AXIOMS OF REASON

I wrote the following on Chris Thompson’s Blog:

I plan to try out the following for size…

In response, my good friend Maria wrote the following:

I can`t help thinking that there is a set of underlying axioms…

.

Here are the AXIOMS OF REASON:

  1. The Inquiry is into the truth
  2. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit
  3. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality
  4. Truth is indivisibility; such is the perception of unity
  5. Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence
  6. Truth is eternity; such is the perception of presence
  7. Truth is not cause or effect; such is the perception of freedom
  8. Truth must be just what it is and nothing else whatsoever; such perception of the inevitable is the power of truth
  9. Truth is individuality; such is the perception of humanity
  10. Truth is God; such is the perception of divinity
  11. Truth is good; such is the perception of satisfaction
  12. Truth is intelligence; such is the perception of mind
  13. Truth is not matter; such is the perception of substance
  14. Truth is love; such is the perception of bliss
  15. Truth is life; such is illumination
  16. Besides truth there is nothing; such is the perception of nature and creation
  17. Axiom of Assumption: Truth, even as an illusion, is still absolute; such is the perception of reflection

.

I am very happy with the request from Maria to post these axioms on my blog for discussion, because it forwards the purpose of this blog. I am very much looking forward to the discussion in accordance with the discussion policy.

.

[NOTE 11/11/2012: I have made this post more comprehensive by posting all the axioms from the link AXIOMS OF REASON. See further details at this link.]

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

    Nice! I have been wanting to discuss his series!

  • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

    Oh, there`s a typo in the line: It is announced that this is the proper inquiry for all who find I themselves…

    It should read: It is announced that this is the proper inquiry for all who find in themselves…

    Instead of typing IN, I typed I by mistake.

    Please fix it in the copy above — otherwise the line doesn`t make sense.

  • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

    Hubbard states in Scn Axiom 38:

    Truth is the exact consideration.

    This would underlie Burnell’s Axiom #1.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    From Maria through a separate email:

    Here is the second axiom. I`m gone for the rest of the day. enjoy!


    I. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.

    The spirit of truth is the meaning, the significance of truth. That which is, that which is so – in contra-distinction to that which is not so — such is the common, inevitable meaning ascribed to the word truth.

    Not what may be so, not what seems so, but what is so in the final analysis; not what is so relatively, but what is so absolutely; for as Spencer affirms, “unless a real absolute be postulated the relative becomes absolute, and so brings the argument to contradiction.” (First Principles, Sec. 26.)

    What the reason must admit or abandon its nature; what is so by virtue of the reason’s being just what it is; what is axiomatic in the constitution of the reason; not only what the reason does believe in, but also what it cannot help believing in; that to which the reason can conceive no opposite; that which we cannot doubt, but do and must have faith in; that which we are forced to believe from the inability of the mind to think otherwise; such is axiomatic truth in the reason or faith.

    [Please see comment-5450 for more complete version ~ Vinaire]

    • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

      “What is” is what we perceive. Does that mean perception is the truth?

      From KHTK LOOKING: AN OVERVIEW:

      “The most accurate knowledge is made up of the perceptions obtained within a span of last 300 – 500 milliseconds.

      “All other knowledge is extrapolated from one’s experiences, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, and self. Such extrapolated knowledge is filtered through the inconsistencies embedded in those layers. Hence it is subject to inaccuracies.”

      .

      • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 7:27 PM

        I don`t think that is what he is getting at here. I am not even sure he is speaking of things or objects or manifestations. Doesn`t sound like it. His first essay is discussing a faculty of reason as a faculty of consciousness, a faculty which is not thing at all but an act of judgment (aha!) that we use to detect or monitor or compare concepts and perceptions. Kind of like a truth-o-meter.the extrapolating process or function itself that results in a decision — definiteness versus perplexed. I have long recognized this in myself, I call it my dog-at-a-bone impulse. For me, this is not restricted to points in space-time continuum, in a wavelength or particle mode.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 5, 2012 at 7:55 PM

          Vinaire & Maria, This is forming up nicely – a really good clash of what? Arts and Engineering? It seems just right to me. Interesting and useful things should fall out of this shake-up.

        • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 8:29 PM

          Yes, Chris. That is exactly what I am hoping. Vinaire has a very different approach to my own and I am counting on that to shake my ideas.

      • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 9:01 PM

        Burnell must be getting at one of these things: (1) Matter, (2) Energy, (3) Space, (4) Time, or (5) Consideration. These five categories cover all that is. Consideration have its own MEST components. MEST has its own consideration component.

        From what you wrote, Burnell seems to be dealing with considerations.

        “Faculty of reason” is one consideration. “Faculty of consciousness” is another consideration. What we have here are fractals of considerations. In other words, we have consideration of consideration ad infinitum.

        I postulate fundamental space to be a “matrix of considerations.” Each consideration is relative to other considerations. There is no absolute consideration. This is like a Theory of Relativity of considerations.

        So, “What is” is going to be relative to the considerations at the viewpoint. There are no absolute truths. When one is seeking truths, one should be seeking the considerations at the viewpoint.

        Truth of “what is out there” will begin with there are no considerations to filter the view at the viewpoint.

        .

        • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM

          These five categories as delineated by the MEST universe theory may or may not be -all of- or -the only- categories to consider. They are convenient categories, that`s all. The absolute truth statement you are making is also an assumption, and again, open to question as such. I think Burnell is getting at what he is getting at and there is a possibility that it won`t necessarily fit with these established ideas. Then again, maybe it will.

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 10:35 PM

          What other categories do you have in mind?

          .

        • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 11:03 PM

          I don`t. Perhaps they will reveal themselves as we go along. Then again maybe not. It`s all good. I just want to make sure I am leaving that door OPEN and not trying to fit into something else and mistaking that for full inquiry because now it resonates with what I already know.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 10:13 AM

          A good policy.

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 7:12 AM

          I shall be interested in any such discovery.

          .

  • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 12:49 PM

    I wonder if it would be more fruitful to NOT compare these axioms to Hubbard`s work. It introduces confusion with the terminology he likes to use. I think just looking at it for what it is will help shake out new ways of looking. What do you think — I was really hoping for a fresh view. bye bye for now

    • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 1:01 PM

      I agree that we should not be comparing Burnell’s axioms with those of Hubbard’s. I would like to avoid such a comparison.

      But I feel that Burnell’s axioms may provide a fresh perspective to the terminology that Hubbard uses. For example, I want to get further insight into the word “consideration.”

      Burnell’s second axiom also makes me curious about how he defines “perception” and “spirit”.

      • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 2:26 PM

        We have to use the turn of the century dictionaries with his materials. I`ve discovered that there has been quite a shift in many philosophic terms which leads to misunderstanding.

        1913 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
        http://1913.mshaffer.com

        PERCEPTION: An idea; a notion.
        [Obs.] Sir M. Hale.
        * “The word perception is, in the language of philosophers previous to Reid, used in a very extensive signification. By Descartes, Malebranche, Locke, Leibnitz, and others, it is employed in a sense almost as unexclusive as consciousness, in its widest signification. By Reid this word was limited to our faculty acquisitive of knowledge, and to that branch of this faculty whereby, through the senses, we obtain a knowledge of the external world. But his limitation did not stop here. In the act of external perception he distinguished two elements, to which he gave the names of perception and sensation. He ought perhaps to have called these perception proper and sensation proper, when employed in his special meaning.” Sir W. Hamilton.

        SPIRIT: Intent; real meaning; — opposed to the letter, or to formal statement; also, characteristic quality, especially such as is derived from the individual genius or the personal character; as, the spirit of an enterprise, of a document, or the like.

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM

          Can “spirit” be expressed in today’s terminology as

          SPIRIT: The starting consideration of a manifestation.

          CONSIDERATION: A reflection of what is.

          MANIFESTATION: What is.

          Since words in English have several different meaning, we might end up assembling our own glossary to support this discussion.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 5, 2012 at 8:03 PM

          . . . spirit as the prime consideration underlying a manifestation?

          I’m not sure. It seems so at first glance.

          But when I look at it, there is an inconsistency regarding spirit and that inconsistency looks like unknowable.

          In this context, and if it makes the statement consistent for you, we can substitute spirit for unknown. Otherwise, we begin to assume and give anthropomorphism to what we are guessing at.

          Or am I missing something?

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 9:21 PM

          Spirit has a connotation of individuality, meaning there can be more than one spirit. If we use “spirit” as some kind of a common base of spiritual existence, then we are still alluding to some particular characteristic. Opposed to this no characteristics are associated with the unknowable. So, looking at the historical usage, spirit cannot be made synonymous with unknowable.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 6:50 AM

          Well, I think my point was that to consider a “prime consideration” underlying manifestation, I don’t need to interject the intermediary consideration of “spirit” between prime consideration and manifestation.

          Spirit might be added inapplicable and so might prime consideration.

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 7:52 AM

          Yes. What is, IS. Any consciousness or awareness is part of What is.

          .

        • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

          Doesn`t work for me.

          I think it is best to let the definitions stand as they are for the purposes of examining this work.

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM

          OK. Then we’ll have to discuss the definitions, as they stand, against each other to flush out inconsistencies, if any.

          .

        • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 10:08 PM

          I don`t this has anything to do with spirit as a being, be or individual or soul or anything like that.

          The phrase is: By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.

          Rephrased: By truth is meant what is; such is the discernment or cognition of intent–real meaning.

          The 1913 definitions that apply:

          SPIRIT: Intent; real meaning; — opposed to the letter, or to formal statement; also, characteristic quality, especially such as is derived from the individual genius or the personal character; as, the spirit of an enterprise, of a document, or the like.

          PERCEPTION:

          1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apprehension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apprehension; cognition.

          2. The faculty of perceiving; the faculty, or peculiar part, of man’s constitution by which he has knowledge through the medium or instrumentality of the bodily organs; the act of apprehending material objects or qualities through the senses; — distinguished from conception. Matter hath no life nor perception, and is not conscious of its own existence. Bentley.

          3. The quality, state, or capability, of being affected by something external; sensation; sensibility.
          [Obs.]
          This experiment discovereth perception in plants. Bacon.

          4. An idea; a notion.
          [Obs.] Sir M. Hale.
          * “The word perception is, in the language of philosophers previous to Reid, used in a very extensive signification. By Descartes, Malebranche, Locke, Leibnitz, and others, it is employed in a sense almost as unexclusive as consciousness, in its widest signification. By Reid this word was limited to our faculty acquisitive of knowledge, and to that branch of this faculty whereby, through the senses, we obtain a knowledge of the external world. But his limitation did not stop here. In the act of external perception he distinguished two elements, to which he gave the names of perception and sensation. He ought perhaps to have called these perception proper and sensation proper, when employed in his special meaning.” Sir W. Hamilton.

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 10:16 PM

          That makes more sense. It is consistent with my idea of truth being the “key consideration that defines what is.” This excludes the idea of considerations that one may be looking through, and which may color one’s perception.

          .

        • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 11:00 PM

          I am particularly interested that the definition specifically distinguishes perception from conception.

          CONCEPT: An abstract general conception; a notion; a universal.

          The words conception, concept, notion, should be limited to the thought of what can not be represented in the imagination; as, the thought suggested by a general term. –Sir W. Hamilton.

          NOTION: [L. notio, fr. noscere to know: cf. F. notion. See Know.]
          Mental apprehension of whatever may be known or imagined; an idea; a conception; more properly, a general or universal conception, as distinguishable or definable by marks.

          NOTORIETY: The quality or condition of being notorious; the state of being generally or publicly known; — commonly used in an unfavorable sense; as, the notoriety of a crime.

          The culprit may be the double meaning of the word perceive:

          PERCEIVE: 1. To obtain knowledge of through the senses; to receive impressions from by means of the bodily organs; to take cognizance of the existence, character, or identity of, by means of the senses; to see, hear, or feel; as, to perceive a distant ship; to perceive a discord.
          Reid. 2. To take intellectual cognizance of; to apprehend by the mind; to be convinced of by direct intuition; to note; to remark; to discern; to see; to understand. Jesus perceived their wickedness. Matt. xxii. 18. You may, fair lady, Perceive I speak sincerely. Shak. Till we ourselves see it with our own eyes, and perceive it by our own understandings, we are still in the dark. Locke.

          I see that there is a particular way of defining intellect as well.

          INTELLECT: The part or faculty of the human soul by which it knows, as distinguished from the power to feel and to will; sometimes, the capacity for higher forms of knowledge, as distinguished from the power to perceive objects in their relations; the power to judge and comprehend; the thinking faculty; the understanding.

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 7:10 AM

          Perception and conception may be at the opposite end of the following scale from MEMORY & RECALL

          Perception
          Experience
          Information
          Hypothesis
          Theory
          Principles
          Axioms
          Self

          Thus, self may be the ultimate conception.

          .

  • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 3:00 PM

    I find these definitions to be of interest, and explanatory of his first axiom:

    REASON: The faculty or capacity of the human mind by which it is distinguished from the intelligence of the inferior animals; the higher as distinguished from the lower cognitive faculties, sense, imagination, and memory, and in contrast to the feelings and desires. Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty.

    I like this distinction between the faculty of first truths and discursive or ratiocinative.

    INTUITION: 1. Direct apprehension or cognition; immediate knowledge, as in perception or consciousness; — distinguished from “mediate” knowledge, as in reasoning; as, the mind knows by intuition that black is not white, that a circle is not a square, that three are more than two, etc.; quick or ready insight or apprehension. 2. Any object or truth discerned by direct cognition; especially, a first or primary truth.

    DISCURSIVE: Reasoning; proceeding from one ground to another, as in reasoning; argumentative.

    RATIOCINATIVE: Characterized by, or addicted to, ratiocination; consisting in the comparison of propositions or facts, and the deduction of inferences from the comparison; argumentative; as, a ratiocinative process.

    And the 1913 definition of TRUTH: That which is true or certain concerning any matter or subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of things; fact; verity; reality.

    There are more definitions that these but they seem to be alignment with his statements.

    • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 9:48 PM

      Truth is relative. There is no absolute truth.

      .

      • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 10:15 PM

        Then obviously the statement you have just made is an assumption and is open to question. Certainly the word-concept absolute is open to examination, just as the word-concept truth is.

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 10:18 PM

          Sure. To me the following statement of Buddha is quite consistent:

          “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha”

          .

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 10:21 PM

          Buddha’s statement above is also consistent with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

          .

        • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 10:28 PM

          As I recall, Buddha taught not to accept what another has said, including himself. I prefer to examine this myself and see what shakes out. Besides, this pronouncement appears to be an assumption to me, maybe fundamental, maybe not. In any case it is definitely open to question.

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 10:32 PM

          The criterion I go by is consistency and not whether something appears to be true or untrue. To me Buddha’s statement appears to be consistent with other considerations I hold.

          How does it appear inconsistent to you?

          .

        • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 11:12 PM

          I am unhappy with my examination of the word absolute and the word truth. I am perplexed. DOG-AT-BONE phenomena here due to corner-of-the-eye slippiness going on. I don`t know how to explain this other than the two analogies I have just given. Usually though, if I persist on catching it by the tail its very worth my time. I am unhappy with my general consistency and unhappy with the idea of consistency in general. It landed me up in a roadblock and that disturbs me. I wish I could be more coherent on this. ha-ha on me!

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 10:16 AM

          NO! haha. This is where we need to be.

          However, this type of digging is in conflict with Vinaire’s KHTK principles of letting epiphany bubble to the surface.

          For me, looking means stirring the muck and “helping” those bubbles of understanding float up.

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 10:20 AM

          Make sure you understand unstacking versus digging.

          When nothing is bypassed in “digging” it is unstacking.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 10:33 AM

          Very well Vinaire. I will keep that in mind.

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 7:18 AM

          “Absolute” to me means, “This is it, there is nothing more or beyond.” It closes the door to further inquiry. The concept of God is like that.

          I am happy to look at truth as “what is.” It does not turn “what is” into some absolute. There are layers to “what is.” The inquiry may continue.

          One moves from truth to truth, and not from error to truth, as believed in HINDUISM.

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 7:17 AM

        And there is no absolute consistency.

        Because there is only relative truth and relative consistency, possibly we should be asking another; a different question. Maybe we aren’t seeking the right thing.

        Then again, since I can’t seem to ask the right question, possibly the right question doesn’t reside in the reality where “I” resides.

  • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    This is fascinating — from the 1913 dictionary

    **************************************

    Be (is) versus Exist (is)

    The verb to be, except in a few rare cases, like that of Shakespeare’s “To be, or not to be”, is used simply as a copula, to connect a subject with its predicate; as, man is mortal; the soul is immortal. The verb to exist is never properly used as a mere copula, but points to things that stand forth, or have a substantive being; as, when the soul is freed from all corporeal alliance, then it truly exists. It is not, therefore, properly synonymous with to be when used as a copula, though occasionally made so by some writers for the sake of variety; as in the phrase “there exists [is] no reason for laying new taxes.” We may, indeed, say, “a friendship has long existed between them,” instead of saying, “there has long been a friendship between them;” but in this case, exist is not a mere copula. It is used in its appropriate sense to mark the friendship as having been long in existence. (note the definition of substance below)

    EXIST: To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual.

    FACT: Reality; actuality; truth; as, he, in fact, excelled all the rest; the fact is, he was beaten.

    MODE: Any combination of qualities or relations, considered apart from the substance to which they belong, and treated as entities; more generally, condition, or state of being; manner or form of arrangement or manifestation; form, as opposed to matter.

    ACTUAL: Existing in act or reality; really acted or acting; in fact; real; — opposed to potential, possible, virtual, speculative, conceivable, theoretical, or nominal; as, the actual cost of goods; the actual case under discussion.

    REAL: Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary; as, a description of real life. True; genuine; not artificial, counterfeit, or factitious; often opposed to ostensible; as, the real reason; real Madeira wine; real ginger.

    SUBSTANCE: That which underlies all outward manifestations; substratum; the permanent subject or cause of phenomena, whether material or spiritual; that in which properties inhere; that which is real, in distinction from that which is apparent; the abiding part of any existence, in distinction from any accident; that which constitutes anything what it is; real or existing essence.

    ******************************************

    • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 9:52 PM

      These are all considerations, which are considered relative to one another.

      .

      • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 10:22 PM

        I do not like this term considerations, and particularly not as the sole fundamental of reason. I speculate that it may be misleading, due to oversimplification and may very well obscure a full examination of all elements of process. That is why I do want to mix this examination with Hubbard`s materials — it is a very specific approach, I want to widen the approach and then review.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 9:36 AM

          I agree Maria. Also I speculate that as we widen the approach we will pull into view more frames of reference. Too many frames of reference will obfuscate our focus and because of the recursive and self-similar result, we will find our feet still firmly stuck in the MEST. This is really causing me to wonder at our approach generally to philosophy.

      • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 10:26 PM

        I am using consideration in the meaning it is intended in English language, and not necessarily as Hubbard intended. If you see any inconsistency in my usage then please point it out.

        .

  • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 7:14 PM

    Here is my first critique of

    Burnell’s Axiom #1: The inquiry is into the truth.

    The axiom assumes that there is a self that is interested in making this inquiry. Thus, it takes Scientology Axiom #1 for granted. So, it can’t be a fundamental axiom.

    My critique of Scientology Axiom #1 exists on this blog.

    .

    • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 7:41 PM

      You are not interested in an inquiry into the truth?

      I sure am.

      And what I have to work with right now is what I have to work with right now. Call me self, call me nothing, call me a sophisticated machine, the fact remains that I am here and I have no choice but to work with what I have to work with.

      It seems to me that this is every bit as fundamental than self versus no-self because the determination of the veracity of self versus no-self is based squarely on what I have to work with!

      I think it will be more productive not to attempt to sort at this stage. Better just to view it as it is for now without bringing Scientology into it. Hubbard has a very specific approach to all this that I think is better left behind while examining this. I have to tell you, I am deeply suspicious (perplexed) about the axioms of Scientology. That`s why I am examining this.

      But we need not examine here on your blog if you do not think it is worthwhile to do so– especially if it is not yielding anything of use to you — I just thought it would be fruitful to share the examination process.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 5, 2012 at 8:24 PM

        I agree Maria about confronting what we have and what we have to work with. This is the reason that I am looking further into the brain as a center of self or ego and possibly looking at the brain from the sense of it as an underachieving or underdeveloped organ.

        We truly don’t know what we are dealing with yet in Biology.

    • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 10:01 PM

      OK, so there is inquiry into truth, and truth is ‘what is’. I can accept that without having to bring self or spirit and perception into the picture.

      In “inquiry” I suppose both logic and looking are included.

      .

      • Maria  On November 5, 2012 at 11:14 PM

        I would think so.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 9:27 AM

        Actually Vinaire, “what is” would be a manifestation, wouldn’t it?
        Then the question would be can this elusive truth be a manifestation?

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM


          Truth = What is = manifestation = awareness

          .

  • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 7:21 PM

    I am having trouble understanding the following paragraph:

    “An axiom of the reason is discerned by the inability of the mind to conceive of the opposite; the notorious movement of the threshold of consciousness is not found to be actual, but apparent.”

    I can conceive that the opposite of day is night.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 5, 2012 at 8:08 PM

    Vinaire: consideration = . . . a reflection of what is.

    Chris: or should we write it vice versa? This inconsistency should point to some erring quality of a “quality of consideration.”

    • vinaire  On November 5, 2012 at 10:05 PM

      It seems that we consider to explain something. Initial considerations may appear to explain the unknowable.

      .

  • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 12:02 AM

    Okay, going back to Axiom I:

    An axiom of the reason is discerned by the inability of the mind to conceive of the opposite; the notorious movement of the threshold of consciousness is not found to be actual, but apparent.

    AXIOM: A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident as first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; as, “The whole is greater than a part;” “A thing can not, at the same time, be and not be.”

    REASON: Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty.

    ******************************

    This first paragraph describes how an axiom is discerned and differentiated from all other species of thought.

    When you hit a point where the mind is simply unable to find something opposing it, then you have hit a self-evident and necessary truth. You can`t strip it down any further and-or it is plain and obvious. It may in fact be an inability of the mind, but that`s what you have to work with so it ends there until further ability is developed or discovered or recovered or whatever.

    ********************************
    THRESHOLD: The place or point of entering or beginning, entrance; outset; as, the threshold of life.

    CONSCIOUSNESS: 1. The state of being conscious; knowledge of one’s own existence, condition, sensations, mental operations, acts, etc. — consciousness is thus, on the one hand, the recognition by the mind or “ego” of its acts and affections; — in other words, the self-affirmation that certain modifications are known by me, and that these modifications are mine. Sir W. Hamilton. 2. Immediate knowledge or perception of the presence of any object, state, or sensation. See the Note under Attention. Annihilate the consciousness of the object, you annihilate the consciousness of the operation.
    Sir W. Hamilton. — And, when the steam Which overflowed the soul had passed away, A consciousness remained that it had left. . . . images and precious thoughts That shall not die, and can not be destroyed. Wordsworth.
    The consciousness of wrong brought with it the consciousness of weakness.– Froude. 3. Feeling, persuasion, or expectation; esp., inward sense of guilt or innocence. [R.] An honest mind is not in the power of a dishonest: to break its peace there must be some guilt or consciousness. –Pope.

    ****************************
    the notorious movement of the threshold of consciousness is not found to be actual, but apparent.

    the well known movement (shifting) of the first beginning, outset, etc. of consciousness (it shifts) isn`t an actuality. i.e. the consciousness shifts, what is, is no matter the shifts in consciousness.

    ***********************
    Taking it all together:

    When you hit a point where the mind is simply unable to find something opposing it, then you have hit a self-evident and necessary truth. You can`t strip it down any further and-or it is plain and obvious. (It may in fact be an inability of the mind, but that`s what you have to work with so it ends there until further ability is developed or discovered or recovered or changed.)

    The well known movement (shifting) of the first beginning, outset, etc. of consciousness (it shifts) isn`t an actuality. i.e. the consciousness shifts, what is, is no matter the shifts in consciousness.

    The original statement:

    An axiom of the reason is discerned by the inability of the mind to conceive of the opposite; the notorious movement of the threshold of consciousness is not found to be actual, but apparent.

    • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 7:41 AM

      Good show! Let me summarize it for myself:

      (1) An axiom seems to be the result of pure looking. One is simply looking at what is. There is no consideration of the opposite. There is simply no other consideration.

      (2) An axiom is a fundamental starting consideration.

      (3) A consideration is conscious of itself. That seems to be the basic consciousness.

      (4) Shifting of consciousness does not change the fundamental starting consideration. It may just add to it.

      .

  • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 12:05 AM

    This is fun!

  • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 12:21 AM

    Axiom I: The inquiry is into the truth.

    I`m good with that now.

  • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 12:23 AM

    Axiom II: I. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.

  • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM

    I see that Axiom II above got cut off in the email I sent to you Vinaire. Here`s the entire section, including the missing part:

    II. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.

    The spirit of truth is the meaning, the significance of truth. That which is, that which is so – in contra-distinction to that which is not so — such is the common, inevitable meaning ascribed to the word truth.

    Not what may be so, not what seems so, but what is so in the final analysis; not what is so relatively, but what is so absolutely; for as Spencer affirms, “unless a real absolute be postulated the relative becomes absolute, and so brings the argument to contradiction.” (First Principles, Sec. 26.)

    What the reason must admit or abandon its nature; what is so by virtue of the reason’s being just what it is; what is axiomatic in the constitution of the reason; not only what the reason does believe in, but also what it cannot help believing in; that to which the reason can conceive no opposite; that which we cannot doubt, but do and must have faith in; that which we are forced to believe from the inability of the mind to think otherwise; such is axiomatic truth in the reason or faith.

    The three forms of expression and demonstration are (a) affirmation, which is the mental, verbal, and muscular admission, confession, and reception of axiomatic truth; executive acknowledgment; (b) denial, which is the mental, verbal and muscular rejection, refusal, repudiation of that which is not, of the false, of the error, of the illusion, of whatever the pure reason cannot believe in, of whatever the awakened and illumined consciousness finds unthinkable; (c) identification of affirmation and denial, which are not opposites, but as the striking of a light is the expulsion of the darkness, as the perception of the rope is the annihilation of the imagined snake, so denial and affirmation are the very same.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM

    I just realized that these are axioms to describe REASON, and not to describe whole of existence. OK, so lets look at it from a fresh viewpoint.

    AXIOM OF REASON #1 – The inquiry is into the truth.

    AXIOM OF REASON #2 – By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.

    So, REASON is the inquiry into the spirit of what is. This is perfectly fine. I call it LOOKING.

    Now, let’s look at the definition of REASON.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 6:44 AM

    Maria provided the following definition for REASON:

    REASON: The faculty or capacity of the human mind by which it is distinguished from the intelligence of the inferior animals; the higher as distinguished from the lower cognitive faculties, sense, imagination, and memory, and in contrast to the feelings and desires. Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty.

    (1) Reason is fully expressed at the level of humans, and not at the earlier levels of evolution of life.

    (2) The word REASON has the root meaning of ratio (comparing, judging) meaning “putting two and two together.”

    (3) Humans seems to put two and two together to a much higher degree than animals.

    (4) Reason is NOT feelings and desires.

    (5) The primary characteristic of REASON seems to be intuition – a sort of effortless realization of what is there. I call this looking.

    (6) Then there is the scientific method of conjecturing, theorizing and experimentally verifying. I call this looking supported by visualization.

    (7) And then there is the the discursive or ratiocinative approach of figuring it out. I call this logic that depends primarily on association.

    (8) Primarily, reason consists of LOOKING and LOGIC.

    (9) It is an iteration of using logic to determine where to look, and then looking.

    (10) This is like narrowing the target. Intuition comes when the target can be narrowed rapidly.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 7:20 AM

    And there is no absolute consistency.
    Because there is only relative truth and relative consistency, possibly we should be asking another; a different question. Maybe we aren’t seeking the right thing.
    Then again, since I can’t seem to ask the right question, possibly the right question doesn’t reside in the reality where “I” resides.

    • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 8:01 AM

      Consistency is relative to the SELF, or relative to the VIEWPOINT, which is a subset of self.

      Right question may come with patience.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 8:57 AM

    These are axioms of Reason. They are not in the same category as the axioms of Scientology. They are more like in the category of LOGICS of Scientology.

    Just for the fun of it:

    LOGIC 1: Knowledge is a whole group or subdivision of a group of data or speculations or conclusions on data or methods of gaining data.

    (1) We have groups of data as in Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Religions, etc.

    (2) In each of these groups we have subgroups of data. For example, under Biology there is data about, human bodies, marine animals, plants, insects, etc.

    (3) Theories abound in each of these subjects. They start as observations, continue as speculations and further observations, and end up as peer reviewed and experimentally validated theories.

    (4) Data is anything of which one may become aware. Anything manifested may be termed as a piece of data.

    (5) Postulates, considerations, opinions, anything mentioned here, etc. are all data.

    (6) All the above is knowledge. Knowledge is entirely concerned with grouping of data, association among data, building upon data, accessing data, etc.

    .

    So, when one is inquiring into truth, one is inquiring into what exists (data). One is looking at what exists to see if it can be summed up more succinctly.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM

    The second para of axiom #1 states:

    “The identity of reason and faith is perceived by understanding that consciousness must be an authority as a test of truth; the value of reason is seen in the demonstration of the Socratic axiom that humanity errs only from its mistaken judgments; the power of reason is evident from the fact that the goddess has but to show herself to take sovereignty.”

    (1) Consciousness is awareness. Reason is Inquiry into ‘what is’. Faith is the reference point of looking.

    (2) Reason is needed to penetrate the errors of judgment.

    (3) No further inquiry is needed after one sees ‘what is’.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 9:45 AM

    Truth is the most perfect virtue,
    And the highest good in itself,
    Not troubled by matter,
    Not encompassed by a body,
    Naked, clear, unchangeable,
    Venerable, unalterable, good.
    —Hermes

    The ultimate truth is beyond manifestation. It is unknowable. Manifestation provides a particular or peculiar identity or individuality, which may be considered another level of truth.

    Anything manifested is changeable.

    .

    • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM

      Wait til you see where he goes with this! He is relentless. It shall be most interesting to follow along his line of reasoning to see where it leads.

      BTW I thought your summary list from the first two axioms was well conceived.

      I would very much like to see the work you have been doing stand independently as its own work philosophically. Perhaps this exercise will serve to enable that. I suspect that Burnell`s work had enormous effects on the work of others even though his published works faded into relative obscurity.

      • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM

        Yes. I am curiously looking forward to further revelations.

        To me all knowledge is connected. My purpose is to express the fundamentals of ‘what is’ as succinctly as possible. Each iteration of axioms should improve upon the previous one. Here we are dealing with Axioms of Reason. As yet I don’t know how they will influence the KHTK Axioms, but I am sure they will.

        All these people were brilliant. I just hope that I am able to contribute something worthwhile by finding the interface between physics an metaphysics.

        I am enjoying this exercise.

        .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 9:48 AM

    The true self which is free from sin,
    Free from old age and fear,
    Free from death and grief,
    Free from hunger and thirst,
    Which desires only what it should desire,
    Which imagines only what it should imagine,
    That it is which we must search out,
    That it is which we must understand,
    He who has searched out the true self,
    Obtains all worlds and all desires.
    —Upanishad.

    It is THAT which is not fixed by any consideration. It is totally free of all considerations. It is what it is.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM

    Burnell says:

    “Not what may be so, not what seems so, but what is so in the final analysis; not what is so relatively, but what is so absolutely; for as Spencer affirms, “unless a real absolute be postulated the relative becomes absolute, and so brings the argument to contradiction.” (First Principles, Sec. 26.)”

    Truth seems to have an infinity of levels. When the truth is recognized as ‘what is’ it reduces to that recognition and understanding. At a later instance, that recognition and understanding may be looked at more closely in a wider context. It may lead to a deeper recognition and understanding… and so on.

    .

    • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 10:15 AM

      That makes sense to me.

      I was looking at the 1913 definition of absolute — which First Principles would have contributed to — for further discourse and meaning that may have gone obsolete in the last century.

      ABSOLUTE:

      1. Loosed from any limitation or condition; uncontrolled; unrestricted; unconditional; as, absolute authority, monarchy, sovereignty, an absolute promise or command; absolute power; an absolute monarch.
      Complete in itself; perfect; consummate; faultless; as, absolute perfection; absolute beauty.

      So absolute she seems,
      And in herself complete.
      Milton.

      2. Viewed apart from modifying influences or without comparison with other objects; actual; real; — opposed to relative and comparative; as, absolute motion; absolute time or space.

      Absolute rights and duties are such as pertain to man in a state of nature as contradistinguished from relative rights and duties, or such as pertain to him in his social relations.

      3. Loosed from, or unconnected by, dependence on any other being; self-existent; self-sufficing.

      * In this sense God is called the Absolute by the Theist. The term is also applied by the Pantheist to the universe, or the total of all existence, as only capable of relations in its parts to each other and to the whole, and as dependent for its existence and its phenomena on its mutually depending forces and their laws.

      4. Capable of being thought or conceived by itself alone; unconditioned; non-relative.

      * It is in dispute among philosopher whether the term, in this sense, is not applied to a mere logical fiction or abstraction, or whether the absolute, as thus defined, can be known, as a reality, by the human intellect.

      To Cusa we can indeed articulately trace, word and thing, the recent philosophy of the absolute.–Sir W. Hamilton.

      5. Positive; clear; certain; not doubtful. [R.]
      I am absolute ‘t was very Cloten.–Shak.

      6. Authoritative; peremptory.[R.]
      The peddler stopped, and tapped her on the head,
      With absolute forefinger, brown and ringed.
      Mrs. Browning.

      6. Pure; unmixed; as, absolute alcohol.

      • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM

        I like the definition of ABSOLUTE as ‘complete in itself’. Here we have nothing to compare to (another definition) . For example, this universe is absolute because we have no other universe to compare it to. Any universe we may dream up is also part of this universe, this being a universe of consideration, space, energy, matter and time.

        This is the definition that seems to apply when we have absolute certainty on ‘what is’. Other definitions are different perspectives on the same concept.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 9:14 PM

          Then we have to define “itself” in the context that you use. For me, when you say “itself” in this context I understand you to mean the current and the extant frame of reference.

        • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 9:55 PM

          I am going by Maria’s definition. To me, it means that something is its own frame of reference. Let’s see what Maria has to say.

          .

      • Rafael  On November 6, 2012 at 10:55 PM

        So truth ends up being what seems to be absolute to us, what lies at the limit of our ability to perceive or consider, or what limits our ability to do so, and changes as our ability to push those frontiers increase (hopefully) :-).

    • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM

      Exactly where I am going. Therefore the infinity of fractal construct is simply that: Many Levels of Truth. or I can write Many Frames of Reference of Truth.

      This can be judged through many filters. It could be viewed as “what is.” It could also be viewed as “a trap.”

      These evaluations of what obviously seems to be there might be what I should be looking at.

      • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM

        I would start with looking at whatever is there, and not with what I want to be there.

        .

  • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 10:07 AM

    I am off for the day again, I`ll leave you with Axiom IV

    IV. Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence.

    Because there can be nothing besides what is for it to change into; truth cannot change into nothing because there is no such thing; truth cannot change from one thing into another in itself because there is no difference or distinction in it, since it is universal sameness. Such is the persistent statement of the wise and good.

    Since truth is permanence and all there is or can be, there is no such thing as change at all.

    Hence all hope that looks for change is vain, for the mind is fixed by love upon permanence. Know then that there is nothing but permanence, nothing but constancy, nothing but reliability, nothing but immutability. There is only stability and security, faithfulness and unswervability, reliance and substantiality.

    There can in truth be no growth, no evolution, no ambition, no development, no greed, no betterment, and if not in truth, then not at all. Such is the perception of permanence, steadfastness, loyalty, constancy, unvariableness.

    • Rafael  On November 6, 2012 at 11:08 PM

      To me that amounts to truth becoming a trap, and I just hope it must end up being exactly the opposite

    • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 12:39 AM

      Got to agree with Rafael on this. I’m reading Burnell’s Axiom IV and wondering what he is talking about. I know what the words mean in a conventional sense and because I am misunderstanding his paragraph so thoroughly, I think there must be something wrong with my own sense of reason.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 10:09 AM

    Burnell says:

    “What the reason must admit or abandon its nature; what is so by virtue of the reason’s being just what it is; what is axiomatic in the constitution of the reason; not only what the reason does believe in, but also what it cannot help believing in; that to which the reason can conceive no opposite; that which we cannot doubt, but do and must have faith in; that which we are forced to believe from the inability of the mind to think otherwise; such is axiomatic truth in the reason or faith.”

    So we come down to an absolute certainty in recognizing what is. So, that is what it is at that level of truth. But then this recognition and understanding may open the door to a wider context of looking and may lead to a higher level of truth.

    Each layer may have absolute certainty attached to it. But it may then open new doors that were not open before.

    .

    • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 10:19 AM

      Yes, it is always an absolute certainty in recognizing what is. Every step of the way, and it is that absolute certainty that replaces perplexity and thus is seen to be good and satisfactory. Its that way because it can`t be any other way!

    • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM

      Each layer DOES have absolute certainty attached to it.

      Maria: It’s that way because it can’t be any other way!

      Chris: It’s ok with me if it is that way because it can’t be any other way, but I question if it can’t be any other way. If it can’t be any other way, then that seems deterministic to me — makes me deterministic. That’s ok.

      I am seeing the makings of a new religion out of determinism. It would be a type of super-physics. (naturally, because writing that provided a brief respite from my struggles with the questions at hand, I felt relief. There is more to understand about epiphany.)

      • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 10:44 AM

        Well, there is your discreteness.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 12:41 AM

          Maybe but “absolute certainty” has no particular claim on Truth that I know of.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 6:29 AM

          Something is discrete only when it is all rounded up and tied with a ribbon nicely. That is what makes something discrete and not fuzzy.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM

          Well this seems to be the direction I am going — toward the discrete aspects of MEST. But could you please clarify your point?

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

          Discreteness reminds me of an electron which is mostly concentrated in the center but boundaries extend to infinity.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 11:36 PM

          I understand your words but am missing your metaphor – please say more.

  • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

    Burnell says:

    “The three forms of expression and demonstration are (a) affirmation, which is the mental, verbal, and muscular admission, confession, and reception of axiomatic truth; executive acknowledgment; (b) denial, which is the mental, verbal and muscular rejection, refusal, repudiation of that which is not, of the false, of the error, of the illusion, of whatever the pure reason cannot believe in, of whatever the awakened and illumined consciousness finds unthinkable; (c) identification of affirmation and denial, which are not opposites, but as the striking of a light is the expulsion of the darkness, as the perception of the rope is the annihilation of the imagined snake, so denial and affirmation are the very same.”

    Burnell seems to be saying that affirmation and denial are apparent only. Both disappear as one recognizes ‘what is’.

    Now I am ready to tackle Burnell’s Axiom III. But I have to do some other things now.

    .

  • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 7:02 PM

    I`m moving this axiom down here so we don`t have to hunt for it above.

    III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.

    Because there cannot be anything besides what is; having found out what is, we must cancel what is not, leaving what is, or truth, to be all there is or can be. There can be no such thing as what is not. Speaking truly, a lie (what is not so) is nothing at all.

    Thus it is obvious why all the illumined say that truth is all there is. To be at all, a thing must be what it is, for how can anything be what it is not or what is not!
    What a thing is must be all there is to it – what is, is all and must be all. Sooner or later it must be self-evident to us that truth is universality. What is not means nothing, therefore what is not is unthinkable, since the reason cannot try to conceive of nothing without making something of it.

    Whatever shall be found at last to be so will be found to be all in all. Such is the perception of allness, completeness, wholeness, health, entireness, absoluteness, universality, incomparability; such is truth.

    What is so plus what is not so about anything equals all there is to it; then canceling what is not so as nothing we have left what is so equals all. Thus truth is the same as allness. Kant announced the allness of truth.

    [I have deleted the duplicate at the earlier location because there were no responses attached to it. And I have moved the following definition form Maria here for convenience sake. ~ Vinaire]

    UNIVERSALITY: The quality or state of being universal; unlimited extension or application; generality; — distinguished from particularity; as, the unIversality of a proposition; the unIversality of sin; the unIversality of the Deluge. (1913)

    .

    • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 7:12 PM

      I would consider UNIVERSE to be the super set of everything considered. If somebody dreams up something “outside the universe”, it would actually be part of this universe being a consideration.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 9:57 PM

        This is more of an axiom than some of these others which contain assumptions.

      • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 11:52 PM

        No — take care here. He does not say universe. He says universality. Two different concepts. Universality: unlimited extension or application; generality; — distinguished from particularity. You are talking about a collection in a set. He is not.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 5:52 AM

          Alright, so truth is universal, which means truth to be a characteristic that is applicable to everything. Is this what you mean?

          Well, such characteristics are:
          Existence
          Consideration
          Space
          Energy
          Matter
          Time

          That is what I have taken up in the beginning KHTK AXIOMS.

          .

    • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 9:25 PM

      AXIOM OF REASON #1 – The inquiry is into the truth.
      AXIOM OF REASON #2 – By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
      AXIOM OF REASON #3 – Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.

      Burnell says:
      “Because there cannot be anything besides what is; having found out what is, we must cancel what is not, leaving what is, or truth, to be all there is or can be. There can be no such thing as what is not. Speaking truly, a lie (what is not so) is nothing at all.”

      So, this universe is ‘what is.’ One’s filters are also the part of ‘what is’. Lies are also part of ‘what is.’ In short, all thoughts, ideas, considerations, etc. are also part of what is.

      .

      • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 12:01 AM

        No, lies are not part of what is. They are a mask of falseness that obscures what is. They are not what is. They APPEAR to be what is until you remove them and then what remains is what is. Remove the consideration that is masking what is and you have what is. It may be that what is defined as universe is largely composed of false considerations that once exposed reveal the truth.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 12:56 AM

          This reads like a long version of Vin’s neti-neti — “neither this nor that.” I can follow that drill parallel to your “Remove the consideration that is masking what is and you have what is” to also get at “what is.”

          I do not intend to be a curmudgeon. You guys are better at this axiomatic foundation building and I am good at looking for cracks. That statement puts me in the category of critic but I guess that is what a building inspector is.

        • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 2:18 AM

          Don`t mistake my efforts to think this through as holding a position on all this. I will write my answers as best I can push through it and I am counting on you to look for cracks. Part of what I am doing with all this is watching my own processes as we work through this. You call them cracks, I call them corner-of-the-eye slippiness, creeping around the edges where I can just see the very tip of the thread. So don`t hesitate to bring things up and don`t hesitate to poke around. Burnell may be way off base, but I am finding it very useful to look from this radical point of view. And he may be right. I cannot say that I have 100% established the truth even for myself although maybe I just think I haven`t. But its dog-at-a-bone for me and so here I am.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 10:45 PM

          Point taken Maria. I don’t make that assumption about you. I know we are exploring here. All these metaphors for searching for and finding consistencies and inconsistencies are fine and understandable for me.

          I don’t care and wouldn’t say that Burnell is “way off base.” I’m not that smart anyways. My plan is to consult him as you present and look for bits to learn. Ultimately, my hypothesis is that he looked from a certain frame of reference and things looked a certain way from that point of view. From that point of view I think that considerations can be consistent and from another point of view, viewing different considerations that those can also be consistent though they be different.

          Likewise, inconsistent considerations won’t necessarily remain inconsistent in every frame of reference once they are applied to a different frame of reference from the initial frame viewed. They may become more consistent.

          All jigsaw pieces are inconsistent one to another until such a time as each and every piece is turned only one certain way. Like your cat, the pieces are discrete and yet inter-related to make a whole.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 6:25 AM

          I would say that if it is a “mask of falseness” then that’s what it is. It is not nothing. It is a “mask of falseness”.

          That is the concept of as-is-ness that I like.

          .

    • vinaire  On November 6, 2012 at 9:52 PM

      Burnell says:
      “Thus it is obvious why all the illumined say that truth is all there is. To be at all, a thing must be what it is, for how can anything be what it is not or what is not!
      What a thing is must be all there is to it – what is, is all and must be all. Sooner or later it must be self-evident to us that truth is universality. What is not means nothing, therefore what is not is unthinkable, since the reason cannot try to conceive of nothing without making something of it.”

      Burnell does not seem to regard “nothing” as part of ‘what is’.

      There is an inconsistency here. If I am looking at a question and I get no answer, then the truth for me is, “there is no answer.” Will that be acceptable as truth to Burnell?

      .

      • Maria  On November 6, 2012 at 11:55 PM

        No he is saying if it is, then it is. It cannot be nothing and something at the same time. It is or it isn`t. If it isn`t then it isn`t and therefore is nothing, nothing being nothing at all. A lie is false, which means it isn`t.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 12:48 AM

          Maria: No he is saying if it is, then it is. It cannot be nothing and something at the same time. It is or it isn`t. If it isn`t then it isn`t and therefore is nothing, nothing being nothing at all. A lie is false, which means it isn`t.

          Chris: Your statement remains consistent until the final sentence when “A lie is false, which means it isn’t” is in itself completely false to me. Why is this last sentence not false to you?

          If you mean that a lie is false and so therefore it is not true, I get the tautology, but that is as far as I get.

        • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 1:24 AM

          This is good and I really want to work this through.

          A lie is something that is held to be true, held to be in existence, but in fact does not exist or has a different existence than claimed.

          If it is a lie, and it actually exists as something in its own right, then it is not a lie, but it may be incorrectly attributed to something.

          As an example, the flat earth idea. It existed as an opinion. And it can continue to have existence as an opinion, even though it has been proven to be false. We cannot say the opinion exists therefore it is true — it is not what is. Therefore it is really nothing — its an opinion and not a thing at all.

        • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 1:32 AM

          Perhaps this is the genus of the idea that one can dissolve a lie, but cannot dissolve the truth. The lie is essentially nothing and so can disappear. When all the lies have been disappeared, then they no longer obscure what is.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 6:10 AM

          I like the way Hubbard puts it, It is truth when one recognizing a lie to be a lie. A work of fiction calling itself fiction is the truth. This is as-is-ness. You recognize something for what it is.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 10:50 PM

          I don’t understand your use of the term “as-isness” in this context and also in the comment “this is the type of as-isness that I like.”

        • Rafael  On November 7, 2012 at 8:29 AM

          Maybe this can be tackled with set theory:

          Burnell is saying Truth is a set which is perfect, complete, so it includes everything, but falsehood cannot be included in that set, therefore falsehood can not exist, otherwise it would turn truth into a sub-set and falsehood into another sub-set of a bigger set which would encompass both and whose name would be…………………?

        • Rafael  On November 7, 2012 at 8:42 AM

          So it seems the problem begins when we try to know something by looking at it as a discrete, distinct set, as the cat example, but it really cannot exist as such.

        • Rafael  On November 7, 2012 at 8:52 AM

          The moment we create a set, we give it boundaries, making it incomplete.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 8:57 AM

          See comment-5534

          .

        • Rafael  On November 7, 2012 at 9:32 AM

          Yes, it is like saying what is not included in this set does not exist, and by that, we are defining reality, but more exactly, what we are defining (and trapping inside limits) is our reality.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

          And this may be true and typical of the discrete set of the instant moment.

      • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 1:49 AM

        On the not getting an answer…

        Hmmm… I would imagine he would say that nothing happened when you asked the question. Saying that nothing happened would be true. Nothing happened.

        Fascinating.

      • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 6:17 AM

        It seems that Burnell is saying,

        What is, IS. It is not something else.

        That’s a tautology. It is confusing to attach too many words to it.

        .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 10:35 PM

        Vinaire: “There is an inconsistency here. If I am looking at a question and I get no answer, then the truth for me is, ‘there is no answer.’ ”

        Chris: I’d rather say ” I haven’t gotten an answer.” Thus leaving the door open.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 10:42 PM

          Yes, you are right.

          I was looking from the viewpoint of a pc in a session. The answer may not be there because other things may have to be unburdened first. But repetitive questioning of a process makes it hard on the pc.

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 6, 2012 at 9:55 PM

      Wow. I don’t know where to begin. I have to spend more time on it but at first glance is a mish-mash of consistent and inconsistent assumptions.

      Maybe except for his “What is not means nothing, therefore what is not is unthinkable, since the reason cannot try to conceive of nothing without making something of it.” This seems consistent to me but not the rest of the paragraph.

  • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 8:38 AM

    Burnell says:
    “Whatever shall be found at last to be so will be found to be all in all. Such is the perception of allness, completeness, wholeness, health, entireness, absoluteness, universality, incomparability; such is truth.”

    What Burnell seems to be saying is that any manifestation is absolute in itself. It is discrete.

    Does that mean all manifestations are independent of each other? I believe that to be inconsistent with my observations. I see relationships among manifestations.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 8:44 AM

    Burnell says:
    “What is so plus what is not so about anything equals all there is to it; then canceling what is not so as nothing we have left what is so equals all. Thus truth is the same as allness. Kant announced the allness of truth..”

    (What is so) + (What is not so) = all there is to anything
    (What is not so) = nothing

    Therefore,
    (What is so) = all there is to anything

    The assumption seems to be
    (What is not so) = nothing

    What does Burnell mean by that?

    .

    • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 8:48 AM

      To me, “what is not so” is part of the filter, and filter exists.

      Therefore, we cannot assume “what is not so” is nothing, meaning it can be totally disregarded, or ignored.

      Unless, this point is sorted out, it would be a waste of time to look at subsequent axioms from Burnell, because they would all be tainted by this inconsistency.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 9:33 AM

      I, The inquiry is into the truth.
      II. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
      III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.
      IV. Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence.

      There is inconsistency at III. that needs to be sorted out.

      .

      .

    • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM

      This is where I like the concept of “consideration”.

      “What is not so” is a consideration, and it exists as a consideration.

      “What is not so” is not nothing. It is not unknowable.

      It is knowable as a consideration.

      .

  • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 9:20 AM

    1913 Definitions

    NOTHING:

    1. Not anything; no thing (in the widest sense of the word thing); — opposed to anything and something.

    Yet had his aspect nothing of severe. Dryden.

    2. Nonexistence; nonentity; absence of being; nihility; nothingness. Shak.

    3. A thing of no account, value, or note; something irrelevant and impertinent; something of comparative unimportance; utter insignificance; a trifle.

    Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought. Is. xli. 24.

    ‘T is nothing, says the fool; but, says the friend,
    This nothing, sir, will bring you to your end. Dryden.

    4. A cipher; naught.

    Nothing but, only; no more than. Chaucer. — To make nothing of. (a) To make no difficulty of; to consider as trifling or important. “We are industrious to preserve our bodies from slavery, but we make nothing of suffering our souls to be slaves to our lusts.” Ray. (b) Not to understand; as, I could make nothing of what he said.

    CIPHER:

    1. A character [0] which, standing by itself, expresses nothing, but when placed at the right hand of a whole number, increases its value tenfold.

    2. One who, or that which, has no weight or influence.
    Here he was a mere cipher.
    W. Irving.

    3. A character in general, as a figure or letter.
    [Obs.]
    This wisdom began to be written in ciphers and characters and letters bearing the forms of creatures.
    Sir W. Raleigh.

  • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 10:00 AM

    What is truly weird about all this is that when one pushes down the chain of existence coming at last to quantum we get:

    –particle appearing–particle disappearing–

    The only way we know it has disappeared is that it is no longer there. We have to refer to it`s past existence to remark that it is no longer appearing. To refer to it as gone, we have to hold an idea of it in place as a character or marker. So in fact we are referring to a marker that stands for the true or real particle. The next time it appears we compare it to our marker and remark that it has appeared again. The marker is now set to 2 times. But the marker is not the particle itself. It is a representation of the particle.

    So the sequence is:

    Particle appears — call it A so we can refer to it — marker
    Particle disappears — we say A is not there, or we say this is MINUS A
    Particle appears — oh, look, its A again (but it isn`t A, it just looks like A)
    Particle disappears — oh look, its minus A again (not really)

    A is not what is. A is a marker and not the particle at all.

    • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 10:03 AM

      So what A represents is the universality and it is the universality we recognize?

      • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 10:14 AM

        1913 FORM: That assemblage or disposition of qualities which makes a conception, or that internal constitution which makes an existing thing to be what it is; — called essential or substantial form, and contradistinguished from matter; hence, active or formative nature; law of being or activity; subjectively viewed, an idea; objectively, a law.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 12:36 PM

          This definition might fit under my axiom on space.

          .

      • Rafael  On November 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM

        what if…..to recognize something we need to assign it universality?

        Thinking needs definite values to work with, discrete values which sometimes are even being considered absolute inside the thinking process.

        Seems like absolutes can exist inside our mind as frames of reference, but the problem of what is reality cannot be really placed inside any given frame of reference…..or can it?

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 3:08 PM

          Absoluteness may manifest as fixation on an idea, as in “fixed ideas”, but this may not translate as ultimate reality.

          Similarly, there may be absolute consistency among certain considerations, but that may not translate as ultimate reality either.

          Such absoluteness exist in terms of consideration only. In reality, all considerations are manifestations, and any manifestation may be dissolved.

          This makes truth to be beyond consideration. Truth would be a recognition of something for what it is. And that dissolves whatever is there into understanding. And there can be deeper and deeper levels of understanding.

          Thus, truth would be sort of an operation that generates and dissolves considerations. It is not a consideration in itself.

          Unknowable is beyond consideration. This look at truth seems to give us an entry into the realm of unknowable. This is the same concept as as-is-ness. This is the dimension of unknowable.

          This is what Buddha is talking about as mindfulness.

          Is this what Burnell is saying? His words are confusing to me.

          .

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 3:16 PM

          I suddenly realized the following:

          Corollary: Space, energy, matter and time are the considerations of beingness.

          I have made it a corollary to KHTK AXIOM FOUR.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

          And if there is a RWOT?

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 4:06 PM

          Is there?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 11:08 PM

          Cute but my question was to redirect your attention to consider your corollary in light of there being a real world out there — what if. Your corollary becomes inconsistent if there is a RWOT.

        • Rafael  On November 7, 2012 at 9:15 PM

          seems like every consideration, to exist, must contain a lie, and therefore all considerations must vanish because they are obscuring the truth. This would be equivalent to full erasure of the hard drive.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM

          Rafael, I’m beginning to see a problem with the word “lie.” At least to the degree that we use it with a negative connotation.

          I am seeing the “drift” or tendency to “tend away” from an initial point. It is the fractal math joined with discrete iterations which is the model I am seeing represented by these discussions about truth. The fractal iteration accounts for the alter-isness which we have been taught is the reason for persistence or the lie.

        • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM

          What is the difference between a consideration and a lie?

          There is a consideration. We do not know who or what is considering. Shall we call it a consideration or shall we call it a manifestation?

          The manifestation obscures the trigger that brought it about. The manifestation of self, for example, seems to replace the trigger, and becomes the Cause of Scientology Factor #1.

          For our purposes, that trigger is unknowable. A manifestation becomes a consideration or a lie when it is associated with Cause or Self, or when it is assumed to be extending from Cause or Self.

          So, the first level of manifestation is Cause or Self. The next level of manifestation is a consideration. That is lie right there.

          Then we have another level of manifestation as alteration of that previous level of consideration. We now call this a lie. We do not look at the previous level of consideration as a lie.

          And, how about the primary level of Cause or Self? Isn’t that obscuring the unknowable?

          .

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 9:36 PM

          All considerations are obscuring AXIOM ZERO

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 11:01 PM

          Maybe it can if every “frame” is a reality — complete.

        • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 4:10 PM

          Chris could you explain how are you defining a lie? I got lost there.

          Is it some type of fractal iteration?

          Could it be that the root of the fractal, the basic structure of the fractal, is what creates persistence?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 8:54 PM

          Yes! Funny. You always begin by saying you don’t understand then reiterate what I meant right back to me.

          The point on a graph in the complex plane is right there. Then the next point is almost right there but just over. Each iteration the coordinates move.

          The alter-is which supposedly “creates” persistence, the “lie of persistence” can be accounted for in this fractal “drift.” Also in Wolfram’s work. And beginning with Alan Turing’s work.

        • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 10:14 PM

          Ha ha ha !! Funny but I sutil don’t understand you Chris !!!(ior maybe I don’t understand myself ha ha ha!)
          Is the fractal iteration a moverment in time or a change in other característics of mest or a structural lie which remains constant in all iterations and belongs to their basic structure ?
          Or is it all of them ?

          I just noticed I always end up my question making my best guess at the answer and also my understanding increases as I formulate the question….. Or maybe I’m becoming Chris Thomson, which would be correct if my last guess was the answer … It is not correct right ?
          Now seriously speaking thank you for telling me that I hope I don’t seem to be sarcastic I appreciate you very much and have learned one hell of a lot from you pal. 🙂
          I’ll be more careful with my questios in the future 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 11:03 PM

          That’s so funny because it is you whom I learn from. God help you if you become me, then you would have to learn from you and you are already you so talk to yourself! haha

          One model; maybe metaphor that I like is the personal computer. It takes discrete little bits and knits those into fractally relational wholes.

          Rafael asks: Is the fractal iteration a movement in time?
          Chris: Like the personal computer, I think that reality runs on a type of clock speed. This might be the clock speed of a real world out there or it might be the clock speed of my perception; of my wave collapse. There may or may not be a RWOT. Or there might. All this is conjecture. Anyway, there may not be any movement but movement may be an apparency created by quantum jumping.

          Electrons quantum jump (Noun: An abrupt transition of an electron, atom, or molecule from one quantum state to another, with absorption or emission of a quantum.) This belies movement. “It is saying the electron is in a state. It did not move. Now it is in another state.”

          The coordinates located in the complex plane using fractal geometry are discrete bits. But they flesh out an apparently cohesive whole thing.

        • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

          Nice example Chris I think I’ve got it now 🙂

      • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

        Maria, It seems that way to me and this is what we commonly refer to as memory.

    • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM

      Burnell says: What is not means nothing, therefore what is not is unthinkable, since the reason cannot try to conceive of nothing without making something of it.

      • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 12:33 PM

        Is Burnell talking about the unknowable?

        .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 5:06 PM

        This comment of Burnell’s seems to be consistent to me. It is at once the Unknowable and then having spoken it is not. I think we kind of have to leave it alone at that point.

    • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM

      “IT” is constant, expressed in new form. The form is produced from “IT”?

    • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 10:47 AM

      When a particle disappears, it is assumed that it is gone in an absolute sense. Is that true?

      I would think that it has changed form to a potential or something else, but it is not gone completely. It may then appear to its previous form.

      Why not?

      .

      • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 11:43 AM

        When you delete the information on a hard drive, what you are really doing is overwriting what was there with 0. What was overwritten is still there, but is not available to read. What is now available to read is 0. This is the essence of multiple undo operations.

        When you erase information on a hard drive you remove the information completely. It is null. No undo operation is possible.

        When you wipe a hard drive, you remove all of the information and the formatting that enables the recording of the information. Until you format the hard drive, you cannot record. There is no recognition function remaining.

        When you program information you have to instantiate a memory address in random access memory and then you can swap variables in and out of RAM. When all operations are complete, the result (a series of on and off charges) is impressed onto the hard drive in a fixed location called memory.

        On is a positive charge and off is a negative charge. Null is no charge. Remove all of the positive charge and no meaningful information remains. Remove all of the negative charge and no meaningful information remains. i.e. If you bring a powerful magnet into the hard drives vicinity the charge is pulled out of the locations it is stored in. A powerful magnet removes the formatting as well.

        Note that through all of these operations, the medium remains, and I guess it could be thought of as the ground state.

        It is this very medium that is the subject of the zero-point field, the ground state which fluctuates.

        Well, that`s one way of looking at all this which may help but with caution — it is a model.

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 12:39 PM

          For me, KHTK AXIOM ZERO provides the “ground state”.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 10:58 PM

          A model? Yes I think that computers have unerringly gravitated toward a model of the actual human mind.

      • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 11:49 AM

        Or how about this view:

        Particle appears — call it A so we can refer to it
        Particle disappears — we say A is not there, or we say this is MINUS A
        Particle appears — oh, look, its A again (but it isn`t A, it looks LIKE A)
        Particle disappears — oh look, its minus A again (not really)
        A is not what is. A is a marker and not the particle at all.

        So “A” is a rule or literally SUB-STANCE that informs?

        How about this?

        The original particle is matter informed by “A”
        The marker is matter informed by “A”
        The new particle is matter informed by “A”
        The “physical” components are not “A” but they are informed by “A”

        “A” is constant. It is always the same even though the outward form components are never the same components. Multiples of “A” can appear. They all have “A” in common, but that’s all they have in common because every one of the multiples exists in a different time-space.

        When we count, we count instances of “A,” literally appearances of “A” standing in matter or energy.

        Instance: IN-STAND (standing in)?

        • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 12:44 PM

          To me “what is not” is not nothing. It exists as a consideration, or marker, or whatever.

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 5:01 PM

      Yes, and when A appears again, not only will it not be the same A of the previous appearance, but it will be an em>altered form of the previous appearance. This comes as close to truth about MEST as I know.

      • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 8:10 PM

        What difference does it make if it is the same A or not? After all it is just a consideration.

        .

  • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 8:57 PM

    Let me take another look at Burnell’s Axiom III:

    What Burnell seems to be saying is that TRUTH IS THE UNIVERSALITY OF WHAT IS. Beyond that is the unthinkable.

    So, truth is limited to all that we can conceive and perceive.

    Let me now look at Axiom IV,

    .

  • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 9:03 PM

    I, The inquiry is into the truth.
    II. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
    III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.

    .

    IV. Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence.

    The inconsistency that I see right away is that Burnell limits truth to ‘what is’ (manifestation) and then says that truth is that aspect, which does not change.

    No aspect of manifestation is ever permanent. So what is truth? Is truth THAT, which is beyond manifestation?

    .

    • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 9:49 PM

      I screwed up Vinaire — I thought I had copy pasted Axiom 4 but I accidentally copy pasted Axiom 5 instead. Here is Axiom 4

      IV. Truth is indivisibility; such is the perception of unity.

      Because there is not anything besides what is, with which to divide the truth, since truth is all; truth is not divisible into parts because there is not anything besides the all to put between any such assumed parts.

      There can be nothing besides what is with which to establish any distinction or difference. It is an axiom of pure reasoning that a substance cannot be divided into parts unless there is something besides the substance to divide the substance with and to put between the parts so obtained in order to constitute an actual division, separation, or distinction.

      If you assume a negative or a “nothing” to accomplish a division your division will be hypothetical only and therefore imaginary. If you assume that the truth might be divided by itself, you assume that the truth might be divided by itself, you assume an unthinkable supposition, and wherever in any science such a division is assumed (as 10 divided by 10) the quotient from such hypothetical division is always pronounced to be one, which is taken to signify that no division can be predicated.

      There is nothing different from truth for it to attribute itself to or to be an attribute of it. There is nothing for an attribute to be but what is.

      We do not affirm that allness and indivisibility are attributes of truth but that truth is the very same as allness and indivisibility.

      In reality there can be no such thing as attribute or quality. Truth is just what it is, not partly what it is but wholly and entirely and exactly what it is.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 11:50 PM

        Burnell seems to have viewed from another space-time when there still were universal truths to be found in principles regarding the world. Einstein hadn’t yet been proven. Quantum mechanics was a weird and fringe idea by “those scientists.”

        We will be forming up new or additional universalities but they seem to becoming different from these earlier universalities.

    • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 9:50 PM

      Let’s look once again at the thought here: comment-5556.

      Truth is not ‘what is’, but a recognition of ‘what is’.

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 11:42 PM

      No, not by what I am reading here.

  • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 10:01 PM

    I, The inquiry is into the truth.
    II. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
    III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.

    .

    IV. Truth is indivisibility; such is the perception of unity..

    .

    OK. Let’s took at this fix on Axiom IV. I would repeat what i just said a moment ago.

    Truth is not ‘what is’, but a recognition of ‘what is’.

    Axioms III and IV start to make more sense when this correction is made to Axiom II.

    The recognition of ‘what is’ is what Hubbard called as-is-ness, and Buddha called mindfulness. This concept goes beyond consideration and provides us with a window into the unknowable.

    .

    • Maria  On November 7, 2012 at 10:29 PM

      Strictly speaking, it seems to me that cognition would be as-is-ness, re-cognition would be is-ness. i.e. applying to repetitive patterns of manifestation. Otherwise the RE in recognition is unnecessary.

      cognize: to perceive, become conscious of, become aware of, or know.

      recognize: To know again; to perceive the identity of, with a person or thing previously known; to recover or recall knowledge of.

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM

        Maybe “cognition” goes along with creation; and “recognition” goes along with dissolution.

        Just a conjecture…

        .

    • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 10:33 PM

      I think we have overcome a major hurdle presented in Axiom II.

      .

    • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 1:33 PM

      Truth is not ‘what is’, but a recognition of ‘what is’.

      This works nice, (Also with cognition, but recognition could also be understood as knowing again as in the moment of creation) in my experience It goes like this:

      When I´m looking, I go from not-is-ness to is-ness, and when I see the lie (or inconsistency), as-is-ness comes, and there is an instant of truth.

      So, there are many things that seem to be truth in our way, actually, everything we see “seems to be truth”, and each time we get rid of a lie, we move in the direction of truth.
      Is there an absolute truth in the end? Can it be reached?

      With what I can see now Burnell might be using truth as an ideal which one does not really have to reach in an absolute way, and which might even not really exist as such.
      It would simply be a Lighthouse giving us a direction to follow.

      This way I can digest axioms 3, 4 and 5.

      Also, with universality, unchangeableness, undivisibility, unity, he seems to be refering to what would be Tone 40 in Scn.

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM

        Nicely put and well said. I am so happy to learn this from Burnell. Looks like we have made a great entrance into the unknowable!

        .

        • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM

          Yes indeed!, this guy really meant business 🙂

        • Maria  On November 9, 2012 at 1:53 AM

          These axioms may very well be one of the original sources of Dianetics and Scientology. Burnell wrote these axioms in 1902. Ernest Holmes, founder of Religious Science and the author of “The Science of Mind; a Complete Course of Lessons in the Science of Mind and spirit.” references Burnell in his 1926 work. That’s how I found Burnell’s works. Burnell wasn’t that well known, but Holmes was HUGE in the New Thought movement and recommends studying Burnell’s works. From what I have studied so far of the New Thought movement, Burnell stands alone in drafting axioms on the subject.

          Some well known New Thought writers include James Allen 1902, Dale Carnegie 1936, Ernest Holmes 1926, Napoleon Hill 1937, Norman Vincent Peale (mentored by Holmes), Paramahansa Yogananda 1925. There are many more. Yogananda set up his HQ in Hollywood in the 1920s. The fellowship center is on the same block as the Pac Base to this day. With the exception of Yogananda, many of these writers would likely have been familiar with Burnell’s work.

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 6:01 AM

          Knowledge seems to be a network of thoughts, ideas and considerations.

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 7:55 PM

        Rafael: “as-is-ness comes, and there is an instant of truth.”

        Chris: And possibility an end of the duration of that certain frame of reference.

        • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 8:54 PM

          I agree with that Chris, and it is very interesting.. What if all our frames of reference are false?
          Why can’t we just discard them all at once and start over again ?
          Just to be sure we do it right this time?
          I would really like to do a reset like that every time I feel like it …….

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 10:03 PM

          I am getting weirded out by this research of what is true; what is false.

          My axioms include that we live in a game. Making it as durable as possible was the goal. Nothing sinister, just solid and there so that when you came home from the grocery store, your house would still be there and at the same address.

          Now I currently live in a philosophic culture of biology is bad; is temporal. Spiritual is good; is infinite. See?

          Vin and Maria and you and Burnell, et al, have pretty well won me over to the consideration game. I don’t know the mechanics at the root but fractal equations work very nicely and neatly for me to understand as-is; is; and alter is. Fractals account for drift or randomity if you rather. Talk about fuzzy! The further I go, the more determinism can account for my existence and I don’t mean just the scenery of self but also the self of self which I guess means that everything is the self. And if everything is self, then the puppet that I am may just be the pinched off piece of a more general self “in the sky.” (I added that last bit “in the sky” for religious reverence.) In other words, I have looked and looked and have not only not falsified determinism (as expected) but have fortified the working concept of it in my mind.

        • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 10:50 PM

          I just realized I’ve lost almost all interest in playing games and my main interest now is understanding games ….. I find it a bit sick. I still have a life here I should put my feet back on earth.
          And also when my wife reads this thread will want me to help in the kitchen and all other chores !!! 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

          You know this is all Vinaire’s fault, right?

        • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM

          Exactly!! 🙂

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 5:55 AM

          Now, now, slow down… there is supposed to be light at the end of the tunnel. I am looking for it as best as I can.

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 8:01 PM

        Rafael: Also, with universality, unchangeableness, undivisibility, unity, he seems to be refering to what would be Tone 40 in Scn.

        Chris: Burnell has good analytical power and I read that he also has desire mixed in. Terms like unchangeableness aren’t rooted in looking very closely at manifestation, and smack of desire.

    • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 1:46 PM

      By the way, I understand recognition of “what is” as the moment when is-ness becomes as-is-ness

      (Ufff we are getting too much into Scientology, better to move off a little)

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 5:57 AM

    In response to the following post from Chris
    comment-5588

    If one recognizes truth as truth, it is as-isness.
    If one recognizes lie as lie, it is as-isness.
    If one recognizes good as good, it is as-isness.
    If one recognizes bad as bad, it is as-isness.
    If one recognizes fact as fact, it is as-isness.
    If one recognizes opinion as opinion, it is as-isness.
    If one recognizes fiction as fiction, it is as-isness.
    If one recognizes Life Static as individuality, it is as-isness.

    I added the last one about Life Static just for fun. When I came into Scientology, I understood Life Static to be equivalent to “Brahma” or “unknowable.” I did TR0 from the understanding of AXIOM ZERO, looking considerations as manifestations, and letting them appear and disappear as they may. I word cleared people on TRs Course that way with wonderful results. But I was called a squirrel for doing this, and I was heavily corrected by Dennis Ehrlich, who was the Tech Cramming Officer at Flag Land Base at that time. Now I understand why that happened. The first axiom of Scientology was not what I had thought it to be.

    I was looking at AXIOM ZERO, which is completely missing in Scientology. Some people may confuse Scientology Axiom One with AXIOM ZERO.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 6:59 AM

      The reason I brought up your contextual use of the Scientology word “as-is” comes from Scientology Axiom 11. It states:

      AXIOM 11. THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD.
      (a) AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.
      (b) ALTER-IS-NESS is the consideration which introduces change and therefore time and persistence, into an AS-IS-NESS to obtain persistency.
      (c) IS-NESS is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an AS-IS-NESS. This is called, when agreed upon, Reality.
      (d) NOT-IS-NESS is the effort to handle IS-NESS by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an IS-NESS.

      When I read your comments, my understanding of this axiom has me to understand that you are using “as-is” when “is” would be correct. Am I mistaken? How so?

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM

        This is very interesting. I am not sure if Hubbard is looking at AS-IS-NESS as a consideration or as something beyond consideration. But, to me, AS-IS-NESS is becoming that unknowable trigger and the triggering of a manifestation out of the trigger itself. Here I am not thinking of Cause. I am rather thinking of INTUITION. It just appears out of the blue after percolating for a while in some unknowable region.

        I always liked this axiom. Now I must look at it more closely as TRUTH in light of Burnell. That makes TRUTH unknowable. Truth becomes some unknowable process that underlies intuition itself.

        .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 10:15 PM

        These conditions of existence can be found to be inconsistent in the following ways:

        There is as-is create = something appears. = consistent.
        There is as-is destroy = something disappears; however, I think there is only NO as-is create = nothing happens and the previous version of the something appears, disappears with no new as-is create to take its “place-consecutive time.” (play on words for space-time) = inconsistent.
        There is alter-is which is really as-is create something else = inconsistent.
        There is IS, which is really the apparency and no basis in reality except in unrecognizable briefness. = inconsistent.

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 5:46 AM

          To ALTER one must CREATE the alteration. So,

          ALTER-IS-NESS = IS-NESS + AS-IS create another part of IS-NESS

          ALTER-IS-NESS = IS-NESS + AS-IS create a filter to cover IS-NESS

          ALTER-IS-NESS = IS-NESS + AS-IS dissolve a part of IS-NESS

          NOT-IS-NESS = IS-NESS + AS-IS create negation of IS-NESS

          Looks like there is a whole spectrum of AS-IS-NESS, one extreme of which is NOT-IS-NESS, and the other extreme is AS-IS dissolve.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM

          In a discrete model, as-is dissolve is doing nothing at all = switch off.
          In a continuous model, why does the thing change? Because at the molecular level things are deteriorating bit by bit. Are these bits in quantum jumps? If so, there is discreteness.
          In the fractal model, fractal iterations account for the bits.
          What accounts for the machinery? When I look around me, I see only fractal machinery — really, everywhere, everything.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 7:28 AM

      Now to the meat of your comment of abuse at the hands of your handlers at Flag. My understanding of Scientology Axiom 1 began as and continues as in agreement with your original premise of Brahma and of Unknowable. Regardless of the infinite misunderstandings of this definition, if we read it again using KHTK or other non-judgemental mindfulness, we should be able to do so without the additive of “individuality.” I’ll copy it here:

      AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
      Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

      I do not understand this definition to indicate a number of individuals. It reads “A” as in “A STATIC.” If I understand our previous conversations on this subject, we both view life as a “singularity,” by which is not intended to mean “an individual” but rather the more basic and all encompassing all of the singularity of life.

      In the way that I have expressed and tried to explain, Axiom 1 of Scientology remains consistent. Your original understanding remains correct. Your abusive re-education at the hands of the “Mecca of Technical Perfection” remains an abuse and a use of false data.

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 7:07 AM

    In response to the following post from Chris
    comment-5592

    “Cute but my question was to redirect your attention to consider your corollary in light of there being a real world out there — what if. Your corollary becomes inconsistent if there is a RWOT.”

    This is getting into speculation. If there is a real world out there, the time to look at it is now.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 7:21 AM

    In response to the following post from Chris
    comment-5593

    V: “Discreteness reminds me of an electron which is mostly concentrated in the center but boundaries extend to infinity.”

    Chris: “I understand your words but am missing your metaphor – please say more.”

    One may look at an electron as discrete, but is fuzzy at the boundaries. It may be counted as discrete items can be counted, but its identity is fuzzy in terms of being a particle or a wave.

    So, things may appear to be discrete but when looked at closely, that clarity of discreteness seems to become fuzzy..

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 8:06 AM

      Ah, ok I get you.

      To get that fuzziness to clear up, we have to look more closely. What comes into focus will probably be surprising.

      I wanted to reply and offer something to contribute but when I looked for a reference to support my idea all I did was stick myself in the immense fog of my misunderstanding.

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 11:18 AM

        Ha… ha! I know what you mean. You are not alone.

        .

        • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 4:59 PM

          Not at all Ha ha ha!!!

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 7:57 AM

    In response to the following post from Chris
    comment-5571

    V: “What difference does it make if it is the same A or not? After all it is just a consideration..”

    Chris: “I don’t understand your point. Please elaborate..”

    Again, for me, it is searching for the underlying reality… the common denominator.

    We are looking at particle appearing and disappearing. The question that comes in my mind is, “What is this phenomenon of appearing and disappearing?” I am not so much thinking about the particle, because it could be anything. Whether it is the same particle or not is insignificant to me from the viewpoint I am looking at. I want to understand the deeper meaning of appearing and disappearing.

    It is looking at the phenomenon of manifestation, regardless of the particular identity of a manifestation. All considerations seem to appear all at once at the point of manifestation. Awareness of a manifestation also seems to appear with the manifestation.

    When a particle appears, the awareness of that particle appears with it. When a particle disappears, the awareness of the particle disappears with it. What may carry on is some other manifestation.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 8:22 AM

      Ah. Ok very good, I am following you.

      Mike Silverman was a registrar at AOLA for many years and also an amazing magician. He did “slight of hand” out of this world. But I digress. When he made a coin appear and disappear, and assuming he wasn’t substituting a really different coin, if there is a RWOT, he was using the same coin. Yet we argue that at the root, the coin is a different coin every moment.

      Previously, if I were describing your view on this to others, I would say that you think there is a RWOT because of your negative comments about discreteness. However, my current questioning of you about this is because I am understanding a shift in your view. It isn’t clear to me where you are trying to stand. Can you explain this to me? (the change in you)

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 11:24 AM

        I don’t think I am taking any stand here. The scene seems to shift as one looks more and more closely. Nothing seems to be fixed.

        We all are evolving as we discuss.

        .

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 3:02 PM

    Looks like this is what we have so far:

    I, The inquiry is into the truth.
    II. By truth is meant
    [the recognition of] what is; such is the perception of spirit.
    III. Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality.
    IV. Truth is indivisibility; such is the perception of unity.
    V. Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence.

    Does this seem to be consistent so far?

    .

  • Anonymous  On November 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM

    To tell you the truth, this discussion is turning out to be more than I even hoped for! So far I have not been able to detect any flaw in reason and at least part of the perplexity I have experienced has dissipated – I like where this is going, and the insights from you, Chris and Rafael. Nice!

    You said it yourself Vinaire: The scene seems to shift as one looks more and more closely. Nothing seems to be fixed. We all are evolving as we discuss.

    I like that. It seems that way to me too.

    • Maria  On November 8, 2012 at 4:11 PM

      LOL! The anonymous was me! I didn’t realize I had not filled in my info and when I pressed submit the post disappeared!

    • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 5:58 PM

      I´m just a dog with a bone!!

    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 8:45 PM

      @Anonymous Maria, Me too!

  • Maria  On November 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM

    I am quite thrilled with the discussion so far! Better than I had ever hoped!

    • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM

      That is what happens when the discussion policy is followed, and all attention is on looking at the subject. 😉

      Everybody is at their best behavior, as it should be.

      🙂

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM

    Seriously, Maria, I am happy to know that I have a satisfied customer in you.

    By the way, in half an hour or so I shall be leaving for a job interview. Hopefully, it will be a less stressful job, just 5 minutes away from my house. So, my retirement may come to an abrupt end. I really enjoyed my past one month or so. I spent all the gas money I saved, on my visits to Starbucks.

    I may not be spending that much time on this blog if I get the job, but this blog is at your disposal. There won’t be any monitoring as long as the Discussion Policy is being followed. If there are any offending posts, they would simply be deleted as soon as I notice them.

    Please be mindful and follow the scientific method of research.

    Have fun.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 7:18 PM

      It would not be much of a job if they expect you to work and not blog . . . sheesh. I thought this all got settled at the election Tuesday night! You are now supposed to be on full time blogging with full pay and benefits. I may have to make a phone call to straighten this out.

      • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 7:28 PM

        LOL!. Do you know who is behind all this push?

        Are you going to call my wife? She thinks that I just sit on my ass in front of the computer, and don’t do any work, even when I clean the kitchen, keep the house in order, and do other chores.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 8:56 PM

          Thanks for nuthin Vinaire. Can you please can it? My wife reads this blog and now I can hear it already, “Vinaire finds time to help around the house!” Great. Thanks. I had a pretty good thing going over here but I think you just loused it up!

        • Maria  On November 8, 2012 at 9:15 PM

          See Chris! I told you it was different for women! LOL!

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 4:43 AM

          Well, I made some of that up to impress all who read this blog. But I do take care of the cat.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 8:59 AM

          That’s more like it! hahaha

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 4:57 AM

          Maria! Women are tender but certain aspects of them are very fearsome.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 9:00 AM

          Especially the parts around their tempers and claws…

        • Maria  On November 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM

          LOL!

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 4:14 PM

          Shelley, if you are reading this, I hope you can clearly see how fortunate you are to have a husband who blogs.

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 4:16 PM

          Alas! My wife never reads my blog!

          .

  • Maria  On November 8, 2012 at 9:25 PM

    VI. Truth is eternity; such is the perception of presence.

    The meaning or spirit of eternity is to be without beginning and duration and end, all which cannot be in truth because they mean changes and truth is permanence; so the changelessness of truth which we have perceived convinces us that truth must be utterly without origin and continuance and end, but is and must be what is meant by the word eternity.

    Time is never present but always absent in past or future, for if we try to pin to a present instant it has gone from future to past before we can secure any presence, and we are told by those experts in the refinement of perception that when they push too deeply into the meshes of time their consciousness slips from the thread of time and space into eternity, the only actual presence there is.

    Time and space are the two ways of looking at the same nonentity—that is, the illusion of change; motion or mutability finds its capacity in space and its measure in time, but the perception of truth as eternity shows us the now, the presence, in which there is no absence in either time or space.

    Such is the understanding of truth as the present eternity—permanent and universal.

    • Rafael  On November 8, 2012 at 11:19 PM

      I find this poetic to begin with, flowing nicely, and consistent with the earlier axioms.
      I’ll check the whole thing again in a new unit of time, and try to see from a different viewpoint, cause from this one I’m all good with it.

      • Maria  On November 9, 2012 at 1:21 AM

        Yes, pretty much the same for me too.

  • Maria  On November 9, 2012 at 10:00 AM

    VII. Truth is not cause or effect; such is the perception of freedom.

    Truth can have no cause since it has no beginning, therefore also truth is not an effect, and as there is not anything besides what is it must be that there is no such thing as cause and effect at all. There is therefore no reality in the law of cause and effect.

    Eternity is all and there is no creation at all. There is nothing besides the truth to hinder, bind, oppose it – no limits, no bounds, no laws, nothing against the truth; wherefore we say that the truth means freedom, and since the truth is all, there is no bondage at all.

    If bondage were truth it would be permanent and unescapable, so it would be unreasonable to teach freedom; the truth sets us free because in reality we are free now; if we were really bound the knowledge of the truth would establish us in our bonds, but the illumined have ever announced that to know the truth means to be free, for in actuality we are eternally and unchangeably free now.

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 10:39 AM

      I wrote my views on Cause and Effect under Scientology Factor # 1 as follows:

      (1) “Beginning” implies the beginning of any manifestation. This includes the universe as an overall manifestation.

      (2)If Cause is postulated to be there before the beginning then the question arises, “Can Cause be there all by itself before its effect manifests itself?” An overall effect would be the creation of the universe.

      (3) If the answer is “yes” then Cause will be a manifestation on its own right, and the question then becomes, “What is the cause of the Cause?” This logic inevitably leads to an endless chain of causes, and the beginning keeps getting pushed back earlier and earlier.

      (4) If the answer is “no” then the Cause must occur simultaneously with effect. “Cause-effect” would then be part of the same manifestation at the beginning. One may say that God and Universe would appear simultaneously as a pair.

      (5) One tries to fix the dilemma in (3) by postulating “Uncaused cause.” But this postulate appears to be self-contradictory and simply a device of convenience.

      (6) Thus, CAUSE seems to be part of the created considerations. This seems to be consistent with the idea that TIME itself would start at the beginning.

      (7) Thus, there would be no such thing as “before the beginning.”

      (8) Thus, CAUSE is part of a system of interdependent considerations. It is part of the creation like anything else. There is no linear chain of considerations as implied by the factor above.

      (9) The idea “before the beginning” would then be a projection that is created after the fact of beginning. Thus, the idea of God as the Creator would appear after the fact of Creation.

      (10) The assumption that CAUSE, a consideration in itself, can be separated from, and can be extended beyond, the system of considerations it generates, seems to be the basic inconsistency.

      .

  • Maria  On November 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM

    Vinaire: do you understand the math on this?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_at_infinity

    I am wondering if it has bearing on this.

    My understanding of this is very weak.

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 4:18 PM

      No. I have to sit and ponder over it, but that will go into my “to do” list for now.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 6:00 PM

      The first sentence of this Wikipedia articles states:

      “The point at infinity, also called ideal point, of the real number line is a point which, when added to the number line yields a closed curve called the real projective line,”

      They are postulating a point at the boundary of infinity, but by definition infinity has no boundary. So I see it as an approximation like rounding off a number, such as PI, for practical purposes that may be useful for projection in Geometry under certain circumstances. There are many things in mathematics like that. It is an inconsistency that is being tolerated under certain circumstances for practical reasons..

      This is how I see it.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 4:25 PM

    I am sure there is going to be an interesting response to the following:

    Marty comment-238631

    Marty comment-238632

    Marty comment-238643

    I know people are looking at Scientology Axiom #1 and Factor #1 on my blog. Even a “no response” would be significant, in the sense that people are having a hard time finding holes in those critiques.

    So far none of my posts have been censored on Marty’s blog. But that doesn’t mean anything.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 6:12 PM

      Here is another post I just made on Marty’s blog:

      Marty comment-238718

      .

      • Maria  On November 9, 2012 at 6:26 PM

        The last link above doesn’t go to the comment for some reason.

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 6:30 PM

          That is because the comment has not been released from moderation yet. But here is the comment:

          Personal use of Self Analysis by new public will require the use of mindfulness (a concept in Buddhism) as outlined here:

          MORE ON MINDFULNESS

          Please understand that this is not squirreling. This is the technology from Buddhism. Scientology is an extension of Buddhism.

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 7:36 PM

        I do not need to click that link to tell you that you will not receive an interesting response from the commenters on Marty’s blog.

        You tell me if I am wrong as there isn’t any inquiring into your subject matter going on at Marty’s blog. Marty’s blog is an enthusiasm rally for ex-COS Scientologists who are at loose ends and looking for like-minded Scientologists with whom to commune. Marty is avidly providing that, but it is not my interest.

        If you keep this up I may have to notify your wife and put a stop to this deliberate waste of valuable real blogging time. After all, no true research blogger would waste their time posting there.

        You haven’t been “drinking and blogging” againhave you?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 7:37 PM

          hehe

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 8:00 PM

          Please, please, please, don’t tell my wife. I’ll stop writing on Marty’s blog.

          By the way, so far today, I have had

          40 views on Scientology Axiom # 1 and a response from IdealOrg.

          18 views on Comments on Scientology Axioms 1, 2 and 3

          22 views on Scientology Factor # 1

          29 views on Home Page Archives.

          I am sure that majority of these are from Marty’s blog. But nobody is saying anything negative. So that is a good sign.

          I think that my blog has thoroughly confused them. 😉

          [I am updating these numbers till I go to bed.]

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 8:09 PM

          munch-munch-munch (sound of me eating my words.)

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM

          I got 1 thumb down on Scientology Axiom #1. (1 thumb up is mine, 1 is probably from IdealOrg)

          I got 2 thumbs down on Factor #1 (no thumbs up)

          But it is interesting that nobody so far has challenged me verbally.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 11:37 PM

          Patience Diogenes, you may find him yet.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 11:50 PM

        Ah! I finally got some response to the Self Analysis comment… shows quite a mind set of “loyalty”.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM

          . . . you left off “condescending superiority.” I’m not clicking on one of your “marty” links again. The results are too predictable and not in a good way.

          What I think now is you have a little of the Devil in you — and maybe you like to rub the cat’s fur the wrong way? haha

          Anyways, I gotta call it quits for the night gotta work early.

        • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 6:35 AM

          This is part of my study of EGOTISM. This is the best place to study it. 🙂

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2012 at 6:10 PM

          Well, yes it is.

  • Maria  On November 9, 2012 at 10:54 PM

    Are you trying to save them?

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 10:58 PM

      Save what? The comments are saved automatically.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

      I am still puzzled by your question. You are not talking about such a silly thing as trying to save the scientologists on Marty’s blog, are you?

      If so, then, you have quite a sense of humor.

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 11:56 PM

      I maundered that thought as well, Maria. I just didn’t have as big of balls as you to ask the question! hahaha

  • Maria  On November 9, 2012 at 11:24 PM

    Ah, someone has typed up the Axioms of Reason by Burnell and published them online. That’s good — it means I don’t have to type them up any more.

    Here is the link:

    http://www.qm21.com/axioms.html

  • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 11:58 PM

    Of course! (I will soon be un-eating my words, maybe by morning)

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: