Here’s a process I adapted from Creation of Human Ability to process and empower in this area:
R1-11T Problems and Solutions in Havingness of Time Expanded (COHA)
Run each step alternate/repetitive to F/N (if metered), completed expression of meaningful cognition and VGI’s.. On each question of each step, allow PC to give all the answers they have before moving to the next question.
Step A: Problems
(1) What kind of a problem can others be to you in havingness of time?
(2) What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness of time?
(3) What kind of a problem can someone be to another in havingness of time?
(4) What kind of a problem can someone be to another in not-havingness of time?
(5) What kind of a problem can you be to others in havingness of time?
(6) What kind of a problem can you be to others in not-havingness of time?
(7) What kind of a problem can another be to theirself in havingness of time?
(8) What kind of a problem can another be to theirself in not-havingness of time?
(9) What kind of a problem can you be to yourself in havingness of time?
(10) What kind of a problem can you be to yourself in not-havingness of time?
Step B: Solutions
(1) What kind of a solution can others be to you in havingness of time?
(2) What kind of a solution can others be to you in not-havingness of time?
(3) What kind of a solution can someone be to another in havingness of time?
(4) What kind of a solution can someone be to another in not-havingness of time?
(5) What kind of a solution can you be to others in havingness of time?
(6) What kind of a solution can you be to others in not-havingness of time?
(7) What kind of a solution can another be to theirself in havingness of time?
(8) What kind of a solution can another be to theirself in not-havingness of time?
(9) What kind of a solution can you be to yourself in havingnessof time?
(10) What kind of a solution can you be to yourself in not-havingness of time?
For greater results, next run steps A and B, substituting “Creating time”/”Not creating time” for “havingness of time”/”not-havingness of time”.
Yes. I have just looked at a possible upper triangle. Bottom up from awareness, two
angles: perception and knowingness. They add up to consciousness. Much like an hour-glass. Awareness can be the point where time enters the picture with purpose, with desire and values as parts of purpose.
MT…. How could TIME enter into anything —anyplace—, anywhere when Time do not exist? doing-ness can be created but TIME can not be created…made…prodused since it is only on illusion. Time dont even hold energy or made of energy soince it do not exist. So… think about it, please re-consider than give your reality once more. thank you.. Also you can give your reality 2 different ways…… Human or spiritual view point…{spiritual=without body where thought do not exist.Lets go from there…
Right. ‘Spiritual’ or’ Physical’, both are timeless. There is no ‘time’.
Geir – Agreed. The decision is timeless. It is as fast as think a thought – done. Needing more time to me is indicative on non confront, Q&A or not ready with all data at hand. The decision should then be to decide nothing until all data known. Then walk on down that path.
If we consider and agree for sake of this discussion the construction that the decision point (the being) is what creates time, space, etc. It is the action of that very decision point to make a decision. It is outside of the time, space, created field or thing. Just my 2 copper circles worth.
Geir. I just read that link again. Nice and enlightening as it was when I read it before. Could it be so many have confusions because in the truth of it there is always my universe and dynamics, your universe and dynamics and the agreed upon universe and its dynamics. Per the scale I posted a while back with all 3 triangles at the same time. We can only be cause in ours and can be effect and an influence on the others. Ah, the randomity keeps us from complacency and deep sleep.
In the realm of time I do believe most have no concept of the speed of change in our world. This is shown/demonstrated in the following:
Awesome video. Along with the accelerating physical universe, this data seems to be more evidence of a fractal universe in every way.
SA: “We can only be cause in ours and can be effect and an influence on the others.”
Are you saying that nobody could enter your universe and cause an effect in it? Is “your universe” just your “mental / mind” universe? Even if it is just that (the mind universe), would not someone else delivering an implant to you be an example of another universe causing an effect in your’s?
SA
Can it happen that one stops creating one’s universe?
2ndxmr – If you have Creation of Human Ability check out the chapter titled This Is Scientology (From a Journal of Scientology in the 50’s same title.) I can be cause in my universe. I can’t cause you to want an apple. I can postulate and mock up images. If you agree to some degree and you get that thought you could be cause and decide to want an apple. I may create an effect but I don’t get into your universe and make you want an apple.
The other person must agree, resist, copy my mockup or something. In my opinion if we believe others are cause of our universe then we are a mere pawn to a stronger being. Even created forced – to effect you then you must resist it in some form. If something bad happens in my universe I caused it directly or indirectly by agreement, copying, etc from someone else. Thus I say I am the only cause in my universe. If you read the original non confidential ability gained at OT 6 (not New OT6 which is the Solo Nots course) it said “ability to operate freely as a thetan exterior and to act pan-determinedly, extends the influence of the thetan to the universe of others.”
It didn’t say exterior with full perception and it did say cause over the universe of others. I gave the reference and summary and this is what I find to be true. Not because that is what LRH wrote, true because it matches my experience of it to make it a truth for me. For you, at this time, it could be a “maybe” or “possible”. I hope you enjoy the finding of that answer.
—
Marianne – well, if you stopped creating your universe then it will cease to be a causative creation. It might run on circuits for some time. Other than that would be speculation on my part.
—
Marildi – whether fractal or not I cannot say. It could be merely the combined group agreement constantly being added to. Now we are into the 8th dynamic – that which is the overall creativeness of all. From whence and where it started – and to what end. God particle, god dynamic or do we find ourselves and our entire universe just a speck of sand on another’s beach. The journey is to find out. Our game is understanding the journey.
S.A., your take on that video in terms of the creativity of the 8th dynamic makes total sense. I guess computers and the internet take most if not all of the credit for the exponential addition of “appendages” to our brains. Or we could call them awesome servo-mechanisms of the human mind, the way Scientology was described by LRH. And as for the potential for games that you described – so huge I almost couldn’t have it! LOL. Thank you for your insights.
Your comments about OT VI were also very interesting. You stated the EP as “ability to operate freely as a thetan exterior and to act pan-determinedly, extends the influence of the thetan to the universe of others.” And then you added “It didn’t say exterior with full perception…” Do you know what the LRH reference is for that? And does it include “stably” exterior…?
Btw, the end of that sentence of yours was “…and it did say cause over the universe of others.” I assume that it was a typo and you meant to say “…it did NOT say cause over the universe of others”, since the word “influence”, not “cause” was used in the EP.
Marildi – It wasn’t my take on the video so much as my response to your comment on the universe expanding. Both are related though. I get that from an LRH def on 8th dynamic “the eighth dynamic would be the overall creativeness or destructiveness as a continuing impulse.” This had followed “the seventh dynamic would be the urge to survive of the spirits or spiritual aspects of each universe.” The each universe is the reference in COHA I gave and is from the triangle of certainty of awareness with a own universe corner, physical universe corner and others’ universe corner. In the book is a diagram of this.
He stated “each of the three universes seeks to persist indefinitely. Each is continuously caused and each is continually receiving an effect. Each has its own adjudication of what is should receive as an effect and what it should cause.
– Time itself consists of a continuous interaction of the universes. Each may have its own space. Each has its own particular energy. – The urge of any of these three universes toward survival is subdivisible, for each of the three universes, into eight dynamics.
There are, then four groups of each dynamics each:
The eight dynamics of one’s own universe;
The eight dynamics of the physical universe;
The eight dynamics of the others’ universe; as well as
The eight dynamics of the triangle itself. end quote
Thus I stated the continuing impulse of creativeness which we would observe as the expanding universe when we view it from the viewpoint of the eight dynamics of the physical universe.
—
I didn’t say the EP of OT 6 – I said the non confidential ability gained. This is directly quoted from the grade chart of 1970. After 1974 we don’t have ability gained on the chart for these upper OT levels.
I said it didn’t say with full perception exterior because this is what I commonly hear scientologist think the EP should be. I won’t comment on how much perception I have, or you would have, or Geir has. This does not make one any better than the other. We all start at different places, have different backgrounds and different awareness and responsibility levels. I do not mean to be nit picky about what it says but I don’t wish to mislead anyone. I would say in my experience this is quite stable.
Yes, I did mean did NOT say cause over… Thanks for spotting my error and still understanding my communication. Tis true – intention is cause and that comes across even when a type says otherwise.
Has this helped answer your questions?
Saper Aude, thanks for telling me where you got that definition of 8th dynamic. I’ve read it but I guess it hadn’t been “real” enough for me to remember it. Looking at in in terms of the data on that video made it more real. That whole reference in COHA on the three universes is amazing – it really shows how interconnected everything and everyone is.
As regards OT VI, got it on my incorrectly substituting “EP” for “ability gained” (I understand the difference, though.)
I agree with you that each of us may differ on the ability gained on OT VI, as to how much perception we would have while exterior. And I think that datum applies to any level of the Bridge because, as you say, we all start at different places, etc. It seems to me that the Bridge is not as linear as it looks. And I have also had the thought that we actually can “take it with us” – i.e. that in the next lifetime we start at the higher awareness level gained in the previous life.
If I understood you correctly, the ability you yourself gained on OT VI is stable. That is great to know about! Yes, I think you answered all my questions. Thanks again. 🙂
Θ is cause. To be effect it needs to assume an effect point. Without an effect point it cannot perceive any effect. A viewpoint, a body are effect points. But they aren’t Θ itself. No body is OT.
The trick is for Θ implant itself with the idea that it is an effect point. Then it is effect. But it’s a lie, so then things persist. So, time…
Yes, Θ cannot get implanted as it has to time, space etc. It isn’t a thing. It can implant it’s 1st dynamic or others. It can take a viewpoint, stick it inside a dog’s body then implant upon it(1st dynamic)self the idea that it is a cat. Then you can run Dianetics to as-is that. But ultimately you gotta show him he is neither a cat, nor a dog, nor a viewpoint, but the creator of those.
hehehe… than you are doing other things.. since a postulate to make one only takes fraction of the second… Geir is right on that.. Now “thinking” figuring out something do take “time” but that is not postulating and “figuring out something has no power .
D…… you mean you need to do something else before you doing something? Than not TIME you need but doing something different before you do your “main project”
I’ve had more to do recently than I’ve had time to complete, especially as a lot of it takes figuring on – which is a task I’m rather fond of and so tend to savor like a good cup of coffee.
However, I have also taken time to contemplate an explanation of the Wheeler Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, and maybe a bit of that is germane to this thread…
The jist of this experiment is that a future event can affect a present event. That’s counterintuitive as long as one thinks in terms of linear time. The implication of the Wheeler experiment is that time is an apparency, something Geir, Elizabeth and others have said in the past. Yet we talk about past and future with a certainty that both were / will be.
Here’s another way to look at it and somewhat of an explanation for the quantum conundrum:
Take a movie that you haven’t seen and know nothing about. You not only don’t know the ending, you don’t know the story. You have to watch it to see how it unfolds. If you’re feeling clever you might make some predictions about the outcome as the story runs, but they’re only predictions – may or may not happen depending on some other cleverness (like that of the writer). In other words, uncertainty exists. Many outcomes many be possible, some more probable than others.
Okay, the movie ends, an outcome (ending) is decided upon (condenses) and now you KNOW the movie, you KNOW how it will replay (barring some other universe slipping you an alternate copy of the DVD.) At that point you can replay the entirety of the movie in your (head?) instantly, you can see the whole story at once. If you don’t think you’ve ever done that, just try. To some degree YOU will be able to do that. And THAT is something no existing computer can currently do. I will posit that even your brain cannot do it – to superimpose all the images of the entire movie (even just a lot of them) in a single instant. Neurons simply don’t fire fast enough for that to happen. But to some degree YOU can do it. If anything that ability to superpose pictures may be a proof of theta.
So two things tie together here:
1) the quantum choice eraser implies that the condensing particle KNOWS the ending of the story; knows how it must behave at the beginning to make the ending agree. It’s seen the movie. Thus there exists a superposition of time and in the quantum viewpoint, no time.
2) what we call theta has precisely the same capability – to superpose time. This is evident by this thought experiment of “mentally” reviewing a movie in an instant.
The conclusion would be that theta is literally identical to the “spooky” state of stuff as defined by the math of QM. More appropriately, QM is virtually identical to theta and I will posit again that theta created this universe in an image of its own operating basis i.e. theta is a no-space, no-time potential (probabilistic state) that can create space and the illusion of time via particles in that space. Particles that behave as if there is no time involved in how they appear to behave.
MT TIME CAN NOT ENTER into anything since Time it self is a consideration a belief a thought without any substenance, Time it self is intengable same as any other idea.
Just a ‘swing of the pendulum of awareness’. It can get stuck on the concept of ‘I’, so it looks there is a ‘chooser, a decision maker’. With no ‘ I ‘, it’s just a swing, formless at one and and form at the other end. It’s free will all along….awareness, life…timeless.
Correction: at one end….Haha….once again…I misspelt the word ‘end’ and the truth didn’t let me write down an untruth…as in actuality there is no beginning and no end of the timeless swing….
MT: “Do you think it is possible to step out of the movie? Also, step out and then step in again?”
Good question. An intermission. Since the quantum world defines itself by probabilities, taking an intermission should be one of those. Taking a sneak peak at the ending may be another. Spoiler alert!
2x
It looks that Ron and the ‘enlightened’ ones are right. After ‘awakening’ life has the ability to build up one’s new universe (dream, bubbles, movies) and also destroy it but this time at will. The challenge is not to start building again.
Marianne: The challenge is not to start building again.
Chris: Why would that be?
MT: “…The challenge is not to start building again.”
At least not unknowingly. But even that concept takes us right around and back to the beginning: we can build a sandbox to play in and can imagine the sandcastle before it’s built. However, if there is no uncertainty of outcome, why do it? This is the point where one must not-know some things in order to have a challenge, a game to play. I need not say more, LRH already said it all.
2x, it occurred to me that it’s the same phenomenon that happens when we speak. Before we can get out a string of words, or even a single word, we have to have a general concept (a knowingness, actually) from which the individual “images”, or facsimiles (in this case. words), are pulled. You have to KNOW the set of facsimiles that will communicate your thought before you can come up with the words – which is the reason why you CAN come up with the words – they’re all superposed in timeless theta. I was thinking maybe it’s related to the Know to Mystery Scale, going from Know to Look down through to Symbols.
And maybe in reverse it’s the mechanics of a postulate: We look at and select out of theta (the mirror of images) a group of images/facsimiles and then put them together into a particular, originated set that will determine the “movie” we want to put in motion – i.e. we make the postulate!
Here is an LRH quote that relates to the above:
“Thought is definitely comparable to nothing in the universe of matter, energy, space or time, having no wave length, weight, mass or speed and being, therefore, a zero which is an infinity or, in short, a true static. Thought, thinking and life itself are of the same order of being. Demonstrably they have no wave length, therefore contain neither time nor space. Thought only appears to have time because in it is recorded physical universe time. There is obviously an ‘action’ in thought but, as obviously, it is not action in this universe.” (Handbook for Preclears)
Marildi: : “it occurred to me that it’s the same phenomenon that happens when we speak.”
An accurate analysis by you. Also, thanks for the LRH ref.
2x, those two quotes from HFP also gave me an understanding as to why LRH seems to be saying at times that theta is energy and has a wavelength – although it (theta) is defined as a static. Theta only APPEARS to have energy, time, etc. because of the “recordings” or “impressions” of time, space, energy and matter – but these recordings/impressions, i.e. facsimiles, are themselves statics.
By those two quotes, I meant the one above your post and the other HFP quote below this one.
Marildi: “those two quotes from HFP also gave me an understanding as to why LRH seems to be saying at times that theta is energy and has a wavelength – although it (theta) is defined as a static. Theta only APPEARS to have energy, time, etc. because of the “recordings” or “impressions” of time, space, energy and matter – but these recordings/impressions, i.e. facsimiles, are themselves statics.”
This goes back to what LRH wrote in 8-80:
“The characteristic of any vibration is that it contains the manifestations of a static and a kinetic.”
The vibrations around theta (theta’s masses and condensed pictures) would be the kinetic aspect of the “stored” static pictures.
Going back to the idea of speech creation that you proposed, the static is creating a kinetic by the action of condensing thought into energies that direct the speech center of the brain to create the word-symbol impulses that drive the rest of the speech mechanics (tongue, jaw muscles, throat, etc.). Again, the static creates a kinetic by thought. Further, that created kinetic may inspire new thought (new static).
Similarly kinetics can kick back on the static. Consider what happens when we hear certain words, how “restimulative” they are. Other senses also create electrical energy patterns across the brain (more kinetics) that act on the static theta in a myriad of ways from thought to heavy restimulation.
And so it plays out: static->kinetic; kinetic->static; static->kinetic->static; kinetic->static->kinetic
(I’ll repost this in the right place.)
2x, LOL – we both came up with the same quote at the same time (just 2 minutes apart). Thanks for spelling it all out so explicitly in practical terms. Fantastic!
2X: Similarly kinetics can kick back on the static. Consider what happens when we hear certain words, how “restimulative” they are.
Chris: It doesn’t seem likely that anything reacts in any way with the static. I follow your example graphic of static-kinetic if you want to name the static as a zero point; however, that zero point in this universe would always be relative, conditioned, and impermanent. It is a momentary entropy of MEST. At least, I can visualize it in this way; the point being that I don’t need anthropomorphic thetans to finish the equation. IF they are there, ok, but I don’t see that I need them yet to understand what is happening.
Chris: “The zero point … It is a momentary entropy of MEST.”
A momentary entropy of MEST? Not by any definition of entropy that I’d know.
We’re talking about the equivalent of a probabilistic state. Hardly entropic as entropy is all about the energy no longer available to a sysytem. Neither is it anthropomorphic: anthros – man, morphic – shaped.
Once again, I ask you, if you can accept the probabilistic state as being a fundamental, foundational, basic, agreed upon necessity to explain QM…
a state that is all possibilities at once…
a state that is ESSENTIAL in explaining the Wheeler experiment…
a state that was the basis of much argument in Copenhagen 80 years ago but generally agreed upon beacause it was a mathematically accurate answer– NOT an intuitive answer– …
a state that fits the experimental results of the last 80+ years…
how is it you can out-of-hand reject that one of the infinite possibilities of the initial void was not a glimmer of awareness? An awareness that was not unlike other instabilities in the void except that it was aware. Out of an infinite number of instabilities, one could have been an instability that made a copy of itself. Another could have been an instability that made a copy and noticed a separateness from the copy. And another could have… become aware!
However the instability that begat awareness arose, it is quite possibly very close to an explanation of the origin of everything as it requires no starting point, no forever-existing deity, nothing except the instability already agreed upon by physicists. No man-shape, no energy, no entropy, no time, no space.
Could it be since you are the only stable individual in existence that that is the reason you cannot contemplate an instability?
Don’t pop a blood vessel. All I said was that I didn’t need your thetan explanation, not that I rejected it. Maybe read my post again. Your loud reaction to my words doesn’t seem to be impacting your static but your regular old self.
p.s. 2x, here’s another quote that backs up your concept of theta having all the images/facsimiles superposed into one timeless thought:
“FACSIMILES. A facsimile is a memory recording for a finite period of time. It is considered that memory is a static without wave length, weight, mass or position in space (in other words, a true static) which yet receives the impression of time, space, energy and matter. A careful examination of the phenomena of thought and the behavior of the human mind lead one to this conclusion. The conclusion is itself a postulate used because it is extremely useful and workable. This is a point of echelon in research, that a facsimile can be so described. The description is mathematical and an abstract and may or may not be actual. When a thought recording is so regarded, the problems of the mind rapidly resolve. Facsimiles are said to be ‘stored’ [note LRH’s quotation marks]. They act upon the physical universe switchboard called the brain and nervous and glandular system to monitor action. They appear to have motion and weight only because motion and weight are recorded into them. They are not stored in the cells. They impinge upon the cells.” (HFP)
Because ‘being and being aware’ in the ‘here’ is perfectly enough and beautiful. Life is taking care of the ‘one’ in ways the ‘one’ cannot ‘build’. Also, one can respond in a situation in a way which is alive.
2x
Thanks. Yes, Ron said it but not ‘all’. As far as my knowledge of it goes. He did not say that it was possible to live a life in the unknown, of uncertainty. That life can be lived without creating games and still be enjoyable. That this is not a theory but can be an actuality.
MT:”He did not say that it was possible to live a life in the unknown, of uncertainty. That life can be lived without creating games and still be enjoyable.”
Games may be too figurtive a word and he may well have likened settling for an “enjoyable life” to be “in the trap”, so to speak. Life certainly can be enjoyable and becomes more so as one rises in tone and awareness. It comes down to an individual idea of sufficiency as to how far one will reach and how strong is the urge.
2X: That this is not a theory but can be an actuality.
Chris: Example?
Chris: “2x:That this is not a theory but can be an actuality. “” Example?”” ”
“That this is not a theory but can be an actuality.” (That was a comment by Marianne.)
Marianne?
Marildi
Theta IS energy. Very-very fine energy. It’s the Flow, the Tao. I didn’t read anything about why and how a postulate can ‘stick’. I guess this is so because a thought-postulate when it is ‘pure’ is the same energy of the ‘place’ where it wants to have a
‘positive’ effect. Can you find a reference why/when a postulate ‘sticks’?
Marianne, it seems that the static of theta is there in that “Very-very fine energy…the Flow, the Tao… This is from 8-80:
“The characteristic of any vibration is that it contains the manifestations of a static and a kinetic. A static is something with no motion, no particle and no wave length; and a kinetic is something which has considerable motion…”
“…In the higher ranges, the static is furnished by the individual, and the mathematical symbol for this near-ultimate is theta.”
That’s a good question about why/when a postulate “sticks”. I’ll see if I can find something. Probably later as I will be going out shortly.
Thanks for your input!
2x and Chris
‘This is not a theory but an actuality’. One example can be our ‘enlightened’ ones. I have posted some videos (Adya, Echart Tolle, Byron Katie, Gangaji….). One can argue whether it is an actuality in their cases but as long as one is not in that ‘place’ of consciousness where they are, one of course cannot be ‘certain’ of that ‘non-place’ of the ‘uncertain and unknown’. To me it looks that they communicate from ‘there’.
Not looking for an argument. Just asking.
Chris
I know! Thanks! I instantly found the belief which served as a base for my use of the word ‘argue’.
Wow, what a concept!
And I mean that in more ways than one. It seems to me that the analogy of mentally grasping a whole movie “at once” would be like any concept – many, many images superposed and resulting in a single “thought”, i.e. a concept. That’s what a concept seems to be derived from, many superposed images. At least that’s my concept! 🙂
“Thought, thinking and life itself are of the same order of being. Demonstrably they have no wave length, therefore contain neither time nor space. Thought only appears to have time because in it is recorded physical universe time.” (Handbook for Preclears)
For anybody who wants to get a simple understanding of the spooky “delayed choice quantum eraser experiment”, here’s a video:
One organises “doingness” in order do more, but one that has nothing to do with the intengable TIME… If one is slow than one can do less, For example I am fast with “doing-ness” because of that I do acomplish great deal daily therefor it seems i have great deal of time and that is on illusion since we are only in PT = doing in the moment. And you are right there is no “PAST” or “FUTURE” that too is only words made up to describe something which one was DOING : has been done in earlier moment and its memory strored.
Sorry for all the miss-spelling…..
We are commenting because we can experience the same ‘substance’ in different
forms. Creating true love is taking apart, seeing through forms, when we get the same source, the same substance. I am WHAT you are.
Dee— Chris you two watch out giving me compliments because your love and admiration is BUILDING MY EGO!!!! now if that happens i will have to start auditing from the base up!
And i dont think I want to spend 20 more years with this robot thingy..I too love you both hehehe.
Eliz; BUILDING MY EGO!!!! now if that happens i will have to start auditing from the base up.
DeE: But you don’t let that happen pretty flower. We know you can dust off any mites that occur on your flowers and breath fresh air always. You are loved, and that’s nice! 🙂
2X: 1) the quantum choice eraser implies that the condensing particle KNOWS the ending of the story; knows how it must behave at the beginning to make the ending agree. It’s seen the movie.
Chris: Something I’ve been seeing is that in a fractal and tautological universe, all endings are both possible and real. It is the observer, being one with the observed, which is collapsing from possibility to actuality; from wave to particle if you rather. When we lay it out this way, what is known, suspected, predicted, or otherwise made manifest is irrelevant as all possibilities are actualities. It is a mechanism of fascinating complexity, enormity, and beauty.
“Theta” is a muddy term having too many definitions; however, I ken how you use it and it is not a problem for me. Furthermore, your idea of theta is not only possible but actual as it already manifests in your mind. Theta as “dark matter” is also possible and actual. I don’t much like the term “dark matter” since both terms can be misleading and anthropomorphic. I think dark matter is more a quality of space-time, as is matter. No matter, haha, it’s all good.
hI THERE BOYS…. DARK NATTER for the theta… wish i have read the reson why you :2ndx call that.. if in the term od abbreration, the accumulated mass than i would call that yes is is dark and very heavy.. black-er that black and in size and weight is huge… but when one erase all that crap than theta is simply a beautiful sprackle which lights up the universe! love this stuff.
PS.. the darkness in fact not aberation but wonderful collection – momentums-suveners from around the Universe which we have kept because we have thought it was important, and valuable to us. .
{ sorry for the spelling, but by now you guys should be used to it!}
2X: More appropriately, QM is virtually identical to theta and I will posit again that theta created this universe in an image of its own operating basis i.e. theta is a no-space, no-time potential (probabilistic state) that can create space and the illusion of time via particles in that space.
Chris: Anthropomorphic assertions about the source of things is unnecessary. Egotism is a powerful force at work in the human psyche. Sometimes it helps us push ahead and accomplish the impossible but sometimes it gets in the road of real research as it came to do with Hubbard’s. Your entire post is cogent and alright with me, I’m only saying we don’t need to resolve the theta issues to learn and to continue to make progress and inroads to understanding ourselves. Theta is a model but to me it is not a great model. Imposing it; trying to make it work, to me, it is representative of a closed set which breaks down when we need to look farther. If anyone wants to hold that model in reserve as a possible model, I don’t see a problem until the emphasis comes to be making it fit.
Chris:”we don’t need to resolve the theta issues to learn and to continue to make progress and inroads to understanding ourselves.”
I’d agree with that to a very large degree. However I do think the theta model is appropriate to discuss and examine if we want go go beyond understanding ourselves to understanding how we can maximally interract with the universe and beyond.
What I find most fascinating is the how the theta model so closely matches the QM model. You might argue that point and perhaps that’s really just a six-pack subject that might be great fun to explore some weekend on a Skype roundtable. Probable outcome?
Chris: hehe – big fat head for me from drinking more than my half of the 6-pack! It’s fun to conjecture; to bring all our wits to bear on these questions we’ve spent our lives pondering. I am currently experiencing a “release” from egocentric models. The irony is of course that it is impossible to have a non egocentric view! For me, this is far reaching and so this idea is what I am emphasizing right now. Valkov is fond of saying the “map is not the territory” and so it follows that the model is not the thing itself. IF I remain mindful of that, and if I let go of my “illusion of central position” my mind is suddenly allowed an entirely new and sweeping freedom. Thus my antipathy for egocentric models is rooted in this new found freedom; however, the freedom is egocentric! hahahaha!
Marianne: Get your freeee…..dom (dom has a meaning of ‘house’)!
Chris: Ah! Nice twist.
2X: Probable outcome?
Chris: I like ok the static model of “no-thing” but the moment someone tells me they know what I am talking about, we diverge hahaha! QM models of wave-function are good for me as the language isn’t so attached to and hindered by “things we know about.” Probably outcome? For egos trying to expand — expansion. For egos trying to make their model real — hardening of their model, etcetera.
My current focus on understanding the mechanical universe is an expanded look to space-time for it seems elastic as do our egos. Space-time seems to want to gather itself together as do our egos. This is my model of MEST. For conjecturing beyond that? I try to remain mindful of nothing in the literal sense and this is giving me the best mileage and freedom so far.
Semantics is a bitch! — double-edged sword to be sure when it helps us to communicate but hinders by fixing our ideas, well, unless fixing our ideas is what we are after such as in engineering, then it helps. hahaha.
Decisions! I would say the ideal is to make them now. I feel this is only way to truly stay in present time. I drag out the process is to some degree stick you in time. Even the decision to get more information will work as long as you then act on it. Think of the times we, and those we have been able to observe say then need more time when it was really what was considered a “socially acceptable” excuse to not have to confront the present situation.
Just as illogical and absurd would be the demand to just make a decision – when in fact the truth could be that more data is made. The oddity of this cartoon pic is that both answers could be correct – and from a different viewpoint both could be valid.
The first – sweating – is either afraid to announce the decision or lacks the certainty he can actually make the correct decision, and he is being told he doesn’t need more time. Could be as simple as out gradient. The demand “he doesn’t need more time” could be helping him over a false fear (this of a high board dive into a pool and it is only fear and lack of confront and not lack of skill/safety.)
It could be the true lack of certainty and the evil one is pushing the person into a loss. Therefore we would have know the details of the circumstance to know how to interpret. Otherwise this is just a colorful little pic.
SA posted: “I can be cause in my universe. I can’t cause you to want an apple. I can postulate and mock up images. If you agree to some degree and you get that thought you could be cause and decide to want an apple. I may create an effect but I don’t get into your universe and make you want an apple.”
I’m not sure about this, as I have known at least one person who could create illusions in my universe that seemed to be “my own” perceptions seen with my own eyes. I don’t know if he could have made me ‘want an apple’, but he could certainly make me ‘see an apple’ that wasn’t there…. Or see a realistic picture of an apple, like he Photoshopped it into my perceptual system.
iamvalkov – I would agree many could do that. But to have that cause something in your universe, in my opinion, you would have to then agree upon or act upon that illusion. You would have to initiate some type of participation. Otherwise all you did was observe his illusion. It is a matter of recognizing ownership of the mental image picture or perception you perceived.
That is what I meant by someone could create an effect on you, or you create an effect upon another. But the point of causation in your universe would be when you initiated some response in participation. Even if this illicited participation or response was reactive. Thus we you have no reactivity it is becomes harder for others to confusion your perceptions and you are more aware and more stable.
I may extend effects perceivable by others but that didn’t make me cause over them – that would be more along the lines of body snatching, etc. May be done by some but even then the other being was merely overwhelmed and kicked out of his “home” unit.
It may help if we define CAUSE as SOURCE of creation. Observing and perceiving something is creating too, as I cannot see something shown by another to me without creating it too.
If one cannot see something without creating that something than how can another “show” you anything at all? Perhaps because we are not other than one and separateness is merely consideration?
what is fr ? Also, what made the zooming possible?
fractal, this came through when you wrote it
Yes, freebeing. And a consideration is a continuous postulate. The postulating of separateness stops when ‘one’ is creating the exact duplicate of the other ‘one’s creation….there we get the same source and the illusion of separate universes is gone…ONE source, one impulse, creating different forms.
freebeing – Could it be you actually have been part of its creation and now don’t remember. An example would be the physical universe. Then others could show you something. But this would not apply where there has been no agreement or consensus. Could I show you an entire artistic painting I have in a thought without words or symbols communicated? For us to “see” something don’t we have to create some image in our mind, brain, or whatever you thinks does this “seeing.”
2x, LOL – we both came up with the same quote at the same time (just 2 minutes apart). Thanks for spelling it all out so explicitly in practical terms. Fantastic!
Marianne, I still lean toward the idea that we are all individuals but can be in communication on either the level of the physical universe or the higher level of theta connection – as in telepathy, for example. But in this case with 2x and me, I believe we both pulled up from our repertoire of facsimiles, the ones that pertain to the current discussion. 😉
A decision is time-less because there is no desire (wanting, which is a thought form) and value (like, dislike, which are again thought forms) in it, just pure awareness. That is we indeed have a triangle above purpose, where awareness is the common point and knowingness without thought and perceivingness without creation are the two other angles. The abilities of theta are knowing and perceiving by being aware. This is how I experience it now.
The root of pleasure and suffering is intention-purpose itself where awareness gets mixed with desire and value. It can also be the basis of bulding up one’s separate universe.
Yeah, thanks. I have never experienced ‘levels’. Rather, less and less not consciously created energy (energy looks to be just by consideration, as the way I experience it, energy doesn’t exist in its own right, only if I postulate it into existence) or no energy, just ‘static’, which is rather a no-experience, as that is the Source. In the video, he is using the word ‘stage’,which, for me, is the right word. ‘Stage’ definition can be: a platform, a scene of events. Where there is less and less energy. more and more awareness of details, lighter and lighter illusions coming from the source. Or, no illusions at all. (just the platform/source/no-thing/field, whatever).
Just to build your EGO (your comment to Chris and Dee), you are a good teacher, you can ask precise questions or say a sentence to direct my attention which definitely clears the ‘mind’ area in my case. HaHa…you can create and uncreate any time…so I have no fear that you will have to give auditing another 20 years and I know that you know it…you will have to look for other challenges….travelling, teaching?
Elizabeth
I have a question: Is it possible not to build a universe of one’s own?
The goal of scientology is to stop agreeing to, that is stop being an effect of the Mest universe and gaining back the ability to create one’s own universe. To me it still means separation, division.
As I experienced it during the last couple of months, one can create and just at will
uncreate one’s illusions, one’s universe. And not creating is a good ‘state’.
‘Without the basis of one’s own universe, one isn’t oneself any longer.’
Yes. The illusion of one’s separate self is gone. So ‘what’ is ‘one’ then? Will you describe it the way you see it? (it is also interesting to look at the concepts of ownership and havingness from that perspective)
Marianne, I will try a little bit. In my world, the selves are little condensations of space-time, imbued with various computational ability including what we call ego which results in general self importance. The selves have installed considerations, preferences, predilections; as well as the sense that they are the center of the universe. Some selves consider they are the source of the universe rather than the source of their perception of their own experience of that universe. The selves have contain self-diagnostics, repairs, and programming corrections. These self diagnostic capabilities, programming, and processes feedback to the self that it is present, well, on-line, in-communication, etc., and report and log discrepancies. These self feedback loops are tautological in that they tautologically reiterate affirmations to the self general and specific sensations that one is “ON.”
Some worry about my atheism but atheism doesn’t cover it. What passes for human intelligence seems to me to be more glorified self programming, processes, and applications. I would say that underpinning all that we see and all that we know is a greater intelligence, but that doesn’t cover it. What I see underpinning what I see, is a greater consciousness than what passes for consciousness in human terms. Humanly we think that when we are awake, we are conscious. This is no more than a simple metaphor for what I see. We talk and write much about sensory organs, and to me, the self is only that and nothing more than a sensory organ for that which is beyond-beyond. I arrive at that which Vinay Argawala assigns “unknowable” meaning unmanifested. A human cannot see beyond this veil which I consider to be bordered by a mathematical set. Man was never meant to see beyond this veil, it is not the purpose of man. Men have always and always will push this envelope, to pierce the veil and see beyond, and that is his purpose to do so and his frustration not to be able as a self to be greater than what is possible. But equilibrium can be found. Peace and wonder are possible. Men and women are here to work and when the work is caught up, we are here to wonder.
You asked, so I wrote what is for me a poor and amateurish stab at describing the wonders in front of my human mind.
a sense of free will which allow for Underpinning t
Thank you, Chris! You say ‘for me a poor and amateurish stab at describing the wonders in front of my human mind’. Not at all poor and amateurish! Two questions popped up in my mind. 1. Can you imagine that one can live without a self? 2. What do mean by, how do you see that greater intelligence?
“Man is a machine, but a very peculiar machine. He is a machine which, in right circumstances, and with right treatment, can know that he is a machine, and having fully realized this, he may find the ways to cease to be a machine.
First of all, what man must know is that he is not one; he is many. He has not one permanent and unchangeable “I” or Ego. He is always different. One moment he is one, another moment he is another, the third moment he is a third, and so on, almost without end.”
― P.D. Ouspensky
Wow! That’s a good quote Valkov. This coincides with both what I see and what I wrote. My current emphasis seems to be separating out all of these “i” manifestations and making them mindfully impermanent and transitory. There might be, for me probably is, an unseen underpinning which defies human grasping. This is why I think that individuals are a flimsy coalescence of MEST which do not “become gods” while what is underpinning this, out of sight, transcends ego — is NOT a bigger ego but something else. Everything that I know about is human. Even the great things — human. But I’ve found no reason to believe that either greatness nor smallness has any limitation, and this is the human view. The human view is a limited set and it is limited by considerations.
And Valkov…you are not your name (Valkov), you are not your body (as in the picture), you are not the thoughts that you have typed here….and I like the ‘you’
behind all of this….how can it be the case that I like the ‘intangible’, the ‘source’ of all these manifestations? Of course the manifested too…but the unmanifested…..(being inspired by YOU).
Wow, Chris! Wow! I get you!
“One of man’s important mistakes, one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I.
Man such as we know him, the “man-machine,” the man who cannot “do,” and with whom and through whom everything “happens,” cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.
Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says “I”.
Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small “I”s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, “I”. And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man’s name is legion.”
G.I.Gurdjieff
Hey, Val, there’s a discussion going on the “Gurus” thread that’s on the subject of “I” or no “I”. Come join us.
Thanks marildi, but for me that subject has been long since beaten to death over the past 3-4 years. I guess I’ll join Vinnie in declaring it “unknowable”. Although he doesn’t actually classify that particular controversy as unknowable, I think he’d be wise to do so.
Iamvalov, I like your answer of that has been “beaten to death” and “unknowable” having to do with the subject of “I”.
Marianne I see what you want to comm but there is a catch: For as long as there are universes created, you need to take them into account. To take responsibility for them all yourself is one thing, and I consider it desirable. But to have them all be interconnected into one, it’s a totally different thing. MEST is such a thing. It’s like the Matrix. It attempts to make all universes junior to it –dominates them. Not-ises the existence of personal universes. There could be many kinds of MEST, and there have been efforts to create MESTs inside MEST. Traps within traps to put all beings under control. This doesn’t mean unity of beings cannot occur. But there is also the mockery of it –the way southwards. For as long as there are beings, self determinism must be granted, before pan determinism can occur.
Spyros
I get it now. When one stops building one’s separate universe and does not agree to (is not effect of) the Mest universe, the ‘one’ is gone…this ‘infinite’ or the ‘flow’ is that makes it possible as a ‘background’ for other beings to get more and more conscious….
Thank you 🙂 🙂 🙂
Yes, out of traps and to infinity. Universes -like everything, like you said too- are potential creations.
But no being and no infinity ever ceased to be a being nor infinity. Static doesn’t move nor otherwise changes.
The Matrixes try to convince that beings are things, located in space and time and at effect, and that the MEST U is the one and only U. SCN was meant to as-is all traps –reactive mind, pre-OT stuff, body, earth, MEST universe and I don’t know what else. And maybe some people did it. But nowdays I’m told that this stuff is unrealistic. I’m glad to be crazy. Crazy means to disagree with MEST.
Spyrs: I’m glad to be crazy. Crazy means to disagree with MEST.
DeE: Me too, crazy as a bat so they say! I do love Mest but disconnecting from it and therein lies the challenge to be and the road out.
Hey DeE, glad to know crazy people. Disconnection is for the COS –disconnection=can’t have. The fun is to have it or not at will, and be able to have other things too (or not, at will) 😉
Spyros: The fun is to have it or not at will, and be able to have other things too (or not, at will) 😉
DeE: Right on! Power of choice or free will. Isn’t life grand as we can know it? 🙂
Spyros: For as long as there are beings, self determinism must be granted, before pan determinism can occur.
deE: Power of choice or free will. Isn’t life grand as we can know it? 🙂
YES!! 🙂
Marianne, you asked me if I could “find a reference why/when a postulate ‘sticks’.”
Here’s one I found, which is an excerpt from the 5th American ACC: Unlocking Universes:
————————————————–
A man is as well-off as his goals and dreams are intact. If a man can dream, if a man can have goals, he can be happy and he can be alive. If he has no goals, he doesn’t even have a future.
A person believes—when running into a game called MEST universe, consisting of barriers—when he believes that all of his own actions are dependent upon the MEST universe, he thinks that any action he takes is going to be barriered. He thinks he’s going to be stopped in everything he does. If he were to say, “Well, I think I’m going to be a painter,” if he just thought that, he would probably get the idea of some kind of a wall sitting right straight in front of his face. It’s a direction. “To be a painter” is a direction to go. He so thoroughly agreed with the universe that he believes that to gain any objective he has to cross a distance. If he can’t cross that distance, he can’t have these objectives. So he gets the idea that he can’t be anything. He can’t arrive. Why, he can’t arrive, because anything he thinks of doing in life is going to be stopped. Barriers are going to be erected across his path.
He thinks, “I’m going to be a painter.” Immediately after that his stimulus-response mechanism says, instantly, “Well, you know you couldn’t be a painter. Your mother always said…” You know, instantly.
He knows he can’t be the best driver in the world. He just knows this. He knows this and he knows that. What’s he know? Well, that’s another kind of knowingness. It’s the knowingness by impact. Certainty by impact as opposed to certainty by self-confidence.
Now, you’re trying to take an individual away from certainty by impact and certainty that he’s going to be hurt, that points in space are going to impede his way, that he is in a game that is all barriers, barriers, barriers. You’re trying to take him away from that kind of an idea, separate him out and bring him over here to a point where he can make a postulate and make the postulate stick.
And you do that by separating him out of universes, making him make his own postulates good and making him capable of determining an action and then bringing the action off. And any therapy there is, is involved with the problem of getting a person away from being one of these—well, practically an automaton being run by Newton’s three laws of motion and this entanglement of universes. Getting him away from being subject to the gods of all the universes he has inhabited, such as Mama’s, Papa’s, the physical universe—doesn’t matter. And getting him to a point of where he can get over here and make up his own mind. That’s all. All he has to do is make up his own mind.
The wrong way to do it is simply say to him, “All you have to do is make up your own mind.” The right way to do it is to disentangle him and give him a lot of wins. And he’ll win in the end.
————————————————-
Marianne Toth commented on Time. Wow, Chris! Wow! I get you!
Chris: It does not seem to me from your writing that you do. Your writing focuses on and is fixated upon the self. Your writing establishes the self as permanent and unchanging. This is easily shown not to be the case. You seem to have been going back and reading the older posts on this blog and these demonstrate how transitory the self is. I do know and am familiar with the ground you are covering with your comments for if you read my earliest comments they read somewhat as yours do now. This was a mistaken and inconsistent idea on my part. Years of blogging here with Geir and with Vinaire, and a year of solo auditing in conjunction with Elizabeth’s encouragement to do so, gave me looks at myself which provided catalyst to change those opinions. These changes are recorded in the comments sections of most of the OPs of this lengthy blog and at Vinaire’s blog. I have continually newer opinions, now that the mental constipation seems to be breaking loose. I hope more finely tuned than before, and I hope to make similar progress in the future. To understand that the self germinates, grows, blooms, and passes away is not a frightful thing — the urge to survive is an installed idea, even if installed in our DNA. My calm is not generated by a certainty that I am at the heart of the matter an unchanging, unconditioned, immortal kernel of theta. Rather, my calm comes from a view of how the matrix mingles. Chris is a self. Chris’ purpose is to play and not to recede from playing. This is a very simple look at existence and those who would have as their game to massively control others do not like for people to ever have this look as it makes one more difficult to herd. Some of our ideas about the self are installed by others in an effort to gain control of us and to illicitly benefit their-selves. The self could be metaphor-ed as a flower or leaf on a tree, but not as the tree in my example. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right, just trying to share an extant view which will change in space-time as does space-time, by increments, little quantum leaps I call decision points. Selves seem to manifest as nodes or pimples if you will on the skin of consciousness. The pimples come and they go but the skin remains as a metaphor for the continuum, at least for a time.
Chris…. good view points,
MT has to realise on her own that her reality is how she sees the universe is not what others have written and do see– believe in but the reality of her own and that is totally two different reality..
No one but no one can see into another person universe!!
Right. Each of us sees what we see. I do not say there is anything wrong with what Marianne sees nor do I say she does not see it. I only say that any of us can see yet more if we continue to look. Anytime we pull up short and feel like “aha! I’ve got it!” Is too soon, too premature.
CH…Yes there is countless AHA’s !!!! on the same subject..
We never can say that we totally duplicate what is in the other persons universe, since that is impassible..
I still dont know if i have reached the true basics, some times I feels like finally i thruly got it and understand it totall, than bloody hell: comes the next cog and I realize beside the realization i am still where I should be,I only gained a different REALITY … long as one has some sort of reality-thought-consideration a belief on any subject one is still in the hole.
If I would duplicate somebodies universe=thoughts creations than that persons universe would vanish in my universe… that being would no longer exist.
Exp: I have duplicated one beings love.. its meanings for me and that love no longer has meaning in my space… Duplication is just that..
No wonder humans cant and wont duplicate easilly, it has to be a learned thing… Duplication vanishes things.. when that happens HAVINGNESS drops.. loss sets in..
Interestingly duplication is only erases the stimulations so the thing-person dont reality vanishes just their affect is gone and that effect is the loss ones misses and that loss is the energy it self.
hehehe interesting life one has when one is no longer effected by anything or any . one that means ones Havingness no longer depands on the incoming stimulation.
Tomorrow I be traveling to the different part of the country Szeged is the name of the city, I be there for few days than to Budapest..
By the way my dear Vancouver was voted the most beautiful city in the world!!!. How do you like that, I am looking forward to show it to you and Shelly in the Fall!
In my Scientology life, I thought of my self as being trapped but not so any more. Now I see myself as a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars, but really no more either. Now a life well lived, in improving balance with other beings and the environment in general is my aspiration.
Elizabeth and Chris
Thank you. My perception is that there is no ‘entity’ as a ‘me’. Just pure ‘awareness’. When I said to Chris ‘I get you’, I meant to communicate that the ‘you’ is that same ‘awareness’. My perception is that there is one single source of consciousness. It’s not because of others say so. It’s a perception. And you are right….I don’t need to ‘spread’ this ‘reality’ here on this blog.
Chris, I have been going back on the blog twice. First, because I was interested in
earlier posts. The second time now because Geir published the book. I find it a fascinating reading. You write that I see the ‘self’ as fixed and permanent. I certainly
didn’t communicate something well if you see it that way. I perceive the ‘world’ in different awareness ‘ways’…I have written about it in some posts but it’s not important. Elizabeth, you asked me a week ago why I was blogging. I answered.
Now I feel that I don’t have anything to say….that is to ‘spread’ my ‘reality’. Can it be
that I am stopping it? This ‘no-self’ here is laughing…..love to each of You!
Marianne, I have understood since way back that you do not perceive that there is an individual or permanent “self”. It has been very clearly expressed by you. And now that I’m studying Buddhism a bit, I’ve been even more interested in your comments – including all your realities, especially those that are from the perspective you have of a single consciousness of which we are all a part. When I showed one of your posts to a Buddhist friend, his comment was “Very nice. Very Zen”.(He practices Theravada Buddhism.)
Actually, anything you describe as what you directly perceive is extremely valuable IMO, whether or not everyone has that same reality. I know you speak from what you intuit rather than some sort of figure-figure or analysis. And I really hope you continue to find things of interest to comment on here!
Marildi
Thanks! You have understood my communication since my very first post! It’s great you have been studying Buddhism! You know, way back, when I was new in scientology a Class 6 OT5, a lovable being, looked at me and asked: ‘Do you really want to see the truth?’ I answered: yes…..was about to write here some incredible stories which have happened since then but I have changed my mind. Truth….I just love this ‘journey’ even when it is ‘hard’….can be at times. When you have ‘different reality’, sometimes it’s good to have the company of those beings with whom you can talk about what each ‘you’ experiences even if these experiences are not easy to express and it’s not the real point on the ‘journey’.
Marianne, you wrote: “…was about to write here some incredible stories which have happened since then but I have changed my mind.”
I, for one, would be very interested! And don’t forget that there are many more readers of this blog than there are posters, and you may very well be starting many of them on the road to truth. I myself don’t always comment on your posts, but I read and appreciate them. 😉
Marildi
HaHa….thanks again! I know! I will be off posting, at least for a while. The truth is, I made a decision about it a little while ago. And it got into operation, funny how life works! As for the ‘stories’…I wish a lot of bloggers and new ! ones would put here some! Some perhaps don’t think that sories are worth being shared…but you remember when e.g. I asked you about what had happened to you, you immediately recalled one and put it here. I find it incredibly beautiful when someone opens up in this way…as real, true life stories open up more people…you know, truth-source attracts more truth-source. Thanks, Marildi! Will be busy for a while but…….to be continued!
Marianne: “I made a decision about it a little while ago. And it got into operation, funny how life works!”
Sounds like you made a postulate – and that it is sticking. 🙂 The other day you asked me if I could find a reference as to why/when a postulate “sticks”. Did you see the one I found? It’s at 2013-05-26 @ 08:10, or you could click on this to get to it: https://isene.me/2013/05/21/time/#comment-39664
You also wrote, “…truth-source attracts more truth-source…Will be busy for a while but…….to be continued!”
That attraction is what I will look forward to when you decide to change your postulate. In the meantime, I’ll be thinking of you. Enjoy! 🙂
MT… we also write for fun and to pass time, or just to belong into a group, or to hear our self, or to see how we respond, what is our reality in comparison…. I think of my writting =commenting as usless flapping of my mouth since it dont make any different if I do or I dont.
Very good Marianne, then earlier I misunderstood your writing. I thought I was being careful to read you for a while before commenting but I was wrong anyway. Pronouns are a bitch! Cheers!
Chris
‘ Pronouns are a bitch!’ HaHa….especially the ‘ I ‘ and the ‘you’ ! You write: ‘Chris’ purpose is to play’ you are doing it in a credible manly manner! Cheers and Love!
Chris: Selves seem to manifest as nodes or pimples if you will on the skin of consciousness. The pimples come and they go but the skin remains as a metaphor for the continuum, at least for a time.
Dee: Chris I love your post whatever it’s called. You put it so differently, creative.
I’ve been quite busy and am just back now with lots to catch up on this weekend. 🙂
Geir Isene - uncut 
Earlier you said: ‘ I can create space and energy, time not so much’.
‘ I have limited time’.
Epiphany: ……………?
Always good with a reminder to strengthen my resolve and thus create more time.
Thanks! Will you explain it, as I don’t understand it. Just with chopsticks, as with Marildi once.
As long as one can be re-minded of something, there is still something to look at and as-is, isn’t it so? A concept?
Here’s a process I adapted from Creation of Human Ability to process and empower in this area:
R1-11T Problems and Solutions in Havingness of Time Expanded (COHA)
Run each step alternate/repetitive to F/N (if metered), completed expression of meaningful cognition and VGI’s.. On each question of each step, allow PC to give all the answers they have before moving to the next question.
Step A: Problems
(1) What kind of a problem can others be to you in havingness of time?
(2) What kind of a problem can others be to you in not-havingness of time?
(3) What kind of a problem can someone be to another in havingness of time?
(4) What kind of a problem can someone be to another in not-havingness of time?
(5) What kind of a problem can you be to others in havingness of time?
(6) What kind of a problem can you be to others in not-havingness of time?
(7) What kind of a problem can another be to theirself in havingness of time?
(8) What kind of a problem can another be to theirself in not-havingness of time?
(9) What kind of a problem can you be to yourself in havingness of time?
(10) What kind of a problem can you be to yourself in not-havingness of time?
Step B: Solutions
(1) What kind of a solution can others be to you in havingness of time?
(2) What kind of a solution can others be to you in not-havingness of time?
(3) What kind of a solution can someone be to another in havingness of time?
(4) What kind of a solution can someone be to another in not-havingness of time?
(5) What kind of a solution can you be to others in havingness of time?
(6) What kind of a solution can you be to others in not-havingness of time?
(7) What kind of a solution can another be to theirself in havingness of time?
(8) What kind of a solution can another be to theirself in not-havingness of time?
(9) What kind of a solution can you be to yourself in havingnessof time?
(10) What kind of a solution can you be to yourself in not-havingness of time?
For greater results, next run steps A and B, substituting “Creating time”/”Not creating time” for “havingness of time”/”not-havingness of time”.
This is cool.
So Dexter one is not creating TIME but one become better organising whatever…
How is your thoughts on that?
What if I need more time…to decide? 🙂
A decision takes no time.
Yes. I have just looked at a possible upper triangle. Bottom up from awareness, two
angles: perception and knowingness. They add up to consciousness. Much like an hour-glass. Awareness can be the point where time enters the picture with purpose, with desire and values as parts of purpose.
More precisely: The CONCEPT of time enters the picture with purpose. I meant it that way but omitted the word concept.
MT…. How could TIME enter into anything —anyplace—, anywhere when Time do not exist? doing-ness can be created but TIME can not be created…made…prodused since it is only on illusion. Time dont even hold energy or made of energy soince it do not exist. So… think about it, please re-consider than give your reality once more. thank you.. Also you can give your reality 2 different ways…… Human or spiritual view point…{spiritual=without body where thought do not exist.Lets go from there…
Right. ‘Spiritual’ or’ Physical’, both are timeless. There is no ‘time’.
Geir – Agreed. The decision is timeless. It is as fast as think a thought – done. Needing more time to me is indicative on non confront, Q&A or not ready with all data at hand. The decision should then be to decide nothing until all data known. Then walk on down that path.
If we consider and agree for sake of this discussion the construction that the decision point (the being) is what creates time, space, etc. It is the action of that very decision point to make a decision. It is outside of the time, space, created field or thing. Just my 2 copper circles worth.
Yes. And in accordance with the article, “On Will”:
http://www.a-circle.no/wiki/index.php?title=On_Will_-_Do_you_really_have_a_choice%3F
Geir. I just read that link again. Nice and enlightening as it was when I read it before. Could it be so many have confusions because in the truth of it there is always my universe and dynamics, your universe and dynamics and the agreed upon universe and its dynamics. Per the scale I posted a while back with all 3 triangles at the same time. We can only be cause in ours and can be effect and an influence on the others. Ah, the randomity keeps us from complacency and deep sleep.
In the realm of time I do believe most have no concept of the speed of change in our world. This is shown/demonstrated in the following:
Awesome video. Along with the accelerating physical universe, this data seems to be more evidence of a fractal universe in every way.
SA: “We can only be cause in ours and can be effect and an influence on the others.”
Are you saying that nobody could enter your universe and cause an effect in it? Is “your universe” just your “mental / mind” universe? Even if it is just that (the mind universe), would not someone else delivering an implant to you be an example of another universe causing an effect in your’s?
SA
Can it happen that one stops creating one’s universe?
2ndxmr – If you have Creation of Human Ability check out the chapter titled This Is Scientology (From a Journal of Scientology in the 50’s same title.) I can be cause in my universe. I can’t cause you to want an apple. I can postulate and mock up images. If you agree to some degree and you get that thought you could be cause and decide to want an apple. I may create an effect but I don’t get into your universe and make you want an apple.
The other person must agree, resist, copy my mockup or something. In my opinion if we believe others are cause of our universe then we are a mere pawn to a stronger being. Even created forced – to effect you then you must resist it in some form. If something bad happens in my universe I caused it directly or indirectly by agreement, copying, etc from someone else. Thus I say I am the only cause in my universe. If you read the original non confidential ability gained at OT 6 (not New OT6 which is the Solo Nots course) it said “ability to operate freely as a thetan exterior and to act pan-determinedly, extends the influence of the thetan to the universe of others.”
It didn’t say exterior with full perception and it did say cause over the universe of others. I gave the reference and summary and this is what I find to be true. Not because that is what LRH wrote, true because it matches my experience of it to make it a truth for me. For you, at this time, it could be a “maybe” or “possible”. I hope you enjoy the finding of that answer.
—
Marianne – well, if you stopped creating your universe then it will cease to be a causative creation. It might run on circuits for some time. Other than that would be speculation on my part.
—
Marildi – whether fractal or not I cannot say. It could be merely the combined group agreement constantly being added to. Now we are into the 8th dynamic – that which is the overall creativeness of all. From whence and where it started – and to what end. God particle, god dynamic or do we find ourselves and our entire universe just a speck of sand on another’s beach. The journey is to find out. Our game is understanding the journey.
S.A., your take on that video in terms of the creativity of the 8th dynamic makes total sense. I guess computers and the internet take most if not all of the credit for the exponential addition of “appendages” to our brains. Or we could call them awesome servo-mechanisms of the human mind, the way Scientology was described by LRH. And as for the potential for games that you described – so huge I almost couldn’t have it! LOL. Thank you for your insights.
Your comments about OT VI were also very interesting. You stated the EP as “ability to operate freely as a thetan exterior and to act pan-determinedly, extends the influence of the thetan to the universe of others.” And then you added “It didn’t say exterior with full perception…” Do you know what the LRH reference is for that? And does it include “stably” exterior…?
Btw, the end of that sentence of yours was “…and it did say cause over the universe of others.” I assume that it was a typo and you meant to say “…it did NOT say cause over the universe of others”, since the word “influence”, not “cause” was used in the EP.
Marildi – It wasn’t my take on the video so much as my response to your comment on the universe expanding. Both are related though. I get that from an LRH def on 8th dynamic “the eighth dynamic would be the overall creativeness or destructiveness as a continuing impulse.” This had followed “the seventh dynamic would be the urge to survive of the spirits or spiritual aspects of each universe.” The each universe is the reference in COHA I gave and is from the triangle of certainty of awareness with a own universe corner, physical universe corner and others’ universe corner. In the book is a diagram of this.
He stated “each of the three universes seeks to persist indefinitely. Each is continuously caused and each is continually receiving an effect. Each has its own adjudication of what is should receive as an effect and what it should cause.
– Time itself consists of a continuous interaction of the universes. Each may have its own space. Each has its own particular energy. – The urge of any of these three universes toward survival is subdivisible, for each of the three universes, into eight dynamics.
There are, then four groups of each dynamics each:
The eight dynamics of one’s own universe;
The eight dynamics of the physical universe;
The eight dynamics of the others’ universe; as well as
The eight dynamics of the triangle itself. end quote
Thus I stated the continuing impulse of creativeness which we would observe as the expanding universe when we view it from the viewpoint of the eight dynamics of the physical universe.
—
I didn’t say the EP of OT 6 – I said the non confidential ability gained. This is directly quoted from the grade chart of 1970. After 1974 we don’t have ability gained on the chart for these upper OT levels.
I said it didn’t say with full perception exterior because this is what I commonly hear scientologist think the EP should be. I won’t comment on how much perception I have, or you would have, or Geir has. This does not make one any better than the other. We all start at different places, have different backgrounds and different awareness and responsibility levels. I do not mean to be nit picky about what it says but I don’t wish to mislead anyone. I would say in my experience this is quite stable.
Yes, I did mean did NOT say cause over… Thanks for spotting my error and still understanding my communication. Tis true – intention is cause and that comes across even when a type says otherwise.
Has this helped answer your questions?
Saper Aude, thanks for telling me where you got that definition of 8th dynamic. I’ve read it but I guess it hadn’t been “real” enough for me to remember it. Looking at in in terms of the data on that video made it more real. That whole reference in COHA on the three universes is amazing – it really shows how interconnected everything and everyone is.
As regards OT VI, got it on my incorrectly substituting “EP” for “ability gained” (I understand the difference, though.)
I agree with you that each of us may differ on the ability gained on OT VI, as to how much perception we would have while exterior. And I think that datum applies to any level of the Bridge because, as you say, we all start at different places, etc. It seems to me that the Bridge is not as linear as it looks. And I have also had the thought that we actually can “take it with us” – i.e. that in the next lifetime we start at the higher awareness level gained in the previous life.
If I understood you correctly, the ability you yourself gained on OT VI is stable. That is great to know about! Yes, I think you answered all my questions. Thanks again. 🙂
Θ is cause. To be effect it needs to assume an effect point. Without an effect point it cannot perceive any effect. A viewpoint, a body are effect points. But they aren’t Θ itself. No body is OT.
The trick is for Θ implant itself with the idea that it is an effect point. Then it is effect. But it’s a lie, so then things persist. So, time…
Yes, Θ cannot get implanted as it has to time, space etc. It isn’t a thing. It can implant it’s 1st dynamic or others. It can take a viewpoint, stick it inside a dog’s body then implant upon it(1st dynamic)self the idea that it is a cat. Then you can run Dianetics to as-is that. But ultimately you gotta show him he is neither a cat, nor a dog, nor a viewpoint, but the creator of those.
🙂
It depends. As long as I’m not under duress, I prefer to have (just a little bit of) time to decide.
hehehe… than you are doing other things.. since a postulate to make one only takes fraction of the second… Geir is right on that.. Now “thinking” figuring out something do take “time” but that is not postulating and “figuring out something has no power .
D…… you mean you need to do something else before you doing something? Than not TIME you need but doing something different before you do your “main project”
Great post! Just on time for the sake of the timeless!
Finishing things I start helps me have more time. Unfinished projects take up too much attention.
Indecision and stuck attention are time thieves.
I’ve had more to do recently than I’ve had time to complete, especially as a lot of it takes figuring on – which is a task I’m rather fond of and so tend to savor like a good cup of coffee.
However, I have also taken time to contemplate an explanation of the Wheeler Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment, and maybe a bit of that is germane to this thread…
The jist of this experiment is that a future event can affect a present event. That’s counterintuitive as long as one thinks in terms of linear time. The implication of the Wheeler experiment is that time is an apparency, something Geir, Elizabeth and others have said in the past. Yet we talk about past and future with a certainty that both were / will be.
Here’s another way to look at it and somewhat of an explanation for the quantum conundrum:
Take a movie that you haven’t seen and know nothing about. You not only don’t know the ending, you don’t know the story. You have to watch it to see how it unfolds. If you’re feeling clever you might make some predictions about the outcome as the story runs, but they’re only predictions – may or may not happen depending on some other cleverness (like that of the writer). In other words, uncertainty exists. Many outcomes many be possible, some more probable than others.
Okay, the movie ends, an outcome (ending) is decided upon (condenses) and now you KNOW the movie, you KNOW how it will replay (barring some other universe slipping you an alternate copy of the DVD.) At that point you can replay the entirety of the movie in your (head?) instantly, you can see the whole story at once. If you don’t think you’ve ever done that, just try. To some degree YOU will be able to do that. And THAT is something no existing computer can currently do. I will posit that even your brain cannot do it – to superimpose all the images of the entire movie (even just a lot of them) in a single instant. Neurons simply don’t fire fast enough for that to happen. But to some degree YOU can do it. If anything that ability to superpose pictures may be a proof of theta.
So two things tie together here:
1) the quantum choice eraser implies that the condensing particle KNOWS the ending of the story; knows how it must behave at the beginning to make the ending agree. It’s seen the movie. Thus there exists a superposition of time and in the quantum viewpoint, no time.
2) what we call theta has precisely the same capability – to superpose time. This is evident by this thought experiment of “mentally” reviewing a movie in an instant.
The conclusion would be that theta is literally identical to the “spooky” state of stuff as defined by the math of QM. More appropriately, QM is virtually identical to theta and I will posit again that theta created this universe in an image of its own operating basis i.e. theta is a no-space, no-time potential (probabilistic state) that can create space and the illusion of time via particles in that space. Particles that behave as if there is no time involved in how they appear to behave.
Oh, yes. Take a moment and enjoy the movie you’re starring in. 🙂
Great piece of writing. Including this little zinger of a punch line. 🙂
MT TIME CAN NOT ENTER into anything since Time it self is a consideration a belief a thought without any substenance, Time it self is intengable same as any other idea.
Thanks, I know. I corrected my above comment.
Excellent comment and should be repeated daily 🙂
bren
Just a ‘swing of the pendulum of awareness’. It can get stuck on the concept of ‘I’, so it looks there is a ‘chooser, a decision maker’. With no ‘ I ‘, it’s just a swing, formless at one and and form at the other end. It’s free will all along….awareness, life…timeless.
Correction: at one end….Haha….once again…I misspelt the word ‘end’ and the truth didn’t let me write down an untruth…as in actuality there is no beginning and no end of the timeless swing….
2x
Me here says yes to what you write. Glad you are here. Do you think it is possible to
step out of the movie? Also, step out and then step in again?
MT: “Do you think it is possible to step out of the movie? Also, step out and then step in again?”
Good question. An intermission. Since the quantum world defines itself by probabilities, taking an intermission should be one of those. Taking a sneak peak at the ending may be another. Spoiler alert!
‘Spoiler alert’. No need to worry. An intermission is not bad at all. Good news: the ability to create a new movie is eternal!
2x
It looks that Ron and the ‘enlightened’ ones are right. After ‘awakening’ life has the ability to build up one’s new universe (dream, bubbles, movies) and also destroy it but this time at will. The challenge is not to start building again.
Marianne: The challenge is not to start building again.
Chris: Why would that be?
MT: “…The challenge is not to start building again.”
At least not unknowingly. But even that concept takes us right around and back to the beginning: we can build a sandbox to play in and can imagine the sandcastle before it’s built. However, if there is no uncertainty of outcome, why do it? This is the point where one must not-know some things in order to have a challenge, a game to play. I need not say more, LRH already said it all.
2x, it occurred to me that it’s the same phenomenon that happens when we speak. Before we can get out a string of words, or even a single word, we have to have a general concept (a knowingness, actually) from which the individual “images”, or facsimiles (in this case. words), are pulled. You have to KNOW the set of facsimiles that will communicate your thought before you can come up with the words – which is the reason why you CAN come up with the words – they’re all superposed in timeless theta. I was thinking maybe it’s related to the Know to Mystery Scale, going from Know to Look down through to Symbols.
And maybe in reverse it’s the mechanics of a postulate: We look at and select out of theta (the mirror of images) a group of images/facsimiles and then put them together into a particular, originated set that will determine the “movie” we want to put in motion – i.e. we make the postulate!
Here is an LRH quote that relates to the above:
“Thought is definitely comparable to nothing in the universe of matter, energy, space or time, having no wave length, weight, mass or speed and being, therefore, a zero which is an infinity or, in short, a true static. Thought, thinking and life itself are of the same order of being. Demonstrably they have no wave length, therefore contain neither time nor space. Thought only appears to have time because in it is recorded physical universe time. There is obviously an ‘action’ in thought but, as obviously, it is not action in this universe.” (Handbook for Preclears)
Marildi: : “it occurred to me that it’s the same phenomenon that happens when we speak.”
An accurate analysis by you. Also, thanks for the LRH ref.
2x, those two quotes from HFP also gave me an understanding as to why LRH seems to be saying at times that theta is energy and has a wavelength – although it (theta) is defined as a static. Theta only APPEARS to have energy, time, etc. because of the “recordings” or “impressions” of time, space, energy and matter – but these recordings/impressions, i.e. facsimiles, are themselves statics.
By those two quotes, I meant the one above your post and the other HFP quote below this one.
Marildi: “those two quotes from HFP also gave me an understanding as to why LRH seems to be saying at times that theta is energy and has a wavelength – although it (theta) is defined as a static. Theta only APPEARS to have energy, time, etc. because of the “recordings” or “impressions” of time, space, energy and matter – but these recordings/impressions, i.e. facsimiles, are themselves statics.”
This goes back to what LRH wrote in 8-80:
“The characteristic of any vibration is that it contains the manifestations of a static and a kinetic.”
The vibrations around theta (theta’s masses and condensed pictures) would be the kinetic aspect of the “stored” static pictures.
Going back to the idea of speech creation that you proposed, the static is creating a kinetic by the action of condensing thought into energies that direct the speech center of the brain to create the word-symbol impulses that drive the rest of the speech mechanics (tongue, jaw muscles, throat, etc.). Again, the static creates a kinetic by thought. Further, that created kinetic may inspire new thought (new static).
Similarly kinetics can kick back on the static. Consider what happens when we hear certain words, how “restimulative” they are. Other senses also create electrical energy patterns across the brain (more kinetics) that act on the static theta in a myriad of ways from thought to heavy restimulation.
And so it plays out: static->kinetic; kinetic->static; static->kinetic->static; kinetic->static->kinetic
(I’ll repost this in the right place.)
2x, LOL – we both came up with the same quote at the same time (just 2 minutes apart). Thanks for spelling it all out so explicitly in practical terms. Fantastic!
2X: Similarly kinetics can kick back on the static. Consider what happens when we hear certain words, how “restimulative” they are.
Chris: It doesn’t seem likely that anything reacts in any way with the static. I follow your example graphic of static-kinetic if you want to name the static as a zero point; however, that zero point in this universe would always be relative, conditioned, and impermanent. It is a momentary entropy of MEST. At least, I can visualize it in this way; the point being that I don’t need anthropomorphic thetans to finish the equation. IF they are there, ok, but I don’t see that I need them yet to understand what is happening.
Chris: “The zero point … It is a momentary entropy of MEST.”
A momentary entropy of MEST? Not by any definition of entropy that I’d know.
We’re talking about the equivalent of a probabilistic state. Hardly entropic as entropy is all about the energy no longer available to a sysytem. Neither is it anthropomorphic: anthros – man, morphic – shaped.
Once again, I ask you, if you can accept the probabilistic state as being a fundamental, foundational, basic, agreed upon necessity to explain QM…
a state that is all possibilities at once…
a state that is ESSENTIAL in explaining the Wheeler experiment…
a state that was the basis of much argument in Copenhagen 80 years ago but generally agreed upon beacause it was a mathematically accurate answer– NOT an intuitive answer– …
a state that fits the experimental results of the last 80+ years…
how is it you can out-of-hand reject that one of the infinite possibilities of the initial void was not a glimmer of awareness? An awareness that was not unlike other instabilities in the void except that it was aware. Out of an infinite number of instabilities, one could have been an instability that made a copy of itself. Another could have been an instability that made a copy and noticed a separateness from the copy. And another could have… become aware!
However the instability that begat awareness arose, it is quite possibly very close to an explanation of the origin of everything as it requires no starting point, no forever-existing deity, nothing except the instability already agreed upon by physicists. No man-shape, no energy, no entropy, no time, no space.
Could it be since you are the only stable individual in existence that that is the reason you cannot contemplate an instability?
Don’t pop a blood vessel. All I said was that I didn’t need your thetan explanation, not that I rejected it. Maybe read my post again. Your loud reaction to my words doesn’t seem to be impacting your static but your regular old self.
p.s. 2x, here’s another quote that backs up your concept of theta having all the images/facsimiles superposed into one timeless thought:
“FACSIMILES. A facsimile is a memory recording for a finite period of time. It is considered that memory is a static without wave length, weight, mass or position in space (in other words, a true static) which yet receives the impression of time, space, energy and matter. A careful examination of the phenomena of thought and the behavior of the human mind lead one to this conclusion. The conclusion is itself a postulate used because it is extremely useful and workable. This is a point of echelon in research, that a facsimile can be so described. The description is mathematical and an abstract and may or may not be actual. When a thought recording is so regarded, the problems of the mind rapidly resolve. Facsimiles are said to be ‘stored’ [note LRH’s quotation marks]. They act upon the physical universe switchboard called the brain and nervous and glandular system to monitor action. They appear to have motion and weight only because motion and weight are recorded into them. They are not stored in the cells. They impinge upon the cells.” (HFP)
Because ‘being and being aware’ in the ‘here’ is perfectly enough and beautiful. Life is taking care of the ‘one’ in ways the ‘one’ cannot ‘build’. Also, one can respond in a situation in a way which is alive.
2x
Thanks. Yes, Ron said it but not ‘all’. As far as my knowledge of it goes. He did not say that it was possible to live a life in the unknown, of uncertainty. That life can be lived without creating games and still be enjoyable. That this is not a theory but can be an actuality.
MT:”He did not say that it was possible to live a life in the unknown, of uncertainty. That life can be lived without creating games and still be enjoyable.”
Games may be too figurtive a word and he may well have likened settling for an “enjoyable life” to be “in the trap”, so to speak. Life certainly can be enjoyable and becomes more so as one rises in tone and awareness. It comes down to an individual idea of sufficiency as to how far one will reach and how strong is the urge.
2X: That this is not a theory but can be an actuality.
Chris: Example?
Chris: “2x:That this is not a theory but can be an actuality. “” Example?”” ”
“That this is not a theory but can be an actuality.” (That was a comment by Marianne.)
Marianne?
Marildi
Theta IS energy. Very-very fine energy. It’s the Flow, the Tao. I didn’t read anything about why and how a postulate can ‘stick’. I guess this is so because a thought-postulate when it is ‘pure’ is the same energy of the ‘place’ where it wants to have a
‘positive’ effect. Can you find a reference why/when a postulate ‘sticks’?
Marianne, it seems that the static of theta is there in that “Very-very fine energy…the Flow, the Tao… This is from 8-80:
“The characteristic of any vibration is that it contains the manifestations of a static and a kinetic. A static is something with no motion, no particle and no wave length; and a kinetic is something which has considerable motion…”
“…In the higher ranges, the static is furnished by the individual, and the mathematical symbol for this near-ultimate is theta.”
That’s a good question about why/when a postulate “sticks”. I’ll see if I can find something. Probably later as I will be going out shortly.
Thanks for your input!
2x and Chris
‘This is not a theory but an actuality’. One example can be our ‘enlightened’ ones. I have posted some videos (Adya, Echart Tolle, Byron Katie, Gangaji….). One can argue whether it is an actuality in their cases but as long as one is not in that ‘place’ of consciousness where they are, one of course cannot be ‘certain’ of that ‘non-place’ of the ‘uncertain and unknown’. To me it looks that they communicate from ‘there’.
Not looking for an argument. Just asking.
Chris
I know! Thanks! I instantly found the belief which served as a base for my use of the word ‘argue’.
Wow, what a concept!
And I mean that in more ways than one. It seems to me that the analogy of mentally grasping a whole movie “at once” would be like any concept – many, many images superposed and resulting in a single “thought”, i.e. a concept. That’s what a concept seems to be derived from, many superposed images. At least that’s my concept! 🙂
“Thought, thinking and life itself are of the same order of being. Demonstrably they have no wave length, therefore contain neither time nor space. Thought only appears to have time because in it is recorded physical universe time.” (Handbook for Preclears)
For anybody who wants to get a simple understanding of the spooky “delayed choice quantum eraser experiment”, here’s a video:
One organises “doingness” in order do more, but one that has nothing to do with the intengable TIME… If one is slow than one can do less, For example I am fast with “doing-ness” because of that I do acomplish great deal daily therefor it seems i have great deal of time and that is on illusion since we are only in PT = doing in the moment. And you are right there is no “PAST” or “FUTURE” that too is only words made up to describe something which one was DOING : has been done in earlier moment and its memory strored.
Sorry for all the miss-spelling…..
‘doingness’ is an apparency, an illusion too…
yes of course, now why are we commenting than? Since being here on this Planet is on illusion and of course “love” too is included in that.
We are commenting because we can experience the same ‘substance’ in different
forms. Creating true love is taking apart, seeing through forms, when we get the same source, the same substance. I am WHAT you are.
🙂 I’ve missed you, glad you are back. Liked what you say.
You are one of my favorite guru’s 🙂 🙂
The above message was to Elizabeth Hamre
hehe mine too.
Dee— Chris you two watch out giving me compliments because your love and admiration is BUILDING MY EGO!!!! now if that happens i will have to start auditing from the base up!
And i dont think I want to spend 20 more years with this robot thingy..I too love you both hehehe.
Eliz; BUILDING MY EGO!!!! now if that happens i will have to start auditing from the base up.
DeE: But you don’t let that happen pretty flower. We know you can dust off any mites that occur on your flowers and breath fresh air always. You are loved, and that’s nice! 🙂
2ndxmr; Yup & Neat.
2X: 1) the quantum choice eraser implies that the condensing particle KNOWS the ending of the story; knows how it must behave at the beginning to make the ending agree. It’s seen the movie.
Chris: Something I’ve been seeing is that in a fractal and tautological universe, all endings are both possible and real. It is the observer, being one with the observed, which is collapsing from possibility to actuality; from wave to particle if you rather. When we lay it out this way, what is known, suspected, predicted, or otherwise made manifest is irrelevant as all possibilities are actualities. It is a mechanism of fascinating complexity, enormity, and beauty.
“Theta” is a muddy term having too many definitions; however, I ken how you use it and it is not a problem for me. Furthermore, your idea of theta is not only possible but actual as it already manifests in your mind. Theta as “dark matter” is also possible and actual. I don’t much like the term “dark matter” since both terms can be misleading and anthropomorphic. I think dark matter is more a quality of space-time, as is matter. No matter, haha, it’s all good.
hI THERE BOYS…. DARK NATTER for the theta… wish i have read the reson why you :2ndx call that.. if in the term od abbreration, the accumulated mass than i would call that yes is is dark and very heavy.. black-er that black and in size and weight is huge… but when one erase all that crap than theta is simply a beautiful sprackle which lights up the universe! love this stuff.
PS.. the darkness in fact not aberation but wonderful collection – momentums-suveners from around the Universe which we have kept because we have thought it was important, and valuable to us. .
{ sorry for the spelling, but by now you guys should be used to it!}
‘theta is a beautiful sparkle which lights up the universe’ YEAH! Love it that you are here as a sparkle!
csokollak!
@ Elizabeth, You have no idea how much your writing and spelling improved. You meant to write better and you do!
2X: More appropriately, QM is virtually identical to theta and I will posit again that theta created this universe in an image of its own operating basis i.e. theta is a no-space, no-time potential (probabilistic state) that can create space and the illusion of time via particles in that space.
Chris: Anthropomorphic assertions about the source of things is unnecessary. Egotism is a powerful force at work in the human psyche. Sometimes it helps us push ahead and accomplish the impossible but sometimes it gets in the road of real research as it came to do with Hubbard’s. Your entire post is cogent and alright with me, I’m only saying we don’t need to resolve the theta issues to learn and to continue to make progress and inroads to understanding ourselves. Theta is a model but to me it is not a great model. Imposing it; trying to make it work, to me, it is representative of a closed set which breaks down when we need to look farther. If anyone wants to hold that model in reserve as a possible model, I don’t see a problem until the emphasis comes to be making it fit.
Chris:”we don’t need to resolve the theta issues to learn and to continue to make progress and inroads to understanding ourselves.”
I’d agree with that to a very large degree. However I do think the theta model is appropriate to discuss and examine if we want go go beyond understanding ourselves to understanding how we can maximally interract with the universe and beyond.
What I find most fascinating is the how the theta model so closely matches the QM model. You might argue that point and perhaps that’s really just a six-pack subject that might be great fun to explore some weekend on a Skype roundtable. Probable outcome?
2X: Probable outcome?
Chris: hehe – big fat head for me from drinking more than my half of the 6-pack! It’s fun to conjecture; to bring all our wits to bear on these questions we’ve spent our lives pondering. I am currently experiencing a “release” from egocentric models. The irony is of course that it is impossible to have a non egocentric view! For me, this is far reaching and so this idea is what I am emphasizing right now. Valkov is fond of saying the “map is not the territory” and so it follows that the model is not the thing itself. IF I remain mindful of that, and if I let go of my “illusion of central position” my mind is suddenly allowed an entirely new and sweeping freedom. Thus my antipathy for egocentric models is rooted in this new found freedom; however, the freedom is egocentric! hahahaha!
Chris
‘if I let go of my ‘illusion of central position’ yeeeeah…..’far reaching’, isn’t it? Get your freeee…..dom (dom has a meaning of ‘house’)!
Marianne: Get your freeee…..dom (dom has a meaning of ‘house’)!
Chris: Ah! Nice twist.
2X: Probable outcome?
Chris: I like ok the static model of “no-thing” but the moment someone tells me they know what I am talking about, we diverge hahaha! QM models of wave-function are good for me as the language isn’t so attached to and hindered by “things we know about.” Probably outcome? For egos trying to expand — expansion. For egos trying to make their model real — hardening of their model, etcetera.
My current focus on understanding the mechanical universe is an expanded look to space-time for it seems elastic as do our egos. Space-time seems to want to gather itself together as do our egos. This is my model of MEST. For conjecturing beyond that? I try to remain mindful of nothing in the literal sense and this is giving me the best mileage and freedom so far.
Semantics is a bitch! — double-edged sword to be sure when it helps us to communicate but hinders by fixing our ideas, well, unless fixing our ideas is what we are after such as in engineering, then it helps. hahaha.
Decisions! I would say the ideal is to make them now. I feel this is only way to truly stay in present time. I drag out the process is to some degree stick you in time. Even the decision to get more information will work as long as you then act on it. Think of the times we, and those we have been able to observe say then need more time when it was really what was considered a “socially acceptable” excuse to not have to confront the present situation.
Just as illogical and absurd would be the demand to just make a decision – when in fact the truth could be that more data is made. The oddity of this cartoon pic is that both answers could be correct – and from a different viewpoint both could be valid.
The first – sweating – is either afraid to announce the decision or lacks the certainty he can actually make the correct decision, and he is being told he doesn’t need more time. Could be as simple as out gradient. The demand “he doesn’t need more time” could be helping him over a false fear (this of a high board dive into a pool and it is only fear and lack of confront and not lack of skill/safety.)
It could be the true lack of certainty and the evil one is pushing the person into a loss. Therefore we would have know the details of the circumstance to know how to interpret. Otherwise this is just a colorful little pic.
SA posted: “I can be cause in my universe. I can’t cause you to want an apple. I can postulate and mock up images. If you agree to some degree and you get that thought you could be cause and decide to want an apple. I may create an effect but I don’t get into your universe and make you want an apple.”
I’m not sure about this, as I have known at least one person who could create illusions in my universe that seemed to be “my own” perceptions seen with my own eyes. I don’t know if he could have made me ‘want an apple’, but he could certainly make me ‘see an apple’ that wasn’t there…. Or see a realistic picture of an apple, like he Photoshopped it into my perceptual system.
iamvalkov – I would agree many could do that. But to have that cause something in your universe, in my opinion, you would have to then agree upon or act upon that illusion. You would have to initiate some type of participation. Otherwise all you did was observe his illusion. It is a matter of recognizing ownership of the mental image picture or perception you perceived.
That is what I meant by someone could create an effect on you, or you create an effect upon another. But the point of causation in your universe would be when you initiated some response in participation. Even if this illicited participation or response was reactive. Thus we you have no reactivity it is becomes harder for others to confusion your perceptions and you are more aware and more stable.
I may extend effects perceivable by others but that didn’t make me cause over them – that would be more along the lines of body snatching, etc. May be done by some but even then the other being was merely overwhelmed and kicked out of his “home” unit.
It may help if we define CAUSE as SOURCE of creation. Observing and perceiving something is creating too, as I cannot see something shown by another to me without creating it too.
If one cannot see something without creating that something than how can another “show” you anything at all? Perhaps because we are not other than one and separateness is merely consideration?
I’ve been zooming into that fr the last couple of years.
what is fr ? Also, what made the zooming possible?
fractal, this came through when you wrote it
Yes, freebeing. And a consideration is a continuous postulate. The postulating of separateness stops when ‘one’ is creating the exact duplicate of the other ‘one’s creation….there we get the same source and the illusion of separate universes is gone…ONE source, one impulse, creating different forms.
freebeing – Could it be you actually have been part of its creation and now don’t remember. An example would be the physical universe. Then others could show you something. But this would not apply where there has been no agreement or consensus. Could I show you an entire artistic painting I have in a thought without words or symbols communicated? For us to “see” something don’t we have to create some image in our mind, brain, or whatever you thinks does this “seeing.”
MT… “It may help if we define CAUSE as SOURCE of creation.”
You just did! signes; smart as from hUNGARY! 🙂
Yeah, I love playing in such good company!
2x, LOL – we both came up with the same quote at the same time (just 2 minutes apart). Thanks for spelling it all out so explicitly in practical terms. Fantastic!
The same-one FLOW is in operation? ( ! )
Marianne, I still lean toward the idea that we are all individuals but can be in communication on either the level of the physical universe or the higher level of theta connection – as in telepathy, for example. But in this case with 2x and me, I believe we both pulled up from our repertoire of facsimiles, the ones that pertain to the current discussion. 😉
Talk to you later. 🙂
Marildi and 2x
Thanks for the quotes!!
A decision is time-less because there is no desire (wanting, which is a thought form) and value (like, dislike, which are again thought forms) in it, just pure awareness. That is we indeed have a triangle above purpose, where awareness is the common point and knowingness without thought and perceivingness without creation are the two other angles. The abilities of theta are knowing and perceiving by being aware. This is how I experience it now.
The root of pleasure and suffering is intention-purpose itself where awareness gets mixed with desire and value. It can also be the basis of bulding up one’s separate universe.
I have just found this. He also speaks about an ‘hour-glass’ towards the end. That is
there may be an upper triangle.
There is a ‘desireless desire’….no thought in it….it comes from the ‘Heart’….cannot describe it better.
MT long as there is a LEVEL one dels with heavy MEST..
Yeah, thanks. I have never experienced ‘levels’. Rather, less and less not consciously created energy (energy looks to be just by consideration, as the way I experience it, energy doesn’t exist in its own right, only if I postulate it into existence) or no energy, just ‘static’, which is rather a no-experience, as that is the Source. In the video, he is using the word ‘stage’,which, for me, is the right word. ‘Stage’ definition can be: a platform, a scene of events. Where there is less and less energy. more and more awareness of details, lighter and lighter illusions coming from the source. Or, no illusions at all. (just the platform/source/no-thing/field, whatever).
Just to build your EGO (your comment to Chris and Dee), you are a good teacher, you can ask precise questions or say a sentence to direct my attention which definitely clears the ‘mind’ area in my case. HaHa…you can create and uncreate any time…so I have no fear that you will have to give auditing another 20 years and I know that you know it…you will have to look for other challenges….travelling, teaching?
Elizabeth
I have a question: Is it possible not to build a universe of one’s own?
The goal of scientology is to stop agreeing to, that is stop being an effect of the Mest universe and gaining back the ability to create one’s own universe. To me it still means separation, division.
As I experienced it during the last couple of months, one can create and just at will
uncreate one’s illusions, one’s universe. And not creating is a good ‘state’.
Marianne: It can also be the basis of bulding up one’s separate universe.
Chris: Without the basis of one’s own universe, one isn’t oneself any longer.
‘Without the basis of one’s own universe, one isn’t oneself any longer.’
Yes. The illusion of one’s separate self is gone. So ‘what’ is ‘one’ then? Will you describe it the way you see it? (it is also interesting to look at the concepts of ownership and havingness from that perspective)
Marianne, I will try a little bit. In my world, the selves are little condensations of space-time, imbued with various computational ability including what we call ego which results in general self importance. The selves have installed considerations, preferences, predilections; as well as the sense that they are the center of the universe. Some selves consider they are the source of the universe rather than the source of their perception of their own experience of that universe. The selves have contain self-diagnostics, repairs, and programming corrections. These self diagnostic capabilities, programming, and processes feedback to the self that it is present, well, on-line, in-communication, etc., and report and log discrepancies. These self feedback loops are tautological in that they tautologically reiterate affirmations to the self general and specific sensations that one is “ON.”
Some worry about my atheism but atheism doesn’t cover it. What passes for human intelligence seems to me to be more glorified self programming, processes, and applications. I would say that underpinning all that we see and all that we know is a greater intelligence, but that doesn’t cover it. What I see underpinning what I see, is a greater consciousness than what passes for consciousness in human terms. Humanly we think that when we are awake, we are conscious. This is no more than a simple metaphor for what I see. We talk and write much about sensory organs, and to me, the self is only that and nothing more than a sensory organ for that which is beyond-beyond. I arrive at that which Vinay Argawala assigns “unknowable” meaning unmanifested. A human cannot see beyond this veil which I consider to be bordered by a mathematical set. Man was never meant to see beyond this veil, it is not the purpose of man. Men have always and always will push this envelope, to pierce the veil and see beyond, and that is his purpose to do so and his frustration not to be able as a self to be greater than what is possible. But equilibrium can be found. Peace and wonder are possible. Men and women are here to work and when the work is caught up, we are here to wonder.
You asked, so I wrote what is for me a poor and amateurish stab at describing the wonders in front of my human mind.
a sense of free will which allow for Underpinning t
Thank you, Chris! You say ‘for me a poor and amateurish stab at describing the wonders in front of my human mind’. Not at all poor and amateurish! Two questions popped up in my mind. 1. Can you imagine that one can live without a self? 2. What do mean by, how do you see that greater intelligence?
“Man is a machine, but a very peculiar machine. He is a machine which, in right circumstances, and with right treatment, can know that he is a machine, and having fully realized this, he may find the ways to cease to be a machine.
First of all, what man must know is that he is not one; he is many. He has not one permanent and unchangeable “I” or Ego. He is always different. One moment he is one, another moment he is another, the third moment he is a third, and so on, almost without end.”
― P.D. Ouspensky
Wow! That’s a good quote Valkov. This coincides with both what I see and what I wrote. My current emphasis seems to be separating out all of these “i” manifestations and making them mindfully impermanent and transitory. There might be, for me probably is, an unseen underpinning which defies human grasping. This is why I think that individuals are a flimsy coalescence of MEST which do not “become gods” while what is underpinning this, out of sight, transcends ego — is NOT a bigger ego but something else. Everything that I know about is human. Even the great things — human. But I’ve found no reason to believe that either greatness nor smallness has any limitation, and this is the human view. The human view is a limited set and it is limited by considerations.
And Valkov…you are not your name (Valkov), you are not your body (as in the picture), you are not the thoughts that you have typed here….and I like the ‘you’
behind all of this….how can it be the case that I like the ‘intangible’, the ‘source’ of all these manifestations? Of course the manifested too…but the unmanifested…..(being inspired by YOU).
Wow, Chris! Wow! I get you!
“One of man’s important mistakes, one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I.
Man such as we know him, the “man-machine,” the man who cannot “do,” and with whom and through whom everything “happens,” cannot have a permanent and single I. His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings and moods, and he makes a profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago.
Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says “I”.
Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small “I”s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, “I”. And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man’s name is legion.”
G.I.Gurdjieff
Hey, Val, there’s a discussion going on the “Gurus” thread that’s on the subject of “I” or no “I”. Come join us.
Thanks marildi, but for me that subject has been long since beaten to death over the past 3-4 years. I guess I’ll join Vinnie in declaring it “unknowable”. Although he doesn’t actually classify that particular controversy as unknowable, I think he’d be wise to do so.
Iamvalov, I like your answer of that has been “beaten to death” and “unknowable” having to do with the subject of “I”.
Marianne I see what you want to comm but there is a catch: For as long as there are universes created, you need to take them into account. To take responsibility for them all yourself is one thing, and I consider it desirable. But to have them all be interconnected into one, it’s a totally different thing. MEST is such a thing. It’s like the Matrix. It attempts to make all universes junior to it –dominates them. Not-ises the existence of personal universes. There could be many kinds of MEST, and there have been efforts to create MESTs inside MEST. Traps within traps to put all beings under control. This doesn’t mean unity of beings cannot occur. But there is also the mockery of it –the way southwards. For as long as there are beings, self determinism must be granted, before pan determinism can occur.
Great post, Spyros. Thanks. Each sentence you write is a gem. You totally get me. And I get you. Thank you….
Spyros
I get it now. When one stops building one’s separate universe and does not agree to (is not effect of) the Mest universe, the ‘one’ is gone…this ‘infinite’ or the ‘flow’ is that makes it possible as a ‘background’ for other beings to get more and more conscious….
Thank you 🙂 🙂 🙂
Yes, out of traps and to infinity. Universes -like everything, like you said too- are potential creations.
But no being and no infinity ever ceased to be a being nor infinity. Static doesn’t move nor otherwise changes.
The Matrixes try to convince that beings are things, located in space and time and at effect, and that the MEST U is the one and only U. SCN was meant to as-is all traps –reactive mind, pre-OT stuff, body, earth, MEST universe and I don’t know what else. And maybe some people did it. But nowdays I’m told that this stuff is unrealistic. I’m glad to be crazy. Crazy means to disagree with MEST.
Spyrs: I’m glad to be crazy. Crazy means to disagree with MEST.
DeE: Me too, crazy as a bat so they say! I do love Mest but disconnecting from it and therein lies the challenge to be and the road out.
Hey DeE, glad to know crazy people. Disconnection is for the COS –disconnection=can’t have. The fun is to have it or not at will, and be able to have other things too (or not, at will) 😉
Spyros: The fun is to have it or not at will, and be able to have other things too (or not, at will) 😉
DeE: Right on! Power of choice or free will. Isn’t life grand as we can know it? 🙂
Spyros: For as long as there are beings, self determinism must be granted, before pan determinism can occur.
DeE: Well said on whole post, thanks. 🙂
Thanks 🙂
deE: Power of choice or free will. Isn’t life grand as we can know it? 🙂
YES!! 🙂
Marianne, you asked me if I could “find a reference why/when a postulate ‘sticks’.”
Here’s one I found, which is an excerpt from the 5th American ACC: Unlocking Universes:
————————————————–
A man is as well-off as his goals and dreams are intact. If a man can dream, if a man can have goals, he can be happy and he can be alive. If he has no goals, he doesn’t even have a future.
A person believes—when running into a game called MEST universe, consisting of barriers—when he believes that all of his own actions are dependent upon the MEST universe, he thinks that any action he takes is going to be barriered. He thinks he’s going to be stopped in everything he does. If he were to say, “Well, I think I’m going to be a painter,” if he just thought that, he would probably get the idea of some kind of a wall sitting right straight in front of his face. It’s a direction. “To be a painter” is a direction to go. He so thoroughly agreed with the universe that he believes that to gain any objective he has to cross a distance. If he can’t cross that distance, he can’t have these objectives. So he gets the idea that he can’t be anything. He can’t arrive. Why, he can’t arrive, because anything he thinks of doing in life is going to be stopped. Barriers are going to be erected across his path.
He thinks, “I’m going to be a painter.” Immediately after that his stimulus-response mechanism says, instantly, “Well, you know you couldn’t be a painter. Your mother always said…” You know, instantly.
He knows he can’t be the best driver in the world. He just knows this. He knows this and he knows that. What’s he know? Well, that’s another kind of knowingness. It’s the knowingness by impact. Certainty by impact as opposed to certainty by self-confidence.
Now, you’re trying to take an individual away from certainty by impact and certainty that he’s going to be hurt, that points in space are going to impede his way, that he is in a game that is all barriers, barriers, barriers. You’re trying to take him away from that kind of an idea, separate him out and bring him over here to a point where he can make a postulate and make the postulate stick.
And you do that by separating him out of universes, making him make his own postulates good and making him capable of determining an action and then bringing the action off. And any therapy there is, is involved with the problem of getting a person away from being one of these—well, practically an automaton being run by Newton’s three laws of motion and this entanglement of universes. Getting him away from being subject to the gods of all the universes he has inhabited, such as Mama’s, Papa’s, the physical universe—doesn’t matter. And getting him to a point of where he can get over here and make up his own mind. That’s all. All he has to do is make up his own mind.
The wrong way to do it is simply say to him, “All you have to do is make up your own mind.” The right way to do it is to disentangle him and give him a lot of wins. And he’ll win in the end.
————————————————-
Marianne Toth commented on Time. Wow, Chris! Wow! I get you!
Chris: It does not seem to me from your writing that you do. Your writing focuses on and is fixated upon the self. Your writing establishes the self as permanent and unchanging. This is easily shown not to be the case. You seem to have been going back and reading the older posts on this blog and these demonstrate how transitory the self is. I do know and am familiar with the ground you are covering with your comments for if you read my earliest comments they read somewhat as yours do now. This was a mistaken and inconsistent idea on my part. Years of blogging here with Geir and with Vinaire, and a year of solo auditing in conjunction with Elizabeth’s encouragement to do so, gave me looks at myself which provided catalyst to change those opinions. These changes are recorded in the comments sections of most of the OPs of this lengthy blog and at Vinaire’s blog. I have continually newer opinions, now that the mental constipation seems to be breaking loose. I hope more finely tuned than before, and I hope to make similar progress in the future. To understand that the self germinates, grows, blooms, and passes away is not a frightful thing — the urge to survive is an installed idea, even if installed in our DNA. My calm is not generated by a certainty that I am at the heart of the matter an unchanging, unconditioned, immortal kernel of theta. Rather, my calm comes from a view of how the matrix mingles. Chris is a self. Chris’ purpose is to play and not to recede from playing. This is a very simple look at existence and those who would have as their game to massively control others do not like for people to ever have this look as it makes one more difficult to herd. Some of our ideas about the self are installed by others in an effort to gain control of us and to illicitly benefit their-selves. The self could be metaphor-ed as a flower or leaf on a tree, but not as the tree in my example. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right, just trying to share an extant view which will change in space-time as does space-time, by increments, little quantum leaps I call decision points. Selves seem to manifest as nodes or pimples if you will on the skin of consciousness. The pimples come and they go but the skin remains as a metaphor for the continuum, at least for a time.
Chris…. good view points,
MT has to realise on her own that her reality is how she sees the universe is not what others have written and do see– believe in but the reality of her own and that is totally two different reality..
No one but no one can see into another person universe!!
Right. Each of us sees what we see. I do not say there is anything wrong with what Marianne sees nor do I say she does not see it. I only say that any of us can see yet more if we continue to look. Anytime we pull up short and feel like “aha! I’ve got it!” Is too soon, too premature.
CH…Yes there is countless AHA’s !!!! on the same subject..
We never can say that we totally duplicate what is in the other persons universe, since that is impassible..
I still dont know if i have reached the true basics, some times I feels like finally i thruly got it and understand it totall, than bloody hell: comes the next cog and I realize beside the realization i am still where I should be,I only gained a different REALITY … long as one has some sort of reality-thought-consideration a belief on any subject one is still in the hole.
If I would duplicate somebodies universe=thoughts creations than that persons universe would vanish in my universe… that being would no longer exist.
Exp: I have duplicated one beings love.. its meanings for me and that love no longer has meaning in my space… Duplication is just that..
No wonder humans cant and wont duplicate easilly, it has to be a learned thing… Duplication vanishes things.. when that happens HAVINGNESS drops.. loss sets in..
Interestingly duplication is only erases the stimulations so the thing-person dont reality vanishes just their affect is gone and that effect is the loss ones misses and that loss is the energy it self.
hehehe interesting life one has when one is no longer effected by anything or any . one that means ones Havingness no longer depands on the incoming stimulation.
Tomorrow I be traveling to the different part of the country Szeged is the name of the city, I be there for few days than to Budapest..
By the way my dear Vancouver was voted the most beautiful city in the world!!!. How do you like that, I am looking forward to show it to you and Shelly in the Fall!
It will be an honor to see it with you.
In my Scientology life, I thought of my self as being trapped but not so any more. Now I see myself as a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars, but really no more either. Now a life well lived, in improving balance with other beings and the environment in general is my aspiration.
Nicely said! Me too!
Elizabeth and Chris
Thank you. My perception is that there is no ‘entity’ as a ‘me’. Just pure ‘awareness’. When I said to Chris ‘I get you’, I meant to communicate that the ‘you’ is that same ‘awareness’. My perception is that there is one single source of consciousness. It’s not because of others say so. It’s a perception. And you are right….I don’t need to ‘spread’ this ‘reality’ here on this blog.
Chris, I have been going back on the blog twice. First, because I was interested in
earlier posts. The second time now because Geir published the book. I find it a fascinating reading. You write that I see the ‘self’ as fixed and permanent. I certainly
didn’t communicate something well if you see it that way. I perceive the ‘world’ in different awareness ‘ways’…I have written about it in some posts but it’s not important. Elizabeth, you asked me a week ago why I was blogging. I answered.
Now I feel that I don’t have anything to say….that is to ‘spread’ my ‘reality’. Can it be
that I am stopping it? This ‘no-self’ here is laughing…..love to each of You!
Marianne, I have understood since way back that you do not perceive that there is an individual or permanent “self”. It has been very clearly expressed by you. And now that I’m studying Buddhism a bit, I’ve been even more interested in your comments – including all your realities, especially those that are from the perspective you have of a single consciousness of which we are all a part. When I showed one of your posts to a Buddhist friend, his comment was “Very nice. Very Zen”.(He practices Theravada Buddhism.)
Actually, anything you describe as what you directly perceive is extremely valuable IMO, whether or not everyone has that same reality. I know you speak from what you intuit rather than some sort of figure-figure or analysis. And I really hope you continue to find things of interest to comment on here!
Marildi
Thanks! You have understood my communication since my very first post! It’s great you have been studying Buddhism! You know, way back, when I was new in scientology a Class 6 OT5, a lovable being, looked at me and asked: ‘Do you really want to see the truth?’ I answered: yes…..was about to write here some incredible stories which have happened since then but I have changed my mind. Truth….I just love this ‘journey’ even when it is ‘hard’….can be at times. When you have ‘different reality’, sometimes it’s good to have the company of those beings with whom you can talk about what each ‘you’ experiences even if these experiences are not easy to express and it’s not the real point on the ‘journey’.
Marianne, you wrote: “…was about to write here some incredible stories which have happened since then but I have changed my mind.”
I, for one, would be very interested! And don’t forget that there are many more readers of this blog than there are posters, and you may very well be starting many of them on the road to truth. I myself don’t always comment on your posts, but I read and appreciate them. 😉
Marildi
HaHa….thanks again! I know! I will be off posting, at least for a while. The truth is, I made a decision about it a little while ago. And it got into operation, funny how life works! As for the ‘stories’…I wish a lot of bloggers and new ! ones would put here some! Some perhaps don’t think that sories are worth being shared…but you remember when e.g. I asked you about what had happened to you, you immediately recalled one and put it here. I find it incredibly beautiful when someone opens up in this way…as real, true life stories open up more people…you know, truth-source attracts more truth-source. Thanks, Marildi! Will be busy for a while but…….to be continued!
Marianne: “I made a decision about it a little while ago. And it got into operation, funny how life works!”
Sounds like you made a postulate – and that it is sticking. 🙂 The other day you asked me if I could find a reference as to why/when a postulate “sticks”. Did you see the one I found? It’s at 2013-05-26 @ 08:10, or you could click on this to get to it: https://isene.me/2013/05/21/time/#comment-39664
You also wrote, “…truth-source attracts more truth-source…Will be busy for a while but…….to be continued!”
That attraction is what I will look forward to when you decide to change your postulate. In the meantime, I’ll be thinking of you. Enjoy! 🙂
MT… we also write for fun and to pass time, or just to belong into a group, or to hear our self, or to see how we respond, what is our reality in comparison…. I think of my writting =commenting as usless flapping of my mouth since it dont make any different if I do or I dont.
Very good Marianne, then earlier I misunderstood your writing. I thought I was being careful to read you for a while before commenting but I was wrong anyway. Pronouns are a bitch! Cheers!
Chris
‘ Pronouns are a bitch!’ HaHa….especially the ‘ I ‘ and the ‘you’ ! You write: ‘Chris’ purpose is to play’ you are doing it in a credible manly manner! Cheers and Love!
Yes, Marianne. He can be manly and gentlemanly. 😉
Chris: Selves seem to manifest as nodes or pimples if you will on the skin of consciousness. The pimples come and they go but the skin remains as a metaphor for the continuum, at least for a time.
Dee: Chris I love your post whatever it’s called. You put it so differently, creative.
I’ve been quite busy and am just back now with lots to catch up on this weekend. 🙂
Marildi……. MT……………. postulates are stickig? care to explain that reality? There is a huge MU in believing in that concept.
E. what is your idea about that concept?
I was going to ask about that but lost my nerve. Hehe.
Yes, well you’re right to be scared of me. 🙂