[Revised January 28, 2012. Revisions are in blue.]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Guilt is the state of being responsible for the commission of an offense. It is also a cognitive or an emotional experience that occurs when a person realizes or believes—accurately or not—that he or she has violated a moral standard, and bears significant responsibility for that violation. It is closely related to the concept of remorse.
Remorse is an emotional expression of personal regret felt by a person after he or she has committed an act which he deems to be shameful, hurtful, or violent.
Personal guilt occurs when someone compromises one’s own standards. One experiences conflict at having done something that one believes one should not have done (or conversely, having not done something one believes one should have done). It gives rise to a feeling which does not go away easily. Freud came to consider ‘the obstacle of an unconscious sense of guilt…as the most powerful of all obstacles to recovery’.
At the root of guilt is the conflict between what one expects of oneself and what one finds oneself to have become. This is essentially a confusion. The feeling of guilt starts to go away as one starts to recognize this confusion. Guilt cannot be “mastered” by repression, projection, rationalization, denial or blaming the victim.
To address the feeling of guilt, the following may help:
- Look at the things that you expect of yourself .
- Trace these expectations back to when and how you acquired them.
- Look at what you have “become” per the beliefs and ideas that you now practice.
- Trace them back to when and how you acquired them.
- Compare the expectations above to these beliefs and ideas.
- Spot the inconsistencies between these two sets of notions.
- Look at these inconsistencies thoroughly but non-judgmentally.
‘What one expects of oneself’ can be traced back to the standards that were laid down before one by one’s parents or loved ones when one was very young. ‘What one finds oneself to be’ can be reduced to ideas and beliefs that have become rather fixed, and which now define one’s self.
These two sets of notions can be put side by side. And, while doing so one may start looking at them non-judgmentally and without resistance. As this action is continued, and inconsistencies are spotted, the sense of guilt is very likely to start dissipating.
.
Comments
Good post, Vin. I learned something in the S.O. that I found really amazing. No matter what I or anybody did to put ourselves in a bad light with everybody, as soon as we then did something right – all was forgiven! This including the smallest infractions up to the worst RPF offences. Blows me away. Those coming back into the org from the RPF were always received with much ARC. And I think it works that way in a lot of groups. 🙂
LikeLike
In your example, Marildi, one is feeling better because one is being granted beingness in a group. It has to do with approval. One feels better because he is essentially being told that he is ok.
Both condemnation and approval in a group may simply add more layers to the “self.” One may call it conditioning.
The situation is totally different when one is living all alone with only “self” for company. One starts to become more aware of the naked truth of “self.”
Ultimately, one has to live with oneself. Everyone dies alone. So, one must become the best friend of oneself if one wishes to be peaceful and happy.
To become the best friend of oneself, one must resolve all inconsistencies that one finds within oneself. None can be ignored without compromising that friendship with oneself.
Guilt comes about because of that inconsistency within self.
.
LikeLike
“Ultimately, one has to live with oneself.”
Vin, I fully agree that the inconsistencies within oneself are the important ones to resolve and thus be able to live with oneself. Nevertheless, even though it’s secondary, resolving the inconsistencies involved in interacting with others is needed too, in order to live with them as well. If resolving the inconsistencies within oneself also resolves those of interacting with others, then your system seems complete. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes. It is my view that resolving the inconsistencies within oneself also resolves those of interacting with others. Check this out:
http://www.idreamcatcher.com/hooponopono/
.
LikeLike
Yes, I learned about this from Maria’s posts and it is fascinating. It does seem to be thorough and deep – but also long-term before getting results. For that reason, it may be necessary to include immediate or short-term systems of interaction, such as TR’s and maybe other things.
LikeLike
You may check out the following. It is pretty short term:
KHTK 17: From Mystery to Knowing
Inconsistencies shall come up by themselves. Do not do anything. Simply observe non-judgmentally without resistance.
Good luck!
.
LikeLike
Nothing wrong with your KHTK – good stuff! I have done it myself.
In addition to such a practice, the other thing that’s needed, for interactions with others, would be something like TRs and the comm cycle. I don’t think I would very soon have come up with the idea, for example, that someone might need me to pay attention to his or her origination before they would be willing to continue with our conversation. Possibly some day, eventually, I would have been able to figure that out, but it may have taken me a very long time – and meanwhile… 🙂
LikeLike
You have Scientology for TRs and communication. The main focus of KHTK is resolving inconsistencies within oneself.
It is believed in KHTK that if inconsistencies within oneself are resolved then the resolution of inconsistencies with the environment will follow automatically.
.
LikeLike
Yes, I understand. Just saying that the additional Scn tech is needed on a more immediate basis.
BTW, love the photos of your trip! That child with the snake – the look on his face, oh wow. Then, that magnificent tree! And you look happy with – who, your kids?
LikeLike
As long as that tech is available in Scientology it is fine.
In that picture, I am with my wife and son. My daughter could not come with us on this trip.
.
LikeLike
Okay, got it. Looks like a wonderful trip and a wonderful family. 🙂
LikeLike
In my view, all “self” is invented, and it can be changed around by recognizing the ideas that make up “oneself.”
.
LikeLike
You said a mouthful! Lots of truth to that – and probably what at least most of us are attempting to do, one way or another.
LikeLike
I believe there is a point when, after recognizing the ideas that make up “oneself”, a state can be reached which includes the awareness that “self” is created, and that seems to me somewhat more consistent than the one that says “self” is invented.
LikeLike
You seem to be saying that “to create” is different from “to invent.” What is the difference that makes one consistent and the other inconsistent?
.
LikeLike
Invent: Make up (a name, story, etc.) so as to deceive.
Create: Bring into existence.
LikeLike
Did Edison invent a light bulb to deceive?
Maybe “self’ was created to deceive.
.
LikeLike
“Self” may be invented or may be a product of eons of creations (lifetimes), both one’s own and those of the composites and entities that constitute our case. All these have the power to influence one until one is able to fully differentiate oneself from one’s “baggage”.
When I feel “baggage” trying to interject a misemotion I “look at the thought” i.e. I take a viewpoint and differentiate myself from the thought (some product of past valences or entities). This is probably the same mechanism that you suggest with “looking”. It almost always blows the charge. Permanently. In cases where it doesn’t I acknowledge that “charge has been bypassed” and that handles it for the time being.
Guilt and remorse rely heavily on past charge for a present affect. When one can disambiguate from the past charge one can rationally deal with the consequences of an action that requires some responsibility being taken. One still must confront that but it is easier when one understands the charge behind a mis-action.
LikeLike
Really good post. I think it shows good understanding of principles of tech, possibly with one main difference – that it broadens case to include all of self. But to me, that makes sense, the differences between the two being so arbitrary.
The “mechanism” you describe I use also (and I get that it is what Vinaire’s KHTK is basically about). Guilt and remorse definitely have lots of earlier similars (beings are basically good) that get restimulated, and that point of yours to “indicate the BPC” is one I’ve vaguely done but will do so more pointedly now. I’m guessing you are tech trained. 🙂
LikeLike
By “self” being invented, I am saying that it is not something inherent. It has been put together “brick by brick.” This process has gone on since the beginning. There is no agency that puts it together. How the seed of “self” came about is unknowable. One may always speculate about it. Actually, that “one”, itself, is the seed of that self.
I would say that any “baggage” starts out as being part of the self. The reactive mind, analytical mind, entities, composites, etc. are all part of that baggage. It may come off the self bit by bit when it is being recognized; or it may build up the self bit by bit, when it is being assumed.
Any “misemotion” may be a signal that part of the “self” is coming off. It may be an inconsistency that can no longer be justified. It is the self looking at that part of itself that has come lose.
You may certainly use the framework of Scientology to explain it; but, in my opinion, it is much simpler than that.
.
LikeLike
V., there is a mechanism that binds the “bricks” and that is resonance. This may be called agreement, but since there are many aspects to our case-selves that we likely do not “agree” with, we have to look deeper at the mechanic of the glue.
When we “understand” some thing, or can create a duplicate of it, we are in knowing resonance with it and any charge associated with the thing will blow. This is the reverse mechanism of how the charge came to stick to the “self” in the first place: the self has the native ability to go into resonance with things, good or bad. The self never understood the mechanism of resonance and that is why stuff could stick. Auditing takes a being to the point of understanding an incident, thereby blowing it. Understanding the mechanism allows one to blow by inspection with or without an auditor.
One may blow by inspection simply by “looking” at the (thought, charge, brick), and that is duplication, but I believe that that ability is enhanced by an understanding of the concept of resonace.
Resonance is the characteristic of being on the same wavelength as another thing. Wavelength is a characteristic of tone, both in the physical sense (like sound) and in the spiritual sense (tone level). To communicate with someone we have to use both appropriate sounds (tolerable sound levels and language) and an appropriate tone level (a cheery tone is not appropriate to communicate to a sad person). Similarly, to communicate effectively with a “brick” of one’s case, the ability to get near the tone (wavelength) of the “brick” will allow one to get into better communication with it, duplicate it and release it.
I believe it is the ability to get into knowing resonance with another (being, entity, valence, charge) that is fundamental to both case reduction and development of the ability of the being. This hinges on being able to move on the tone scale, duplicate tone levels and put the communication across on the tone, verbally or non-verbally.
LikeLike
X., your few posts have given me some intersting ideas. I am now considering “self” having a structure similar to that of matter. There are elements, compounds and mixtures. Underlying that there are molecules, atoms, electrons and nucleus. Underlying that there are protons and neutrons. Underlying that there are more fundamental particles, electromagnetic, nuclear and other forces. Yes, wave property and resonance is as fundamental as one can go. It is very interesting for me to contemplate how this all may apply to “self.”
The “bricks” can be fundamental particles at one level, neutrons and protons at another level, atoms and molecules at a higher level and so on, until it becomes solar systems, galaxies and universes. “Self” can be a whole universe.
Agreement may be a sort of resonance, and so would be hypnotism and conditioning. There would be many. many levels of resonance within self following the above model for matter. The “glue” you are talking about would have analogy in electromagnetic, nuclear and more fundamental forces.
The fundamental glue may very well be the “desire to know,” and that would lead to “speculation” when confronted with the unknowable. That speculation may lead to the fundamntal particles that we are considering here. When that speculation is an assumption then it builds upon itself. When that speculation hits the mark and reveals what is there then we seem to dissolve the speculation back. What is understanding but a dissolving back of what is puzzling. And how does that puzzle builds up? I guess that would be by assuming. 🙂
There is a lot that is buzzing around in my head right now. Besides, I have to get ready and do some math tutoring. So, I shall continue later.
I am really happy to have you on my blog.
.
.
LikeLike
V., Thanks for building the sandbox.
Yes, I would speculate the resonance model works from the starting point (static) all the way through to the structure of universes. Although I agree with LRH that the definition of a static would be a zero wavelength, it may be better to think of the static as a very,very short wavelength for the purpose of the math. Currently, I believe, the smallest unit of length in this universe is considered to be the Planck length. Let’s speculate that when some initial theta entered the universe it was able to be in resonance with the universe at this wavelength. The amount of energy packed into that small wavelength is many orders of magnitude greater than a high energy gamma ray. (Now, as humans our greatest energy emanation seems to be heat – infrared.)
The significance of wavelength and energy can be easily seen by considering the action of a spring. When we compress a spring we put energy into it. If we release the compressed spring it will go flying off in some direction. The more we can compress the spring, the more energy it has when it flys off its starting point.
Now consider a spring with great length. If we compessed it fully and then began cutting off chunks from one end, we’d be able to release these energy packets for quite a while and see work done by the spring-bits hitting some end-point object. These spring packets are a model of photons and the work done is similar, also, to what happens when a photon is aborbed.
Further consider a continuous spring maker device – a continuously turning spring winder that has an automatic cutter so that a spring packet gets released at defined intervals. Now you’d have a kind of machine gun that would burst spring-bits instead of bullets. By controlling how much the spring was compressed, you’d be able to control the energy in the released spring-bit.
As you can imagine, the faster the spring-maker turns, the more the compression in the spring bit before it is cut off, and consequently the more energy in the spring. V., you will have already grasped the significance of this in terms of rotational period and energy, but consider one final thing: when the spring-bit goes flying off, what does an observer see if that observer is positioned at a right angle to the direction of travel of the spring? Not the coil shape of a spring but a sinusoid. To that observer it may appear that a wave packet has been released. That observer may come up with a theory of the generation of that observed sinusoid and call it “string theory”.
While one could humorously speculate that an observer standing in the path of the spring-bit would see a circle approaching and might come up with a short-lived theory called “O theory” (short for “oh, damn”), the observer who could see both dimensions at once might propose a theory suitable to the analog and call it “spring theory”.
Such a theory might explain why opposite magnetic fields attract (like oppositely spinning springs would twist together), why same magnetic fields repel, why electrical fields and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other, why gravity attracts mass, why nuclear forces interact, why electron spins in an orbital must be opposite, the nature of spin,the basis of mass (a zero-point location around which something spins), the multi-dimensionality of the un-collapsed quantum potential.
On the other hand, it could also explain the mechanism of how a static of zero wavelength could create any amount of mass or energy – enough to fill an infinite number of universes.
The power of zero.
LikeLike
To me, “static” is unknowable. Please see the last few comments here.
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/essay-2-something-and-nothing/
More to come…
.
LikeLike
@2ndxmer this is quite a good way of putting it and also about the revelence to “looking.” Also, your technique of blowing charge and leveling inconsistencies is as far as I can read and understand, this is what I do as well.
LikeLike
Yes, I would speculate the resonance model works from the starting point (static) all the way through to the structure of universes. Although I agree with LRH that the definition of a static would be a zero wavelength, it may be better to think of the static as a very,very short wavelength for the purpose of the math. Currently, I believe, the smallest unit of length in this universe is considered to be the Planck length. Let’s speculate that when some initial theta entered the universe it was able to be in resonance with the universe at this wavelength. The amount of energy packed into that small wavelength is many orders of magnitude greater than a high energy gamma ray. (Now, as humans our greatest energy emanation seems to be heat – infrared.)
Here are a couple of comments on the above paragraph:
(1) I believe that, theoretically, there are no lower limits. There may just be a limit to our observation on which any theory depends. The Planck length, or Planck time, are just way stops, and tied to the current level of observations of the physical universe.
(2) I look at theta as “consistency,” and not as something that enters a universe. The consistency within a universe is the theta.
(3) The wave phenomena seems to be a basic factor of the universe. It is essentially the Factor #6 of Mr. Hubbard, “The action of a dimension point is reaching and withdrawing.”
More later…
.
LikeLike
The significance of wavelength and energy can be easily seen by considering the action of a spring. When we compress a spring we put energy into it. If we release the compressed spring it will go flying off in some direction. The more we can compress the spring, the more energy it has when it flys off its starting point.
My comments:
(1) Here we simply have a conversion back and forth between potential and kinetic energy. This is what happens in a wave.
(2) The analogy of a spring can lead one into wrong direction. What compresses and what flies off at the level of pure energy, such as, light?
More later…
.
LikeLike
V., “(1) I believe that, theoretically, there are no lower limits. There may just be a limit to our observation on which any theory depends. The Planck length, or Planck time, are just way stops, and tied to the current level of observations of the physical universe.”
I don’t see how Planck length could get a lot shorter as it is based on other constants: h,G,c. However:
Planck constant, h, is most interesting as it represents the spin radius of the quantum generator. I wonder if this could be the radius of an event horizon to a zero-point, a singularity. Could all the mass of the universe be connected through the zero-points to a common black hole? Could the time warp of that black hole make it otherwise invisible to measurement? Could that be the missing mass of the universe? Wannabe astrophysicists and other inquiring minds want to know!
V., “(2) I look at theta as “consistency,” and not as something that enters a universe. The consistency within a universe is the theta.”
How would individuality arise from consistency?
V., “(2) The analogy of a spring can lead one into wrong direction. What compresses and what flies off at the level of pure energy, such as, light?”
“Pure energy”, such as light, has momentum, which implies mass. That would make the spring analogy particularly apt. The spring model also most easily explains transfer of momentum in Compton scattering: the impinging spinning “spring” spins up a struck electron, transferring some of the incident spin velocity (frequency) to the electron just as a flywheel would transfer energy to another rotating component in a classical sense. Then, just as the flywheel loses velocity when it transfers energy, so does the incident photon that transfers spin momentum to an electron. The photon exits the collision at a lower spin velocity (lower frequency). To me the spinning spring makes a lot more sense than a planar wave as an explanation for Compton effect.
The compression analogy was just a way of showing that more energy exists in a more compressed spring (shorter wavelength). In the quantum reality it would be as I mentioned above: wavelength (compression) is proportionate to spin velocity (frequency) of the quantum generator.
LikeLike
X. I don’t see how Planck length could get a lot shorter as it is based on other constants: h,G,c. However: Planck constant, h, is most interesting as it represents the spin radius of the quantum generator. I wonder if this could be the radius of an event horizon to a zero-point, a singularity. Could all the mass of the universe be connected through the zero-points to a common black hole? Could the time warp of that black hole make it otherwise invisible to measurement? Could that be the missing mass of the universe? Wannabe astrophysicists and other inquiring minds want to know!
I am sure better explanations would eventually emerge. As for me, I am an eternal doubter.
.
LikeLike
X. How would individuality arise from consistency?
Hubbard’s takes individuality to be inherent. I doubt that. To me, “individuality” is an abstraction of matter at a much deeper level.
Just like matter is a condensation of energy, I see individuality to be a condensation of considerations about attributes,
How do those considerations arise? I have no idea. This is unknowable.
.
LikeLike
X. “Pure energy”, such as light, has momentum, which implies mass. That would make the spring analogy particularly apt. The spring model also most easily explains transfer of momentum in Compton scattering: the impinging spinning “spring” spins up a struck electron, …
Is a paper in some scientific journal coming up?
I would rather not speculate on science. But I do like to explore inconsistencies at the level of considerations using scientific knowledge as analogy only.
.
LikeLike
V., “Is a paper in some scientific journal coming up?”
Wouldn’t suprise me. As much as I’d prefer to see that knowledge developed outside of the scientific realm, the theories of Universes (Hubbard tape series) predicts it will appear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(waves)
See the “Animation of a circularly polarized wave as a sum of two components”
V., “Hubbard’s takes individuality to be inherent. I doubt that. To me, “individuality” is an abstraction of matter at a much deeper level. ”
I am more inclined to go with Hubbard’s view. Having been exterior a few times and having recalled more than a few lifetimes, I am convinced of the spiritual nature of man and agree with Hubbard that the current state of the spirit is reversible, ultimately freeing the spirit from MEST. It seems inconsistent, to me, that the spirit could be defined in terms of matter or an abstraction of matter, whatever that might be. Even an enmested spirit is still not natively MEST.
In Scn 8-80, Hubbard linked the tone scale to wavelength. I think it is imperative that we fully understand the wave model and identify wave dimensions that impact on the spirit. Having that knowledge is key to developing OT abilities.
LikeLike
OK.
I hold that
“Spiritual” and “physical” are not two different universes. They are two different aspects of the same universe.
– Essay #5: THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE
.
LikeLike
V., “Spiritual” and “physical” are not two different universes. They are two different aspects of the same universe.”
I don’t see the essay premise provides a mechanism for, or takes into account, the phenomenon of exteriorization, or of the passage of memory along the track.
LikeLike
Yes, I am currently investigating memory as part of my study of PAIN & SUFFERING. The phenomenon of phantom pain is quite interesting.
For me, state of exteriorization exists when the attention is no longer fixed on the body. At the moment of “exteriorization” there is nothing that moves out of the body. Only the unfixation of attention takes place.
One can be said to be “exterior” all the time when the attention is no longer fixed on the body.
.
LikeLike
Yes, regarding “exterioration” this seems about right.
LikeLike
V., “One can be said to be “exterior” all the time when the attention is no longer fixed on the body.”
That is true. But the phenomenon of full exterioization also exists and the being can be very distant from the body with some or many perceptics.
Also, anyone who has recall of picking up a body (entering it) will have complete certainty that they are different from the MEST body.
LikeLike
“X. “…the being can be very distant from the body…”
Please describe what is a being as differentiated from a body. Thanks.
.
LikeLike
V., “Please describe what is a being as differentiated from a body”
I like the Hubbard term “awareness of awareness unit”. Beyond that I would go back to differentiating the being from MEST in general as opposed to a body in specific. But that would get circular to where we’ve already been.
LikeLike
“X. “…the being can be very distant from the body…”
With that definition of the being how do you explain the distance of the being from the body?
In my view, you cannot talk in terms of a physical distance between a being and its body since a being is not something physical.
.
LikeLike
V., “With that definition of the being how do you explain the distance of the being from the body?”
The “awareness of awareness unit” can definitely be aware at a distance from the body. The body without an awareness unit present ceases to be animated (as far as personal experience and collected data goes). For how long? I don’t know. That’s one of those things it would be interesting to explore.
V.,”In my view, you cannot talk in terms of a physical distance between a being and its body since a being is not something physical.”
A being isn’t something physical but it seems to be able to resonate well with the physical. Understanding that is the purpose of the exercise. Because the being does resonate with the physical universe, it is proper to talk about it being able to experience distance from a body. However, until we can set up experiments to prove it, only anecdotal evidence is going to exist regarding individual experiences of the spirit at a distance from the body. Getting the hard-science proof is my interest. Understanding of the mechanisms must go beyond philosophical dissertation.
LikeLike
X. The “awareness of awareness unit” can definitely be aware at a distance from the body. The body without an awareness unit present ceases to be animated (as far as personal experience and collected data goes). For how long? I don’t know. That’s one of those things it would be interesting to explore.
What you have written is inconsistent with basic physics. An awareness of awareness unit has no location. Distance exists only between two locations. Therefore, there is no distance to be aware of. But yes, a consideration of distance can definitely be generated, and one can be aware of that consideration and hold on to it.
The point I am making is that a being has no location. There is only a consideration of moving out of a body and situating oneself at a distance. There is no actual separation or travel. It is all in the mind.
That something non-physical can resonate with physical is another generated consideration. I have seen no scientific substantiation for it. It is inconsistent even as a consideration as it doesn’t seem to follow from anything that I know of. It seems to be just an arbitrary consideration.
As far as I can see, spiritual and physical are two aspects of the same system. Spiritual is not something inherently separate from physical. But that can certainly be held as a belief. I shall grant that.
.
LikeLike
+1
LikeLike
V., “As far as I can see, spiritual and physical are two aspects of the same system. Spiritual is not something inherently separate from physical.’
We may simply have to agree to disagree on this point.
LikeLike
I respect your belief. Your belief cannot be called scientific because it is inconsistent with basic science. That is all I mean.
Scientifically, ‘exteriorization’ is a phenomenon of attention, and not of moving out of something mysterious in a physical sense.
Of course, one may believe anything regardless of it being consistent or not.
.
LikeLike
Yes I think this is a very good way of putting it.
LikeLike
. . . and all inventions inevitably self.
LikeLike
Maybe that would mean “self” can exist not only under the veil of Maya, but also as an honest presentation of a beingness for communication purposes.
Maybe as the “self” Buddha was using after his enlightenment.
LikeLike
Maya has to do with fixation in my view.
Buddha was not fixated.
.
LikeLike
2ndxmer, I have done some work similar to your continuously wound spring idea, and my sketches come out looking like a helical coils.
What if accelerating particles toward the speed of light compressed their spring bits?
LikeLike
Chris,
It is interesting and exciting that others (you, Marildi, Vinaire) note that they have independently developed a similar technique for handling charge. The Chart of Human Evaluation positions the action of blowing-by-inspection at Clear. The ability is especially important from Clear on up, as is another ability: non-verbal communication; telepathy. I hope we can soon begin exploring that.
Re your helical coils, again, very interesting to have similar viewpoints emerge. As for accelerating particles to near light speed, this increases mass, energy and momentum according to the relativistic equations, so, yes, I expect the spring would wind tighter. The tightness of the coils (wavelength) is proportionate to frequency (velocity of spin). Mass of the photon is proportionate to frequency so this may indicate that there are more “coils” in a high energy photon than in a low energy photon. If that is the case it may be possible to establish a “length” for a photon of known energy (frequency) and from that one could determine the interval (time duration) for the creation of a photon.
LikeLike
The idea of charge being compared to a compressed spring is found in Scientology writings and I am familiar with it, and I agree with it. But I see it only as an analogy.
In my view, a charge is potential energy waiting to be converted into kinetic energy. How it is held as a potential is not quite clear to me.
At an abstract level, I look at charge as an inconsistency that is held in place by being ignored (not-ised). As soon as one looks at it and recognizes it for what it is, it dissipates as kinetic energy.
I haven’t quite worked out how this concept may apply to Quantum Physics
.
LikeLike
And also, I hope we will all “remember” to attempt to apply discoveries in this regard to “memory.” I am so very curious what memory is composed of that it has practically taken my attention off other basic curiosities.
LikeLike
My next post is going to be on PAIN & SUFFERING. It may touch upon how pain is “remembered.”
.
LikeLike
or “anything” is remembered.
LikeLike
@Chris
As an old saying goes, “Memory is not a matter of storage, it is a matter of recall.” I think Hubbard fully defined the mechanism of storage (52 perceptic continuous picture set) and anyone who has experienced revivification during auditing will confirm that to be accurate.
The question is “what is the mechanism of recall?”
Here, again, I believe resonances are crucial. How do contextural similarities of an old engram restimulate the engram? Senses pick up the conditions of the environment and feed them to the brain where they will form an electrical pattern across the brain. I believe it is the electrical pattern that is generated that restimulates the picture set in the mind of the thetan. The number of electrical patterns that could be generated would be infinite, allowing potentially infinite recall. That model may not hold for the recall of past lives as the brain electrical patterning may well be different, but at the point that the thetan is up to recalling past lives, other mechanisms of resonace may be in play or have been recovered.
LikeLike
A way to look at this place is as space. Each point in space is created instantly, in the now and exists only in the now except as one chooses to believe in a past. But one has no past, one is creating one’s viewpoint, reality, in the now.
To change one simply moves one’s viewpoint.
The process of moving puts one into wavelengths that are sometimes uncomfortalbe until understood. The lack of understanding of this process means folks don’t realize they actually are already moving, and lose interest. Thus unhappiness is created and all the various solutions that are movement but not necessarily understanding.
What one sees is a self created image containing anything one wishes it to. There are no conceivable limits. So everything is true, there is just always more truth.
An understanding game can be to simply accept everything that comes up as true and put that into context with one’s general understanding. Know that regardless how things seem, one is moving toward understanding.
Since we are not God entire and we are unconsciously creating a time stream this relative movement does not generally happen at once. But it does, in the by and by.
All of the aove is my personal experience and is not intended to invalidate anyone, especially since no one is ever wrong.
LikeLike
Space is not nothing.Space is something. If space is there then all points in space are also there. So, I don’t quite understand your statement, “Each point in space is created instantly, in the now ..”
It is an assumption that someone creates a point, when that “someone” is itself invented.
.
LikeLike