Intuition or Gibberish?

The physical universe

And the spiritual universe

Are subsets of the Universe of Consideration.


The Universe of Consideration seems to come about

Because of the effort of the Unknowable

To know itself.


It is Looking that seems to be creating space.

It is Looking that seems to be accelerating the expansion of the universe.

It is Looking that is collapsing the wave function.

Could this looking be that dreaded Unknowable?


Space fills itself with space.

Space is its own fabric.

Space undulates…

And that is light.


Space undulating is “space + time”

And that is energy (light is one expression of that energy)

Presence of time indicates presence of additives.

An additive is the basic inconsistency.


The true nature of a number is “irrational.”

Could the rational number be a “collapsed irrational number.”


The true nature of matter and energy also seems to be “irrational.”

Could the discreteness of matter and energy be “collapsed matter and energy.”


Could the discreteness of consideration be a “collapsed consideration.”


Are there some connections…

Or, is it all just insane gibberish?


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 9, 2011 at 1:33 AM

    I feel your pain.

    Maybe just de-tune the tension regarding the unknowable just a notch and breath. Give yourself some slack and maybe take a bath.
    All of this bullshit will still be waiting for us tomorrow.

    Otherwise, I like this direction that you are going. I think your take on the irrational numbers is interesting.

    And otherwise, my experience with my solving own problems is that it routinely “looks darkest just before the dawn.” When the problem crumbles, it goes suddenly.

    I would be really happy to celebrate with you.

    • vinaire  On October 9, 2011 at 11:06 AM

      There is no pain. There is only the excitement of looking.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 9, 2011 at 1:50 AM

    I want to pose two activities off against one another and ask what you all make of this:

    1. In QM, the collapse of the wave function, a potential is coalesced into matter through the act of observation. This is the emphasis. The creation of matter by collapsing the wave function caused by observation and thus bringing matter into being and locating it in space-time.

    2. In Scientology as well as other religious pursuits, the emphasis is placed on the observer locating bits of matter in space-time and through observation as-is’ing it into either nothing or sending it away into the ether, or what? Scientology defines as-isness as occurring in that moment of creation and of destruction.

    3. Per QM can the collapsed wave function be reversed? Can the wave collapse be “de-compressed” also by observation? And matter destroyed into nothing or reversed back into the field containing the wave function?

    • vinaire  On October 9, 2011 at 11:07 AM

      Sorry! I haven’t studied QM in depth yet.


      • vinaire  On October 10, 2011 at 6:04 PM

        It seems that “death” could be that reversal.


      • Chris Thompson  On October 11, 2011 at 10:42 PM

        Say more how you think death can be the reversal of the wave collapse.

      • vinaire  On October 12, 2011 at 6:13 AM

        I believe that spiritual and physical are subsets of a single system. At death that single system disintegrates… body as well as the spirit.

        I do not think that spirit continues as a “self” after death.


        • Chris Thompson  On October 12, 2011 at 11:37 AM

          Then please define spirit.

        • Chris Thompson  On October 12, 2011 at 11:40 AM

          Yes Hubbard. But what do you think?

      • Chris Thompson  On October 12, 2011 at 8:05 AM

        Maybe you are right. How can you know?

      • Vinaire  On October 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM

        Please read my blog if you have questions about how I understand spirit. It has been explained in quite a bit of detail in the Philosophy section.


      • vinaire  On October 15, 2011 at 11:48 AM

        Maybe “spirit” is the wave function that coalesces into “self” when observed.


    • vinaire  On October 15, 2011 at 11:45 AM

      “Per QM can the collapsed wave function be reversed? Can the wave collapse be “de-compressed” also by observation? And matter destroyed into nothing or reversed back into the field containing the wave function?”

      Maybe when one is not looking the wave function is uncollapsed. Who is to know otherwise, because when one looks it is always collapsed.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 9, 2011 at 1:53 AM

    Vin, when I refer to something Scientology, it is to provide a frame of reference for language only and not to sway with authority. I hope you know this.

    • vinaire  On October 9, 2011 at 11:08 AM



    • vinaire  On October 15, 2011 at 11:55 AM

      I look at Scientology as a subset of knowledge. It is treated as a monopoly by the Church of Scientology, but the truth is that knowledge cannot be owned. Knowledge is always free. One is free also to hold opinion about Scientology and evaluate it, modify it and build upon it as one likes. That is how any advances occur.

      I understand that you are using Scientology references without insisting that it has to be true because “it is a Scientology datum,” and that is very sensible. Knowledge is neither true of false in the absolute sense. Knowledge can only be consistent or inconsistent.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 9, 2011 at 11:43 AM

    Oh, I see, you’ve changed your mind and renamed your OP from “Intuition or Bullshit” to “Intuition or Gibberish.”

    Well just so you know, the streaming inconsistencies at “too fast” a rate is a definition of pain. [parts edited out as irrelevant to the subject under discussion].

    Actually there is something to this. When a metal is struck by a photon it radiates two electrons. I am going to research this a bit. Why don’t you take a look at this as well. Maybe Rafael too.

    “Engrams” are said to be an incident which is “happening too fast.”
    After this type of impact or after restimulating this type of impact a person may radiate pain for some time. What do we suppose is happening when that happens?

    • Chris Thompson  On October 9, 2011 at 11:44 AM

      . . . the physics of what is happening, I mean.

      • Chris Thompson  On October 11, 2011 at 10:51 PM

        I am trying to say that I think that an impact followed by radiating pain follows the excitation of atoms with the resultant radiating of heat energy according to ordinary laws of thermodynamics and we interpret this as pain.

        All sensation is electromagnetic transfer of energy which our nerve endings pick up as heat sensation. It is a sensitive transfer and a little too much becomes pain.

        LRH called pain “cold” and I think he was wrong about this. There is no “transfer of cold,” there is only transfer of heat or excitement.

        The imprinting of an impact on our psyche? This must be in the form of a standing wave i.e. mass?

      • vinaire  On October 12, 2011 at 6:15 AM

        Hubbard talk about pain as a combination of hot, cold and electrical.


      • Chris Thompson  On October 12, 2011 at 8:06 AM

        Yes he did. What is your experience of this?

    • vinaire  On October 9, 2011 at 11:53 AM

      Allowing un-stacking to occur naturally overcomes the problem of “happening too fast.”

      • Chris Thompson  On October 9, 2011 at 1:57 PM

        0. I wasn’t referring to un-stacking. I was referring to stacking.
        1. [edited out]
        2. [edited out]: As-isness as “creation” is super fast “stacking.” As-isness as “un-creation” is super fast “un-stacking.” Super fast needs a frame of reference because I can’t tell by this comment what you mean by “fast.”

        [Emotional outburst editied out]

      • Vinaire  On October 11, 2011 at 10:31 AM

        As-isness as creation (stacking) is never too fast to bypass awareness.

        When stacking is too fast such that it bypasses awareness, then it is not “as-isness,” but a painful “engram” as coined by Hubbard.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 11, 2011 at 8:52 PM

    Yes, incident happening too fast is “engram.” This is what I wrote.

    • vinaire  On October 11, 2011 at 9:19 PM

      OK. In my view, one has two choices.

      (1) One may go after that engram by trying to recall it forcefully through Dianetic processes, and then run it again and again. This may have some impact in terms of pain and discomfort surfacing during the running of the engram. I regard this approach to be digging into the mind. It may get to the core of the problem faster, but in doing so, it may bypass some stuff, and the real cause may not get eliminated cleanly and thoroughly.

      (2) One may simply look in the area of general discomfort with KHTK approach, and let the mind un-stack itself naturally. Here one may recognize inconsistencies as they come up one by one. One may even “dope off” as one reaches the core of the problem, but there won’t be as much of an impact as in engram running. This may take longer, but it would be, in my opinion, much more clean and thorough.

      In either case, a person is as-ising what is there. But it happens to be more thorough with the latter approach, whereas, in the former approach bits and pieces may be left out from getting as-ised.


      • Chris Thompson  On October 11, 2011 at 10:35 PM

        you see, I don’t even know what I think about the concept of engram anymore. I’ve never contacted nor run one. My “incidents” are a little different and have always come off in just the way that you describe including and especially present injuries of which I’ve “run out” more than a few with “contact” and “touch” assists. These have been very beneficial for me personally whereas R3R was not.

        Regardless, you’ve used stacking two different ways and one of them was “as-is’ing” and truthfully, I can understand either way you want to use it is ok with me but it would be consistent to pick one way.

      • vinaire  On October 12, 2011 at 6:09 AM

        There is no inconsistency. Stacking is simply “too fast” when it bypasses awareness, or awareness cannot keep up with it.

        Put a person in an unfamiliar area. Then pressure him to achieve certain goals. Don’t allow him to become familiar with that area, but keep telling him that he is too slow and incompetent. Then have him just follow your orders without thinking under the guise of training him. You’ll end up with a nice little robot provided you keep suppressing all his protests by browbeating him.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 12, 2011 at 7:59 AM

    Yes, I agree and you should never never never have been treated this way.

    For relief and to bring consistency possibly look at this some more and see if within your own experience that you can find a similar example of treating another in this fashion. Gently but with calm determination and peaceful confront using your KHTK model. There will be only you to satisfy, but satisfying yourself will bring commensurate relief globally.

    • Vinaire  On October 12, 2011 at 12:11 PM

      Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. From where are you getting such ideas?


%d bloggers like this: