A week’s vacation and here I am. Man, you guys have been busy… 500 comments. To make it easy for myself, instead of wading through the threads looking for questions I should address, it’s far easier to ask you here if there is anything you want me to comment on or take up. So, this is a free-for-all post; You are free to ask any question, direct my attention to any comment, tell a joke or offer a cheese cake recipe… or whatever. Feel free 🙂
41 thoughts on “Catching up”
Geir, thanks for giving us the “run of the house” while you were gone – it was appreciated! But great to have you back. 🙂
Ha ha! For once we have a free-for-all that’s even verbally sanctioned 😀
One of the best comments was by 2ndxmr on the Independent Scientologists thread. It had to do with how KSW 1 set the stage for the running of ser facs. Here’s part of one of his posts:
“The simplicity of the ser fac created using KSW1 is that ‘you are wrong for applying the technology in any way other than the way we say to apply it (today).’ However, if the technology changes tomorrow, then tomorrow you will be wrong for applying it the way you were right, today. KSW1 takes just being ‘wrong’ to the heights of squirreling, out-tech and off-beat practices. Because such practices are anathema to Scientology orthodoxy, it becomes patently easy to make another wrong – and self right – by claiming any perceived imperfection as out-KSW.”
I think it makes sense that KSW1 has tended to restimulate everyone’s ser facs. This might also explain why the debates about LRH and Scn go on and on without really resolving much most of the time – not just here but all over the web. Ser facs in action are pretty much uncontrollable and unkillable.
Very interesting take on KSW1. I am almost finished reading a book (“A Perfect Mess“). It explains quite clearly why Scientology as it stands is doomed to fail (if my article “Processes, automation and Human Potential” did not explain that well enough). It relates directly to this comment on KSW… and more.
Yes, your article also relates directly to the KSW1 take. I mentioned that in the exchange with 2ndxmr – he then read it and agreed. Another interesting thing is that he is an experienced auditor and very pro-Scientology and at the same time is for its continued evolution. A guy after your own heart in various ways 🙂
Yes, so it seems 🙂
I would like you to consider the implications of this fascinating study of communication that I found on YouTube.
It’s an excellent example of how well two beings can communicate if one strips away all the adult fuss.
I would also like to know if the photo at the top of your blog is one of your own photos and where the photo was taken — is it somewhere in Norway?
It is a pure computer generated image (using Terragen) 🙂
I really like it and I am glad you left it at the top of your blog!
I’ve been thinking a little bit about Scientology and a comparison to mathematics might be handy? That is, up to a certain point it is very useful and interesting, but after a while it gets very theoretical and doesn’t have so much use in real life.
For example (in mathematics) differential equations, integrals and derivates, linear algebra and so on is extremely useful up to a certain point in engineering, construction, space travel etc, but the theoretical levels above that, for example proving the Last Theorem of Fermat and so on is not very useful in real life (even though it might be very interesting).
Same thing with Scientology, the basic communication course, SP/PTS-course, basic auditing and so on is useful and does improve your life, but on higher levels it sort of pans out and doesn’t get as useful any more? It’s more a question of doing it for it’s own sake, following policy letters for it’s on sake etc, keeping ethics in etc, just like mathematics on the very highest levels (proof, theorems etc). I guess that’s why many people leave.
I guess my question is this (not really related to the above):
The far most interesting and senior thing about Scientology to me is the idea that the thetan is a spiritual being with no location in space and time and with the ability to postulate and that very high capabilities can be rehabilitated.
The idea that as-ising old postulates, old engrams and so on will restore the thetan to it’s original (or close to its original) state of very high capabilites and much happiness – this is the most interesting concept for me regarding Scientology: As-ising old postulates and thus becoming more YOU.
Do you think this is possible? And why didn’t Hubbard reach further than he did?
Another doubt I have is Hubbards claims of certain extra-terrestrial civilisations. It might be fully possible (and probably is) that there have been lots of extra-terrestrial civilisations and so on, but exactly in the way Hubbard told it? There’s lots of resources (wikipedia for example) where a time-line of Hubbard claims can be viewed. He claimed there were E.T.’s together with the egyptians for example and I highly doubt that considering the evidence the scientists can bring forward.
And some of the OT III claims is extremely hard to believe. I get the feeling he started out very honest and “what’s true for you is true for you” and as he progressed his writings became more and more ad-libed and cultish. Weird?
I still think that Hubbard has come up with the most interesting ideas though, but further research is probably needed. Hubbard started a new way of thinking, that’s the way I see it.
Hubbardianen: “The idea that as-ising old postulates, old engrams and so on will restore the thetan to it’s original (or close to its original) state of very high capabilites and much happiness – this is the most interesting concept for me regarding Scientology: As-ising old postulates and thus becoming more YOU. Do you think this is possible? And why didn’t Hubbard reach further than he did?”
Chris: Maybe this is the counter-intuitive part. Maybe the goal is not becoming more YOU. Root around questioning your questions that seem difficult or to defy your probing. Maybe there is some traction there. Hubbard reaching farther? If you have already covered his ground and found it lacking, kudos. Then there is left only how far you are going to reach.
Research into high level mathematics has many, many repercussions and intended side effects into other areas. Particle physics/QM, astrophysics, nano technology, computer technology Quantum Computing, etc. Lots of areas that paves the way for humanity to tackle new frontiers – energy supply, food supply, computer efficiency, space travel, teleportation, maybe even time travel. High level research into any field may prove to be time consuming and often futile – but the potential for reward is often of orders of magnitude greater.
I do not agree. What you are referring to is the useful parts of mathematics while I’m referring to higher levels of theoretical mathematics, a theoretical world more or less of it’s own. I’m not against research into higher mathematics (because who knows what important things might be found?) but most of it is not (as of this writing) particularly useful in real life.
Same with some parts of Scientology. Some areas are a theoretical world of it’s own, all happening in the mind with lots of thinkingness. Rathbuns blog is full of it for example. It gets very theoretical after a while without really leading anywhere.
So, up to a certain point. Interesting and useful. After a certain point, too theoretic (even though it might be fun and interesting for it’s own sake).
The curve levels out, so to speak.
With respect, all envelope pushes are into hitherto theoretical worlds.
t seems to me you are trying to make connections that don’t connect. There are plenty of examples of “pure theoretical math” that later have proven to yield very important practical results – like complex numbers. You may try to read up on the most abstract area in all of mathematics; Category Theory.
I have a question for you – how was your vacation and what did you do?
Also, are you still planning to tell us about the speech you gave at the IT convention, before it gets too cold? And btw, you have a few other incomplete cycles too – like the Model of a Universe article that you mentioned a while back. (I haven’t forgotten that.)
And I could name more… 🙂
(But maybe that book you’re reading has you practicing disorder… :-D)
The model-of-the-universe transformed mostly to the processability article 🙂
Vacation was excellent. Nice weather, lots of playing and bathing with the kids.
As for the talk on Big Data – that may perhaps dwindle – not that it wasn’t great – people loved it… but my views on what I said is already shifting somewhat 😉
Thanks. I was actually thinking that the processability article was a pretty universal model.
Well, it will be interesting to learn just how your views have shifted, considering the fact that the principles in the article were what I figured you had presented in the speech. Maybe that book you’re reading has shed new light on the universe… 🙂
My views on the article remains. My view on trying to structure information is shifting…
Hmmm…does that relate to your “WOIM” structure?
Well – WOIM is a tool. My view on when to use tools and how is a bit in flux… 🙂
WOIM as it stands is IMNSHO a brilliant tool in itself.
Mine too! 🙂
“When to use tools and how” sounds like an amplification, if not a modification, of Geir’s Theory of Processibility. Looking forward to hearing about it.
By “mine too” I meant IMO too.
😉 Got that.
Geir: “but my views on what I said is already shifting somewhat ;)”
Chris: Ain’t it the truth? My own viewpoint(s) shift and shift and shift. Sometimes it introverts me and I wonder what I am doing studying these things, then I coach myself and say, “Well, I am learning, so of course my viewpoint is shifting.” But to try to learn about physics, enough to not be a total dork, when there is so much extant knowledge and so many fringe ideas is still intimidating to me. I have to just settle on eating it one bite at a time.
Yup; That’s how you eat an elephant.
This is a cheesecake made for people who are gluten intolerant but it is a situation where the substitution creates a superior solution. The phrase “This is the best cheesecake of my life” blathers constantly from people who eat this.
It’s because of the crust. People actually make this crust to just eat IT.
Updated link. Other one still has info but will prob vanish.
Since the existentially essential question of cheese cake has brought forth,
I’d like to share this recipe with you : 🙂
When in Oslo, go to the part of town called Sagene and out Sagene Lunchbar and order THEIR cheese cake. 🙂
It’s small, really “a piece of cake”, the price is ridicilous even for Norway 🙂 , if not outright horrendous, but … … the cake is worth it !!!
Ooops, should be “… and seek out Sagene Lunchbar … ” :-S
Need to try 😉
The Monty Hall Problem and Observation.
A game show host named Monty Hall from “Let’s Make a Deal” has three doors. 1, 2 and 3. on Thursday morning. Behind one of the doors is a free car and behind the other two are Scientology Regges.
Bright Betty Chooses door number 1.
After making her choice, Monty reveals one of the regges behind one of the other two doors. He assures her that every person who plays gets to see one of the Regges revealed.
If Bright Betty changes to the other door what are her chances of winning? Or should she stay? It’s just 50/50 at this point right?
Not so fast. Hang with me. . .
Right after the reveal a man walks in and sees the two remaining doors. Monty offers him a choice to pick a door. He does not know what Bright Betty chose.
What are his odds?
Answer: If Betty changes her door after the reveal of the goat she has a 2 out of 3 chance of winning.
But the bloke is stuck at 50/50.
Why? Marilyn vos Savant (World Record IQ Holder) had THOUSANDS of PhDs write in for her answer calling her an idiot. They claim it goes back to 50/50 after the reveal. These were NOT stupid people.
But experiment shows her right…
If you take dice and run this out the numbers actually work. Take a piece of paper and write down C R R and R R C in a variety of patterns to get a sample.
Roll a six sided dice for Bright Betty’s choice : 1-2 = Door 1, 3-4 = Door 2, and 5-6 is Door three.
Circle the door she chooses first. Cross out a door with the revealed reg AND HAVE BRIGHT BETTY PUT A CHECK ON THE OTHER DOOR.
Did she get the car?
SHE MUST AlWAYS SWITCH TO GET THE BEST CHANCE. YOU WILL NOTICE AFTER ABOUT 30 TRIES THAT SHE INDEED GETS 2 OUT OF 3.
What do YOU think is going on here?
May be the indication that consciousness plays a part in creating the world we see.
Interesting. Later perhaps…
Good to see your post. Reading the boson article you linked on FB.
Coll article, eh?
I’m glad to see you back Geir,
It took me awhile to realize you must be away.
I half expected you to suddenly appear and whack a couple of us up side the head with a comment or two on some of the posts, but life went on 🙂
I’m glad you had some quality time with your family and time to delve into your other interests.
As for this blog: there were some great discussions as usual. I do like the short question posts. They elicit some great thoughts & ideas.
Readers pay notice:
“I do like the short question posts. They elicit some great thoughts & ideas.”
You guys may like this bit I wrote about a Homeless man who discovers that his soul is the impossible nothing. It’s my latest religious experience piece for my book. With all the “Meat Grief” I give you guys, you may get a chuckle out of it.