the outcome is not only dependent on all the other factors but the power the individual’s own intention, the power of its wave length.
Well, That would be quantitative.
You know what…you’re right. Oh boy, I have to try to remember that everything in this MEST universe is just that – MEST, quantifiable.
But still, there is the senior truth that all MEST has been – and is now – totally and continuously created and influenced by theta/static/potential. Even quantum physics seems to validate that.
And when it comes down to the individual thetan we can, in fact, have an influence on our own postulates and intentions, which are our own creations not always totally influenced by MEST. So all this talk about quantity shouldn’t lose sight of that either. (I was getting nervous about it for a minute there :-))
Oh wow, I just thought of something, speaking of our own self-determined influence. There’s another factor in favor of thetan vs. MEST, one that enables us to “beat out” even our own seemingly-set MEST circumstance called the current tone-level. It’s called “necessity level” – which has to do with that one definition of intention meaning “resolve.” And if the necessity level is actually full Tone 40 intention – by definition, in itself it isn’t quantifiable. It’s tone 40 – outside of the MEST universe.
Tone 40 intention might be the one exception to the rule – unquantifiable intention.
All is not material!
But then back to the question; If bot you and I have Tone 40 intention in winning the game – who wins?
You would, of course. 🙂
But that is a good question. Assuming that all other factors of “aid or interference” from others and the MEST universe are equal, there must be differences between individuals besides tone level and its direct influence on the wave length of a person’s postulates/intentions.
One indicator of difference that I can think of would be sensitivity setting on the e-meter, which per my understanding is related to state of case (or maybe “native” state?) and the corresponding size of a person’s “space” – probably due to anchor points being at greater or lesser distance from the body (or the “source point” of energy production). The size of the person’s space would then be related to how much force or power or amount of energy could be generated.
But now, if the state of case were also assumed to be “equal” between individuals then we’re left with – differences in “native” ability.
So it ends up that intentions themselves are totally quantifiable. But I still get my bottom line – that the stripped-back, native thetan is unquantifiable. So it’s all good. 🙂
I agree. And as a thetan decides to play a game, it must adopt a degree of not-know. In the game, the thetan who adopts the most not-know (initially or through subsequent losses and resulting not-know) will loose.
That resolves the enigma, as two thetans on top of the scale are not engaged in a game and thus the question becomes irrelevant.
But wait, if it just depends on who adopts or acquires the most not-know, that doesn’t sound like differences in native ability, does it?
Also, I wasn’t sure which enigma you were referring to, but maybe your answer to the above will make that clear.
I don’t think there is any difference in native ability.
As for the enigma; Two thetans intend the opposite – who wins?
Got it. Well, I don’t think I’ve ever heard that idea about degree of not-know determining who wins, but it seems obvious – now that you say it. And also like a good stable datum in how best to play a game.
However… if, as you say, right at the point a thetan decides to play a game, the amount of not-know is set, simply by being arbitrarily(?) adopted, then by that the outcome of the game would be set – right at the get-go. Which sounds so pre-deterministic. On the other hand, so would difference in native ability pre-determine who wins, I suppose. Either way, that leaves as all-important the notion that “it’s not who wins, it’s how you play the game.” And ultimately, Rafael would be right that everybody wins, no matter what. But that’s in the bigger scheme of things, rather than the games within the Game.
In any case, I’m still thinking there must be inherent differences in ability between thetans, if in fact there are differences in basic characteristics that make them all unique beings. Your idea about thetans deciding to adopt whatever degree of not-know that they do may point to basic differences right there. (I’ll admit it, I just don’t like the idea that we’re all the same. Maybe just a bias. Ha!)
There would be a difference between thetans – but not between static. A thetan is already below Tone 40 – as Tone 40 would be static.
As for the amount of Not-Know being the determining factor – this fits well with the KRC triangle. Ultimate Know would equate to ultimate Control/Responsibility. The degree of Not-Know would give the level of Not-Control.
P.S. No, I’ll amend that last to – Maybe just a bias, maybe knowingness. (There, that’s more like I’d like to sum it up :-))
Oh yeah, I totally saw how Not-Know would align with everything in the game. Pretty interesting.
But – and here we go again 🙂 – how are you defining thetan? LRH’s definition is “static” which (as you say) has come down tone in order to have a game. But that static itself is what he called the thetan, even though he goes on to say that it has identified with some mass (that’s the way I think of it) to bring in down tone where a game is possible.
However, I think you’re on to something – by expanding the definition to maybe say that the thetan is static plus the ingredient of a pinch of mass. Or, a thetan is static with some assumed mass (= viewpoint?) What’s your wording?
I would say: A thetan = Static + its creations
Offhand that seems like too much to add to the definition. But what do you mean by creations?
any and all of the thetan’s creations
“…don´t take my ponderings seriously, if you are having fun with them that is a good balance!”
I’m doing both – taking your ponderings seriously but not too seriously, and having fun too. (And I’m going to indulge myself in a bit more now.)
Seems to me that your (in-effect) definition of a good game – a balance between quality and quantity – might be a natural law. I’m serious :-). And it could be the subject of a whole philosophical treatise, “even” a blog post by Geir.
Okay, on to more fun and games and seriousness (since I continue to be interested in your ponderings).
1. You say, “I believe the universe keeps evolving.” Seems that way to me too. I figure what was once (any given number of eons ago) conceived by thetans to be “the physical universe” was probably (going backwards in time) an increasingly less-solid universe (but MEST, nevertheless). Early on, it may have been more like the lightness of mental MEST – in fact, may just have consisted of everyone’s considerations and pictures, perceivable by others.
But – think what the direction it’s taking portends…! In Ken Ogger’s “Cosmic History” (in his Super Scio book) he claims that the next universe after this one – which he calls the Mud (shudder) Universe – will be a very dense, heavy one indeed. Not much fun – it would violate, even more than the current MEST universe does, your classic definition of a good game.
2. “The limit would be a theoretical infinite number of waves synchronized, or harmonized.” That’s interesting too. An infinity of MEST. But is that not a contradiction of terms? Maybe only theoretically possible? Because, wouldn’t it bring us back to static=infinity?
Or not. Maybe it’s what LRH means by “going out the bottom,” a similar phenomenon (maybe) to what he said here: “Apathy actually is a motionless enturbulence. It’s an enturbulence cancelling itself out to the degree that it appears to be motionless.” (Tech Dict under “apathy”). Compare that to what you are describing – totally/infinitely solid MEST. (Now’s the time I should probably know more about expanding and contracting universe theories – LOL. Do you, btw?)
3. “I’m not sure if pure potential and static are exactly the same, pure potential is imaginable, static supposedly not.”
Hey, I worked it out for myself, just today! As a result of Valkov’s post about static.
But take all my “maybe’s” as my thinking-out-loud. I don’t necessarily expect a reply – except as the spirit, or spirit of play, moves you ;-). Thanks for your thought-provoking comments!
Sorry, Rafael, in case you missed it, the above was in reply to your last comment to me. (I’m kinda like Einstein, complex theories but trouble tying my shoes – on a much, much smaller, more narrow scale of course!)
As usual, great discussion!
I thought I’d toss in some of the definitions that came to mind when I read all the different comments and see if it adds to the mix in a good way:
INTENTION, 1. an intention is something that one wishes to do. He intends to do it; it’s an impulse toward something; it’s an idea that one is going to accomplish something. It’s intentional, which means he meant to do it. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06) 2. intention is the command factor as much as anything else. If you intend something to happen it happens if you intend it to happen. Verbalization is not the intention. The intention is the carrier wave which takes the verbalization along with it. (Abil 270) 3. degree of relative beingness which an individual desires to assume as plotted on the tone scale. (5203CM04A)
TONE 40,1. defined as “giving a command and just knowing that it will be executed despite any contrary appearances.” Tone 40 is positive postulating. (PAB 133) 2. a positive postulate with no counter-thought expected, anticipated or anything else; that is, total control. (PAB 152) 3. an execution of intention. (HCOB 23 Aug 65) 4. means unlimited space at will. (5707C25)
TONE 40 COMMAND, intention without reservation. (HCOB 1 Dec 65)
TONE 40: Serenity of Beingness
Serene: Clear, calm. Etymology: L. serenus “clear, bright, fair, joyous”
In particular, I was fascinated by the definition, “degree of relative beingness…”
It seems a puzzle that if there is no amounts or degrees to intention; What is the outcome if two people intend the opposite to happen?
Geir, I no longer think of it as being a matter of who has the most (quantity of) intention, but primarily who has the higher tone level (chronic or acute when making the postulate) – which determines a higher, finer wave length. And that is modified by counter-postulates (of their own and others’), including the influence of the physical universe (which is manifested postulates that may be counter).
I guess we could loosly describe it as quantity of intention, but the only quantity I can see would be quantity of ARC – also a function of tone level. I’m not sure, though, if affinity, for example, actually increases in volume or if again it’s just a matter of wave-length…
Great post, Maria. I had just posted a comment to Chris (a few above this one of yours) and then saw yours and, particularly the definition you too were fascinated with, it fit in perfectly with my comment to him about “whose intention would prevail.” I think it put the finishing touch on my conception. 🙂
This post is based on a reply to Chris in a comm cycle between us over on Elizabeth’s blog. I wanted to post it here too because I think it’s relevant to our comments about nomenclature. In Chris’ post he was making a point about the inconsistencies in the definitions of “mind,” specifically as to how they relate – or don’t relate – to “static” and I had some thoughts about that, as follows.
I think I’ve worked it out. The fact of the matter is, although LRH did give quite different definitions for “mind” – they are all in the Tech Dict, and like any word that has different definitions one has to pick the appropriate def for the context. “Mind” has definitions that range from PICTURES of experience; to a RECORD OF EXPERIENCE [the individual’s own time track] plus ideas, etc; to a natively self-determined COMPUTER; to an OBSERVER, POSTULATOR, CREATOR and STORAGE PLACE of knowledge. That last, I would say, is the most complete, all-time best, and is consistent with all the other definitions (even though it came from Handbook for Preclears – written in the 50’s!)
And (a bit to my chagrin) I now see the “apparently” inconsistent definitions for “theta” in the same way – in spite of all my criticisms of inconsistency on a recent post thread here on Geir’s blog. It’s a simple matter of – context. And clarifying those two words, “mind” and “theta,” are just a couple things I have clarified as a result of reading and posting here and on Elizabeth’s blog. Just today I had a win on the Scn meaning of “Static” (given in my comment to Valkov about that). Talk about a basic building block to the whole philosophy!
Elizabeth has the starring role in my clarification of Chris’ favorite word, “intention”(LOL). In one of her posts, she was talking about postulates (aka intentions) and how we will all – each and every one of us – achieve our postulate of going free, even though it will take some a lot longer than others. And the reason for the differences in how long, she explained, is that it depends on how much mass is there in the mind (including all the individual’s own counter-intentions/postulates) with which that postulate-to-go-free has to compete and which mass it has to “get through.”
So the more mass that is discharged from the mind the easier one’s postulates, i.e. intentions, come into being and are manifested in the physical universe. I was also looking at the idea that as mass is discharged, the thetan goes uptone and the postulates generated would be of lighter and lighter waves. And the finer the wave length, the more powerful (is my understanding) – approaching more and more closely the tone level of “Postulates,” with its assurance (my interpretation) of putting intentions into the physical universe. (There may also be a factor of an increasing ability to generate higher volumes of energy, but I haven’t fully worked that out in my own mind, as to how it relates to postulates. The key seems to be the higher, finer wave lengths.)
And all THAT (in the above two paragraphs) is exactly why one’s power increases with the practice of Scn (to speak to another comment of Chris’). And THAT is why Chris’ postulate may be stronger or weaker than Valkov’s, or whosever.
The last line of Chris’ comment that I was replying to was, “Hence, as LRH developed the subject of Scientology, his language evolved to match – just as our own is evolving now.” And I told him that I’m not just kidding when I say I like to think of the posters here as the name for us that Geir coined (tongue in cheek to whatever degree, or not). He asked if we may be the Scientology-inspired New Thinkers.
(And Chris coined the colloquial version – Geir’s Geeks. I like that too. :-))
@Isene: If both you and I have tone 40 intention on winning the game – who wins?
I would say only one possible solution there Both!
Not if the game demands just one winner.
How about both becoming one? or pan-determined?
And at the same time the answer is none because at tone 40 “both” would be above games conditions.
I don´t think there is a one-sided solution at tone 40
Maybe only at tone 40 there are no degrees or amounts to intention, it is infinite it goes in every direction and none at the same time, is becomes space.
But somewhere below tone 40 it becomes one side against another, and below that individuates more becoming one vector in one side pointing against another vector in the other side, as two sources of energy pointing against each other, and then solidifies into a ridge……and so on….
At Tone 40 there would be nothing but pure potential – no Matter, Energy, Space or Time. No creation. Only possibility.
Yeah, I placed incorrectly intention and space at tone 40, they belong somewhere below.
Now that also means Thetan goes back to Static at Tone 40, so, if he wants to use Tone 40 to win a game, he would vanish before he could grab the prize!
Geir, you are an excellent teacher. You try to get others to think it out and work it out for themselves. But also, if they get stuck or continue asking you are willing to give your own straightforward viewpoint, but as little of it as possible (and all that is appreciated too). This is my observation, anyway.
Okay, getting back to your cryptic definition: Thetan = Static + its creations – looks like I’m still on the work-it-out-for-yourself stage. For starters, from my understanding, the main way(although not the only way, I’ve decided) LRH defines thetan is – a static. But in thinking about that, it doesn’t seem to me (and apparently not to you either) to be the most useful construct.
So with the idea of having a more useful one I would assume that the “creations” you are referring to are the “mental” creations called mock-ups – “knowingly created mental pictures not photographs of the physical universe.” Seems to me these would be what essentially determine and influence the individuality of a thetan.
As for the influence of the other mental creations, facsimiles (“mental pictures that are unknowingly created”), we refer to those as “not the thetan” but a certain part of his case – and consider them no more the thetan than his body, which also has an influence on him, as does the physical universe in general. All these are considered “not HIM” – and rightfully so IF, as I said, we want a useful definition and construct.
But…even some of the knowingly created pictures – like ser facs, for example – can be looked at as case and not him too!
Welp, that’s what I got so far. Not much.
And one other “but”…I’m still trying to tie in the idea of individuality with what you said about thetans adopting different degrees of Not-Know at the start of a game. Specifically, what I can’t quite think with concerns the original decision in the Beginning of some particular amount of Not-Know to adopt, which if it does vary from thetan to thetan would seem to be an individual and unique decision – yet it is determined before any other “creation” has occurred that would be an influence on that decision. Do you see what I mean? And why I’m kind of stuck on this is that it would seem to be the all-determining factor from then on!
Here’s my viewpoint on this:
We begin with pure potential/static
From that potential comes actuality (see The Factors)
The first decision is TO BE (here we get A Thetan)
In order TO BE, a Not Know needs to occur (Total Know is static)
Beingness is a degree of individuality
And also; A thetan is Static + All Its Creations
And I do mean ALL its creations (including the whole universe as he creates it – every split second).
And thanks for the compliments 🙂
“And I do mean ALL its creations (including the whole universe as he creates it – every split second).”
I somehow know you were going to say that :-). And obviously I wasn’t able to talk you out of it. Ha ha!
I can think with it, no problem – only objection is that the vast, vast majority of that whole universe is the same for everybody. I’m looking for what makes differences – what makes individuality. (But in itself what you conceive is really cool.)
And wouldn’t you know, the only line on your post that I don’t really get is “Beingness is a degree of individuality.” Please be more explicit or elaborate a bit. Maybe include something about my quandary as regards your point about degree of “Not-Know” (last paragraph on my post).
P.S. I really like your elaboration of The Factors on several of your points, it’s very helpful.
The initial TO BE is unique and results in a BEING. This Being starts to create by becoming what he wants to perceive. And to be part of a game with others, he creates in unison with others a playing field. The more he creates in agreement with others, the more he equates with others. He will add his individual creations into the game and convince others to create them as well, making his creations a Reality. He also create many things that are not Reality and thus only visible to him – these creations, like dreams, are unique to him. All of this is what makes him himself. Remove all of it and you have static. Not plural as in “statics”, but Static… or Unknowable… because it is the end point of Know.
Now, that is heavy-duty!
Here’s an interpretation of it, in the words of Alfred Lord Tennyson:
“So many worlds, so much to do, so little done, such things to be.
And here’s Tennyson in terms of a “quality” interpretation:
“Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.”
(you’re welcome :-))
Here’s the one of his I never could take too much to heart:
“Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die.”
(ha ha ha)
P.S. Thanks for your answer!
When I first read your post it was sort of like “the universe suddenly got brighter” 🙂 (paraphrase of the pc origination line, same concept). Later, I looked past that “bright forest” to see the trees too, and came up with a more detailed understanding.
Cause (Static with potential) decided to “BE” and part of “being” included Not-Know (by definition, or it would have remained Static = total Know). The “beings” (thetans) created by Cause were created with different degrees of Not-Know – for a reason. Those varying degrees would be a requisite of the grand plan (“the entire purpose”) of Cause – to create an effect by having a game.
Next, in “becoming what he wants to perceive” the being/thetan is no longer simply “being” but has “become.” Factor 27: There is beingness but Man believes there is only becomingness.
Then came the mutual creation of a playing field – the MEST universe. And “the more he creates in agreement with others, the more he equates with others.” (This aligns, for example, with the much smaller-scale reality that one’s culture affects individuality.) Yet, in spite of equating more and more with others, due to the continuing ability to create (postulate) – which is essential to Life – individuality is retained.
However, the direction toward more and more equality seems to point in the direction of “End of Game” – that is, total equation = no Game. And that conflicts with Factor 2: “In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is to be”… (Feel free to pitch in theories to reconcile this difference, Geir or anybody.)
“Remove all of it and you have static. Not plural as in “statics”, but Static…” (I like that, “statics” seems contradictory.) Here again, the question comes up – will we all go back to Static or not? To Be or – To Not Be, that is the question. LRH says no, per Factor 2. Buddhism, on the other hand (for example) says yes (I think).
Well, that’s my understanding of your “world view.” Feel free to point out any alter-is you might care to. Otherwise, think of your take as art (which would apply, as well) and expect it to be interpreted by the beholder. And again, thanks for the very satisfying answer to my question – for now (ha ha ha).
You have understood my views on this correctly.
As for the End of Game; There are two types of End of Game – at the top of the scale and the bottom of the scale. It is like infinity and one divided by infinity (which is damn close to zero) in math. Neither will be reached by expansion or contraction. Down the spiral, each thetan becomes more in agreement and equates more with everyone else as it creates the same as everyone else (giving up its dreams and own creations) – but you can always get a little bit more in agreement – it never really ends. Toward the top of the scale; you can always get a little bit brighter, know just a tiny bit more – it never really ends… unless you stop creating it.
I didn’t really understand the math idea, except maybe that you seem to be saying it’s mathematically impossible. But I can get a concept of the self-perpetuating “limitlessness” of the universe game, whichever direction you go in. (Neat!) And those two Ends of Game have to be what LRH is referring to when he talks about going out the top and going out the bottom.
But you lost me on “it never really ends…unless you stop creating it.” I can’t think how that would be, to “stop creating it” – how a being would do that.
The game never ends unless you stop creating it. How? Well, THAT is the real question. If you knew how, the game would vanish (for you, that is). In that aspect, knowledge is dangerous 😉
But there’s also, “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” Or, “There is no short stop on the road to truth. That is the only track that you have to go all the way on. Once you have put your feet upon that road, you have to walk to its end. Otherwise, all manner of difficulties and upsets will beset you.” LRH
I never really got from LRH that “free of MEST” was the ultimate goal of Scn. He just wanted to play a better Game. (And me too, maybe in a universe that’s less solid.)
Come to think of it, though, there is that one little thing in Scn called “The Bridge to Total Freedom.” I guess you’re right, knowledge is dangerous. 🙂
Well, Geir, since you and I seem to be the last two wave functions standing 🙂 on this thread (at least for the moment), I hope you’re up for a bit more philosophizing with me. I was thinking about your definition of “thetan.” I believe it has this meaning – the original “beingness” plus all its creations thereafter. That could be stated as – the life unit plus all the continuously-changing MEST (in the broadest sense of MEST) that is created – that is to say, who the individual is NOW, including all spiritual and physical/MEST aspects (sort of like what you “see” is what you get).
I got to thinking, that construct is very similar to an LRH definition for personality – “a complex of inherited (MEST, organic, theta) and environmental (aberration, education, present-time environment, nutrition, etc.) factors” (SOS). And that idea is pretty much what is generally considered a “person,” just more technically explicit. I think we need the term “thetan” to mean something more “essential,” more spiritual – because such a construct is needed and I don’t think we have a term for it if not “thetan.”
By “thetan” we should be denoting something more basic in a person, more spiritual and less physical – actually, just spiritual. I think we need this term for that original beingness you referred to, the basic one that came into being in the Beginning – and we should leave it at that, not carry it forward to include all the creations thereafter. “Thetan,” meaning that Original Beingness, would differentiate the basic beingness from all the subsequent acquired beingnesses (and would also eliminate confusion when the word “beingness” is used in connection with a thetan).
That more basic, more essential, more spiritual idea would be very close to what LRH meant by thetan – the same, probably, just more descriptive and explicit than “life unit,” for example. And keeping with LRH’s term as much as possible is a good idea in itself (I’m sure you would agree). Again, I think the definition should be a spiritual one and have to do with the core essence of a being – i.e. the original beingness, from the Beginning, the most basic beingness and the one that in itself never changes.
I would go even deeper than that – leaning toward Vinaire’s viewpoint here:
From Static (with no properties, only potential) comes the decision TO BE (introduces an amount of Not-Know) and this is the initial creation of a thetan – it is a Creation of a basic personality. From there you get further layers upon layers of creations adding to that thetan. Therefore I believe the most basic of definitions should be:
Thetan = Static + Decision TO BE + all the creations of that Beingness
There is a subtle Be – Do – Have in there 🙂
“…the initial creation of a thetan – it is a Creation of a basic personality.”
That “initial creation” is what I think we should mean by “thetan.” For the reasons given – mainly, that we need a term for the key aspect (the spiritual being) of an individual, and because (as Maria expressed so well in an earlier post on this thread) there is an intuitively perceived continuity or sameness to the identity of “I.” (Wouldn’t you agree with that as an actuality, or are you leaning quite a ways toward Vinaire. ;-)) And also, the spiritual concept is what Scientologists are used to, as the meaning of “thetan,” and it would be confusing to have a great a departure.
With the broad definition you have (a fabulous construct, though it is, including the be-do-have of it) “basic personality” seems to be crowded out and clouded over almost completely by something like “continuously ongoing acquired personality.” “Basic personality” is defined in FOT as “a person’s own identity” and as “the core of ‘I’” in DMSMH. I would say that, in the theta-MEST theory, those defs are the meaning of “thetan.”
So, the def would be – Thetan = Static + Decision. That way, we have a word for the spirit itself, which is what continuously creates the layers. Otherwise, what word would we use for that?
I thought of Vinaire too, btw. 🙂
A naked decision TO BE does not comprise a personality much different from any other decision TO BE. It only creates a naked viewpoint. The first creations of that viewpoint would be to create himself as a personality – something that gradually starts with some properties and never really ends. I can’t think with any hard line here that makes for any other definition of a thetan than including all that he creates.
I was looking at it that way too at first and had the same consideration – that there are no actual personality differences in the original beingnesses. However, a difference in Not-Know is not really a “naked viewpoint” at all, when you think about it. In fact, it’s a very significant part of viewpoint at any point in time, the basic part that always affects subsequent layers – together with individual creativity and all its creations. Degree of Not-Know is probably the KEY difference in viewpoint all along the way, the basic “personality characteristic” that affects all the layered-on differences from the Beginning forward. And there exists a sort of continuing “spiritual protoplasm” that comprises the “same entity” actuality of any particular spiritual being.
On the other hand, if individuals are only differentiated in terms of the MEST layers, then we are not individually unique as spirits at all, just uniform parts of a homogenized whole. And that’s what I myself can’t take a hard line on. Does it truly seem right to you, intuitively or otherwise?
Rather than “spiritual protoplasm,” I should say a continuing “spiritual protoplasmic line” (I like that. :-))
I am not thinking in terms of theta vs. MEST anymore. I am thinking in terms of cause and creations – and some of the creations are simultaneously created by many. But regarding the basic decision TO BE, there may be a pattern in that decision – a pattern of not-knows… and that would be your basic personality… perhaps. I have to think about that.
And I like your idea of thinking – and speaking – in terms of cause and creations. If it’s primary cause (not secondary or tertiary, etc., as in the case of causes that are not actually postulates) and if it’s creations that are not actually effects of other creations – then these terms are clean and clear and get away from confusions we have about the meanings of theta and MEST.
Btw, the notion of different degrees of Not-Know at the Beginning would probably mean an infinity of degrees and thus an infinity of beingnesses – which makes a lot more sense than a certain, finite number of beingnesses or beings. I’m tracking with you!
yeah, we are on the same wavelength here 🙂
In some basic way too (dare I say) and that’s why I love a dialogue with you. And why I love the overall dialogue on your blog threads – which you basically orchestrate as the conductor over them. You could write a book on blog TRs. Seriously. (And I’ll edit it for you – ha ha ha!)
hmmm…. not a bad idea, actually…
There must be a very high number of bloggers and most of them probably need better TRs. Entitle your book something like, How to Send Your Blog Statistics out the Roof.
Hey, it really isn’t a bad idea! 🙂
These days I go on almost pure inspiration… whatever tickles my fancy, I do. If I get the inspiration to do it, it will be done 🙂
A great basis of operation! Well, in case you actually do get that inspration, I should note that I actually do have a bit of editing experience! A book that I recently edited has been published and got a very good review. Check it out on the author’s new blog – mrtomdaly.com – and you can see the review, plus a post article I myself wrote as the editor (and I did some co-writing as well).
Incidentally, the subject of this book may be of interest to some of your readers. It’s a memoir about mind-control – which the author would not have had a prayer of overcoming were it not for his auditor training. So, with that further justification 🙂 I trust it was okay to mention it.
Sure it is ok.
I will check it out 🙂
Hey, Chris, I don’t think we ever quite completed the comm cycle here about “intention” so I hope you see this comment and maybe we can tie it up. What I last came to was that you were mainly interested in what it means to “HAVE intention” (and how much or how little of it) rather than what is “AN intention” (different definitions, depending on the use, or not, of an article like “an” or “the”). Correct me if I still haven’t quite duplicated you!
Okay, so we already got into the idea that the smaller the wavelength, the more powerful it is, and here are a couple other quotes from 8-80 that I thought might be helpful:
“Relative speed determines potential” and “…energy is derived from the discharge of high and low, or different, potentials…This is as well, will power.” I was thinking that “will power” relates to a couple of things you brought up – horsepower and inertia. Would you agree with that?
Anyway, these quotes were from a paragraph in the chapter, “Manifestations of Energy,” and there’s a lot more of related interest in that chapter. (There’s even a fancy formula of the energy of life source which you will probably do better with than I did.)
Also, in the chapter on “Life as a Mirror” LRH talks about “a moment of intense activity” vs. “normal energy output” and “lower energy.” It really does seem to me at this point that it’s not only a matter of the more powerful, finer wave lengths but the quantity of energy a thetan can generate as well, with regard to intention and the related postulates.
Geir, I also noted a couple of good quotes in that book on the subject of “basic personality” which you and I were discussing: “The energy potential of beings can be varied slightly within one being and is quite different from individual to individual as a BASIC QUALITY [my caps]…The name given to this life source is ‘thetan.’ It is the individual the being, the personality, the knowingness of the human being.” Pretty good, huh?
“Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.”
Do you think Einstein literally meant this or do you think he was being humorous? I don’t know the context of this quote.
I think he was serious on that one. Just like when he described relativity to a young man along the lines of “If you have her on your lap, the time goes fast. If you stand here waiting for her, the time is slow”.
The actuality of existence may be more quantitative even than stated in the OP. Said another way, it seems that supposed randomity may possibly be accounted for through simple rules in computer code. *
*A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE by Stephen Wolfram, pp 7-16. (Read free online at http://wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html)
By randomity, I mean that the simple rules which govern fractal math and cellular automata are fully able to be both self similar and cause “drift” so as to account for ontogeny and phylogeny in biology to name only one and the first field that comes to mind.
This relevation is creating in me a new and fresh understanding of evolution. An understanding not dependant upon “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” as the Source of change. It is a giddy and exciting feeling to have a fresh look at old arguments.
My questions: Does Wolfram’s new key to understanding how simple rules can be the basis for the structure and complexity of the Universe prove Einstein’s “God doesn’t play dice” ? Does it prove the existence of an Architect? Or does it prove the lack of a need for one? And what does it mean toward man’s overbalanced and god-like ego?