THE PARADOX OF UNKNOWABLE

October 2, 2014
This issue is now obsolete. This was an early issue in this research and it is difficult to comprehend. For latest reference please see: Universe and Awareness and The Eighth Dynamic.
At the fundamental level, any curiosity shall represent a beginning of awareness. Any response to this curiosity would be more awareness as visualization.
Essentially, there is emergence of awareness and visualization. Prior to this there was simply non-awareness.  It is not known what mechanism brings this transition from non-awareness into awareness, but its later harmonic seems to be the mind.
Mind is a multi-dimensional matrix made up of definitions and logics. It outputs considerations based on input perception. ”Cause” and “effect” are considerations.
Prior to transition to awareness was non-awareness. Non-awareness can only be speculated upon. The barrier of non-awareness can be pushed back only by resolving inconsistencies one by one as they come up.

.

One may say, “Cause considers (intends). The result is considerations.” That explains Cause only as an observation. It does not tell you how that observation came about. Thus, the idea of Cause itself is nothing more than a consideration. One may also say, “The resulting considerations are effect, and therefore not causative of anything.” This is an observation with some thought added to it. Thus, the idea of Effect also is just a consideration. What I have said here is consideration too by the same token.

We observe and decide what is there. Thus, what we see is our own assessment of what is there. This is one level of consideration.

One may say, “What about THAT which makes that observation? THAT, which cannot be named, is beyond that observation.” Well, is it? Now we are making an observation of ourselves. Believe me there is a considerable amount of observation here, such as, unmoved Mover, uncaused Cause, élan vital, God, soul, etc. They all fall under the same logic as above.

The “looking” beyond what we observe is just our thinking. This is another level of consideration. Whether we like it not, we are stuck with what we consider.

Is there experiencing of THAT, which is making the observations in the first place? Well, that is inherent in looking. When you are looking at any level, you are experiencing THAT. There is no mystery to that. So what is the issue?

The issue seems to be the desire to know. To know something, one needs to put it out there.

We do that very well by considering. Now we have completed the circle and back to where we started from. Can we step off this circle? Is there a dimension beyond this circle of considering and knowing? We may only hope and speculate.

I am sorry that the above “observation” seems to lead to an annoying sort of desperation. This is what seems to underlie the concept of UNKNOWABLE. I have been roundly criticized for it. Is there a way out? What follows as an answer to this question is just my speculation.

The UNKNOWABLE, which I have referred to so often, is so only from the viewpoint of the knowable universe. As long as one is attached to that viewpoint, the unknowable will remain outside one’s grasp.

Here is a possible prescription for overcoming this attachment.

  1. What makes the attachment persist is acceptance of inconsistencies.
  2. Removal of inconsistency paves the path for the removal of attachment.
  3. The removal of inconsistencies leads to the comprehension of the universe as a consistent whole.
  4. A complete review of that consistent whole may satisfy the desire to know.
  5. This may end this attachment to the viewpoint of the knowable universe.
  6. One may then enter the dimension of what appears to be “unknowable” at the moment.

I am sorry if this appears too abstract or mathematical. My current focus is on steps (1) and (2) above, with no further expectations about whether the rest would follow or not.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Chris Thompson  On May 8, 2011 at 4:28 PM

    You seem to insist on there being paradox, yet my experience shows me that there aren’t any paradoxes. There are only badly worded questions.

    I suggest you write your question down and look at it. Think about why you are so unwilling to accept that anyone understands what you have written. When anyone writes to your writing, you knee-jerk your mantra back again. If you were onto something new it would be different. But there is inconsistency with your assertions. Now you’ve asserted a paradox. sheesh.

    The salient point of your writing is, “The UNKNOWABLE,. . ., is so only from the viewpoint of the knowable universe.”

    This is a good place to start looking. Do you think that it is our considerations which wonder? Do you think that MEST wonders? Without operating from – at least slightly – outside the known universe, there would be no speculation about there being an outside. It would be just one big “Truman Show.”

    You dance all over this subject but never say:
    1. Your core opinion is that you are solely the sum of your considerations – existing without Static. You think you are MEST only.
    2. and That you aren’t sure that you are the source of your own considerations or that the idea of “your own” is even a sequitar statement.
    3. You don’t believe spiritual; theta; 3 ft. back of your head;

    I played with your term Unknowable for a time but find it so unresponsive that I’ve reverted to using Static because it is more precise. You wail about “looking” but don’t value what others see when they look. You are a smart guy and I like several things that you have written, but it is my opinion that your service facsimile on this subject is so strong as to block your looking any further. You do not read for understanding what others write. You are viewing what others write as something with which to spar. Your application of neti neti might as well be “not-anything-ever.”

    But I ask, where would a concept of nothing come from if not from nowhere? How and why would something wonder about nothing? Work this into your paradox.

    Your social problems when blogging do not stem from your opinions of the universe but from your bad manners and unwillingness to assume the viewpoint of another. I expect your daily life is similarly contentious. Regardless, I don’t care.

    • Elizabeth Hamre  On May 9, 2011 at 5:10 PM

      Chris. It is very difficult in reality, actually impossible to describe, the Intangible the Infinite.
      Soon as one starts want explain, words are created.
      With that explanation[ words]one move into a different level.
      In human term where everything is labeled boxed in walled in, which are the words-considerations how can one describe which words can’t describe? And have every being who read that, to duplicate?
      Words are, considerations, agreements galore therefore belong to the MEST Universe and they can only have meaning by describing Solidity. [ The crudest form of communication is by written, than by spoken words which is only one notch above, they meanings can’t be duplicated since we all have different reality level on each consideration.]
      Each word was created to describe a item, a subject. One energy flow.
      A postulate from the created point, its existence and the end before it melts back to the Universe. You know the cycle. What was that item? Created!
      And the same goes for any other consideration in which one want to or is describing the Infinite the Intangible.
      Every consideration means different reality to every being who read that descriptions.
      I have no idea how you see the black cat and you have no idea how I view the black cat.
      That is the same reason each beings Universe is totally different and can’t be duplicated by any other beings. If the duplication would exits than all would go puff.
      The cognations do that in sessions, in confrontation one can as-is. But outside of that no.
      It is grand that we do not need to challenge others universe and have the need to change the reality if I would do that how could I learn, how could my universe expand?
      My universe would be the same for ever, did I say for ever? Infinite? That could not be since something would be existing in it, if I say in than therefore there is out.
      Let’s forget the listing of concepts. I would be stock in my own creation

      • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2011 at 7:09 PM

        Right you are, Elizabeth. Vin and I have gone around and around for months about this one. My invalidation is uncalled for and is the same bad manners that I complain of. I am Sorry for writing rudely to you Vinny. I do not need to tell you that you are an ass-munch. You are well aware of this. hahaha! But I still want to be friends and have you over for dinner. But if you say one thing about “unknowable,” I’m throwing the curry in your lap! hahaha!

      • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2011 at 7:17 PM

        ~~~However, to bring you up to current on our conversation, we were discussing what is occurring in that exact moment of creation and of destruction. Trying to write down a description which would capture the essence of “deciding” or of “intention.” The way in which I can sit at the table and rap my fingers or not or one or two or three or none. My interests lie in “tone, intention, affinity, reality, communication, and all the synonymous words such as agreement, proximity, speed, distance, and also orders of magnitude.

        I am quite interested to read your observations on these items as I infer from your blog that you have worked your way very well through these things that interest me.

        • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 3:21 PM

          “what is occurring in that exact moment of creation and of destruction.”

          This area of as-isness is an interesting area to revisit.

          At the exact moment of creation something is transitioning from non-awareness to awareness. In other words, the curtain is being lifted that was hiding it.

          At the exact moment of destruction, it seems that some inconsistency is being levelled out. What disappears is the inconsistency. I would not call it a curtain being drawn over something. It is some motion being levelled out.

          Does creation then means that some motion is being introduced? That is definitely the case when an assumption or a postulate is being made. But intuition does not fit this category. Intuition appears when something obstructing it is destroyed.

          Now I am confused. I have to look at this area more closely.

        • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:19 PM

          Two things seem to be happening at the moment of creation and destruction.

          (1) Full comprehension of what is there. This may remove something present to reveal something new.

          (2) Postulation or visualition of something new. This may hide something present by putting something new.

          So creation and destruction seems to be a game of awareness and non-awareness. They happen back to back.

        • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:30 PM

          I think “unknowable” is better described as the condition of non-awareness.

          If there is condition of awareness then there must also be condition of non-awareness.

        • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:55 PM

          “Trying to write down a description which would capture the essence of “deciding” or of “intention.” The way in which I can sit at the table and rap my fingers or not or one or two or three or none.”

          It is difficult to understand the concepts of “deciding” and “intention” by introverting on them. The best way to understand these terms is to watch animals. How does a bear decide? How does a bear intend?

          “Deciding” would be summing up of the thought vectors along a route activated in the “defintion-logic” matrix of the mind. The resulting vector would be the decision. It is awareness deciding instantaneously.

          “Intention” would be that vector used to activate a certain route in the “defintion-logic” matrix of the mind. For example, hunger may transform itself into certain intention.

          Thought experiments may be devised to understand these concepts better.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 6:10 AM

          “My interests lie in “tone, intention, affinity, reality, communication, and all the synonymous words such as agreement, proximity, speed, distance, and also orders of magnitude.”

          Such concepts can be best understood in when they are occuring in reality without introversion. Look at humans who are not introverted for examples of affinity, reality and communication. Or look at animals, such as, elephants or pets, for expression of such traits.
          .

      • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 7:36 AM

        Elizabeth, thanks for your understanding.

        Book: THE TAO OF PHYSICS; Chapter 3: BEYOND LANGUAGE tackles this problem quite well.

        But I have made progress over the last 3 years to express myself better.

      • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 3:01 PM

        I think one can describe a phenomenon quite accurately after having looked at it directly as in mindfulness..

        But it is much more difficult to explain a phenomenon when it is projected through the use of some abstract, unverified hypothesis. Thus, after one has hypothesized that spirit and matter must be separate, then it becomes very difficult to describe a spiritual phenomenon .

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 5, 2014 at 3:19 PM

          Why would that phenomenon need to be separated? It has happened in the Solid Universe accept cant be observed by “the eyes, and cant be hears by the ears””
          This explains that there is much more to the universe than what the eyes or the ears can pick up. In fact those two instruments are so crude in comparison to the ”awareness ”it self and fact they are the lowest form existing on what the AWARNESS relies on and believes in and that alone is misleading the awareness.

        • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM

          There are six senses: Five of them are designed to sense physical objects (see, hear, taste, sell and touch). The sixth is designed to see the mental objects (mind).

          The word “mind” is a very general word. Mind as a sense organ is different from mind as a computer.

          All physical objects seem to have a mental aspect to them. All mental objects seem to have a physical aspect to them.

          There is no object that is absolutely physical or absolutely mental, or spiritual..Hubbard’s Static is admittedly something theoretical that he postulated. I don’t think it exists in reality.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM

          Please do explain that phenomenon with words how you understand what ha happened in Japan since it is explainable far as I know. But in fact it is ”not a phenomenon” but on every day very ordinary communication but occlusion: low awareness : reliance on misleading body parts stops the humans from picking that communication up;; they simply ignore that they have received that communication.

        • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 6:33 PM

          “Some years back Japanese scientist shown a group of monkey how to use a simple tool which these group or any other never done before. These monkey lived in isolation from others had no connection what so ever. They have learned to use the tool with great ease. and soon after that other isolated groups started to uses the same method. The scientist could not figure out hoe that could happen, since the nearest group was miles away.”

          I see this phenomenon to be very possible. All minds are connected at a fundamental level of awareness. Please see the explanation here.

          A Model of the Mind
          .

    • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 7:30 AM

      Chris, after 3 years maybe I can respond to you better. This research has come down to the following hypothesis:

      (1) The Universe begins as it emerges from behind the “curtain” of non-awareness.
      (2) Relative motion is the outward form of awareness.
      (3) Fundamentally awareness as motion has wavelike characteristics.
      (4) Truth is determined by consistency in the broadest context possible.

      So, it is less of a paradox now. It is difficult to know what is behind the curtain of non-awareness. But we can gradually push this curtain back by resolving inconsistencies as they come up. That is what I have been doing. It has helped me come up with the above elements of the current hypothesis. It has already revealed quite a bit about The Human-Centric Fixation.

      I can only focus on what appears inconsistent to me. If that helps others resolve their inconsistencies too then well and good. Thanks for your suggestions.

      Humans identify the observer with their self, but essentially, it is reality looking at itself. Self is part of reality. It does not stand outside of it. The error is to think that spirit and matter are separate. They are not. That is a human-centric fixation.

      On the points that you mention:

      1. I don’t think I am MEST only. I think spirit and matter are one and the same.

      2. I am part of reality just as considertaions and sense of ownership are part of reality.

      3. “Spiritual; theta; 3 ft. back of your head” is a consideration coming from human-centric fixation.

      It is a human-centric fixation that THETA and MEST are separate. You may scienoanalyze me or look at me with your Scientology fixations. How do you know that your fixation is the right way to go about?

      I am doing fine in my life. So, you do not have to worry about me.

      Take care. 🙂

    • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:29 AM

      Chris: “You dance all over this subject but never say:
      1. Your core opinion is that you are solely the sum of your considerations – existing without Static. You think you are MEST only.
      2. and That you aren’t sure that you are the source of your own considerations or that the idea of “your own” is even a sequitar statement.
      3. You don’t believe spiritual; theta; 3 ft. back of your head;”

      .

      These as well as the opposite of these are both human-centric views coming from Scientology and the Semitic religions.

      .

    • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:34 AM

      Chris: “I played with your term Unknowable for a time but find it so unresponsive that I’ve reverted to using Static because it is more precise. You wail about “looking” but don’t value what others see when they look. You are a smart guy and I like several things that you have written, but it is my opinion that your service facsimile on this subject is so strong as to block your looking any further. You do not read for understanding what others write. You are viewing what others write as something with which to spar. Your application of neti neti might as well be “not-anything-ever.””

      .

      Underlying the idea of Static is the idea that spirit and matter are separate. This is an idea coming from human-centric fixation, which also said that earth is at the center of the universe.

    • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:37 AM

      Chris: “But I ask, where would a concept of nothing come from if not from nowhere? How and why would something wonder about nothing? Work this into your paradox.”

      .

      Underlying the idea of nothing is non-awareness. Non-awareness is complete lack of relative motion at all levels.

    • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:44 AM

      Chris: “Your social problems when blogging do not stem from your opinions of the universe but from your bad manners and unwillingness to assume the viewpoint of another. I expect your daily life is similarly contentious. Regardless, I don’t care.”

      .

      What is most fascinating for me are these inconsistencies of universal scale created by the human-centric fixation. I am finally becoming aware of these. I am sure similar human-centric fixation underlies the perception you have about me, my manners and my life. 🙂

      Scientology really hammers in that fixation with its special vocabulary.

    • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:50 AM

      Chris: “I suggest you write your question down and look at it. Think about why you are so unwilling to accept that anyone understands what you have written. When anyone writes to your writing, you knee-jerk your mantra back again. If you were onto something new it would be different. But there is inconsistency with your assertions. Now you’ve asserted a paradox. sheesh.

      The salient point of your writing is, “The UNKNOWABLE,. . ., is so only from the viewpoint of the knowable universe.”

      This is a good place to start looking. Do you think that it is our considerations which wonder? Do you think that MEST wonders? Without operating from – at least slightly – outside the known universe, there would be no speculation about there being an outside. It would be just one big “Truman Show.””

      .

      I have come to realize that most of the advice given to others comes from a person’s effort to resolve some confusion of his/her own. The frustration also comes from the same source.

      It happened to me too. But this has resolved for me since I started to practice MINDFULNESS. Now my recommendation boils down to Application of Mindful Discussion for myself and for others.
      .

  • vinaire  On May 8, 2011 at 4:52 PM

    I have to be true to my own observations. If you think I am behaving badly, and that there are social problems because of that then let that be. It will all sort itself out sooner or later.

    My acknowledgement or lack of it, should not influence you and your observations. Trust yourself and be true to you own observations. I wish you well.

    .

  • Elizabeth Hamre  On May 9, 2011 at 7:28 PM

    Chris, care to explain to me since I am new kid in the block What is in your reality “unknowable”?

  • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2011 at 10:11 PM

    I got this Vinny!

    I will do more than give you my reality Elizabeth! I will bore you to tears! haha!

    My reality is that “Unknowable” is a contrived concept designed to “hold the spot open” for predicted “non-things” like for instance “creative potential.” Unknowable refers to the “_____” (fill in blank-line with word like “void”) non-phenomena which are not part of this universe. Scientologists use a very good term – “Static.” This has a precise definition and is workable to use when you want to refer to “something which is not anything.” You could also call it “nothing” in the truest sense of the word. In common language “nothing” does not mean nothing at all but only to an absense of “something.” We commonly say there is nothing in the glass, when of course there is at the minimum air and space in the glass. But in the metaphysical sense, Nothing, refers to the “something which is not anything.” We constantly guess at it, but only come up more “somethings” and are never able to name a “nothing.” hahaha! Now are you sorry you asked me?!

    My argument with Vinay Argawala is that he is holding an adamantly hard line on the definition of “Unknowable.” He wants to continually parrot that “everything is just your consideration,” which of course is true. If he would leave it alone at that we’d be best buddies. However, then he goes on to give it his own little twist giving it analogies like he just did above my thread when he called it a “dimension” (which it isn’t) that is “beyond” (beyond where?) awareness (dimensions are not aware) of this universe (one can’t say what it has to do with this universe.) You see? Now do you get why I am mad?! haha! I can play this little word game too but it gets us nowhere except filling up pages and pages of cyberspace filled with sentences full of double-negatives and make-wrong! We both know we don’t know what we are talking about! I’m mad at Vinnie because he won’t acknowledge me or say that I know what he is talking about! He is trying to corner the market on nonsense and you have to stop him!

    Now that I’ve carefully explained this and you can clearly see how right I am and how wrong Vinnie is I would like very much for you to please spank him very hard!!! hahaha!
    Spank him until he screams, “OKAY THANK YOU I GOT THAT!” hahaha! (my needle is sooo damn dirty!) You have at least asked my opinion and so I am feeling properly important! Vin can take a lesson from you! hahaha!

    (you know, I think I recall one time blowing up an entire star system over just such an argument!)

    Moral: TR2 is important.

    • vinaire  On May 14, 2011 at 10:19 AM

      Expectation of a TR2 (acknowledgement) is a via and a distraction to looking. It causes dependence on another’s viewpoint.

      When there is no acknowledgement, then recognize that to be the case, and get over it.

      .

    • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 8:00 AM

      “Static” is a precise concept. It is knowable as a precise concept. There is nothing unknowable about it. This concept of “Static” comes from human-centric fixation on the separation of spirit and matter. So, I consider the concept of “Static” to be inherently inconsistent. It is not original with Scientology. It came from Parmenides of Elea 2600 years ago (Reference: The Tao of Physics, Chapter 1).

      When I speak of “nothing” it means absence of both spirit and matter, and not just the absence of “matter” as considered by human-centric fixation. I shall acknowledge now that Chris has been looking from the human-centric fixation that “spirit and matter are separate”. Until now I could not acknowledge because I did not have the right words.

      Acknowledgement without the right words is just deception.

  • vinaire  On May 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM

    Unknowable is a dimension that is beyond awareness of this universe. It is similar to the ‘square root of negative one’ being beyond the dimension of real numbers.

    .

    • Elizabeth Hamre  On May 9, 2011 at 10:16 PM

      Right, Considering that one has no consideration. Unknown to me is what I have no cosideration on. therefore it has no location, space, time, any energy in my universe. Therefore no thought if I would have than i would HAVe a consideration.

      • vinaire  On May 14, 2011 at 10:15 AM

        In my opinion, ‘unknowable’ does not lie in the dimension of ‘knowable’, just like the ‘square root of negative one’ does not lie in the dimension of real numbers. ‘Unknown” would lie in the dimension of ‘knowable’ though. So, I make a distinction between ‘unknown’ and ‘unknowable’.

        .

    • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 7:43 AM

      After three years, I now look at unknowable as the other half of the dichotomy “awareness – non-awareness.”

      This dichotomy is part of the universe like all other dichotomies, but a special one. It has remained quite hidden up until now. It is interesting to contemplate over the whole scale of “awareness – non-awareness” at once.

  • Elizabeth Hamre  On May 10, 2011 at 2:47 PM

    At the very first glance toward the material before I even start to read I experience the basic of that energy front of me.
    The being itself, [which is the material also] is in the Spiritual Universe That is the so called OT experience.
    Then I move into different Universe in which the material existing that is the MEST Universe.
    The writing is second item from That OT’s universe. This second item I experience the reading itself. In my MEST U.
    The person who writes expresses his reality with the words that energy flow is his universe.
    Experiencing that energy giving me the choice should I continue to read that material?
    I have drank from the Spring already, I have experienced his universe; I can continue and see how his universes energy translated by words
    If I continue with the reading I will be moving into a different universe [his]leave mine behind in order to be someplace else. I have no problem leaving mine since we experience different view point at all times which was not created by self but become ours with the experience]
    I am on a learning path. I am looking for different reality levels unknown to mine in order to expend the knowledge, I consider I have. Each new experience is a lesson to learn from, to see the Universe in different dimension.
    I have no desire to change other universes and to have that universe look like mine, to become mine.
    Than what would I learn from? By now I also know that if others want, need the change that will happen and not before. I am not cause over that.
    If I consider I would like what I experience to be different since I don’t feel comfortable having that experience, I know it is my reality need to be changed.
    The need to change others or self, [auditing handles that part, soloing too] the Q and A belongs to the MEST Universe. The magical part of the Universe is that we can wandor about and look for treasures hidden in the different dimensions.

    • vinaire  On May 10, 2011 at 3:28 PM

      Beautiful! There should be no desire to change anybody. Just let others be. Simply put your own experiene out there in the spirit of unattached giving. If another benefits from it, then that is great! If nobody cares to even look at it, then that is fine too.

      I have no desire to change Chris or anybody else. This is my experience, expressed in the simplest way that I am able to at the moment, with no further expectations.

      .

      • Elizabeth Hamre  On May 10, 2011 at 9:36 PM

        I know, I do understand your view points. Thank you for your reality. It is great fun to be a sudent. I love the path with all it’s ups and downs, love the obstacles. Path of Light. Where, while one walks all the dreamd are realised.

        PS: since you are great with computers and I, well lets not mention that since there is “nothing to talk about” Could you help me to establish a connection from my blog to some other blog he said he needs a “link” Please?

      • vinaire  On May 10, 2011 at 9:54 PM

        Elizabeth, if I understand your need correctly, you may go to your dashboard and select “Appearance,” then “Widget,” and then “links” This may install the capability to add links on your side bar, the way I have it on my blog.

        .

    • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 6:43 AM

      EH: “At the very first glance toward the material before I even start to read I experience the basic of that energy front of me. The being itself, [which is the material also] is in the Spiritual Universe That is the so called OT experience. Then I move into different Universe in which the material existing that is the MEST Universe.”

      I see the Being as self as expressed by a “whirlpool” in a sea of awareness. (Ref: A Model of the Mind)

      self

      “I experience the basic of that energy front of me” is how the whole whirlpool responds to presence of a new awareness.

      There are no separate universes. There are simply different ways of looking at the same Universe. OT Experience is made up of looking at the Universe as the Sea of Awareness and understanding the overall simplicity. “Solidity” comes in as one gets caught up in a whirlpool of awareness and starts to sink in towards the solidity of self.
      .

      • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 10:30 AM

        There is no such on animal as ”solidity” but only different level awareness how one looks at the same thing.. you said this your self. I look at the Universe as a very simple place because I have eliminated the complicated altered realities. Monkeys dont have ALTERED BELIEF, therefor f their communication is in fact simple AWARNESS and awareness is communication since it spread, nothing can hold back awareness. Monkey sees that tool and he is shown how to use it and as he uses that tool, that experience he has is him becoming aware. Now all the monkey in that forest started to use the same tool, this indicates that the monkey are on the same awareness level. Monkey or any other critters outside of the human species and domesticated animals have the same awareness which is far beyond the awareness of humans. And humans look down on these beings as lower forms who haven’t evolved into intelligent beings as humans are. BAH, otter stupidity and their belief shows where they are at.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 11:05 AM

          Animals are simply aware, whereas, humans are aware of being aware.

          “Awareness of awareness” translates as:
          (1) Introversion
          (2) Intelligence

          Animals are less introverted than humans. They are also less intelligent. However, not all introversion leads to intelligence. Introversion may lead to depression and psychosis also.

          “Awareness of awareness” is therefore a two-edged sword.

          Mindfulness is the practice of seeing things as they are. It leads to control of introversion. In introversion one is looking at mental objects. This is very close to the basic nature of the mind. Depression and psychosis shall occur to the degree mental objects are confused with the mind itself.

          Animals see physical objects as they are without introversion. Animals are less intelligent because they cannot perceive mental objects.

          Humans are more intelligent because they can see both physical and mental objects. Problems with humans is the confusion that may occur between the mind and the objects being perceived.

          Humans can be made more intelligent if the negative aspects of introversion are eliminated by improving the ability to see mental objects as they are. This is where mindfulness comes in.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 11:13 AM

          intelligence=BANK=Aberration that is a fact. and I will not debate on that subject.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 11:31 AM

          Lovely should have read LOWELY . Intelligence is the curse which keeps the Entity as a human segregate’s him from the awareness from different realities. Has to be a real hard core human who beliefs he is ”above others” because of his Intelligence! that alone is a sinker right there.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 11:23 AM

          As you wish.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM

          Animals dont need “MINDFULNESS” how things are , they dont need assessment, they simply know! Humans and their so called intelligence is what has segregated them: I am better than you, I have more education than you, I am the queen and you are nothing but a lovely house cleaner! Intelligence??

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 11:53 AM

          These intelligent people who claime to be much better than all other critters on this Planet are the same who are destroying it, killing each other off, cheating each other, created chemical which has poisoned every living thing on this planet in order to have more money, more control, these intelligent humans are who beat each other up, who put bombs on their body and blow self with others into smatterings, these intelligent beings rape each other, these intelligent beings are into heavy porno, becoming obese, their cruelty could fill volumes not only to animals but toward each other! You tell me that Humans are intelligent and above animals? They are not only torture others but self too. Alcohol drugs, medication, wrong food eaten, Should I mention Hiroshima, Stalin, Hitler, Drug companies, Companies who produce chemicals, the waste dumped into ocean, Millions of plastic bottles floating there covering the beaches! Show me one animal who is intelligent like humans are!

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 11:58 AM

          Are you saying that people like Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Abraham Lincoln were not intelligent?

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 12:01 PM

          They have known different, but those people are not in majority.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 12:04 PM

          Please clarify your answer to my question how these people are not intelligent.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 12:17 PM

          Intelligence is a consideration and that ”belief”alone is different: that demands on that persons AWARRENESE .
          Intelligent: humans are that= they are aberrated have the BANK.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 12:21 PM

          I am still not sure if I understand you correctly. Are people like Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Abraham Lincoln intelligent or not?

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 12:28 PM

          Having different AWARNESS than the serial killer they are simply keyed into different part of the BANK which every humans has since that awareness thinking makes a human a human.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 12:31 PM

          Intelligence is a consideration: what is better, what is acceptable, what is not acceptable: it is a measuring tool which measures awareness level.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 12:44 PM

          Earlier you said,

          intelligence=BANK=Aberration that is a fact. and I will not debate on that subject.

          .

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 12:55 PM

          Everything the Bank contains is a consideration that makes that “””MAKE BELIEF.. THAT I AM INTELLIGENT is a considerations too.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 1:58 PM

          Vinaire.. LRH made a mistake and his followers or those who have studied his beliefs are making the very same mistakes because cant think for them self.
          LRH believed when something keyed him out than it was good and he only considered pain-bad sensations the Unwanted stuff was bad. Yet he teaches differently that all is bad=BANK what the humans have: he went into and described the bank in great detail. Cant have it both ways, that is impossible in reality yet that same belief is fallowed by 99 percent of those who read his stuff. Pleasure moments are part of the bank so is thinking..

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 2:05 PM

          Are you saying that all considerations are part of aberration?
          .

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 2:39 PM

          OK… what is aberration? Are they not considerations?

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 2:49 PM

          Yes, aberration is a consideration too.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 3:14 PM

          :)… :)… V…. things become very simple when one stays with the basic… Yes-no.. there is no more than that. My sister Ava she too went up on the bridge till Full OT 7 than after that she went back to yoga. I continued with the sessions: confronting considerations. Ava teaches ”spirituality” what is to those who attend her classes and she believes that she is truly on enlightened being. Recently she said to me, I dont want you to die even the very thought that you might go before me upsets me greatly ?????? Here is the double belief… I am spiritual therefore I never die, but if you do that would be upsetting… I pointed this out to her.. and she did not like that sat all. Same goes for any other beliefs: if you believe they are real, you live that is OK by me.. but cant have it both ways. unfortunately 99 percent of the ex scientologist talk the talk of spirituality but they dont walk the walk… Learned words, understanding their meanings will not give the experience. I can read a book on carpentry and know every detail but that wont make me a carpenter.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 3:29 PM

          So, are you trying to erase all considerations?

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 3:56 PM

          In session we do not ERASE but by understanding the origin we become free from that energy-mass. WE KEY OUT OF .. no longer have the stimulation from that consideration which is based on that energy -mass. Again LRH was wrong when he said we erase but as-is the right concept + we see that how actually is for the first time without looking at it with filters. Yes I have as-ised hundred’s of thousand of combinations of considerations on every topic known to me and were replaced by understanding why they were there in the first place and why I was effected by them. I am not just” trying but doing that for 41 years.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 4:00 PM

          So, the awareness is still there but the power of that consideration to cause restimulation is gone. Is that what you are saying?

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 4:10 PM

          Thank you for understanding Yes.. very different realities make up this NEW Understanding of the Universe.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 4:20 PM

          Simpler was to say it is the Entity=me become on outsider 🙂 Not suffering from unwanted.. no longer involved because it is the must: compelled to do: like it or not 🙂
          Since considerations are the walls which keeps the persons within the content of that belief.. by not having enforced beliefs the Entity views without filters.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 2:51 PM

          I recall that in Geirs blog your-self insisted that EVERYTHING IS CONSIDERATION NO MATTER WHAT THAT THE TOBIC_THOUGHT_AGREEMENT IS ABOUT. Geir has disagreed with that and I agreed with your reality than because that is a fact.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 3:08 PM

          Yes. Anything that one can become aware of produces a consideration in the mind.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 3:23 PM

          Now we are on the same track 🙂

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 3:40 PM

          Well, what happens when all considerations are erased? Non-awareness?

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 4:01 PM

          knowledge which is not altered [ monkey have the same that is the reason their NEW UNDERSTANDING was picked up by all the different groups] has no mass, therefore contains no energy that knowledge is the Entity… Infinite…OT..
          When the filters are removed the Entity instantly recognises and ”knows” what is experienced… This part is not ease to explain.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 4:11 PM

          So, we are looking at the Sea of Awareness without any whirlpools. Is that correct?

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 4:14 PM

          That would mean that the filters are made up of the mind and the self. These filters are erased leaving the calm sea of awareness.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 4:27 PM

          Sea of Awareness would have sustenance than it would have size.. boundaries, color weight, than it would be part of MEST U.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 4:31 PM

          Sure. You can’t have awareness without motion associated with it.

          That means your “Entity=me” has no motion associated with it and no awareness either.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 4:46 PM

          Spirit and matter are not separate. The material counterpart of awareness is motion. The spiritual counterpart of motion is awareness.

          Here is the thought experiment:

          If you are alone out in interstellar space, you shall be hard put to decide if you are totally still or moving at the speed of light. Your awareness shall arise only with relative motion.

          In this thought experiment, awareness cannot be separated from relative motion. We may, therefore, postulate that relative motion is the outward form of awareness.

          .

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 4:52 PM

          awareness do not need to be a movement.. awareness is just that: awareness but dont contain energy flows.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 5:05 PM

          So, we are talking about two different kind of awareness:
          (1) Awareness with motion, which is this universe
          (2) Awareness without motion, which is not part of this universe.

          I refer to “awareness without motion” as “non-awareness” from the perspective of this universe, but it could be called something else. Now I am interested in the characteristic of this “awareness without motion.”

          Can I call it “non-awareness” looking at this universe of awareness?
          .

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM

          A better nomenclature for “awareness without motion” could be “Universal viewpoint” which is above both awareness and non-awareness.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

          I wrote about it in July 2010 as follows:

          THE NULL VIEWPOINT
          .

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM

          2.. I would not call this state as non-awareness, I dont have word for this.. cant be labeled, since when labeled that means energy-mass.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 6, 2014 at 5:14 PM

          What is awareness with motion? Means the person is being stuck to energy and being aware being moving believing that self is moving? I dont have reality on this.

    • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 7:05 AM

      EH: “I am on a learning path. I am looking for different reality levels unknown to mine in order to expend the knowledge, I consider I have. Each new experience is a lesson to learn from, to see the Universe in different dimension. I have no desire to change other universes and to have that universe look like mine, to become mine. Than what would I learn from? By now I also know that if others want, need the change that will happen and not before. I am not cause over that.”

      Most learning occurs from removing filters. For humans, learning occurs when human-centric fixations are set aside. Knowledge expands as it gets simplified. One’s own “universe” is a whirlpool in the sea of awareness. Another’s universe is simply another whirlpool in the same sea of universe. There is nobody moving form one’s universe to another universe. It is simply one whirlpool of awareness becoming aware of some of the motions of another whirlpool.

      One whirlpool cannot change another without also changing itself. As the motion of the two whirlpools interact with each other, both get affected. If the two whirlpools are whirling in opposite directions they may simply annhilate each other and simply vanish becoming one with the Sea of Awareness. It all just happens by itself per the Law of the Universe. The individual “will” associated with the whirlpool is not higher than the Law of the Universe.
      .

  • Chris Thompson  On May 10, 2011 at 4:57 PM

    Elizabeth: “The being itself, [which is the material also] is in the Spiritual Universe That is the so called OT experience.”

    Chris: Trying to get my semantics correct:
    1. (Embarrassed)You have just spoon-fed me a cognition regarding the 7th dynamic by calling it the OT experience.

    2. and raised in me the question: “Is the 8th dynamic represent the Unknowable?” or do I need another ring?

    3. and raised the challenging question in me: “If the 8th dynamic is ‘infinity’ Should ‘gods’ be located on the 7th dynamic instead of the 8th?”

    4. Is an OT a god?

    5. I am stumbling all over the hard line that Vinnie wants to draw dividing MEST from Unknowable. I have been considering that “infinity” was definitely “Knowable” consideration of a never-ending quantity that included both the infinitely large and small.

    6. I have been giving the 7th dynamic the brush-off in favor of reaching for the 8th dynamic. But it is obvious to anyone reading mine and Vin’s exchange that there is a definite Urge to survive as the Unknowable. Is this then the 8th dynamic?

    7. And if you read my earlier posts, you might have seen where I reversed the ordering of the concentric circles representing the 8 dynamics. I left the center open for the Unknowable. Then I surrounded it with the 8th dynamic; Then 7th; then so forth with 1st dynamic on the outside.

    8. In my model of the dynamic urges, I could not decide whether to put a ring outside the 1st dynamic, leaving room for more rings outside the 1st dynamic ring because I question if there are “sub-set urges to the 1st dynamic,” such as our inventions (computers, technology, etc.,.)

    9. Vinnie’s line between consideration and no-consideration is easier for me to grasp than the lines between “7th-8th-and ? dynamic urges to survive.”

    10. I know it is semantics but words are important if we are to communicate. (Halfway through writing that sentence I recognized it for the “computation” that it is. I stopped and started to erase, but then thought it would be better to write it down. The rest of the computation would be something like: “Therefore, we cannot communicate without words.”) (Embarrassing myself again.)

    • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 8:56 AM

      The idea of categorizing reality into dynamics is simply for convenience. It doesn’t actually divide the existence. The bottom line is that spirit and matter are not really separate. They both are aspects of existence or reality.

      (1) Seventh Dynamic (spirituality) is simply an aspect of reality. It is not separate from Sixth Dyamic (matter).

      (2) The Eighth Dynamic would be the Universe as a whole that includes both awareness as well as non-awareness.

      (3) Gods seems to represent the awareness aspect of the Universe.

      (4) OT (operating thetan) is a concept in Scientology that emphasizes awareness.

      (5) Unknowable represents the non-awareness aspect of the dichotomy “awareness – non-awareness.” If there is awareness then there is also non-awareness. One cannot just have awareness only. That would be like expecting only good without evil. That would be absolutist thinking.

      (6) The idea of “urge to survive” comes from Hubbard. I look at it in terms of “the urge to resolve inconsistencies.” The key inconsistency here is the fixation on KNOWING and battling against UNKNOWING. To me both KNOWING and UNKNOWING are part of reality.

      (7) The 8th Dynamic represents the whole universe that includes both sides of any dichotomy. The 1st dynamic of SELF is better described in A Model of Self

      (8) It is better to look in terms of inconsistency than in terms of survival.

      (9) See above.

      (10) See above. Improvement is always possible.

    • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

      I love how these blogs preserve our discussions. To look back 3-1/2 years and to read a well preserved copy of just what was said without bias is so interesting to me and help demonstrate the relativity, conditioning and changing aspects of our selves.

      • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 7:02 PM

        My next essay is going to be on THE EIGHTH DYNAMIC.

    • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 7:40 AM

      Chris: “5. I am stumbling all over the hard line that Vinnie wants to draw dividing MEST from Unknowable. I have been considering that “infinity” was definitely “Knowable” consideration of a never-ending quantity that included both the infinitely large and small.”

      MEST is part of awareness, the same way that THETA is. Both are part of awareness. Infinity is part of awareness.

      When we think of the universe, we only think of awareness. Non-awareness has not been a part of universe for most of us because by its very nature it is hidden from consciousness. This is the meaning of Unknowable.
      .

  • Elizabeth Hamre  On May 10, 2011 at 9:27 PM

    Chris, each individual being have to come to conclusion of what ” IS” self, the understanding of self .
    One cant search for knowledge believing others have it. One have to look “self” into in your own universe, all the answer are there.
    You have them, because you have put them there, you have never lost knowledge you just momentarily forgotten where they are.
    I cant tell you anything new, nor Vinaire. we cant give you our reality, you have your own that is the reason you can understand completely the universe of other beings. Which is totally fine and wonderful, to have your own reality, your own unique universe.
    That is our having-ness. We can consider what ever we want or don’t want.
    Chris this is only a game we each have different rules. The rules are our reality level. No more no less. Just view points.

  • Elizabeth Hamre  On May 11, 2011 at 4:18 AM

    Vinaire, may ask few questions have you been in scientology? Second, have you ever thought about, contemplated, looked over the idea? what was the real reason LRH have invented the so called tech? What is the reasons behind that so many have failed to embrace the dogma, cant comprehand it? yet it is so simple and poweful tech and easy to use? Why not believe in he has come and ment to sescue only one person, but he did not know the indentity of the being because not knowing who he needed to rescue he created what he created in hope he will pull in that person that person will be able understand and use the material. and become free. ponder on this if you care to.

    • vinaire  On May 11, 2011 at 6:23 AM

      I am not sure what it means by being “in Scientology.” I have looked at Scientology and have found certain aspects of it enlightening and other aspects quite disgusting. One may find all those details on Internet. Scientology seems to express human ecstasy as well as human depravity. I think Hubbard wanted to understand himself, and so he experimented with himself and other people. He tried to organize existing knowledge and invented techniques through which one could know oneself better. I think Hubbard’s downfall came from being fixated on self and assuming it to be permanent. A “soul,” “thetan” or “individuality” has no permanent basis as Buddha had observed earlier. Even “atman” is in a flux. There is nothing permanent underneath. Buddha is so simple yet he is not understood by so many including Hubbard. The problem is with understanding knowledge, and not with understanding Hubbard or Buddha. There is nothing permanent at the base of Knowledge that one can hold on to.

      .

    • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 10:05 AM

      Elizabeth, I see that Hubbard suffered from human-centric fixations as decribed here.

      The Human-Centric Fixation
      .

      • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 3, 2014 at 11:28 AM

        I could care less who suffers from what
        Here is a bit from your blog” The human-centric observations are limited to human context. Assumptions are made to compensate for that limitation. When such assumptions are elevated to the level of beliefs it becomes very difficult to correct them.” Since you have written that it just describe you where you are at too, Why bother to write to me since you have told me that I suffer from delusions. I am fine with that too and I like my delusions. I never seen you describe so far what you suffer from; I would like to read how you see your self.

        • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 11:33 AM

          Do you care to comment on these human-centric fixations? Do you disagree with them?

          What are your disagreements?

        • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 11:36 AM

          There is no personal universe separate from MEST universe as Hubbard taught in Scientology. The personal universe has MEST of a different frequency than the MEST of the solid universe.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 3, 2014 at 2:27 PM

          Since your reality is made up from ASSUMPTIONS and mine is Illusions because of this facts I dont see any reason to continue with communication trying to figure out who’s is real or better.

        • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 2:48 PM

          I guess so.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 3, 2014 at 4:07 PM

          There is only one kind of reality -thought-or concepts can penetrate -go through any mass- energy the so called ”solidity” let me know when you figure out what is that.

        • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 4:15 PM

          Well, I can’t think of anything that won’t be part of reality. Even I am part of reality. I do not stand separate from reality.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 3, 2014 at 4:58 PM

          I did not say not being part of ”reality” I simply asked what can penetrate mass.. and change realities.

        • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM

          “Reality – unreality” may be looked upon as a dichotomy. A dichotomy can be plotted on a scale of infinte gradients with its two ends going to infiniy in opposite directions.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 3, 2014 at 4:55 PM

          You have not named what is that which can penetrate any form of mass. Now do explain, give on example how that formless-form penetrate and can change realities. When you do than I will continue, till than I garden.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 3, 2014 at 4:56 PM

          ”reality-unreality” that encompasses the universe it self. toooooo general.

        • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 6:32 PM

          Make your point, Elizabeth. I have no idea what you are hinting at. What kind of a game you are trying to play?

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM

          By now I thought you might be ready to look at different reality than who is right and who is wrong. Because I am… after all no matter what always can be made right or wrong. That just depends on the viewpoint.
          Some years back Japanese scientist shown a group of monkey how to use a simple tool which these group or any other never done before. These monkey lived in isolation from others had no connection what so ever. They have learned to use the tool with great ease. and soon after that other isolated groups started to uses the same method. The scientist could not figure out hoe that could happen, since the nearest group was miles away. I am talking about communication.. but what kind: that I let you figure out your-self. V.. it is ease to make wrong others that dont need special talent.. But to understand every kind = level of communication that takes experience and from that experience one gains knowledge.

        • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 7:05 PM

          This is getting too complicated for me. I am a scientist, and not a psychoanalyst. I am interested in a simple discussion only.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 3, 2014 at 7:23 PM

          No V… it has nothing to do with psychoanalyst, but simple communication. To proud to ask question?
          Have a lovely evening.

        • vinaire  On October 3, 2014 at 7:29 PM

          Bye Elizabeth. Thank you for popping in.

        • Elizabeth Hamre  On October 3, 2014 at 7:43 PM

          It is you who have asked… and a gentle reminder it is you who “analyse” and label every person who you write about than tell them what they need to do is: practise YOUR METHOD if they want to be a better person. so V.. in fact you are not a scientist but a psychoanalyst. and that is the fact. go and fly a kite.. nice evening for that.

  • Elizabeth Hamre  On May 11, 2011 at 2:04 PM

    Hello. Thank you for the reply. What I meant if you have taken courses and have had auditing.
    Few have created so much confusion than LRH. He created so many wrong, conflicting viewpoints. Army=Sea Org, I could go on with the list. 99% of his writing and he had written a lot. Do not belong on the Path of Enlightenment.
    Total mass. No, he had no understanding of Buddha. The simplicity. The purity, the innocence. Out of his work the basic method, how to confront= as is works.

    • vinaire  On May 11, 2011 at 3:39 PM

      Yes, I did take some courses and have experienced auditing. What seemed to work was the LOOKING part as described in KHTK essays. The rest seems to be Hubbard’s effort to get one to look in various ways.

      The latter effort (to make one look in various ways) seem to end up imposing on the mind how it should be unstacked. In my view, one should let the mind unstack the way it wants to. That is what Buddha’s Vipassana meditation does.

      .

  • Elizabeth Hamre  On May 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM

    When one continues with auditing, than solo than all the so called levels the looking, the boxed in, the walls, they do fall away.
    The barriers, the visible and all the invisible melts and knowledge replaces. Which is not in concepts as the human considerations, agreements are.
    Humans learn, therefore they become logical, there is the need of judgement, to valuate, to put everything in little compartment, every item judged, as important or not, aged or not. And it makes a great difference who is the originator “IMPORTANT PERSON” have money, achievent in eyes of otheres etc.. To a human, life is nothing more than learning, than what one has learned compares what is newly learned. On impassible continual action in which there is no beginning and no end in sight.

    • vinaire  On May 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

      What you call auditing seems to be basically somebody else guiding your looking. What you call solo seems to be you yourself guiding your looking.

      I think what you are talking about as being beyond concepts is the dimension of unknowable. Anything in that dimension cannot be expressed through words or concepts. Words and concepts belong to the dimension of the knowable.

      Learning may be done through words and concepts as when reading what others have noted, or when simply listening to others, but then one must also know what underlies those words and concepts. Thus, somewhere along the way one has to make the transition from the dimension of the knowable to the dimension of the unknowable.

      .

  • vinaire  On May 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM

    UNKNOWABLE is nothing more than a consideration, and so is CAUSE, and so is POTENTIAL. All three of them are considerations; but as a point of focus, they bring about different amounts of consistency and simplification to the universe of considerations.

    Considerations have a beginning. None of the considerations can occur before the beginning. Thus, whenever a consideration is projected to occur before the beginning we run into an inconsistency.

    Can we have CAUSE before the beginning?
    Can we have POTENTIAL before the beginning?
    Can we have UNKNOWABLE before the beginning?

    I leave it to you to consider.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 12, 2011 at 7:01 PM

    What comes closest to complete disappearance in the phyical universe is the uniting of an electron with a positron. It is the idea of two opposites completely annhilating each other. But we also have the reverse of this phenomenon. There can be a sudden appearance of an electron and a positron out of nothing.

    The following questions arise, “What brings about two opposites? What keeps them apart? what makes them annhilate each other?”

    A thought doesn’t seem to appear singly; thought seems to appear in pairs. The focus goes on one element of the pair. The other element more or less gets ignored in the beginning. The second element may then get deduced from the first element, but seems like it is never the original. Thus, there is ignorance. Probably, it is this ignorance that keeps the opposites apart. The two opposites persist as long as the ignorance persists.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2011 at 5:26 PM

      Not bad. I love your writing when you put your mind to it.

  • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2011 at 6:02 PM

    Vin: “I have no idea when I use my mind.”

    Chris: “Then maybe it is not your mind?”

    “Look” at “inspiration.”

    • vinaire  On May 14, 2011 at 6:26 PM

      Whatever it is, I just write when it comes to me. I don’t think about it.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2011 at 9:03 PM

    Vin: “Expectation of a TR2 (acknowledgement) is a via and a distraction to looking. It causes dependence on another’s viewpoint. When there is no acknowledgement, then recognize that to be the case, and get over it.”

    Chris: 1. This is a non-seq response to me – yet again.

    2. My comments are directed at your communication cycle. TR2 is neither a distraction nor a via but an integral component of communication.

    3. TR2 establishes and seals reality. The basis for the synchronizing mechanism of Reality that people wonder at may be no more complicated than this.

    4. If you are being intentionally obtuse, well then YOU get over it.

    5. If you only want to look and you don’t like the fallout from communicating, then just look and don’t write.

    6. If you can’t help it, well then . . . use your looking to look at the antagonism that you cause. Each person corresponding with you in this venue has duplicated your point about unknowable just fine. It’s not hard to understand. You just don’t accept that others have a differing opinion about the nature of things. Even when they agree with you – you disagree using your instant make-wrong. It’s something to watch, or should I say look at?

    7. This is your consideration. A picture of yourself in relation to others containing content of why you are right and others are wrong. You can’t “drop it.” You write that you are going to drop it, then you don’t drop it. You are in restimulation. In this picture, being wrong equates to worse than death. You could use your analytical mind to overcome this – you, together with your smart mind could look without judgement and come up with the answer, you know? . . . or you can dodge around it and write some more about The Unknowable that only you understand. It’s all pretending.

    We are blogging. I am here to make nice and play. If you want to make nice and play, then I’m your Huckleberry. If not, then problem solved – I will gradually lose interest and drift away.

    Regardless of rightness and wrongness, your urge to defend this opinion of yours has lessened your freedom in this area. It is this urge that requires your looking.

    • vinaire  On October 4, 2014 at 3:33 PM

      When a person obsessively expects acknowledgement from the other person, he will feel upset when acknowledgement is not there.

      Suppose person A asks person B a question. Person B answers the question but Person A did not understand the answer and so did not acknowledge. Person B never receives an acknowledgement. Person B then become upset because he believes that acknowledgement is an integral part of communication cycle and the other Person A must acknowledge. He starts blaming the Person A instead of communicating to find out what happened. Maybe this happens more than once. Then Person B totally drops out of communication with Person A. In his mind Person B keeps blaming Person A for his poor communication cycle.

      Here Person B has a fixation from Scientology how the communication cycle should be, and he uses that fixation to blame Person A. He never finds out what actually happened because he shuts himself off from further communication.

      Blaming another person never resolves a situation. Now this seems to be the situation with Chris above because he feels that I have not been able to properly acknowledge his query about Unknowable.

      .

      Well, now I think that Unknwable is the non-awareness part of “awareness – non-awareness” dichotomy. As long as awareness is there, non-awareness must also be there. It is impossible to have absolute awareness.

      Per the same token it is impossibe to have absolute non-awareness. Per the principle of dichotomy opposites combine as a unity in the concept of a scale that has two ends. The pair of opposites may then be looked upon as a single scale with two ends that extend to infinity in opposite directions, There are infinite gradients in between, but these gradients never reach some absolute value at any point.

    • vinaire  On October 4, 2014 at 4:35 PM

      It is interesting to see how communication can be used as an excuse to not solve a problem. The actual problem may have nothing to do at all with the communication that is being blamed.

      This is probably the deepest conditioning imparted in Scientology. By convincing people that communication is the universal solvent, communication can then be held hostage to control people.

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2011 at 9:32 PM

    I don’t think I am defending anything. It is just that I don’t see anything other than unknowable that seems to provide a better background against which inconsistencies may be observed. If anything better comes along I shall accept that.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2011 at 10:03 PM

      This is why I suggest that you look.

      • vinaire  On May 14, 2011 at 10:12 PM

        I am looking.

        Do you think you are right and I am wrong?

        .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2011 at 11:16 PM

    When two mirrors are placed facing each other an infinity of images are generated. Similarly, there is some basic configuration that is generating an infinity of considerations. All knowledge consists of these considerations.

    When we recognize that those infinity of images are being generated by a simple configuartion of two mirrors, we may remove all those images simply by removing the two mirrors. Similarly, if we can recognize the basic configuration that is generating the infinity of considerations, we may remove all those considerations, by simply removing that source configuration.

    What is then left is beyond consideration, and cannot be described. That is why I call it UNKNOWABLE. This term is just a place holder.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2011 at 7:04 AM

    The basic configuration that is generating the infinity of considerations seems to be the OBSERVER-OBSERVED configuration. The two must occur in pair, and if they are understood, then the infinity of considerations would be understood too.

    Where does this pair come from? Who or what holds it in place? Can these two elements of the pair annhilate each other? These are the basic questions for me at the moment.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2011 at 7:19 AM

    OBSERVED = “Whatever is there.”
    OBSERVER = “I want to know.”
    THE BASIS = “A desire to know whatever is there.”

    Wanting to know anything about that desire is “the desire to know itself.” Is that the root of everything? Maybe, maybe not. The questions now are:
    (1) Does the observer generate the observed?
    (2) Does the observed generate the observer?
    (3) What is keeping the observer and the observed apart?

    Is the OBSERVER and OBSERVED just arbitrary considerations with a very primitive, self-generated logical structure? Is there a mathematics of arbitrariness?

    .

    • vinaire  On October 6, 2014 at 8:16 PM

      Now I understand that both observed and observer are part of reality. So it boils down to reality looking at itself.

  • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2011 at 1:55 PM

    Well why didn’t you just say so in the first place?!? hahaha!

    But seriously, no matter how many times you type that, I still understand what you are saying.

    That you would “understand the infinity of considerations” by understanding the “observer-observed pair” is an arbitrary consideration, is it not?

    Please clarify “self” in your statement “self-generated logical structure.” Yes, there is “…-generated logical structure.” “The World” clamors and argues for this.

    Asking oneself if the Effect has created the Cause is an odd exercise in English, I think. Though I understand the implication. But the simple root of it is that if one removes the considerations then he is left with The Nothing. Which is okay until I thought “The Nothing” because then it was “something” wasn’t it? And yet, we work with it, don’t we? Just like putting i next to the square root of -1?

    This is well worn. To break out of this, one needs a new question.

    Ask about LIFE and ask about FORM.
    Ask if there is only FORM.
    What is LIFE-FORM?
    Ask if LIFE-FORM is some sort of mad illusion.
    Ask if there is any SEEKER at all.
    Ask what is trying to be found.
    WONDER if the SEEKER can ever truly be a FINDER…or does the Seeker need to DECIDE to be a Finder?

    We will continue on with quantum research, etc., and we’ll turn up all sorts of interestingly small phenomena which is the building blocks of everything. Maybe in the recesses of our minds is the simple fractal equation which re-iterates every Planck second to put creation here in a fluid-like motion. Maybe a flaw in this mechanism is the source of psychosis and other maladies. In due course, we will figure these things out.

    Yet in the still of the night, lying alone in the dark and looking at the ceiling, we still ask “who am I” and “what am I doing here?” The more salient question is “who is asking?”

    But in the spirit of flippancy, I shall answer your questions:
    (1) Yes.
    (2) Yes.
    (3) ARC breaks(where A=affinity; R=reality; C=communication)

    Distance is inversely proportionate to Affinity. You can demonstrate this to yourself. When you and I write to one another with reality, we seem closer. When we write without reality, we seem farther apart. Correct?

    Yes, the OBSERVER and OBSERVED are arbitrary considerations. But arbitrary is a word that I would use.

    If written mathematically, I am guessing it is a fractal equation. If by primitive, you mean “old” or “simple,” then yes it is primitive, but not in the sophistication of its implications.

    The arbitrary quality (inconsistency which you observe) is due to alterations to the root formula and these alterations are sandwiched between the iterations and this great multiplex occurs at least every Planck second.

    Thus we have accounted for “creation.” (arbitrary additional iterations)
    Thus we have accounted for “survival.” (same iteration repeated)
    Thus we have accounted for “partial and total destruction.” (arbitrary deleted iteration)
    Thus we have both explained and nullified “linear time.”
    This is consistent with 6-dimension space, is it not?

    So who is altering the iteration? (sorry, I need a word to make the sentence cogent so I picked “who.”) You will say that is Unknowable. Same thing really. I am using something to refer to nothing and so are you.

    And what precisely is it that is fitting into the multiplex and causing the alteration? My crude word is intention. Intention is the rawest form of creation and provides the carrier wave for creation. Well what is this carrier wave? What is being carried on this carrier wave?

    I will postulate that intention is the first act of creation.

    !Write me! – !Hollah!

  • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2011 at 9:46 PM

    Vin: “I am looking. Do you think you are right and I am wrong?”

    Chris: I think I write and then you write something back but not to my statement or question. And when I parrot back the same thing that you say, you argue. Very confusing for me. If we were married, I’d have to just be quiet and not mention it . . . but . . . !

    • vinaire  On May 15, 2011 at 10:46 PM

      Why do you need my response at all? Are you looking for agreement?

      In the final analysis, it seems, one has to do it all alone. Pick what you find useful in what I write and throw away the rest.

      I have nothing really to offer. I simply write what comes to me on occasions.

      If you are looking for advice, my advice would be to use KHTK.

      .

  • vinaire  On May 17, 2011 at 10:32 AM

    The coordinates of space are orthogonal to each other. That means no projections can be made from one space coordinate to another. In other words, the three primary dimensions of space are inherently independent of each other. From the viewpoint of any one of these dimensions, the other two dimensions shall be unknowable unless one exits that dimension.

    What I am referring to as UNKNOWABLE is a dimension, which one wouldn’t even know if it exists unless one exits the dimension of the current knowable universe made up of considerations and physics.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 5, 2014 at 7:14 AM

    This paradox is now resolved in The Eighth Dynamic
    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: