The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.
The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other. A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant’s viewpoint is bound to change and evolve as he/she learns from the data pooled together by all.
Thus, a discussion is a cooperative effort. There is no reason to censor any data in a discussion. The data simply needs to be examined in detail.
.
Integrity of Reality
The integrity of reality underlies the very concept of universe. The word UNIVERSE is derived from a Latin root, which means “entire, all, literally, turned into one.” The integrity of reality leads to the universe being continuous, harmonious and consistent.
The scientific method follows this law as best as it can when investigating a phenomenon.
A violation of the integrity of reality would be an anomaly. This may manifest as discontinuity (missing data), inconsistency (contradictory data), or disharmony (arbitrary data). An anomaly flags the presence of a hidden impression on the mind in the form of an assumption. When the assumption, and the underlying impression is discovered it produces a realization that resolves the anomaly.
A discussion seeks to restore the integrity of reality by discovering the anomalies present and resolving them.
.
Rules of Discussion
In mindfulness discussion one is guided by mindfulness, as learned through the practice of mindfulness meditation. Here are some specific instructions.
.
(1) Do not defend a viewpoint, instead look for some anomaly generated by it.
For example, a person may believe that God is a being who has created this world. He may reject those who think differently. This viewpoint generates an inconsistency. A being has a form, but all forms are created only when the world gets created. So either God must have been created along with the world, or God is not a being. The person may not be aware of this inconsistency caused by his belief, and he may be willing to engage in a mindful discussion.
But when a person refuses to engage in a discussion despite inconsistency, and continues to defend his belief, then he may be using that belief to hide some confusion. He may be afraid that if his belief is shaken, some confusion will overwhelm him. But as he gets exposed to mindfulness, he may be willing to examine his confusions. Mindful discussion could then help resolve that confusion. Everybody wins.
.
(2) Focus on the data being presented and not on the person presenting it.
Many people feel so invested in their beliefs that they feel attacked when they are unable to uphold their viewpoint in a discussion. They start commenting on the perceived characteristics of another participant holding a different viewpoint. They may even become accusative, emotional and combative.
Any focus on participants rather than on the subject of discussion causes much distraction. It must be avoided.
.
(3) In a disagreement never call the other person wrong, instead provide further clarification regarding your viewpoint.
In any disagreement effort should be made to clarify one’s viewpoint as much as possible. Not doing so, and simply saying that the other person is wrong, does not resolve anything. It only produces distraction.
.
(4) Furthermore, in a disagreement, ask for clarification and, when it is provided, consider it with mindfulness.
A person can be so convinced about being right that he would not even ask the other person for further clarification. He would not even listen if the other person offers any clarification. He simply would not engage in a discussion. This kind of behavior also produces much distraction.
.
(5) Do not complain that the other person is not answering your question, instead discuss what you are expecting.
When a person is committed to certain expectations, he may not even see an answer when it is given to him. An indication of that is his continual complaint that he is not getting an answer. The solution is for the person to honestly look at the expectations he has committed himself to and compare it to answers he is getting. If he then finds an anomaly, he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying his expectations in his mind, no discussion is possible.
.
(6) Always focus on anomalies and isolate them as best as you can. Never be discouraged if others are taking time to recognize it.
An anomaly is a discontinuity (missing information), an inconsistency (contradicting information), or disharmony (arbitrariness of altered importance). It is something that does not make sense. Mindfulness discussion is very successful because it focuses on anomalies only. When an anomaly is difficult to resolve simply look around for more data on that area of discontinuity, inconsistency, or disharmony, and consider it carefully.
.
Summary
A disagreement doesn’t mean that what is being disagreed with is untrue. To show untruthfulness of something one needs to point out the anomaly. Then that anomaly needs to be resolved to find the actual element, which makes the observations free of anomalies. That element shall qualify as the truth.
.
Comments
I understand, thank you.
LikeLike
Thank you.
.
LikeLike
A discussion is ruined to the degree one brings one’s ego to the table.
.
LikeLike
There is nothing to be right about. There is only learning. Learning comes from observing inconsistencies and resolving them through looking and mindfulness.
.
LikeLike
Data that is pooled together in a discussion helps one look at the subject from all different angles.
.
LikeLike
Please see this and the next few comments here:
In a discussion, …
.
LikeLike
If ego is not a factor, one can go anywhere to discuss what one is interested in. Of course, one would have to tackle other egos present.
.
LikeLike
I did not know this but I have been talking about the Dialectic Method here. The only difference is that I stress “looking” over logic.
Logic is very useful in working out where to look. But, in the final analysis, it is looking that prevails. Logic not backed up by looking is an extension of speculation.
.
LikeLike
Adding:
Looks to us that must be A CONSTANT ONWARD/BACKWARD PROCESS.
We may POSTULATE AXIOMS OR DIFFERENT KIND OF HYPOTHESES by “KNOWINGNESS” or “INDUCTION” FROM OBSERVATION and thanks to THE LOGIC(S) (there is not only one logic, e.g.: modal logic, boleen logic, non-classical logics, etc. ), DEDUCE THEOREMS AND NEW OBSERVATIONS TO CHECK.
It should be, in our views, AN ALTERNATIVE PROCESS.
LikeLike
Logic is basically associating what one has observed to come up with a conjecture.
One then must must verify that conjecture by actual observation. Please see
The Scientific Method & Humanities
.
LikeLike
Hi vinaire. Great that you set, what looks to me as an optimal path to have constructive and efficient exchanges of communications in your blog. 🙂 (The ideal one could be the one resulting in the most efficient flow of these exchanges.)
See, I said “looks to me”, like I could say “from MY viewpoint”, to insist on the possibility that “others” could have different perceptions of the reality or point of view, and that they can be as pertinent as mine or even more. Don’t you think it’s just about your present discussion here ?
For “logic” versus “direct observation”, my expérience is that one can use logic to trace the track of a problem, so for me: “intention(s)” and “conter-intention(s)”, “effort(s)” and “conter-effort(s)”, to spot the lie(s) and the truth, so to observe what was needed to be observed, and for me, this very about what The Data Series are about, especially as an application of the 13th LHR’s Logic of November 1951.
Of course, for me, the second paragraph here is an application too of the LRH’s Logics 6, 7 (corollaires) and 12 😉
If this can be of any use to anyone…
What do think?
ML.
LikeLike
IdealGoal, welcome to this blog.
My goal is establish looking at the subject of discussion without filters as much as possible, so the participants may come to new realizations.
LikeLike
IdealGoal, I was in a rush before. Let me now respond to your post more fully.
Yes, this policy is an attempt to keep the ego out of the discussion. So far it has worked well.
A viewpoint is always limited because it involves the filter of ego or self. Ideal participation in a discussion would involve no filter of ego or self.
To me logic is useful in finding out where to look by spotting inconsistencies. But it is the intimate first-hand observation, that resolves inconsistencies, which has the most value. By the way, I was one of the few who did the Data Series Course aboard Apollo under the supervision of Mary Sue in 1973 or thereabouts. I love this tech.
Let’s see what your references are:
LOGIC 6: Absolutes are unobtainable.
LOGIC 7: Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.
COROLLARY: Any datum has only relative truth.
COROLLARY: Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth.
LOGIC 12: The value of a datum or a field of data is modified by the viewpoint of the observer.
I agree with these Logics fully. The effort here is to eliminate any modification by the viewpoint, as much as possible, by encouraging non-judgmental (without filters) observation.
Hope you enjoy the discussions here.
.
LikeLike
Hi vinaire ! Nice to know your had the advantage to be on the supervision of Mary Sue; you surely have enjoy it, am I right?
Well, for the rest, I think I get your point and I could express like an attempt to make beings here to practice rather “pandetermination” than “autodetermination” only; am I correct?
Presently, having start to let few posts on the FZ lines, I’ve tried to practice this “pandetermination” by not taking an only viewpoint but trying to take any viewpoint on the scene. For me, but it’s both intuitive and logic: I could define “Freedom” mainly as the freedom to take any viewpoint at will, we would say too say: “to be” at will, to be responsible for any being.
What do You think? or if you no more need to: what do you see yourself from the viewpoints you could assume? 😉
ML, Didier.
LikeLike
I no longer think in terms of viewpoints or self. My effort is to simply see what is really there without any presumptions, biases, speculations, etc. I let the intuition present what it may.
Here is some discussion on viewpoints you might enjoy:
comment-4919
.
LikeLike
ok, vinaire, I will check this link and reply later 😉 ML.
LikeLike
OK.
LikeLike
A person cannot see the answer even when it is given to him if he is already committed to another answer. An indication of that is the violation of the discussion policy. The solution is for the person to look at the answer that he has already committed himself to. Why is that answer not enough?
Then if he honestly finds an inconsistency, then he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying an inconsistency with an existing answer, no discussion is possible.
This falls under point #1 of the discussion policy.
.
LikeLike
People demand answers in order to make the other person wrong.
The alternatives are as follows;
(1) Look for the answer through mindful contemplation.
(2) Put up your observations for others to comment on.
(3) Actively participate in a discussion.
But demanding an answer from the other person is just an excuse for making oneself right and the other person wrong.
.
LikeLike
In a discussion there is no demand for answer because not all answers are there. In a discussion there is co-looking and co-contemplation.
It is factor of making the other person wrong for not answering, which destroys co-looking and co-contemplation of discussion.
.
LikeLike
In a successful discussion, there is granting of beingness in the form of acknowledgment of the other persons presence and communication.
LikeLike
I never chastised Marildi for not responding to my argument about Cause-effect and First cause, because I thought she needs time to think about it, and that she would respond when she can.
I never hounded her for answers. There is nothing that I need to convince her about. I am letting her look for herself.
.
LikeLike
Whoa — Stop. Reset. I’m not referring to Marildi nor to any comment made about hounding anyone for answers. My comment was made toward the discussion policy, not you.
LikeLike
Marildi is not near to my thoughts at this time. Neither is Geir’s blog. Right now I am in an unloaded space free from tensions; an equilibrium; transmission kicked into neutral and neither pulling nor braking.
LikeLike
That’s wonderful.
The next gradient would be “to be on Geir’s Blog in the presence of Marildi and not be bothered at all.” 🙂
.
LikeLike
There is only the next iteration.
LikeLike
Granting of beingness is seeing things as they are. It has to do with you and not with the other person.
.
LikeLike
That is correct.
LikeLike
When we find ourselves in an unproductive iteration, it can be wise to simply speak our opinion clearly (if that) then move on. There will be people honestly searching and they will take an interest in discussing the topic. There are always those who pretend to want to discuss but in fact only want to harden their pre-existing point of view for their personal and sometimes undisclosed reason.
LikeLike
I think that discussion policy speaks for itself. Either their is a spirit of discussion, or there is the tendency to make oneself right and the other person wrong.
It is in the latter case that any communication becomes unproductive, and you are correct in saying that it is better to move on.
However, I think that the discussion policy has had some positive affect on Geir’s Blog. For now I shall be giving them some rest.
.
LikeLike
I have been reading all the usual posts from Geir’s and others and I have been curious what you are doing on Geir’s blog.
LikeLike
Studying people.
LikeLike
No, I mean before that.
LikeLike
I don’t know what you have observed, but I am there to get feedback on my observations, and I do get plenty, though mostly in negative terms, such as rejection. But that is enough to help me look further.
The latest realization is what I have written here:
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/#comment-7399
.
LikeLike
The iterations iterate. They converge and they depart. There is no “next gradient” at all. And Marildi doesn’t need to be confronted nor not confronted. One doesn’t have to consider nor not consider Marildi at all. This is Hubbard’s mumbo-jumbo to think so.
LikeLike
I find that most Scientologists are simply focused on themselves. Those who are focused on helping others may be counted on fingers. One learns more about life by helping others.
Scientologists, who think they have all the solutions can get pretty nasty toward others who don’t agree with them. They live by agreement.
.
LikeLike
. . . and pretend that inflated egos are the source of everything when their inflated egos are more accurately the result of everything.
LikeLike
He he.. Looks like I am having a bad influence on you now…
.
LikeLike
Complaining that the other person is not answering their question.
A person cannot see the answer even when it is given to him if he is already committed to another answer. An indication of that is this complaint that he is not getting an answer. The solution is for the person to honestly look at the answer that he has already committed himself to. Why is that answer adequate? Why is the other person’s stance being looked upon as “no-answer”?
If he then finds an inconsistency, then he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying an inconsistency with an existing answer, no discussion is possible.
.
I wrote the above because I have been chastised many times on Geir’s Blog that I am not answering their questions. This has puzzled me every time, because I provide my observations as I make them. I do not hold anything back.
In a discussion everybody has questions, and it is a combined effort to find answers. It seems that the complaint that another person is not answering questions can result only from the following:
(a) Another person’s stance or answer is not acceptable to one. One is looking for an answer that one is not getting from the other person.
(b) One is in mystery about something, One’s confusion is held in check by some datum. But that datum is leading to another mystery.
(c) One doesn’t want to reexamine the datum that is holding back one’s confusion for the fear that one’s confusion will come back.
(d) Thus, one’s original confusion is not resolved but only held back by one’s beliefs.
(e) People on Geir’s Blog are holding fast to certain Scientology data because that data is keeping their confusions in check. Thus, there is value in that data.
(f) But that Scientology data has not really resolved their confusions. The datum, which is helping them hold back their confusions, has served only to create another mystery.
(g) A person whose confusions are resolved does not have to hold on to any data.
(h) A person whose confusions are resolved is free to examine any data including his/her own beliefs.
.
LikeLike
Vin: “In a discussion everybody has questions,”
Chris: This is an assumption. I see people assuming doing various things to improve their wisdom but these things can be roughly filed under two categories. One is the building up and of organizing data. The other is in the reduction of useless or inconsistent data. Both ways are useful but these don’t seem to mix very well. For example, learning KHTK exercises add data, but the practice of these exercises results in a streamlining of data through aligning and possible deletion of inapplicable data.
LikeLike
It is like climbing the mountain to get to the other side.
.
LikeLike
Now it is “I” who am having a bad influence on you! (Metaphorically speaking — hehe)
LikeLike
LOL!
.
LikeLike
Vin: In a discussion everybody has questions,
Chris: We can also make this into a fallacy by insisting that in a true discussion everybody has questions.
LikeLike
One may consider whatever one wants. But what I observe on Geir’s Blog that people are looking for answers for the mysteries they themselves are creating by holding on to data to restrain some original confusion..
INCONSISTENCY: Holding on to data and not examining it.
.
LikeLike
Vin: people are looking for answers for the mysteries they themselves are creating by holding on to data to restrain some original confusion.
Chris: This is an excellent observation — clearly communicated.
LikeLike
This is an extension of Exercise #1 in the following:
KHTK EXERCISE SET 2
A person’s assumed identity serves him/her to restrain some earlier confusion. It is valuable to him/her as the stable datum.
.
LikeLike
Vin: (a) Another person’s stance or answer is not acceptable to one. One is looking for an answer that one is not getting from the other person.
Chris: We are educated this way. Depending on the purpose of the interaction such as building up of a technology, this can be appropriate such as in the teacher-student relationship. But seeing clearly the purpose of the interaction is the key to understanding why an interaction succeeds or fails. Seeing this purpose clearly is sometimes more difficult than resolving the topic of the discussion. Written another way, it seems that everybody lies! haha This may have been at the root of Hubbard’s frustration with and his invention of “illegal PC’s.” Of course, Hubbard lied so much “in order to get people to listen to him” that the entire purpose of Scientology becomes obfuscated by lofty PR, shore-stories, money hunger, and “stat pushes.”
LikeLike
Another person’s stance or answer is not acceptable because it conflicts with the datum the person is holding madly to. At the same time the person is unwilling to look at the inconsistency and state it because it would lead to an examination of the datum one is holding on to.
It is the unwillingness of the person to look at one’s own beliefs that traps him.
.
LikeLike
If you want to build a structure of any kind, then a buildup of data is required.
If you want to resolve an inconsistency, then data must be relinquished.
We have to be clear about the purpose of the discussion. For example, some people use the ruse of a having a discussion to forge an argument with the purpose of pushing an agenda. This is dishonest. Debates are discussions where agendas are pushed rather than resolving inconsistencies.
LikeLike
This is what I have been trying to point out for some time as the difference between a debate and a discussion.
I am glad that you got it. Now Valkov and Marildi may be able to benefit from it.
.
LikeLike
This is why I promote for them to do Scientology. Neither is “through with” Scientology and neither one does Scientology. They are pretending to be in while neither is — unless Marildi is OSA! The great red herring of Scientologists is to apply it to others while not applying it to themselves. This is the epitome of being Sea Org. Both Marildi and Valkov need to do more Scientology and less academics. I view their involvement in Scientology as dilettantism only. Until they apply it to themselves, their arguments consist only of platitudes. Debating by using “what is the correct reference” is glib and involves no discussion whatsoever.
LikeLike
“The great red herring of Scientologists is to apply it to others while not applying it to themselves.”
I think it goes deeper than that. The ultimate stable datum in Scientology is “individuality” or thetan. This is the same thing as “self.” One has to safeguard this stable datum at all cost, else one would be deluged by the confusion, which Scientology handled for one.
So, a Scientologist never looks at self outside of session. For a Scientologists, self is a permanent thing outside of the session. It is used as a reference point from which the Scientologist looks at everything. This reference point is untouchable. He cannot afford to criticize it or have it criticized. That stable datum has to be right.
So, Scientology “educates” one to always be right “outside of session”, and that means “in life.” The natural consequence of this is that a Scientologist ends up making everything wrong that disagrees with his/her viewpoint.
Thus, a Scientologist very much likes the concept of agreement, but only with his/her viewpoint. His/her understanding of ARC does not extend beyond the narrow viewpoint he/she holds.
.
LikeLike
My “education by blogging” has resulted in my changing ever so much. I began discussing in order to resolve the inconsistencies that I felt as a result of being excommunicated by COS and then through auditing, KHTK and discussion I became the person I was hoping to become since before I discovered Scientology. I changed, but I meant to change. This may be a major difference between the results that people obtain from any spiritual path.
LikeLike
In my opinion any spiritual progress comes from looking and resolving inconsistencies, no matter what means are used.
.
LikeLike
Vin: (d) Thus, one’s original confusion is not resolved but only held back by one’s beliefs.
Chris: And this is a key to understanding why auditing works and doesn’t work. An example of this is that “training” is the adding and organizing of data about the mind, while personal auditing should be and seems to result in the reduction of inconsistent data. These two sides of “the bridge” are at odds with each other. It is hard to resolve Hubbard’s intentions — possibly because his own ego was so inflated and by inflated I mean increasingly at odds with itself. This may be why Hubbard sickened through the years: Auditing requires scrupulous honesty with oneself to be effective.
LikeLike
A win from auditing could be of the form that it provides a “stable datum” to restrain one’s confusion. It does not resolve the confusion. It simply restrains it. This gives pc a tremendous win. The pc now gets stuck with a datum as truth simply because it is restraining that person’s confusion.
Hubbard creates an atmosphere where such data should never be questioned or invalidated because it would then make the pc’s original confusion resurface.
So, Hubbard’s solution has been a nip and a tuck. Maybe that is how he applied it to himself. He was afraid of looking deeply.
A person whose original confusion is gone cannot be invalidated when his beliefs are questioned. He is willing to question his own beliefs for deeper discoveries..
.
LikeLike
Vin: He was afraid of looking deeply.
Chris: Hubbard was himself riddled with false data such as “If you don’t have a college degree, then no one will listen to you.” Hubbard’s inability to make a case gain was rooted in his dishonesty with himself. Were he to have been honest with himself, he would have not needed to look deeply. The important lies that blocked his case gain were low hanging fruit. Such lies as saying he was a war hero; that he fought the Japanese off the California coast; calling himself “doctor” Hubbard; and maneuvering others to take the fall for his crimes.
LikeLike
Well, Hubbard had his case. I would leave it at that.
Despite his case, Hubbard did accomplish something positive in picking the subject of psychology out of apathy.
.
LikeLike
My point was in how deeply one needs to look to improve their case. It’s not deep per se, it more mindful than deep.
I’m not sure what you mean by picking psychology out of apathy. I don’t see Scientology as more than one of a multitude of “z” inputs. Scientology came and it went just as we Scientologists came and went. Things appear and then they disappear. We could leave it at that, but we won’t, will we? 🙂
LikeLike
Whether Hubbard intended that way or not, but Scientology helped me organize my background data from eastern sources into a systematic form that I could think with. I am still doing that to this day.
Maybe I had it in me already, but for me Scientology acted as a strong catalyst..
.
LikeLike
Vin: (c) One doesn’t want to reexamine the datum that is holding back one’s confusion for the fear that one’s confusion will come back.
Chris: Sometimes we feel that our stable data has been “hard won” or is “permanent.” We have to get over that.
LikeLike
LOL! You got it brother.
.
LikeLike
Vin: (e) People on Geir’s Blog are holding fast to certain Scientology data because that data is keeping their confusions in check. Thus, there is value in that data.
Chris: So they might think, and so it does within the framework and within the reference of Scientology. I cannot stress enough how vital knowing what is one’s frame of reference when attempting to discuss truth.
LikeLike
The frame of reference is just another datum one is holding on to as something permanent.
But it is the person making it permanent. The frame of reference is not permanent in itself.
Anything “permanent” seems to be a trap.
.
LikeLike
Yes, well I am only saying that consistency depends utterly on relevance within a frame of reference. Not making a case for <em<permanence.
LikeLike
Of course. That is why inconsistencies may be difficult to spot for some.
.
LikeLike
Honesty with oneself and with others is integral for a discussion to be productive.
LikeLike
You can say that again. 🙂
.
LikeLike
Chris, It is interesting to observe that you are the only person who came over from Geir’s Blog and survived the initiation on Vinaire’s Blog. Now, you come and go as you please, and you are quite comfortable on this blog.
How come nobody else came over from Geir’s Blog?
Maybe you were the only black sheep. 🙂
.
LikeLike
It’s not complicated. You are still talking about what’s on my heart. I don’t care about being right.
LikeLike
I was just kidding. So you care about spotting and resolving inconsistencies non judgmentally!
.
LikeLike
I’ve wondered at the seeming lack of interest by other writers but don’t really have an insight into other’s motives on this point. Go figure that Marty’s blog has 10 times more participation that Geir’s. None of that adds up to looking for me. On this blog, your words are probably being read more than commented upon — my guess.
I may have written my comment above soberly but it’s because the answer was simple and my motive is not hooked into any nonsensical confusions on my part. I did know you were kidding :). Also, your sincerity shines through any peccadilloes I ever have about any language used. I am not looking for excuses to misunderstand what you write. The subject matter you choose is pertinent and I think your insights are profound. I participate because your inquiries harmonize with my own. Geir’s earlier thread about lack of real discussion on his blog seems to hold true all over the small piece of the internet that I read.
LikeLike
Most people seem to be concerned with the preservation of their current identity. They follow its purpose and try to make it right all the time. They entertain it; and that’s about it.
They are limited by their current identity, or “individuality”.
.
LikeLike
Then we have to get over that.
LikeLike
The following exercise (exercise 1/set 2) is designed to accomplish that.
KHTK EXERCISE SET 2
By using identity shifts one may gradually handle the original confusion that brought about the identity in the first place. Birth could be treated as an identity shift, and so could be death. I am still working on more exercises in this area.
.
LikeLike
Chris: “Both Marildi and Valkov need to do more Scientology and less academics. I view their involvement in Scientology as dilettantism only. Until they apply it to themselves, their arguments consist only of platitudes.”
marildi: The above, for me, shows that you have a narrow view of the scope of Scientology since you limit it to auditing. Even if you don’t agree with that, please try to get the concept of it, if for no other reason than it is my concept and I believe Valkov’s too.
Chris: “Debating by using ‘what is the correct reference’ is glib and involves no discussion whatsoever.”
marildi: My asking Rafael for his LRH reference was in response to his having stated that his definition of exteriorization was “the very same that LRH used, to occupy the same space of an object” – which is essentially the opposite of those in the Tech Dict and my own understanding. In other words, he claimed to be quoting LRH and I simply asked for the LRH reference. But it seems that he, Vinaire and now you don’t get the simple logic of that. Btw, this is just one of many times I feel my mention of references or my quoting of them to communicate an idea is met with ridges that, to me, speak of the filters of those doing the ridging.
LikeLike
ah, so you are listening. Good.
LikeLike
I clicked on the link that Vinaire put in his comment where he missed my point about Rafael, and then decided that I would try again to get it across. But you still may have missed it as you don’t actually respond to anything I said.
LikeLike
I wrote something and now you have written something. It was for me a very good discussion, thank you.
LikeLike
I seem to remember some posts of yours, going way back, where you decried the fact that you couldn’t get an answer or an ack out of some people. You must have had a different definition of “discussion” at the time. Different from this one: “I write something, then you write something unrelated, and that’s the discussion”. 😉
LikeLike
You may be right. I have been changing.
LikeLike
Okay. How so, as it relates to blog discussion?
LikeLike
Subjectively more stable and more mentally tolerant within my own mental instability. Loosing anchor points in order to more closely approach other’s location.
LikeLike
Thanks. That is a bit abstract for me. Can you put it in concrete terms as it relates to discussion?
LikeLike
Give me an example of how you could understand it.
LikeLike
Chris, I am simply asking you to help me understand what you have said. I’m not looking for you to be my teacher and get me to figure out for myself something that I found to be unclear. I don’t recall you ever responding to anyone else but me in this way. Can you just treat me as an equal and answer a simple request to describe your comment in more concrete terms. I would like to actually have a true discussion with you if that is possible.
LikeLike
Ok, Marildi, then tell me what interests you about what I wrote. You’ve got to help me understand what you want to know about what I wrote.
LikeLike
With your last comment I got your sincerity and that was appreciated.
Okay, could you give an example of “losing anchor points” and how it enabled you to “more closely approach another’s location”.
LikeLike
Yes, that I can do. Take a perfectly good sweater that you enjoy or have enjoyed and which is still serviceable. Take it to the Salvation Army and give it to them. Feel the personal attachment *snap* and that is my metaphor for loosing, losing, or releasing anchor points.
This little process can be reproduced on any scale including the attachment to one’s body or even the whole world.
Now moving on: MEST is structure. Loosing and finally losing or detaching the anchor points much as in my example decreases distance. Increases affinity which seems to be inversely proportional to the distance.
When structure is gone; when space is gone; affinity approaches unity; viewpoint becomes similar or approaching same.
Unity = sameness underlying considerations.
Is that better?
LikeLike
Yes, much better! Well, since I have renewed faith that we can actually be in comm, here is how, as I see it, you and I come to fisticuffs (metaphorically speaking :)):
(1) Sometimes I get from you that you think I only have one “sweater”. That’s a filtered assumption on your part and it increases the distance a bit as it is a break in Reality. (2) Other times I get that you are insisting that I give away my favorite sweater because you yourself don’t happen to think much of it, due again to your own filters. I, on the other hand, like it because it is not only highly appealing to my native sense of things but is very practical in that it keeps me warm. So your efforts here cause a further break in Reality. (3) Still other times I get that you are pushing at me to have no sweaters at all; or, at best, that I not care about sweaters because you have decided that sweaters are useless and pointless and should all be discarded. (4) Last but not least, and as non-incongruent as it sounds, you sometimes insist that I wear my favorite sweater (since I’m too pigheaded to be talked out of it) and that I wear it in the way that you think I should.
Please correct any misconceptions but that’s how your approach to me seems, at least at times.And how do I view you at times? I see you as attempting to discard ALL your sweaters because you’ve decided that the bold and brave stance to take is ti gave no stance, no ideology, i.e. no sweater(s) – which in fact is itself an ideological stance. Ironically. And this makes me worry about you when it gets cold. 😦
LikeLike
The mantra is, “See things as they are and do not try to figure them out.”
.
LikeLike
No blaming or pointing fingers is allowed on this blog. If there are any personal conflicts please sort them out elsewhere.
Thank you.
.
LikeLike
You don’t seem to recognize when the subject is actually about discussion procedure.
LikeLike
I shall be deleting all posts from this discussion that just point fingers and are not productive at all.
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
Vinaire: In my opinion any spiritual progress comes from looking and resolving inconsistencies, no matter what means are used.
Chris: I see that, but my jury is out just now on what it means to “make spiritual progress.” I look and I see the manifestation of fractal iterations, if that is an appropriate metaphor for what is actually happening. Anyways, that is what it looks like to me. To me it seems that I have the power to “influence the input of the ‘z,’ however, the resultant iteration may or may not go in an expected direction. This is the mechanical metaphor for randomity as I see it around me. I may not be speaking precisely to your post. I have this thought forming and I want to begin getting it out and possibly discussing it with you.
LikeLike
My take on spiritual progress is dissolving confusion, and thus, dissolving the need for any “stable datum.”
The most deep “stable datum” is the SELF.
.
LikeLike
Yes, I know that. Huge efforts have been made toward that speculation. The word dissolving is used and I prefer this to vanishing since the space time is not vanished. Yet I am looking for a better mechanic. The SELF could be more consistently described as the deepest stable datum so far. The metaphor of fractal mathematics describes mechanics which might account for many unexplained phenomena.
LikeLike
What I am wondering is
“What confusion could the stable datum of ‘self’ be restraining?”
.
LikeLike
A person who is very much hung up on self, or on certain ideology, such as, Scientology, and who is desperately trying to understand, seems to be very much in confusion.
.
LikeLike
Vinaire – I just found your blog. Have you done any Identics from Mike or any other practioner? I am interested in healing some trauma and unwanted conditions and would like to get your thoughts? I want lasting results – not another via to “escape” reality, which is what auditing in Scientology was for me…the beginning was good and it got worse as I went up the Bridge to No Where! Does it handle the “unwanted conditions” for good? How many hours average does it take? Thanks – great blog!
LikeLike
Hello Sam. Welcome to my blog.
I am a trained Idenics practitioner. I have done many hundreds of hours Idenics processing. Idenics has helped me greatly in the development of KHTK, which is free and intended for self-application.
LikeLike
This blog expects a love for knowledge, and a display of decent behavior when pursuing that love.
LikeLike