Entropy
Author: Johnny
Posted: Mon 8 Nov 1999 08:52 am
I am looking for some bright opinions. Whether or not Scientology is valid is not even the question. The question is: Are the theories valid? Now let's think about that. We know that the dinosaurs were laid waist by a meteorite, yet Ron claims the Xenu myth. We know the mind is capable of exterior perception. This one is so easy it isn't even funny. Pilot gave the best advise in the world: Try to pull out as little as possible. Next time you run ext. drills, just be (spot without perception) behind or in front of yourself without trying to perceive, perception will come. Ya just need to get that "OT" feeling. I think the most important question to ask is: what is good and what isn't. Though Filbert was a little strange in some of his writings, his expanded bridge is not bad. I just can't get over those darned vegetable people. What's with that? I think there is a simplistic way of looking at this. Everything you can ever possibly run in session is viewed from an identity. In order to gain one simply acknowledges that viewpoint and takes a look. The problem is not ser facs, or goals, or entities, or whatever. The problem lies in getting stuck with them. Really a person is only as stuck as they consider themself to be. In actuality, the mind is what is doing the sticking. The human brain has evolved to the point not only of self awareness, but awareness of external concepts like reading. This is why we build space stations. Only the more cognitive animals display this. So what of a spiritual being? Well, according to Hubbard it has no mass and no wavelength. Fair enough, but you cannot call no mass and no wavelenghth an individual, it simply does not exist. We are talking about spiritual beingness here. Nothing could ever be wrong with something that is timeless and eternal. The difference is simply in awareness. We are aware of self, we are also awareness without self. Drill between those two for a minute. The problem is in the human brain. The brain is the deal. I am sorry, but the body is not just some hunk of meat that you pick up and walk around. Think about it. I'll check back tomorrow.
The Night Lamp
John Reese
Author: Cj (Cj)
Posted: Mon 8 Nov 1999 09:24 am
I have been thinking all weekend off and on about the outline I picked up from the idenics web page.
I especially am attracted to the concepts of additives, versus who I am underneath all (that viewpoint/those viewpoints).
I do not agree that we are something great and wonderful, if that is what you are saying. Nor either, less than great and wonderful. We are what we are, and putting a value to it is quite missing the point.
What does entropy mean, anyway?
Author: Johnny
Posted: Tues 9 Nov 1999 07:20 am
Well spoken.
Entropy is the nature of the universe.
You do what you do.
It seems to me that bozo the group mind is to busy with squabbling amongst themselves. It is cool to see yourself as something. In fact, in order to perceive you must have a viewpoint. The interesting thing is, there is awareness without self. It is a very stirring idea. I have been working through some new concepts and theories. I even found a Scientologist who is running the local org. He and I are discussing things. He likes my ideas.
I think you really should take a look at the Idenics material. Listen to the tapes. There are two of them at your disposal on that web site. Galusha is an amazing person to listen to. Mike is a person of outstanding character. I am glad that you have taken the time out. I am glad that you are taking a look. Regardless of what some people claim, there is objective truth.
The Night Lamp
John Reese
Author: Anonymous
Posted: Tues 9 Nov 1999 04:22 pm
Attn ALL:
In the above posting, John Rees(e) writes:I even found a Scientologist who is running the local org. He and I are discussing things. He likes my ideas.
My comment: "I'm not surprised that he liked your ideas".
Who do you think is behind the changes that have taken place in the "Church" of Money-ology????????????/
Author: Johnny
Posted: Wed 10 Nov 1999 08:08 am
Give me a break.
Author: LRH Mystery solver
Posted: Wed 10 Nov 1999 01:41 pm
You can have all the breaks you want... especially a long LOA would be appreciated!
It's interesting that all of your little snippets of "comments",instead of answering the questions,tell us more about you every day.
It would be interesting to know how a rabid opponent of the Tech (one minute) can be chatting amiably with a staffmember of the enemy, the next minute (as viewed from a "no time" dimension).
What happened to your goal of informing us 'ignorants' about the latest findings in Quantum Cosmology? At least that was "interesting".
Anyway, enough already...........
In the future, only real questions or (non-tech related) comments will be responded to.
Adriana
PS: I do recommend you though for cleaning up your language as regards your opinion of LRH and his Tech., and for your ability to hang in there - against all odds.
Author: Johnny
Posted: Wed 10 Nov 1999 03:00 pm
You should be checked for myopia.
Author: Anonymous
Posted: Fri 12 Nov 1999 06:16 am
Anon, tue, nov. 8th.
Excellent point. Are you one of the bright ones or did you just get lucky with that one? Downtone individuals are quick to point out that they have found some agreement with their downtoneness, as if they think that we will now hold this as evidence of the superiority of apathy and destructiveness. As if we, like them operate on the principle of "My cause is any cause in which I can surround myself with enough allies" Big dwindling spiral. They've been playing the game of "side with the current winner" for so long that any sense of honor went out the window years ago. It is incomprehensable to some why anyone would defend the weak right instead of the dominating wrong, why would anyone put themselves at that risk? We know the reason, though you could never explain it to the tyrants. When you're on the wrong side, you've already lost the game, no matter how "safe" you feel in the process.ALso, bumpy as the road may be, we're on the only road that doesn't lead off the edge of a cliff.
Author: Anonymous
Posted: Fri 12 Nov 1999 06:24 am
Is John, and John Reese, jR? If not disregard above, and also choose another handle because jR is so badly tainted that you will never find peace here. Sorry again if you're not jR. Look at his old posts as a few weeks ago, and his distruction of this site and it's communication lines for weeks, being FZAs first official spammer. IF you are Jr, then how are you going to make up for the damages? That is more the subject at hand.
Author: po
Posted: Fri 12 Nov 1999 06:45 am
Does that mean that the rest of us only qualify as un-official spammers? Many of us can run the entire range of tone levels from time to time and may often have very little of a positive nature to contribute. It also may mean we might run the range from personal, nattery, low-level comments, to extreme cognative brilliance.
This site by its nature will inevitably attract it's fair share of crackpots. But what is the solution to this? We can't just start arbitarily declaring even the most bizarre among us.
Maybe it's best to just ignore the irrelevent comments. Even mine.
Author: Cj (Cj)
Posted: Fri 12 Nov 1999 07:55 am
I say let's declare people as SP. Then we can be free.
Start with me. I am definitely a very suppressive person.
Mike, how about if you just remove me from this site. I can't keep myself from it, so you do it for me.
Author: Jeanny
Posted: Fri 12 Nov 1999 09:22 am
Attn Cj:
Yep. I agree with that; let's just declare all people as S.P.'s (Special Persons) for all of us are unique.
Second sentence ruins my other definition. Luckely, I have good news for you, Cj: Ron says somewhere that "if you think you are an S.P. (per your def.) you cannot be! You see that's all part and parcel of being a 1.1.(COVERT antagonism) You're hadly in that range!
I know what you mean re keeping onseself from this site;
for one it's too entertaining. Also, quite interesting these days. Last night, or rather in the early hours of today, I printed out and read the S.P. declare on D.M.
Boy, I hope that guy (Anon ?) had a scanner!
So Cj: just stay around or, better still, change back to your Jester valence.
Author: Johnny
Posted: Fri 12 Nov 1999 10:17 am
Nifty.
jR
Author: Cj (Cj)
Posted: Fri 12 Nov 1999 11:48 am
Never left my Jester valence.
Just no one here I can relate to at the moment.
Author: FZA [mike@fza.org]
Posted: Fri 12 Nov 1999 06:39 pm
Hi Cj,
As much as you might desire me to remove you from this site I will not. If you wonder why pull out your handy dandy tech vols and look in the index under communicate. Four pages of reasons why.
Besides, many of us have had our communications cut and/or controlled by a certain organization. I do not intend to do that here.
arC,
Mike
Author: Anonymous
Posted: Sat 13 Nov 1999 10:21 am
Good for you Mike!
Author: Cj (Cj)
Posted: Mon 15 Nov 1999 05:49 am
sorry Mike, only mocking up myself by asking to be kicked off. Never seen a tech volume, but even without this education, I am pretty familiar with my responsiblities to do my own actions in my own behalf. By saying something stupid I get to see myself saying something stupid and it is good for a cheap dumb laugh at myself, which I obviously need.
I forget that others are not in on my stupid internal jokes.
|
