I shared a video on Facebook yesterday that stired more than 50 comments in a very short time.
I posted this: “And we cling to our orderly rules and safe precautions. Who said we need traffic lights and stop signs.”
The video is pertinent to the book I’m reading, “Antifragile”. Let me know what you think.
On another note – Scientology: I have written many times that I believe anything can help a person – anything the person believes can help him. It is a matter of coercing the person into trusting a method or scheme or person or thing and he will admit that it helps him. And thus it does. The person is actually coerced into believing in his own powers to change his life on a via. It seems easier to coerce the person into trusting some via – some other, outer thing – than directly trusting his own abilities. Trusting his own requires more of that very scarce commodity called responsibility.
Now to my point: Scientology is a product of its times. Just as Hubbard was a man of his. The 50’s, 60’s and the 70’s. It is a new age religion that focus on the dangers of the cold war era, the imminent dangers of atomic war, the energy crisis, the us versus them of the US versus the Communists. The focus on Taylorism, whipping people into production, the worshiping of systems, of machine organizations, efficiency at any cost. All in the name of saving the world because the world is in such a dire need.
But not anymore. Scientology posed solutions to a different era. It is much harder to sell 40-year old solutions in today’s society. Especially when they are sold as fixed, permanent and timeless solutions to any problem imaginable. Thus it becomes harder by the year to coerce a person into unleashing his inner powers via Scientology. Other, more modern coercions is emerging and more will come.
97 thoughts on “More on Antifragile and some on Scientology”
Yes. solutions specific to old problems will grow old. But certain fundamental truths, such as, mindfulness, will never grow old.
Does light grow old? Why or why not?
The focus on Taylorism, whipping people into production…
Google is your friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorism
Best OP ever following a best OP ever by Marty 😉 😛
I’m a fan of the roundabout
Chase the carrot or get the stick, this is Scientology, this is the way of all life and it’s religions.
I wish it was developed around 2010 so it could have used things like wikis, file signatures, youtube training, collaborative mobile and web apps and devices.
How about an app for your phone that balances karma, who wants to fund my startup? we’ll include some laborious process and a device for phones to read pupils
in-app purchases to balance karma we just take a cut, could be bitcoins, texting someone in all caps and it sends them $1, leaving the toilet seat up $.50 goes to your wife, yearly membership is $5k and part of that goes to people that do charitable acts
I’ve driven in Cairo. Addis appears to be similar to Cairo.
That way of driving is not better.
Death tends to null the benefits of an antifragile system.
. . . and conversely, when a person does not believe that help will help him, the reason may be that he does not see the help to coincide contextually with the frame of reference of his problem.
“I have written many times that I believe anything can help a person – anything the person believes can help him. It is a matter of coercing the person into trusting a method or scheme or person or thing and he will admit that it helps him. And thus it does. The person is actually coerced into believing in his own powers to change his life on a via. It seems easier to coerce the person into trusting some via – some other, outer thing – than directly trusting his own abilities.”
Geir you hit the nail on the head with this post. When you talk about a person’s believe you are speaking about the fundamental biology of the soul. One does not seem to realize that it all starts with the assuming of a believe that creates their reality, and the believe does not have to come from an observation it can come from a desire to be apart of a collective of other souls.
Methods: Religions, Support Groups, etc.
Scheme: Bridge to Total Freedom, Pray The Rosary, etc.
People: Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Pope, L Ron Hubbard, etc.
I believe these Methods, Schemes,and People follow us beyond the physical world and create our realities on the other side as well. Only when we get to the realization that its all an illusion based and created by our believes can we truly be free.
“One does not seem to realize that it all starts with the assuming of a believe that creates their reality, and the believe does not have to come from an observation it can come from a desire to be apart of a collective of other souls…Only when we get to the realization that its all an illusion based and created by our believes can we truly be free.”
Jim, did what you wrote in the last sentence above come from “an observation” or did it “come from a desire to be a part of a collective of other souls.” (I’m half kidding you, and half serious :))
Jim and marildi
Can it be that a primary belief is that there is ‘other’?
How else can a ‘non-existent’ be aware of its non-existence than
through Creating ‘existences’ and Observing them thoroughly can
thus get a ‘feel’ of this ‘non-existent’?
“How else can a ‘non-existent’ be aware of its non-existence than through Creating ‘existences’ and Observing them thoroughly can thus get a ‘feel’ of this ‘non-existent’?
My answer? One cannot. One exists until one does not exist. When one does not exist, there is no awareness. One does not get a feel for non-existence at all. This reads like LRH claptrap to me.
Let me ask you the contrary question, my dear: Can it be that a primary belief is that there is NOT other?
Sure. And the TRUTH reveals itself when the dichotomy of these
beliefs is gone. You take away either of the two and the illusion of
the other is also gone.
Marianne, your answer surprised me. I had the idea from previous posts of yours that you believed there was no such thing as “other” – no “I,” only “we” – a Oneness. But now I get that you’re saying both of these beliefs are mere illusions – and that when both are gone, the “TRUTH” will reveal itself. Please tell me, then, what you mean by TRUTH, and how you know that it IS truth. Sincere questions. 🙂
‘no such thing as “other’ – no ” I ” yes, marildi, you got it right.
Look ‘inside’ and tell me what you find there. Is there an ‘ I ‘ ?
Look ‘outside’, keep observing and tell me what you find there.
Is there a ‘you’ ?
The ‘sense-perception’ of that ‘what’ is that it is the core
‘substance’ of each manifestation. A ‘zero’ which can ‘be’,
can manifest as any’thing’ and any’body’ while retaining
So TRUTH can be seen as zero and all manifestations
at the same time. Which also resolves the question of
‘time’ as ‘zero time’ and ‘all time’ equals the ‘timeless’…
‘how you know that it is truth’ ? in experience, by living it…this
is as much as i can say at this point…i have no ‘knowing’ what
the ‘fluid’flow of life is going to present,manifest next to experience
and to observe…
Thanks, Marianne. Not too long ago I read an article that, like you, also talked in terms of “experience,” and it expressed my own sense of it, or “experience,” so well. Here’s an excerpt:
“…when we use introspection to search for the origin of our subjectivity, we find that the search for `I’ leaves the customary aspects of personhood behind and takes us closer and closer to awareness,per se. If this process of introspective observation is carried to its conclusion, even the background sense of core subjective self disappears into awareness. Thus, if we proceed phenomenologically, we find that the `I’ is identical to awareness: `I’ = awareness.
“Awareness is something apart from, and different from, all that of which we are aware: thoughts, emotions, images, sensations, desires and memory. Awareness is the ground in which the mind’s contents manifest themselves; they appear in it and disappear once again.
“I use the word `awareness’ to mean this ground of all experience. Any attempt to describe it ends in a description of what we are aware of. On this basis some argue that awareness per se doesn’t exist. But careful introspection reveals that the objects of awareness — sensations, thoughts, memories, images and emotions — are constantly changing and superseding each other. In contrast, awareness continues independent of any specific mental contents.”
Here’s the link to the article. I hope you have a chance to read it and tell me what you think. http://www.imprint.co.uk/online/Deikman.html
Thanks Soooo much, marildi!! I read it, i find it an excellent article!
I will reflect to it! I wish to read it again, so after that.
The feeling of being helped is quite subjective. Is their something objectively substantial about it?
The feeling of being helped is quite subjective. Is their something objectively substantial about it?
To me, substantial help will consist of removal of inconsistencies for a person. The person is now living in greater harmony. It would be objectively visible, regardless of how the person feels.
Yes, maybe, but you don’t have to go to Addis Abbaba to study this incredible anti-fragility. Nope, just step into the nearest garden, almost anywhere! Voila! there you have it, ‘perfect’ impossible driving. Don’t believe me? I’m not kidding! You will find almost the identical high speed dodging, diving, and speeding, (with almost zero collisions, btw) in ANY ANT hive, or marching column. So there! All we gotta do is ‘duplicate’ those skills, hey?
seems they’re already onto it in a big way in Addis!
I’d remember to show some respect, next time you stride out onto the pathway, if you follow what I mean? 🙂
Neat comparison 🙂
Hi Racing 🙂 Here’s one for you, a guy who likes a daring thrill…60,000 Starlings in flight with two falcons hunting them.
Note that the visual goes out at about 4:30, but up to then it’s an awesome display.
Hey Marildi! …Just a spectacular and awesome display of duplication/communication/understanding, all enhancing/ contributing, to that inherent ‘goal’ of ‘optimum’ survival.
Fascinating too, just how many of these ‘displays’ actually are on view, in the vast panorama of games called ‘life’.
Is this not the ‘ Supreme Artist’ romancing his/her heavenly blessings, for the likes of thee & me to behold in wonder, admiration & joy?
And, Marildi, I just know you’ll appreciate THIS: Have you ever seen such unbelievable displays of start-change-stop (control)?
…..and executed in such perfect precision, AND replicated too?
oh, and I almost forgot, with the dominant species on this planet, (man)…all he can manage to do, when exposed to this ‘stuff’ is to have his mind, ‘boggled’! (mine too, and humbled, as well!, btw!)
I agree, Calvin. This spectacular display could be described in Scientology constructs. The only thing that might not be included in those constructs is whether the birds have one being/thetan over all of them, or if there is one for each. Do you know of any LRH research or statement about that ?
Here’s what he says about insects:
“In the insect kingdom it is not established whether or not each insect is ordered by a spirit or whether one spirit orders enormous numbers of insects. It is not established how mutation and evolution occur (if they do), and the general Authorship of the physical universe is only speculated upon, since Scientology does not invade the Eighth Dynamic.” (Fundamentals of Thought)
“One could have guessed that the race which first developed affinity to its highest degree would become the dominant race on any planet and this has been borne out. Although the kind of affinity enjoyed by the insect world can be shown to be an entirely different type of affinity (since it is not based on the individual remaining an individual and having affinity for another individual), nevertheless, this pseudo affinity has made the insect world a dangerous rival for planet supremacy. The dangers of broken affinity have long been recognized by students of the human mind.” (The Second Dynamic book)
I agree, Marildi, we seem to have ‘speculation’ as the only mechanism, by which to assemble possible answers, to those perennial questions.
Trackwise, though, I had personal recall come up in auditing, which flabbergasted both my auditor and myself.
Just for a bit of ‘natter’ bait, I vividly ‘remember’ life on a dark planet, while a ‘colony slave,’ foraging for food, while aware of my luminescent green body. The closest I can describe my appearance, was as a rather large ‘sea lice’. The food consisted of a type of dark green moss/algae. My awareness of ‘myself’, as a being, was clear enough, and awareness of the others, and their subjugated state, very vivid too.
I merely relate this ‘experience’ to you, to play devil’s advocate, with other’s speculation/s on their possible past existence/s
Prior to being asked to find ‘an earlier similar incident’, on that chain, I had never even read sci-fi, or had any interest whatsoever, in life on other planets. However, that recall, opened up the possibilities that pertain to your question above.
Did it all seem real? Definitely! So, perhaps this ‘unprovable’ account, will be rejected outright by our skeptics, and I can totally have that, as their outraged dismissive response.
I know what I saw, and that, opened up my spiritual awareness, unlike anything else I have yet experienced.
Get me? 🙂
Calvin, thanks for sharing that! That’s an awesome track recall.
I don’t know if you’ll get much interest in such topics as that from posters here on Geir’s blog, but David St. Lawrence has a new forum called “Independent Spiritual Technology,” and posters over there are sharing these types of experiences and all kinds of esoteric realities. It’s a huge site and not as user-friendly as Geir’s, but I think you might benefit from it too. Here’s a statement about it from the Home page:
“This is a forum with public areas and private areas where many different spiritual phenomena and counseling services can be discussed in great detail. The idea here is to have beneficial and inspirational sharing of information. Current topics of discussion include encounters with spiritual beings, Spiritual Rescue Technology, Knowledgism, Scientology, Self Clearing and computer based robot auditing. If you would like to see what is in the private areas of this site, please register. We will approve your registration promptly and then you may log in.” http://independent-spiritual-technology.com/discussion/index.php
If you do decide to check it out, click on any of the various categories listed on the Home page to see a list of topics in that particular category, and then click on any of those topics you want to check out. There are a lot of discussions going on simultaneously on different topics, so it takes getting used to.
In answer to your question – yes, I get you. 😉
Och! …noooooo yerr ge’innn at’ lassie. At’s a weeee b’ d’fffclt, ta’ gi’ thrrrooo ta’ a’ f’yooo thoooogh, y’a kennn?
At’s wurrrth a gooood luuuk’ thann!…. Ay’lll la’ yooo knooow whit co’mms a’f i’. A’nnn th’ min’ taymmme, aye g’ass wi’lll je’stt ‘av ta’ puuute upe wi’ the yooo’shl traypppe ‘n unnyin’s ?? 🙂
Aye, laddie. I ken. 😉
“The only thing that might not be included in those constructs is whether the birds have one being/thetan over all of them, or if there is one for each.”
Hi Marildi, These two are not the only choices and there are other choices which do not rely on anthropomorphic “thetans” for an explanation.
Hi Chris. What other choices did you have in mind?
LRH: “One could have guessed that the race which first developed affinity to its highest degree would become the dominant race on any planet and this has been borne out. Although the kind of affinity enjoyed by the insect world can be shown to be an entirely different type of affinity (since it is not based on the individual remaining an individual and having affinity for another individual), nevertheless, this pseudo affinity has made the insect world a dangerous rival for planet supremacy.
Chris: One can guess many things. Is this statement of LRH’s actually true? And in what context? pseudo affinity? This reads to me like more of LRH’s claptrap. Hug statements like these to your bosom with pseudo affinity at your own peril.
I don’t think that there is any thetan. There is just energy phenomenon that we need to understand better.
Thetan is just a hypothesis covering or hiding a lack of understanding.
Hey Vinnie, why don’t you have a look at that article I just quoted an excerpt from in reply to Marianne. Here’s the link again: http://www.imprint.co.uk/online/Deikman.html
The ABSTRACT of the article that you referred to says, “Introspection reveals that the core of subjectivity — the `I’ — is identical to awareness.” I do not see the method of introspection to be scientific. To me scientific has to do with “seeing things as they are without assumptions” (mindfulness) and consistency among what is observed. An inconsistency indicates presence of assumptions.
I have no quarrel with awareness. I can see that awareness is there. But I do nort see that it equates to “I”. If “I” is looked upon as the center of awareness, then “I” is more like a “virtual center” as in the concept of “center of mass” than as a “point source of awareness” as assumed by Hubbard.
There is no single point (“Supreme Being”) from which all awareness comes. If each thetan is a “point of awareness” then all these points are like situated in a matrix like formation. They are not independent points. They are as much dependent on the matrix as the matrix is dependent on them. In there words, all these “points of awareness” are part of a large energy phenomeon that may be looked upon as a matrix.
So, the thetan is part of a larger structure. No single thetan is the source of this structure. This hypothesis is more consistent to me.
Vin, I think the following excerpt from that article would counter what you wrote above:
“…experience is dualistic, not the dualism of mind and matter but the dualism of  awareness and  the contents of awareness. To put it another way, experience consists of the observer and the observed. Our sensations, our images, our thoughts — the mental activity by which we engage and define the physical world — are all part of the observed. In contrast, the observer — the `I’ — is prior to everything else; without it there is no experience of existence. If awareness did not exist in its own right there would be no `I’. There would be `me’ [self, ego], my personhood, my social and emotional identity — but no `I’, no transparent centre of being.
“In the very centre of the finite world is the `I’. It doesn’t belong in that world, it is radically different. In saying this, I am not suggesting a solipsistic ontology. The physical world exists for someone else even when I am sleeping. But any ontology that relegates awareness to a secondary or even an emergent status ignores the basic duality of experience.”
How does it counter, Marildi? Give me your logic please.
I see a thought observing itself. I find the observer and the observed to be the same.
Vinaire: “I find the observer and the observed to be the same.”
The problem with the above is what is described in the article as the “the infinite regress.” Here’s that passage:
“Every time we step back to observe who or what is there doing the observing, we find that the `I’ has jumped back with us. This is the infinite regress of the observer…often presented as an argument against the observing self being real, an existent. But identifying `I’ with awareness solves the problem of the infinite regress: we know the internal observer not by observing it but by being it. At the core, we are awareness and therefore do not need to imagine, observe, or perceive it.
“Knowing by being that which is known is ontologically different from perceptual knowledge. THAT IS WHY SOMEONE MIGHT INTROSPECT AND NOT SEE AWARENESS OR THE ‘I’, concluding that it doesn’t exist. But thought experiments and INTROSPECTIVE MEDITATION TECHNIQUES ARE ABLE TO EXTRACT THE ONE WHO IS LOOKING FROM WHAT IS SEEN, restoring the missing centre.” (emphasis in caps is mine)
So the point is that one can LOOK, using your word, and see the actuality of awareness as the “I”. Btw, your other word, MINDFULNESS, from Pali: sati, Sanskrit: smṛti, is also translated as “AWARENESS,” according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness
Actually, when you look at the observer and observed to be the same there is no infinite regress. The matter stops right there.
Vin, the way you are using the word “look” in the above comment appears to mean “to consider” or “to hypothesize.” That is far different from what the article is referring to, which is actual mindful looking – mindfulness – and when you do that type of looking, the observer cannot be observed. The article makes clear why that’s the case.
Sorry, I don’t get your point. Could you please explain it.
It’s the difference between theorizing and direct knowing.
One can be aware of one’s own personal awareness in and of itself, without being aware AS WELL of any particular object of perception or observation, such as is done during meditation. Read over the article again as it explains it better than I can.
“One can be aware of one’s own personal awareness in and of itself…”
That is observer and observed being the same. That is how it is with everything.
Well, there we go – I shouldn’t have tried to reword the article. What I wrote was misleading. The actual point of the article is that the “I” and awareness are one and the same. “I” doesn’t observe awareness; “I” IS awareness. And that becomes directly known during, for example, deep meditation – which is to say, awareness exists without any content. They do not comprise a duality.
I don’t agree with the article.
“I” seems to be an energy manifestation of the order of “center of mass” of an object.
Vinnie, what you say may be quite reasonable, but REASON isn’t the basis of this kind of knowledge of existence. It’s based on ultimate, personal EXPERIENCE – whereby a person can extract the “looking” from what is seen.
You could go ahead and do the experiments in the article if you want to, but they would have to be done with a willingness to let go of any system of thought you might currently be invested in. I’ve seen that you can do that, btw, but this is really getting into the crux of matters. Not just you but people in general might even benefit from FDS’ing when it comes to approaching this kind of core belief.
For myself, I had tried to take the traditional Buddhist (among others) viewpoint of the non-existence of “I” but there always remained with me the experience of awareness that couldn’t be separated from “I”. So when I read this article, I thought, “Yes, that’s exactly what I experience.”
Your basis of this exhortation is “personal experience” which is questionable in the light of false memories.
People feel that they have experienced something, which later has turned to be false memories.
So, how does one confirm that one’s subjective experience is accurate?
This isn’t about memories any more than mindfulness or meditation is about memories.
If it is not about memories then it is about considerations. It cannot be anything else.
Here’s the difference:
“Awareness cannot itself be observed, it is not an object, not a thing. Indeed, it is featureless, lacking form, texture, colour, spatial dimensions. These characteristics indicate that awareness is of a different nature than the contents of the mind; IT GOES BEYOND SENSATION EMOTIONS, IDEATION, MEMORY. Awareness is at a different level, it is prior to contents, more fundamental.
Awareness has no intrinsic content, no form, no surface characteristics — it is unlike everything else we experience, unlike objects, sensations, emotions, thoughts, or memories.”
That article is basically presenting the considerations of its author.
Not at all. The whole thing is about experience as opposed to conjecturing. He’s even asking the reader to experiment with it for himself – to see if it’s true for him.
That doesn’t change the point I made.
You said it was the author’s considerations. And I basically said no, it’s not a matter of considerations (from reasoning and/or conjecture) – the author is describing what he and others have tested on themselves and what they discover to be their experience. And he invites the reader to look for himself, as opposed to simply accepting his “considerations.”
As you wish.
Well, what I “wish” is to look at things for myself, as best I can, rather than accepting an idea because it seems to be the most logical, or consistent, or “spiritual” or aesthetic, or whatever else we could name that is missing a degree of my own personal knowledge about it. 😉
Very good point.
And your articles are…?
I think another crux is the difference in the two most commonly used definitions or notions of what “I” means. One is simply that “I” is potential, awareness and creation with no personally involved. The other is a more created and evolved “I” that is an individual complete with a personality and ego. I have seen many discussions where one person. (eg Vinaite) argues against the second definition while the other person actually holds the first definition in mind.
Geir, I so agree about some of the past discussions of “self” confusing the different uses of the word! In this exchange with Vinaire, though, I think the meaning of “I” was clear, because the article we were discussing repeatedly makes the point that the “I” is identical to awareness.
What I was thinking Vinnie might have something to say about was the article’s reference to Eastern thought as support for the idea that ‘I’ = awareness. Such as with the following:
“…certain Eastern philosophies based on introspective meditation emphasize the distinction between awareness and contents. Thus, Hindu Samkhya philosophy differentiates purusa, the witness self, from everything else, from all the experience constituting the world, whether they be thoughts, images, sensations, emotions or dreams. A classic expression of this view is given by Pantanjali:
‘Of the one who has the pure discernment between sattva (the most subtle aspect of the world of emergence) and purusa (the nonemergent pure seer) there is sovereignty over all and knowledge of all.’ (Chapple, 1990)…
“In the classical Buddhist literature we find:
‘When all lesser things and ideas are transcended and forgotten, and there remains only a perfect state of imagelessness where Tathagata [one of the titles of a buddha] and Tathata [term meaning ‘suchness’, and denoting the way things are in truth or actuality] are merged into perfect Oneness… (Goddard, 1966)”
I may be mistaken but I had the idea that Vin’s theories are based in Eastern thought.
It seems to me that whenever he sees the term “I” in a discussion, he immediately think it must have some attachment, some ego – and then he promptly rejects it. I believe that to be the core of many of the more unproductive discussions.
It does seem that there is usually a barrier of some kind in discussions. Otherwise, we should be able to carry on back and forth and eventually bring out the basic consideration that each person is operating on. And from there we could take a look at the basis of it and discuss it from that perspective.
And it seems to me that the basis of a consideration would either be some adopted consideration (from some other[s]) – which either has or hasn’t been personally tested as to its validity (or at least its workability) – OR, it would be something the person himself has derived, based on another’s (or others’) data, or else based on his own personal observation which could be “direct” (as in the 6th sense) or “indirect” via the normal senses.
Now, if Vinnie were seriously interested in an exchange with me (which he may not be! LOL) then I would imagine that he would continue more or less along those lines I just described.
Anyway, there’s my little dissertation for you today, Geir. 😉
How did they work out for you Marildi?
I think that this universe started at the point when the “Unknowable” decided to know itself.
Even after all this complexity of this universe, “it” hasn’t figured that out yet. Haha!
Marildi, after perusing the voluminous content of the blog tennis played on this ‘sideshow game’ of this thread, leads me to arrive at the following score:
10 / 10 to vinaire, for ‘Thinking’
10 / 10 to Marildi, for ‘Looking’
(btw, this could easily become 100 / 100, or 1000 / 1000, etc, etc, etc)
To ‘me’, then, there is no clear winner to this tortuous ‘game’
—Verdict? Hopefully, there is sufficient charity remaining in the respective parties, to allow allow ‘the other’, to ‘be right’, without the interminable ‘need’ to infer the other, ‘wrong!’ I hereby issue my decision:–Differing parameters appear to apply in this case.
—Therefore: “Case dismissed!”
pronounced on. 26/04/14; by judge Ray Cing; blog court RUB-IT-IN; (for the Relief of Unceasing Blog Impact (upon)Totally Innocent Non-participants.)
Your Honor Judge Ray, what rules of the court would you lay down that would allow debate between posters of opposing viewpoints that doesn’t – albeit inadvertently – make the other person wrong?
This isn’t a rhetorical question – I’m asking for your esteemed philosophical viewpoint. 😉
My dear Marildi. Here, we made reference to the earliest of precedents, in the weighing of optimum solutions for interminable debates on what becomes interminable. That precedent was decided in a single bang of the judicial gavel. It has had many wordings, recorded within the skulls of learned judges, of various persuasions, since the raucous squawk of the very first presiding, wizened owl..
That final, determining, yet unwritten recourse, in such cases, became known as the “WTF? PRINCIPLE”–(aka Thank God that’s OVER!) 🙂 The written version? –“Case dismissed!” 🙂
“Trusting his own requires more of that very scarce commodity called responsibility.” True for me as it always turns out but don’t mind a little help now and again.
“And we cling to our orderly rules and safe precautions. Who said we need traffic lights and stop signs.”
Right, Geir. That’s for the birds.
Here’s how they do it in California – 500,000 of them. And apparently there has never been a known collision. 😉
Hi marildi ! Great vid! i heard in an earlier vid that they put the
lampposts in a way that they wouldn’t disturb the migrating birds.
Not that the birds couldn’t fly as in your vid….care and respect
for life, that is…it is also interesting what the lama says…
Just need the right distance sensing equipment on the cars, with automatic avoidance of collision.
Click to access Taleb_Antifragile.pdf
Perhaps Scientology is an anti-pattern, but the same could be said for antifragility?
As long as our imagination exceeds our ability we will worship ability with one method or another.
Hey Geir, certainly an interesting collection of outpourings to your OP, make for some astute observations.
Here’s a slightly different ‘angle’ (optical) that may either ‘clarify’ or distort view/s according to/pertaining to Hubbard.
Let’s pop in to our local optician, shall we, to see what ‘goodies’, we can check out, for a little more ‘clarity’ on this topic?
Well, what do we see, sitting smack in the middle of the examination room? An elaborate device for measuring the proficiency of each eye, in focusing upon reading a ‘reader board’ of letters and symbols, to establish the ability to ‘see clearly’ whether in short, or long distance, and a myriad of other criteria, such as ‘astigmatism’ (degree of density of ‘blackness’ when viewing the angles at which numbers occur, say on a clock face.)
The profession is based on a thorough knowledge of clinically & scientifically determined study of all known factors, which make up the capability of human eye sight. This includes the use of corrective aids, such as prescription glasses, & contact lenses.
The test device above, includes elaborate sets of precision lenses, which are adjusted by the practitioner, to find the optimum lens/es giving the sharpest clarity, in sight, according to pre-set precision assessment criteria.
(As an aside, it is common knowledge that today’s opthalmology advancements, performed under anesthetic, in eye surgery clinics across the world, offer radial keratotomy, cataract removal and lens implantation, using advanced laser technology, just to mention a few.)
My point to all this, is to draw attention to one main purpose:
>> What does it take, then, for a person to ‘see clearly’ ?
(whatever is on view, before one!)
While offering my apology for a crude, lay-man’s intro to what is, after all, a highly dignified and precision based profession, I never the less, wish to show the enormous impact, that having a correct and precise VIEWING LENS (adjusted manually, if possible, such as with a pair of binoculars, or adjustable microscope, or even a telescope) MAY LARGELY ELIMINATE DISTORTION, and permit scientific replication, via photo imaging. Thus giving consistency (proof) for scientific consensus.
So what has this to do with Hubbard, and/or Scientology?
Simply, the capacity/means/(lens?), by which one may ‘clearly’ SEE, what one is attempting to see.(subjectively/objectively)
One of the most overlooked ‘tools’, that Hubbard developed, to ultimately eliminate ‘distortion’ when viewing something/someone
is that ol’ trusty drill; TR-O. TR-O, which has as part of its EP, the ability to ‘BE in present time’, One may then, view, accurately, (with or without the use of glasses), what one is confronted with, without the ‘distortion/s of emotional baggage, delusion, and other mental confusion/s to cloud one’s view.
Without dragging this point on and on any further, then, the necessity of removing barriers, (ie, distortions) from a person/s ability to see clearly, what one is attempting to see, permits this clarity to be restored.
It follows then, that the practice of auditing, when applied with the precision of the ‘workable’ technology, (when correctly applied) IS capable, of not only removing distorted/obscured/delusional views of a scene, but of restoring the ability to truly ‘see’ what one is ‘looking at’.
Thanks for indulging me with your attention here.
Well said, Calvin. I hereby highly commend you for your ability to see the forest! (And not just the good, bad, and ugly trees 😉 )
Why, thank you Marildi. It helps no end, of course, that one has distant memories, of times when one could actually SEE forests, in their abundance, instead of today’s sparse, good, bad, and ugly scenario! 🙂 That applies equally, it seems, to that other somewhat sparse, formerly abundant commodity–ARC! 🙂
…and the 0 one sees after proper viewing is the same 0 which
is the core of an ‘ill’ tree…what will happen to this ‘ill’ tree as a
result of these two 0-s ‘meeting’?
Hi Sunshine 🙂 As long as we ‘remember’ to assume the primary view of being ‘nothing’, except pure potential, to ‘be anything’, we will all BE ‘just ‘fine’, thank you 😉
yo’bro’ on the show,
Thanks! Looks we have been writing simultaneously. i don’t accept the ‘just fine’…what is the EP of revitalization and the
ack of 0?
i love your being on the show !!!!
revitalizing? your view of it, Ray?
How about keeping this simple, Sis’ o’ mine? Remember Adyashanti? “whatever you are resisting… just give it all up! …throw it into the fire… the counter thought to that? … throw it into the fire….. “but”, … throw it into the fire! ” 🙂
BTW, Sis’, thank you again, for introducing us! The resulting ‘duplication’ achieved, has been profoundly life changing!
L, Ray. 🙂
Footnote; it is only poignant to remind ourselves, that the existence of ‘tools’, doth not a’fool’ make. Only the abuse of said ‘tools’ accomplishes that!!
ie, that is to say; Mayhem caused by a madman, should not lead to the clamor to; “Ban ALL guns”
The exact same scenario could apply with Miscavige & Scn.
Quote from Marildi:
“Every time we step back to observe who or what is there doing the observing, we find that the `I’ has jumped back with us. This is the infinite regress of the observer…often presented as an argument against the observing self being real, an existent. But identifying `I’ with awareness solves the problem of the infinite regress: we know the internal observer not by observing it but by being it. At the core, we are awareness and therefore do not need to imagine, observe, or perceive it.”
Awareness of a thought exists within that thought and not somewhere outside of it, just like the mass of a particle exists within the particle and not outside of it.. Any duality assumed in terms of observer and observed is like assuming a duality between a particle and its mass.
When there are a bunch of thoughts together, a center of thought develops among them, much like the center of mass of an object.
Each particle has its own mass. When a bunch of particles come together, each particle still has its own mass, but a center of mass may be assumed for the combined mass of the bunch of particles. Because the center of mass appears to be separate from each particle, we may assume a duality between a particle and its mass.
Similarly, each thought has its own awareness. When a bunch of thoughts come together, each thought still has its own awareness but a center of awraeness may be assumed for the combined awareness of the bunch of thoughts. Because the center of awareness appears to be separate from each thought, we assume a duality between a thought and the awareness of it.
The infinite regress mentioned in the quote above is the result of this assumption of duality between the observed and the observer. This is just an assumption and it is not the reality. When we don’t assume this duality the problem of infinite regression goes away. But the article quoted by Marildi believes that assumed duality to be real. It tries to “resolve” the infinite regression by another assumption that the center of awareness is “I”. It then says that because one is the center of awareness, or “I”, there is no further regression because one cannot regress within oneself. In other words, one cannot look at “I”.
I wonder why? I just looked at it.
Another analogy would be our bodies. Made of many individual functioning cells, etc., there is yet an “average” of the entire combination of these with its own identity. That was taking the view down smaller. If we enlarge our scope, we can see that our groups have both socially and legally, identities of the average of all our contributions.
What is interesting in this discussion is the violation of the discussion policy earlier.
Some people think that they are right and start commenting on the other person in the discussion instead of discussing the subject (as I am doing right now.)
Note; your discussion policy does not apply on my blog except for where it coincides with what I say is the rule.
I know that, That discussion policy is not some arbitrary rule. It is rationality.
What seemed rational to Hubbard may not sound like gospel to others. What seems rational to you may not sound like like gospel to others.
It may not sound like gospel to you but that Discussion policy is rational. 🙂