KHTK Axiom #2 and Scientology

awareness-continuum

Here is another look at Scientology Factor #1.

SCIENTOLOGY FACTOR # 1: Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.

This Factor assumes that awareness is there before anything else. It is the essential characteristic or Cause that brings about effect, or motion.

This Factor takes awareness for granted as ‘potential’.

.

But we don’t find that to be the case in actual experience. Awareness is related to relative motion as noted in the Theory of Relativity and KHTK Axiom 2.

KHTK Axiom #2: Awareness arises with relative motion, and disappears when there is no relative motion.

Thus, awareness does not precede motion. It is incorrect to take awareness for granted as ‘potential’.

In fact, cause and effect are abstractions gleaned from associations observed among events. The ‘effect’ event is understood as a consequence of the ‘cause’ event.  More correctly, cause is the beginning, and effect is the end, of the same event.

Thus, awareness, and the power to create, is not a requisite for Cause because cause-effect is just an association. There is no such requirement that Cause must exist in isolation before the beginning.

Thus, the assertion that before the beginning was a Cause is questionable.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 6:12 AM

    The whole idea of Cause as ‘potential’ is just that – an idea. It is a projection by the mind from what is observed. It is a hypothesis. It is not necessarily an actuality.

    But this hypothesis is so old and has been there as part of religion since mankind started to think, that it has become ingrained almost at the DNA level.

    But the truth, as explored through science or mindfulness, is that awareness arises and disappears with relative motion. Awareness before the beginning as ‘Cause’ is merely a projection. Such a Cause has never been observed in actuality.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 3, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      Likewise, freewill.

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 8:59 AM

        Haha! There is no freewill on Geir’s blog to get away from personal criticism. I always end up there being criticized personally.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 3, 2013 at 9:29 AM

          Haha, yeah, well, being a master manipulator and a certified SP, I could tell you what happens but that would take away the opportunity for you to look. You and me become too good of friends for me to do that. I don’t see how I come across to others either. Sometimes I wonder about that.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 3, 2013 at 9:31 AM

          Seriously, freewill is a projection, a mental abstraction.

        • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 9:38 AM

          Well I am improving. I am trying to adhere to the Discussion Policy as much as possible. It is easy to do so on my my own blog, but I face serious challenges on other blogs.

          If I apply it on Geir’s blog all communication there will stop. Haha.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 3, 2013 at 11:21 AM

          Yes, I agree, but more importantly I do not see anything wrong with you. With trepidation I could suggest false data stripping as a tool to help with guided looking at this. I am sure you have the bulletin. I see a social issue nothing more and you could get this under your control if you were interested but it makes no difference to me.

        • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 3:54 PM

          Chris, Can you do false data stripping on me on Skype?

  • 2ndxmr  On November 3, 2013 at 2:38 PM

    V.: “Awareness is related to relative motion as noted in the Theory of Relativity and KHTK Axiom 2.”

    That is your conjecture and faulty tautological conclusion.

    Motion requires mass, so mass must precede motion. Therefore you must have mass as a starting point. But what made the mass? Prior cause?

    Awareness needs no prior cause. Awareness can emerge from a void as a probability of the void. Awareness needs no mass. Awareness does not need motion to be or remain aware.

    If the quantum state is a superposition of all possible states, then the condensation to awareness is one of those possible states. It may be a very, very, very infrequent condensation but it cannot be 100% discounted.

    • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 2:54 PM

      Thanks for correcting me. But my understanding is that the electromagnetic wave have motion without mass.

      .

      • 2ndxmr  On November 3, 2013 at 3:46 PM

        And you are correct about that. But did you not earlier (in an earlier post) define motion as movement with respect to an inertial mass?

        • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 3:59 PM

          Could you please give me more detail on that. Thanks.

          .

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM

        Mass and inertia is an interesting area. So far, the only intuition I have had about is described in KHTK Axiom #7 here:

        https://vinaire.me/2013/10/24/khtk-axiom-7-a-location/

        I see inertia as resistance to motion. That is also felt as mass.

        .

        .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM

          V: “I see inertia as resistance to motion. That is also felt as mass.”

          You could get a similar experience by carrying a piece of aluminum through a magnetic field. A stationary magnet will not attract a stationary piece of aluminum, but when there is relative motion between the two things, repulsion occurs. This would be sensed as resistance to motion, just like your explanation of mass.

          All that is happening is that when the magnetic field is cut by the electrically conductive (but non-magnetic) aluminum an eddy current is set up in the aluminum. This current produces a magnetic field in opposition to the first field and a condition of resisted motion.

          This can easily be demonstrated by dropping a circular magnet down an aluminum tube. I’m sure a vid of that exists on Youtube.

          The point is, this is a demonstration of the effect of fields during motion – an effect that does not occur in a absence of relative motion – just like your explanation of gravity.

        • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 9:52 PM

          Yes, I understand that phenomenon. I have also seen the You Tube video you are referring to. It is funny I have personally experienced a similar phenomenon in my dream when walking in a haunted house.

          I see space itself as a field.

          .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 4, 2013 at 3:08 AM

          V.:”I see space itself as a field.”

          I also expect it is a field, possibly even just the Higgs field.

          Somehow, though, I think we are going to end up having to discriminate our perceived space (3-space) from what I will call for the moment “single-space”.

          Single-space would be the space created by a single awareness unit. It would have some base-level field attribute – a concept that could be considered the analog of the base electron level – the lowest quantum energy level of an electron that can orbit an atom’s nucleus.

          If “space” had a similar base level, that might have the dimension of a line i.e. “1-dimensional”, or it might be 2-dimensional (a plane), or 3-dimensional ( a sphere). Another space construct I expect would be a 3-dimensional spiral, a helix or a vortex. I see all of these as minimally possible to be produced by an awareness unit.

          I also expect there could be a complex-number attribute to any or all of these single-space creations – at least if the space vector were changing in direction, magnitude, or both. That would bring space into a realm equivalent to Electro Magnetism.

          Fields – like a magnetic field – may be static, like with a permanent magnet (only an apparency as magnetism is related to electron spin – a motion) or changing (a varying magnitude or direction like in a generator).

          A static magnetic field would probably have the form of a spiral helix. This would account for why opposite poles (opposite helical spins) attract – similar to springs winding together- and like-poles repel (same helical spins; springs not winding together but pushing apart).

          If it were the case that such single-spaces were possible, and if combinations of single-spaces were possible, then complex-standing-wave structures are likely possible. This may even be model-able using a multiple of RF generators and antenna forms that could generate analogs of the basic space dimensions.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 8:01 AM

          2x: This may even be model-able using a multiple of RF generators and antenna forms that could generate analogs of the basic space dimensions.

          Chris: Or for the purpose of human perception, the brain? The sensation of exteriorization – higher than usual brain activity also bring about wider range of reception of EM waves. Such as what is described when taking drugs such as DMT.

        • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 8:15 AM

          LOL!

        • MarkNR  On November 5, 2013 at 1:55 AM

          Inertia is resistance to CHANGE in motion. This is NOT relative to other bodies, but in it’s own space. Once Change in motion ceases, the body is at rest in it’s own space.Mark

    • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 10:24 AM

      2x: Awareness needs no prior cause.

      Chris: This is an assumption that seems to be based upon another assumption which is that we know and understand just what consciousness is.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 10:54 AM

        Consciousness seems to be a physical process operating on top of the substrate of the physical neural machinery of the brain. Hurricanes and other weather phenomena “have a life of their own” despite being nothing more than air and water molecules. But once they dissipate, they are not there anymore. Consciousness is a similarly dynamic process, even if more complex, and taking place inside the feedback loops of the brain’s neural networks via dynamic signaling and information exchange. Jus’ sayin’ there is a lot more to know and to explain about consciousness. I think my time is well spent there rather than assuming that I’ve created the universe and working it all out from there. For me, the Hubbardian model leads me down a pathway of delusion, but again that’s just me.

        • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 1:29 PM

          The ‘Unknowables” are here to discover assumptions, it seems. Hahaha…

        • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 4:56 PM

          I like to think we can. And I hope that is not another goofball assumption of mine.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM

          C.:”…rather than assuming that I’ve created the universe and working it all out from there. ”

          I’ve never said, or believed that I, you, Vin or any of us here on Earth created the universe.

          However, the model of it being created by space manipulations is not inconsistent with the cosmological constants, and is therefore a possibility.

          Probability is established by seeing events on a small scale (like partial and full exteriorizations) which are scalable phenomena (they get larger or more stable with advancing ability) that can be extrapolated to larger proportions, even universe-sized proportions.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM

        Man has an obsessive yearning to make his own consciousness, his human consciousness a type of god-like ultimate consciousness. I do not believe in this as a correct model. I do not see the consciousness of man deviating from its thousands of years old vector of inventing technology and of coming into greater understanding of his environment. I would expect this to continue for a while yet.

        • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 1:31 PM

          Oh, yes. There is a lot more remaining to learn about consciousness.

        • MarkNR  On November 5, 2013 at 2:16 AM

          Chris:
          I believe that the brain and consciousness have a similar relationship to the wolf and the elk. It was discovered that elk herds became stronger and more numerous after bounties on wolves were removed. The wolf packs would prey on mainly the old and the sick elk, thereby improving the overall health of the herd.
          It is said that alcohol kills brain cells, but I think it only kills the weak and sick cells, leaving healthy brain more room to think…That is why I drink.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 5, 2013 at 7:53 AM

          LOL! Good one Mark.

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2013 at 1:30 PM

          LOL!

      • 2ndxmr  On November 4, 2013 at 12:53 PM

        Chris: “This is an assumption that seems to be based upon another assumption which is that we know and understand just what consciousness is.”

        I wonder if we should distinguish between consciousness and awareness. Consciousness in the embodied state is different from the awareness I’ve experienced in the fully disembodied state.

        For instance, fully disembodied I’ve never had language or words available or of necessity. It’s been a state of just thought and desired consequence (which could translate to “postulate”). For instance a voiced concept like “I’ll turn to the right over there.” doesn’t occur, just the action.

        I have, however, definitely experienced awareness of volume and awareness of the quality I don’t wish to call “self” because that is not how it translates. I would say that awareness of “being” (present participle, not the noun) exists. Not necessarily awareness of beingness, which still translates as a “self identity”, but just of “being”.

        I still hold to my model of “consciousness”, too, which uses the 3-D brain electrical pattern like a keyboard inputting to the awareness unit and the awareness unit using condensed energy (as in a condensation from a probabilistic state) to activate neural, hormonal and other electrochemical pathways to achieve physical universe interaction.

        • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 5:29 PM

          I have never come across consciousness in disembodied state. All those who have reported about a disembodied state had bodies.

          This is an inconsistency.

          Whenever I have had the illusion of being disembodied, I have always found afterwards that I had a body.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 5, 2013 at 5:46 AM

          Disembodied consciousness is the most talked about yet best kept secret in metaphysics.

        • vinaire  On November 5, 2013 at 1:34 PM

          Secrets are always delicious.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 5:58 PM

          2X: Consciousness in the embodied state is different from the awareness I’ve experienced in the fully disembodied state.

          Chris: I agree with your separation. I also think this disembodied consciousness is yet a condensed form, more collapsed and hardened than the backdrop from which it springs.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 8, 2013 at 6:21 PM

          Chris: “I also think this disembodied consciousness is yet a condensed form, more collapsed and hardened than the backdrop from which it springs.”

          That can certainly happen: the plasma manifestations and so forth. However, the opposite – that it is a lighter form of the embodied state – can not be discounted.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 6:50 PM

          Would it be fair to say it could be a matter of identification? And if so, how would we describe what is going on during the process of identification?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 8, 2013 at 8:25 PM

          All I can say from personal experience and recall is that it is more like de-identification, no identity – if identification is something like saying “I’m Joe” or “That’s my body” or “I’m a…”. That’s just my experience and recall. There certainly could be identification with a name, title or body.

          In a case of “no-identification”, the state is more like being interest-ed in things than in being interest-ing. Outflow of attention rather than inflow.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 11:16 PM

          Yes, agreed. This is what I mean the degree of identification. I am kind of lumping ambition, egotism, and identification together in the way I am thinking about these matters. I am curious about the mechanics of identification. In this old Kung Fu clip (I was surprised to be able to dredge this up on YouTube in a couple key strokes) Master Po describes freedom and how a ambition hinders a priest’s freedom. It was during Master Po’s pilgrimage to the Forbidden City that he was murdered and as he lay dying blamed himself for his own death being the result of his own unholy ambition. I always liked that show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szch3lo52z8

        • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 11:18 PM

          Identification seems to exist in minute quantities.

      • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM

        Projecting cause beyond this universe is a key assumption.

        .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 10:32 AM

      2x: It may be a very, very, very infrequent condensation but it cannot be 100% discounted.

      Chris: To me it seems reasonable to assume that the ongoing physical processes are the same or a version of what they have always been. In other words, whatever the process of gravity, it seems that force that we refer to may have been present since the beginning of this cycle of the universe. The forces resulting in accretion also may have been present since the beginning of the present cycle of time. Then it seems that the forces at work producing what we refer to as awareness may have always been at work.

      • 2ndxmr  On November 4, 2013 at 12:25 PM

        C.: “…a version of what they have always been.” “…since the beginning of this cycle of the universe.” “…awareness may have always been at work.”

        I prefer my logic a bit fuzzier on the subject of a beginning. “Always” is such an absolute and thought stopper.

        I’ll stick with my model that awareness could arise from a nothingness. That at least seems to follow the QM model of superposition. It requires no deity, no “always” and no unknowable – at least within Heisenberg limits. 🙂

        • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 1:26 PM

          Well, what, ultimately, does not arise from nothingness? And what is nothingness anyway?

          Is it relative?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM

          V:”Well, what, ultimately, does not arise from nothingness? And what is nothingness anyway?”

          By definition a “God” would not arise from nothingness, Gods have traditionally been “always” and “forever”.

        • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 2:14 PM

          How educated were the people who came up with the idea of God?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 5:00 PM

          Touche’

  • Chris Thompson  On November 3, 2013 at 7:28 PM

    Wow! I hadn’t thought of that but of course, I guess so! Let me pull up the bulletin and think about it. Would you want to try it? Or I had imagined you (or I) using it solo. Tell me your idea. I am a little backed off because of the Skype technology having only ever skyped with you and how many times, like once so far? I’m kind of game to try.

    • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 9:43 PM

      I have been tutoring on Skype for some time, so I don’t see any problem in having a session on Skype. I shall like to do False data stripping session with you on Skype using mindfulness approach in place of the e-meter. I have done that successfully with hundreds of hours of Idenics with others.

      This may also help us develop a KHTK version of False Data Stripping. Well, it shall certainly be fun. Are you free for an hour next week end?

      Send me the date of the bulletin if you have it. I can then find it here at my end.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 6:15 AM

    This post is in response to 2ndxmr
    https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13362

    .

    I question ideas such as, “Such and such is created or produced by a single awareness unit.” Without the awareness unit defined more explicitly, it seems like an excuse for not understanding a phenomenon. I see it as lack of mindfulness.

    Mindfulness tells me that awareness is a function of relativity. Without relative motion there is no awareness. Self-awareness would involve relative motion within oneself with mental objects moving relative to each other. Mental objects are derived from patterns among physical objects. Mental objects are abstractions.

    All thought experiements that we are doing here are playing around with mental objects… poking here and there to find better consistencies. We get the idea of space by observing relative motion. Different characteristics of motion provide us with the notion of different dimensions of space. What we regard as physical space seems to be a mental object to some degree.

    The idea of awareness unit is a mental object of speculation type. It needs to be expanded upon to achieve a higher consistency with rest of the observed phenomena.

    A space vector is basically a motion vector because space is simply an aspect of motion. It seems that before we can understand space we need to understand motion in its purity without associating it with mass. I suspect that mass is generated with certain conditions of motion.

    What we are bringing into play here is the explicit consideration of mental objects, which has not been there in science. So we need to look at the very idea of “mental object” more closely. The moment we do that we slip from the realm of physics into the realm of metaphysics. This is an exciting area for me.

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 4, 2013 at 12:13 PM

      V:”Mindfulness tells me that awareness is a function of relativity. Without relative motion there is no awareness.”

      A sensory deprivation tank can be used to eliminate all sense of relative motion and objects.

      Awareness can survive in that state, even thrive.

      • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM

        Awareness returns when the relative motion returns.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 4, 2013 at 2:22 PM

          “Awareness returns when the relative motion returns.”

          That’s a hypothesis which is inconsistent with observation, the observation being that awareness can expand in the sens dep tank.

        • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 5:41 PM

          But there is relative motion among mental objects even in the sensory deprivation tank.

  • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 6:26 AM

    I invite 2ndxmr to the small group of “Unknowables.”

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 8:12 AM

      I 2nd this relative motion.

      • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 8:14 AM

        Hahaha…

      • 2ndxmr  On November 4, 2013 at 12:17 PM

        I hear the notion of a motion past.

      • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM

        Has anybody informed 2ndxmr about the ‘Unknowables’?

        I would leave that to brother Rafael.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 4, 2013 at 1:58 PM

          V: “Has anybody informed 2ndxmr about the ‘Unknowables’?”

          I’m assuming it is the caste below “Untouchable”. 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 5:00 PM

          LOL

        • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM

          I should have t shirts made. Or gay satin jackets!

        • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 5:02 PM

          LOL!

  • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 6:36 AM

    I am looking at the fundamentals of Scientology once again through the following book by L. Kin.
    https://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/vol1-the-principles-unveiled.pdf

    .

    What launched Dianetics into popularity was the idea of SURVIVE!

    This is what we are looking at under KHTK Axioms as MOTION!

    .

    • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 7:04 AM

      What attracted me toward Dianetics was its initial simplicity – a simple theory and a simple solution – at looking at the human problems. This became unnecessarily complicated with the cloak of religion put over it later.

      The basic ideas of Dianetics were:
      (1) We should look at the problem more closely.
      (2) Anybody can do this.
      (3) We can start a grass-roots movement with this.

      Today I look at (1) above as mindfulness. (2) remains the same. Anybody can be mindful with some training. (3) remains the same. I see the development of a grass-roots movement, but more broadly than Hubbard did:

      https://vinaire.me/2013/10/19/project-recover-america/

      .

    • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 8:21 AM

    • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 8:55 AM

      L. Kin says, “Dianetics rests on the basis of the desire for optimum survival inherent in each living thing. Man, as well as other thinking and feeling beings, wants to feel well physically and to attain the goals he has for himself, for his family and for his business and public life. Anything stopping him he looks at as contra survival. When the opposition is so great that he breaks down under the strain of fighting it, the resulting shock and pain is recorded and leads – as time goes by – to sorrowfulness and psychosomatic illnesses.”

      “Anything stopping him he looks at as contra survival.” This is resistance to motion. The basic protest is then against inertia… against being located in space per KHTK Axiom 7.

      https://vinaire.me/2013/10/24/khtk-axiom-7-a-location/

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 4, 2013 at 8:58 AM

        Likewise it would “protest” decrease in velocity or any change in velocity – as you have mentioned before.

  • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 5:35 PM

    Exteriorization is a phenomenon that is very common and most misleading. I should write an essy on it.

    Is there anything really leaving the body? I don’t think so.

    We just have to understand this mental phenomena better.

    • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM

      Attention or viewpoint may be extended beyond the body, but it is still anchored on the body. Spiritual and physical are NOT two independent phenomena. They are simply two different aspects of the same phenomenon.

      This universe is a single phenomenon that includes both spiritual and physical aspects. See

      https://vinaire.me/2013/10/19/khtk-axiom-6-the-universe/

      .

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 5, 2013 at 5:57 AM

        Vin: This universe is a single phenomenon that includes both spiritual and physical aspects.

        Chris: The hard terms spiritual and physical betray the bias in our language. Does all humanity have this bias? The bias of drawing a hard line across existence and calling part of it spiritual and part of it physical? Did X-ray used to be in the spiritual band until its discovery? Spiritual seems to be misdefined as not material or physical when in fact it is a placeholder for superstition and activity and objects which are not understood, such as infectious disease used to be. The word spiritual is probably a very old word.

  • MarkNR  On November 5, 2013 at 1:46 AM

    Vin
    I have to read your blog more often. I am seeing many things in a new light. Ron was a bit ‘behind the times’ on this one as well. “entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect” is a bit later. The first purpose was to BE, to EXIST. Then to CONTINUE (the creation of the one way arrow of time. Much later came the creation of an effect, since this implied separation. I am over here and I caused an effect on something over there. Even if you still knew it was an object of your own creation, the ‘idea’ that it is not now you was a later consideration. THIS WAS A VERY IMPORTANT MILESTONE IN HISTORY.
    Mark

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 9:59 PM

    I have found that out of body experience is very common. Of course, one feels a certain way in that experience. It is like losing some inertia.

    This experience needs to be looked at more closely. It is mental experience, which we seem to be interpreting in terms of physically separating from the body.

    What could be beyond this “out of body” interpretation is an interesting question to explore.

    What will happen if one loses all inertia (resistance to motion) in meditation or contemplation?

    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 11:23 PM

      The Self taken as a whole seems to me to include all assumptions and considerations of identification with all energy and condensations thereof. Possibly it is a gradient and when one is able to lose some measure of identification with their body, their heavier elemental form, they possibly continue to identify with their lighter self, possibly later, upon death, one dissolves their identifications all together.

      • 2ndxmr  On November 9, 2013 at 1:25 AM

        C.:”…possibly later, upon death, one dissolves their identifications all together.”

        If only that were fully true! We could then start fully anew.

        Short of a full poem, and only taking the lightest look at the baggage we are carrying, your wish is a desire not to be fulfilled.

        We need only take even a short look around us to see that virtually every person we look at is struggling under some burden of loss experienced, or hope or desire unfulfilled that makes them wonder about this meaning of life.

        Perhaps they have ceased wondering but nevertheless experience the mental effect of this thing they do not know the origin of.

        It drives them or seeks to crush them and largely they are powerless to oppose it, seeking to sublimate it in a life as comfortable as they can make it, yet always short of what they could allow themselves to wish for.

        That hidden thing is that personal identity which is not an identity of person or body as much as an identity of beingness – which really should be translated as a knowledge of beingness. Even that limited knowledge is a level up from identification with a body.

        And the real bonus is… when you do depart from the body, it’s not the surprise or the disorientating event it might be if you had thoroughly identified yourself with your body.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:22 AM

        At death, the dissolution of identifications shall occur, but not permanently if, during life, all inertia was not resolved.

        It is like kinetic energy being stored back as a potential energy, which may then express itself in a differentnt kinetic form.later.

        The unresolved inertia shall bring forth new identifications in form of a new life. It would be a different body-mind-beingness combination.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:29 PM

          Would you say there is a “spiritual gravity” which attracts bodies and spirits to one another?

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 2:52 PM

          A sort of compatibility is generally observable in the characteristics of the body, mind and spirit. It is like only a soul of certain “frequency” may be acquired by a body because it matches its characteristics.

          So, the attraction among various elements of a new life is probably based on some kind of resonance among those elements.

          In that light, inertia may be looked upon as a characteristic having a certain “frequency.”

    • 2ndxmr  On November 9, 2013 at 1:03 AM

      V:”What will happen if one loses all inertia (resistance to motion) in meditation or contemplation?”

      On Geir’s blog, Marianne Toth proposed such as mechanism. It was simply to STOP. I tried it and had an interesting result and cognition. I did not, however, feel it moved me forward in terms of understanding or ability. It did, though, provide a moment of differentiation of an awareness viewpoint from the space of my body, an effect which would at least provide one some insight into the difference between body-mind and beingness..

      That is a key starting point, however reached: to gain that separation of awareness that you ARE distinct from the body. At that point you can begin to strengthen the means of achieving that because you know it exists as a difference.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:16 AM

        Do you mean by STOP to be “stop resisting.”?

        I would expect that when one stops resisting, one would also stop suppressing oneself. As a result, long suppressed inconsistencies shall start arising. One would have to be mindful to resolve those inconsistencies, or else they will be suppressed once again. This phenomenon shall become subtler as one proceeds.

        Decrease in inertia shall always be accompanied by increase in understanding of increasingly subtler kind.

        Ultimately, body, mind and beingness are different aspects of the same thing, it seems.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 9, 2013 at 2:09 PM

          Vin:”Do you mean by STOP to be “stop resisting.”?”

          That is one component.

          Say you were in a car, speeding along and you decided to stop (assuming you could). What would happen would be that you’d sort of be sitting there in mid air while the car raced off into the distance.

          Another consequence would be that you’d realize you could be separate from the car.

          Another might be the realization that you were something else than a race car driver.

          Etcetera.

          Then gravity might take hold and drag you down to the ground, SPLAT!

          You might decide you’d rather be back in the car and find yourself back at the wheel, speeding along again.

          It all happened once you discovered that YOU could actually STOP when you desired.

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 5:43 PM

          This doesn’t make any sense to me. How can one stop in mid air? I have seen that only in Road Runner Cartoons.

          To me such “stopping” will be total resistance to motion and completely opposite to mindfulness.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 9, 2013 at 6:15 PM

          Vin:”This doesn’t make any sense to me. How can one stop in mid air?”

          It’s not the body stopping, of course, but the awareness unit.

          You’re in this car called Earth, madly racing around a sun at 1000 mph – just to mention one of the half dozen, or so, relative velocity vectors at work.

          If YOU could stop relative to your body and Earth, you’d see them flying off from you at great speed. It’s a very uncomfortable feeling after just a small moment.

          A lesser gradient would be to just stop thinking and observe. Pretty much my idea of mindfulness.

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:28 PM

          Sorry, it still does not make sense. How can an awareness unit stop? What is this awareness unit that stops? What kind of an object is this awareness unit that has motion?

          It seems that motion needs to be defined with respect to the awareness unit.

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:18 PM

        2X: That is a key starting point, however reached: to gain that separation of awareness that you ARE distinct from the body. At that point you can begin to strengthen the means of achieving that because you know it exists as a difference.

        Chris: This is a true statement for extant religion as I understand it. However, I am now questioning whether the vector of our research should bring us to a state of greater individuality. Are we are dissolving the heavier more massive frame of reference for beingness related to bodies and stopping short when we find ourself in the next frame of reference. So if we dissolve the assumptions associated with identification with the body, then do we arrive at the identification and assumption that we are now a thetan? Possibly this assumption is less solid but not a stopping point? My earlier auditing made me more certain as an individual separate from my body but my further auditing has not resulted in my feeling like more of an individual but less of an individual and more part of the entire whole of existence.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 9, 2013 at 1:57 PM

          C:”My earlier auditing made me more certain as an individual separate from my body but my further auditing has not resulted in my feeling like more of an individual but less of an individual and more part of the entire whole of existence.”

          That is how it should be (that we should become more a part of the whole existence). That has been the message of great philosophers throughout the ages. I think it is a natural consequence of expanding awareness.

          To help explain how I see the relation between the awareness unit and the physical universe I have previously made the following analogy:

          Take an earthmover (machine) – it is large and capable of doing wonderous things, like making a road, but not without an operator. The machine is so large that instead of windows for direct viewing of the environment, the machine has an enclosed operators compartment and uses cameras and viewing monitors to let the operator see what is going on. Operating becomes sort of like a video game.

          So an operator climbs in, has fun building roads and at the end of the day gets out and goes out and enjoys himself dancing or just looking at the stars. This could go on enjoyably and satisfactorily for a long time.

          Now let’s say that someone else comes along and tells the operator that his job is too important to stop at 5PM and he has to stay in the operators compartment until a very lengthy job gets completed. If he agrees somewhat and does this, after a while he may identify himself more as an earthmover than as a person. Given proper mental “persuasions”, he might become entirely convinced that he is the earthmover and resist attempts to remove him from the earthmover.

          It could be so bad that even if he is temporarily separated from the earthmover he will feel only the desire to be back in it. It could take considerable rehabilitation to get the guy to operate “normally” again outside of the earthmover.

          But as he starts regaining his natural abilities and is again able to dance, or look at stars, or whatever, he will realize there is much more to existence than he can be aware of while in the earthmover.

          At that point he can make a choice about how much time he wants to spend in the earthmover, doing the things it can do that he couldn’t otherwise do, and how much time he wants to spend external to the earthmover doing the things he couldn’t possibly do while in it.

          That is an analogy but not far off the mark.

        • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 2:36 PM

          Exteriorization is basically giving up identification, first with the body, then with the mind, and then with the idea of being a powerful thetan.

          There may be other gradients of giving up identification.

          How one may end up after giving up all identifications is unknowable.

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 5:50 AM

      The bottom line seems to be that spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same reality, just like space and time are two different aspects of the same motion.

      We cannot really say that space and time are completely independent of each other being aspects of the same thing. Similarly, we cannot say that spiritual and physical are completely independent of each other.

      We make these categorizations and start to believe in them, but such categories are “man-made” to sort out our understanding. But true understanding is beyond such categorizations.

      Spiritual relates to physical the way patterns of motion in an atom relate to the structure of the atom. The two aspects reinforce each other and give meaning to each other. That is why, I have wondered about what is really happening in exteriorization. It is not separating of two things, but a resolution of some inertia or fixation.

      It is fixation on the body that has momentarily relaxed, which leads to the experience of exteriorization.

      .

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM

      I think one loses the feeling of exteriorization because some aspects of the phenomenon are lagging behind, and which needs needs to catch up to make the feeling of exteriorization permanent.

      There seems to be no means of identifying those factors that lag behind, except to simply be mindful and continue to resolve inconsistencies as they present themselves. Sooner or later we shall fully understand the phenomenon of exteriorization, and at the moment exteriorization will simply become a natural and permanent state.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 9:25 PM

    This is pursuant to discussion with 2ndxmr here:
    https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13650

    .

    From TECHNICAL DICTIONARY of Scientology:

    AWARENESS OF AWARENESS UNIT, 1 . an actuality of no mass, no wavelength, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time. (Dn 55 .!, p. 29) 2 . the individual himself. (5410CM20) 3 . the thetan is the awareness of awareness unit. (5410C10D)

    .

    This definition is inconsistent within itself. According to its assigned attributes it doesn’t exist. Yet it is said to exist. Therefore, this is a concept that has not been diligently worked out. It cannot be equated with the individual except to boost his ego.

    2ndxmr seems to think that this “unit” can have motion, and that motion can be stopped. These kind of ideas seem to come from equating this “unit” with oneself. Only God knows what 2ndxmr is doing with himself to get that idea.

    Since people can have all different kind of ideas about the experiences they can generate, this “unit” can become anything that one wants it to become.

    This definition fools a person into thinking that he knows who he is and what this universe is.

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 9, 2013 at 9:44 PM

      Vin:” According to its assigned attributes it doesn’t exist. Yet it is said to exist.”

      To understand the potential of the awareness unit you first have to grasp the probabilistic state of quantum mechanics This state is said to be a superposition of all the possible states that the quantum thingy could possibly be in.

      How do you interpret this phenomena?

      Does it seem consistent with matter as you perceive matter?

      What set of dimensions is it part of?

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 9:50 PM

      Well, I don’t know if there is such a thing as awareness unit. I have awareness and that awareness depends on relative motion. If I am aware then I represent relative motion. That is how far I have gotten with KHTK Axioms.

      I cannot justify the concept of awareness unit based on my personal experience. I have to take it on faith, but, with me, such faith is hard to come by.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM

        Both of you are making good arguments. Vin needs to address 2x question about probabilistic states, and 2x is collapsing thought patterns from his own ability which is I think the same mechanism used to audit body thetans.

        • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 5:50 AM

          I don’t think that the foundation of Quantum Mechanics is well established.

        • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 6:27 AM

          The last book on Physics that I read a couple of years ago, laid out the following:

          SITUATION
          Three decades have passed without major progress in fundamental physics

          FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEMS
          (1) Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature.

          (2) Resolve the problems in the foundation of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.

          (3) Determine whether or not the various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single, fundamental entity.

          (4) Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen in nature.

          (5) Explain dark matter and dark energy. Or, if they don’t exist, determine how and why gravity is modified on large scales. More generally, explain why the constants of the standard model of cosmology, including the dark energy, have the values they do.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2013 at 11:52 PM

          It seems that the answer is out there while we are still in here.

        • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 6:45 AM

          The idea of awareness unit is very simplistic in my opinion.

          .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 4:21 PM

          V:”The idea of awareness unit is very simplistic in my opinion.”

          The basic unit always seems simple.

          E=mc^2 seems simple, yet huge energies are implied by the simplicity.

          Likewise, the probabilistic state is a near ultimate simplicity. Yet it has nearly infinite potential.

          Fundamentally, the awareness unit and the probabilistic state would be identical.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2013 at 12:21 AM

          2X: Fundamentally, the awareness unit and the probabilistic state would be identical.

          Chris: This seems too inconsistent because is there an infinite number of awareness units each with infinite probabilistic states? There is the synchronization of reality problem, how could this happen with infinite individual awareness units. On and on.

          To me, it seems fair to state that there are processes about which we are aware and underpinning these processes are more processes of which we are not specifically aware. We can call these processes of which we are not aware but conjecture something is there “the probabilistic state.” Meanwhile, we can continue to reason and to look.

        • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM

          Please explain what you mean by ‘probabilistic state’. Is it defined on Wikipedia?

          .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 7:32 PM

          V:”Please explain what you mean by ‘probabilistic state’.”

          The term probabilistic derives from the double-slit experiment. A single electron emitted from a source will pass through the double slit and condense as a particle or wave depending on whether its path has been observed, or not, i.e. depending on whether it is known which slit it came through, or not.

          Per the classic double slit interpretation, in the distance between the emitter and the detector the electron exists only as a probability.

          What is known:

          If the path through the double-slit is known, the electron collapses as a particle; if it is unknown, it collapses as a wave.

          Because it is supposedly unknown whether the electron is in a particle state or a wave state prior to the collapse, the “Schroedinger’s cat” interpretation is adopted: the electron is in a superposition of states; it is both a particle and a wave at the same time.

          That “…it is both a particle and a wave at the same time” has been extended in meaning to be that the real condition of the electron is that it exists as a “probability wave” until it collapses.

          There are a few inconsistencies inherent in that reasoning.

          To start with, the emitted electron was emitted as a non-relativistic particle: its speed was less than ‘c’. This could be confirmed by measuring the time the electron took to pass between the emitter and detector. It should be safe to say that the emitted electron was always emitted as a particle.

          However, at the slit the electron can change to a wave mode – if its path is not observed.

          But physicists submit that in the interim distance it must exist as a probability wave.

          Yet it transits the distance with a time that makes it look like it has been a particle the whole transit distance.

          That is the inconsistency.

          To resolve that inconsistency I submit that there must actually be the potential for the electron to change state between particle and wave at a periodic interval, and that that interval may be much faster than even rates associated with the speed of light.

          The Planck second may well be the periodic interval.

          What this implies is that every Planck second the electron has the possibility of changing state between the particle state and the wave state.

          Both the particle state and the wave state are considered “condensed states”.

          To change from a particle to a wave, or vice versa, there must be a meta state.

          This meta state is the probabilistic state.

          I have coined that as the equivalent of the ‘probability wave’ i.e. the state where superposition of states exists – but on a periodic, cyclical basis, not a long-term basis like the probability wave..

          In the probabilistic state the electron may be influenced by an external condition and that external influence will determine the next state of collapse.

          This means that the electron could be emitted as a particle, transit the distance to the double slit as a particle, and then AT THE DOUBLE SLIT (the external influence) change to a wave or the behavior of a wave.

          (Whether it becomes a wave or takes just the behavior of a wave is an unknown, but only because nobody has yet performed the next needed experiment: measuring the speed of the electron after the doubles slit. Simply stated, if the electron becomes a wave – a photon – it would now have speed = c. )

          The other implication of this concept of a probabilistic state comes from the observation that during the transit interval between the emitter and the double slit the condensed state of the electron has remained as the particle state.

          This implies that there is a quality of quantum inertia present here: the condensed state of the electron will continue from the preceding state until acted on by an external influence.

          Both the concept of the periodic probabilistic state and the concept of quantum inertia are concepts I came up with to explain the inconsistency I observed with the double slit experiment and the interpretations of it. I have yet to come across an inconsistency that these ideas do not explain. To me, at least.:)

        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2013 at 12:29 AM

          2X: If the path through the double-slit is known, the electron collapses as a particle; if it is unknown, it collapses as a wave.

          Chris: If I’ve misunderstood, straighten me out, but the electron exists as a wave unless collapsed to a particle as you describe in the famous experiment. Then I am so curious as to what physically occurs between the two states.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 1:12 AM

          Chris: “If I’ve misunderstood, straighten me out, but the electron exists as a wave unless collapsed to a particle as you describe in the famous experiment.”

          That is a fallacy. That electron would have to have been condensed as a particle by the emitter as it was accelerated from the emitter by voltages. Voltages wouldn’t accelerate a wave.

          Chris:”Then I am so curious as to what physically occurs between the two states.”

          I answered your question in the above. Here is the relevant section:

          “Both the particle state and the wave state are considered “condensed states”.

          To change from a particle to a wave, or vice versa, there must be a meta state.

          This meta state is the probabilistic state.”

          So in the probabilistic state we don’t have an electron as a particle and we don’t have the electron as a wave. Physicists say we have both at the same time, a superposition of states.

          Perhaps another way of looking at the probabilistic state is that the electron has been reduced to an information construct, much as an image – a picture – is an information construct of something while not being the thing.

          So the most likely (most probable) condensation at the end of the probabilistic interval will be a re-condensation of the last information – UNLESS an external influence causes rearrangement of the information. So one arrangement of the information of the electron would give it particle-like properties, the other arrangement would give it wave-like properties.

          I have likened elementary particles to a Rubic’s cube: the different colors of the cube represent the different dimensional qualities – charge, spin, mass being the primary qualities. Different elementary particles would have different distributions of the colors on different faces of the cube.

          If one face of the cube represented “wave-like behavior” and another face of the cube represented “particle-like behavior” then by turning the cube so that the “particle-like behavior” face is facing us during the condensed state, we would see the electron as a particle. For the electron to condense as a wave would then only take a minor rotation as it came from the probabilistic (information) phase.

          The Rubic’s cube analogy shows the elementary particle to be a set of dimensions (colors and color combinations) that make it unique and identifiable. The cube idea also shows the possibility that orientation of the dimension set can affect behavior.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

          So the electron is accelerated as a particle but digresses to a meta state of probability which collapses to either a particle or wave and presents as one or the other depending on the influence of observation?

          What state, particle, meta, or wave was it in before it was accelerated away from the emitter?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 5:23 PM

          C:”What state, particle, meta, or wave was it in before it was accelerated away from the emitter?”

          I see that this is a harder concept to grasp than I imagined. Let me see if I can make a better job of it.

          The premise is that there is a cycle that the electron goes through and the period of that cycle is a Planck second. Very fast.

          The cycle is:
          – condensed state (either wave or particle)
          – probabilistic state (both a wave and a particle; superposition of both)
          – condensed state (either a wave or a particle, depending on whether an external influence “observed it”, or not)

          Think of this as a cyclical event, like the output of an AC generator, a sine wave.

          For simplicity we might think of the positive portion of the sine wave as the condensed state, and the negative portion as the probabilistic state.

          The main thing to get a concept of is the cyclical nature of the two states. We can leave how it comes about for another discussion.

          So the electron is going CS (condensed state), PS (probabilistic state), CS, PS, CS, PS,… CYCLICALLY ever Planck second.

          During the condensed state it is either wave-like or particle-like. As it enters the probabilistic state it is turned into the equivalent of information, like a picture, of what it just was in the last CS.

          Let’s say the picture is more than just a two dimensional picture. Let’s say it’s 3 dimensional, like a hologram. Let’s go on to say that the electron looks just like an apple, but not a perfect apple; an apple with a bite out of it; a bite with wavy teeth marks.

          I’ll deviate here and add to this analogy.

          If we orient the apple with the bite facing away from us it looks like a perfect apple. To us. If we wanted to sell the apple we might want to orient it with the bite toward us so that the buyer always thinks he’s getting the whole apple.

          If we were selling apples this dual property of the apple would lead us to a rule for viewing: if the apple isn’t being viewed as it approaches the cash register, leave it in whatever orientation it was in. However, if the customer turns his gaze toward the apple and the bitten side is showing, rotate it fast so the customer only sees the good side. To add more to this analogy let’s say there is also a portion of time the apple is out of sight behind a screen so that the customer has no chance of seeing the apple being turned.

          Getting back to the CS-PS cycle, with a bit of apple-iness, our apple-like electron can emerge from the PS either with the bitten side facing us (wave-like) or the unbitten side facing us (particle-like) depending on just two things:
          1) the orientation it was in when it entered the PS
          2) whether it will be viewed, or not, when it exits the PS

          To answer your question about what state the electron was in before it was accelerated away from the emitter we have to consider:
          1) what is the most likely form of the electron as it orbits an atom’s nucleus?
          2) what form would it have to be in to be accelerated by a voltage?

          The answer to #1 is arguable. It is the answer to #2 that is germane, and that answer is that it must be particle-like as voltages won’t accelerate waves and voltages are used to propel the emitted electron toward the double slit.

          Regardless of whether the electron is wave-like or particle-like as it revolves around the nucleus, the emitted electron will only be propelled towards the target by the acceleration plates if it is in the particle form. (That leaves room for additional argument with a physicist on what will happen, but is sufficient for this explanation.)

          Once emitted as the particle form and accelerated towards the target it stays in the particle form because it has not yet reached the point of external influence – the double slit and the possible observer.

          The electron continues doing the CS-PS-CS-PS-CS-… cycle but continues to pop out of the PS as a particle because that’s the information that was captured when it went into the PS and no external influence is causing reorientation of its information during the PS.

          Any clearer?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2013 at 6:31 PM

          Yeah much better. So if the electron is doing this then are the other elemental particles doing the same thing?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 7:41 PM

          C:”Yeah much better. So if the electron is doing this then are the other elemental particles doing the same thing?”

          Yes

        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2013 at 4:20 AM

          So interesting! I have to keep reminding myself that at that size, there is plenty of space time by many orders of magnitude for anything to be happening. Imagine what it could possibly take, what would have to be built to observe that phenomena.

        • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 10:01 PM

          Are you saying that Awareness Unit exhibits dual particle-like and wave-like behavior?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2013 at 12:34 AM

          Vin: Are you saying that Awareness Unit exhibits dual particle-like and wave-like behavior?

          Chris: If you are addressing me, then yes, I am saying that thought “waves” collapse to idea particles. Maybe that’s a misuse of the famous analogy of collapse, but I deal everyday with blueprints on paper or computer monitor which arrived in that state from someone’s thoughts!

        • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 10:48 PM

          v:”Are you saying that Awareness Unit exhibits dual particle-like and wave-like behavior?”

          I’m saying the awareness unit exhibits the behavior of the probabilistic state – but not the simple, dual state of an electron.

          The electron serves as a simple model for understanding the mechanism of the probabilistic state.

          That mechanism shows that an energy condensation (the particle or wave, in the case of an electron) can result from a possibly dimensionless state.

          [This state has the look of “the math of the root-of-minus-one” to it. It can’t be defined by real dimensions (both meanings of real) yet the equations resolve if you include it (and that is why the word probabilistic comes up: the trick to handling the complex number being to square it, at which point it has a mathematical similarity to a probability).]

          The elementary particles of The Standard Model are a limited set of condensations based on a limited set of dimensions.

          The awareness unit need not be defined by a limited set of dimensions. It may, as probably is, the creator of dimension.

        • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 11:06 PM

          The following definition tells me that quantum mechanics looks at awareness as part of a phenomenon and not separate from the phenomenon being observed. Is your awareness unit stand independent of the phenomenon being observed, or is it part of the phenomenon?

          quantum mechanics: A fundamental theory of matter and energy that explains facts that previous physical theories were unable to account for, in particular the fact that energy is absorbed and released in small, discrete quantities (quanta), and that all matter displays both wavelike and particlelike properties, especially when viewed at atomic and subatomic scales. Quantum mechanics suggests that the behavior of matter and energy is inherently probabilistic and that the effect of the observer on the physical system being observed must be understood as a part of that system.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 11:46 PM

          V:”Is your awareness unit stand independent of the phenomenon being observed, or is it part of the phenomenon?”

          As I indicated before, a key quality of the awareness unit would be that it could create dimension by creating “space”. A better word needs to be found for space because it is too easy to think of space only as our visible 3-space. For now I’ll leave it as space, because that is the thing that is noticeable in the exterior state: that one has created a space and is aware of the things in that space in a more extensive way than when fully and wholly in the body.

          So I submit that the awareness unit can create a space and I expect that space, if analyzed, would have a quality to it which might be similar to EM, electromagnetism. The particular reason it might be EM-like is that the awareness unit seems to be sensitive to patterns of EM, therefore it is more likely that what it can create would be EM-like.

          Continuing with this reasoning and observation set, an additional observation is that the awareness unit can condense energies from past memories that can have enormous effect on the body. Usually bad: pains, sensations, emotions and attitudes being fairly good descriptors.

          This “ability” to condense energies that impact the body is an indicator that the awareness unit could condense energies outside the body, as well. Since these energies are being condensed from what I have called the probabilistic state, and they are more varied than the condensations we refer to as elementary particles, it is likely that the awareness unit could learn to condense energies within the bandwidth of the elementary particles.

          Thus the awareness unit could act as the observer in the QM model and alter the condensations of The Standard Model. This would not be a simple thing to learn but should ultimately be learnable.

          It may also be that the awareness unit could allow its condensations to be modified by the observation of another awareness unit.

          Those abilities would fulfill answers to both sides of your question.

        • vinaire  On November 11, 2013 at 1:24 PM

          2ndxmr, can any of your assertions be actually tested?

          .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM

          The methodology of testing probably does not yet exist. We have magnets but they won’t attract sawdust. It is a matter for research, just as quantum phenomena was a matter for research from 1929 up to now and beyond. First comes theory, then the development of means to test the theories.

          At this point we are still trying to make theory as consistent with observation as possible. Some of the observations are difficult to believe, such as one piece of solid matter passing through another without damage to either. That’s an actual observation of someone who just wouldn’t make up such a story. In such a case – if one trusts the observer to at least not be lying about the report – then one has to look at the mechanics of the universe to see how such a thing might occur. We might spend years doing that. Or we can just explain it away as delusion and have a nice day.

          I’ve been thinking for quite a few years of a means to test some of these hypotheses. We’re hardly farther than the point of seeing that some stones will stick to our iron swords but not our bronze ones. Are reports of “sticky stones” to be discounted as delusional because none of the stones at my feet are attracted to my sword? Are you just a devilish sleight-of-hand magician who should be burned because stones will stick to your grey-metal sword but not my golden one?

          Yes, enquiring minds do want to know.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 1:05 AM

      V:”2ndxmr seems to think that this “unit” can have motion, and that motion can be stopped”

      If the awareness unit is the equivalent of the quantum probabilistic state, the question of absolute location becomes another difficult question since location implies dimension and by definition, probabilistic implies lack of definable dimension.

      If the awareness unit has condensed energies associated with it, then these energies likely have a physical universe dimension. Kirlian photography shows energies around a body that are not explainable as a result of purely chemical processes.

      What is apparent and locatable is one’s body and my guess is that the awareness unit uses the 3-D electrical field of the brain as the primary interface location. The awareness unit’s tight association with this 3-D field may be analogous to having a hand in one of those sensor gloves. The hand supplies animation to the glove and the glove supplies interface qualities that the hand would otherwise not have.

      Motion of the hand-in-glove and awareness-in-3D-field may be similarly analogous: location of the animator during motion can be defined by the location of the interface device. However, if the glove is a “loose fit” and the hand makes a fast motion and then an abrupt stop, the glove may go flying off the hand. That, of course, is due to the inertia of the glove but really is more of a matter of “fit” of the glove: a well secured glove will not come off regardless of the attempt of the hand.

      Similarly, if the “fit” of the awareness unit is sufficiently “loose” within the 3D field, the decision of the awareness unit to stop motion relative to the field/body (already in motion due to physical universe motions) could have the same effect as the released glove i.e. a rapid increase of spatial distance between the two things.

      • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 7:32 AM

        (1) To me dimensions means various aspects of reality that one can become aware of.

        (2) Quantum probabilistic state simply tells me that a position in space is not absolute but relative.

        (3) KHTK Axiom #7 tells me that position in space is a function of inertia (resistance to motion).

        (4) I have no idea what an awareness unit is. It seems to be a simplistic notion like God, which is a convenient thought stopper when speculations become torturous. Sorry! False Data Stripping anybody! Hubbard?

        .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 4:28 PM

          V:”(1) To me dimensions means various aspects of reality that one can become aware of.”

          You need to expand on that because it comes across as an egotistical assertion i.e. if you are not aware of it, it’s not a dimension. You ar only aware of up, down and sideways because of gravity. Take away gravity and your sense of sight and you could claim (based on your assertion) that there is no up, down and sideways, i.e. no 3-space.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 4:31 PM

          V:”(2) Quantum probabilistic state simply tells me that a position in space is not absolute but relative.”

          Probabilistic implies lack of dimension, therefore position cannot be ascertained or predicted either absolutely or relatively.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 4:43 PM

          V:”(3) KHTK Axiom #7 tells me that position in space is a function of inertia (resistance to motion).”

          That is tautological and does not take into account inertia-less photons, for example. A photon in motion through space has a predictable location at any point in time. Space does not slow the photon down over time, therefore there is no resistance to motion.

          The position in space of any THING at any point in time is a function of a starting point and all later combined forces on that THING.

          Those forces are more (in number) than the solitary effect of the counter-forces that manifest as inertia.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2013 at 12:03 AM

          Vin: “thought stopper when speculations become torturous.”

          Chris: LOL!

      • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 7:35 AM

        From Wikipedia:

        Kirlian photography is a collection of photographic techniques used to capture the phenomenon of electrical coronal discharges. It is named after Semyon Kirlian, who, in 1939 accidentally discovered that if an object on a photographic plate is connected to a high-voltage source, an image is produced on the photographic plate. The technique has been variously known as “electrography”, “electrophotography”, “corona discharge photography” (CDP), “bioelectrography”, “gas discharge visualization (GDV)”, “eletrophotonic imaging (EPI)”, and, in Russian literature, “Kirlianography”.

        Kirlian photography has been the subject of mainstream scientific research, parapsychology research and art. To a large extent, It has been co-opted by promoters of pseudoscience, fringe science and paranormal health claims in books, magazines, workshops, and web sites.

        .

      • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 7:50 AM

        The awareness unit, as described, seems to be a “local uncaused cause.”

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2013 at 12:04 AM

          Vin: The awareness unit, as described, seems to be a “local uncaused cause.”

          Chris: LOL, I don’t know what you mean!

      • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2013 at 11:34 PM

        2X: Kirlian photography shows energies around a body that are not explainable as a result of purely chemical processes.

        Chris: “Living Art” as Kirlian photography is sometimes called is debunked in this article I found at the top of a 1 second Google search. I don’t care either way how this turned out, it just popped up like this.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2013 at 11:37 PM

        2X: Kirlian photography shows energies around a body that are not explainable as a result of purely chemical processes.

        Chris: I am not so sure of this. The second article that popped up on Kirlian photography was click here.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM

          From the article:
          “This moisture is transferred from the subject to the emulsion surface of the photographic film and causes an alternation of the electric charge pattern on the film. If a photograph is taken in a vacuum, where no ionized gas is present, no Kirlian image appears. If the Kirlian image were due to some paranormal fundamental living energy field, it should not disappear in a simple vacuum (Hines 2003).”

          The Kirlian image may certainly be related to an effect on water but that does not discount the possibility of the energy field. All it says is that the energy field was detected by its effect on water.

          Saying that the Kirlian effect should be visible in a vacuum is specious logic if it is established to be a result of interaction with water. A body, of course, could not survive in a vacuum and be measured (photographed) in the same manner as a typical Kirlian photograph.

          The only conclusion that can be drawn from Hines’ data is that the study was limited and the conclusions were not well thought out.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2013 at 11:48 PM

        2x: If the awareness unit is the equivalent of the quantum probabilistic state, the question of absolute location becomes another difficult question since location implies dimension and by definition, probabilistic implies lack of definable dimension.

        Chris: You are right. I am not trying to put forth an ultimate truth, just a relative truth. I don’t think that what consciousness thinks of itself is as supreme as human lore tries to imagine. Also not trying to say I know or understand what probabilistic state exists outside the human state. Just saying that I will continue to listen, to look, and to think about this. What seems apparent to me is that humanity’s “consciousness,” with its awareness of its own awareness, seems to feedback information in a type of circuit that spends its time trying to make itself relevant rather than understanding how it is relative. Is it so outrageous that the “awareness unit” is itself within ourselves as it appears to be?

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 5:53 AM

    (1) Both, the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics seem to deal with this mysterious phenomenon called MOTION.

    (2) Awareness is inextricably linked with motion. Therefore, any theory about motion is also a theory about awareness.

    (3) Einstein established that space and time are simply the aspects of motion. They do not exist as absolute concepts within themselves.

    (4) Space is not fixed and absolute as a background. Space is as dynamic as matter, it moves and morphs. The whole universe can expand or shrink.

    (5) Time can begin and end. BIG BANG = Beginning of a cycle, BLACK HOLE = End of a cycle

    (6) Gravity and motion are intimately related to each other.

    (7) Position and energy are themselves relative

    (8) We may be familiar with some aspect of motion. MOTION is largely an unknown phenomenon, and so is awareness.

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM

      V:”(2) Awareness is inextricably linked with motion. Therefore, any theory about motion is also a theory about awareness.”

      That is an assertion that can be contradicted easily.

      It is quite conceivable that a person could sustain complete loss of sensory input from combined nerve and spinal damage, yet remain aware.

      Awareness is a quality that can exist without motion or perceived dimension.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2013 at 12:25 AM

        2X: Awareness is a quality that can exist without motion or perceived dimension.

        Chris: Something like Hawking? Yet he has his mind, mental spacetime, objects and my belief, gravity of sorts.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 10, 2013 at 5:06 PM

      V:”(3) Einstein established that space and time are simply the aspects of motion. They do not exist as absolute concepts within themselves.”

      I will contend that time is fundamentally a function of rate-of-change of space. Like a heartbeat, expanding and contracting and thus creating a unit of time, expanding and contracting a volume of space could set the basic heartbeat of the universe.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 7:38 AM

      V:”(5) Time can begin and end. BIG BANG = Beginning of a cycle, BLACK HOLE = End of a cycle”

      The current universe is “flat” (not curved or spherical) as validated by recent scientific measurement of the pattern and distribution of the cosmic background-microwave-radiation.

      A flat universe will continue to expand, not slow and collapse. This is a result of dark energy which seems to have an opposite effect from gravity.

    • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 7:48 AM

      V:”(6) Gravity and motion are intimately related to each other.”

      Gravity and mass are connected; gravity and space-time are connected. I don’t see a direct connection between gravity and motion in a manner that is of the same order of magnitude as curvature of space. Gravity accelerates a mass, granted, and causes the motion of planets, and such. Is that the connection you meant?

      • vinaire  On November 11, 2013 at 8:17 PM

        I see space and time as aspects of motion. Gravity is also an aspect of motion that involves accleration.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2013 at 4:59 AM

          Vin: Gravity is also an aspect of motion that involves acceleration.

          Chris: In my opinion it is smart to reiterate and accentuate the tautology that gravity involves acceleration. This may be the key to unravelling the mystery of this different aspect of relative motion.

          Relative motion may occur in quantum jumps and then stop making those quantum jumps. This is due to an extraneous object applying kinetic force of its own to another object’s vector of relative resulting in a third vector.

          In this light, and unlike the relative motion of extraneous objects colliding with one another, gravity seems to be a quality of space time which quantum jumps repetitively, consecutively, and geometrically — something like the reverse of the radioactive half-life.

          This conjecture is extrapolated from considering the concept of acceleration. Thank you Vinay.

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 6:07 AM

    One of the foundational problems is to combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature.

    KHTK Axiom #7 is my effort in that direction. One must start with a simple conjecture and then examine it for consistency with thought experiments. One should then follow it with actual experiments.

    https://vinaire.me/2013/10/24/khtk-axiom-7-a-location/

    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 6:42 AM

    Einstein’s Special theory of relativity demonstrated the equivalence of energy and matter. The mathematical reality of energy and matter is presented as a type of particle called FERMION in particle physics.

    Einstein’s General theory of relativity demonstrated that space and time are not fixed in themselves but are components of a combined reality. The mathematical reality of space and time is presented as a type of particle called BOSON in particle physics.

    The long time effort in physics has been to discover the common mathematical reality underlying FERMION and BOSON through supersymmetry theories.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 6:49 AM

    Supersymmetry and all theories of particle physics are based on the consistency of mathematics. They try to present REALITY in various mathematical forms. The primary mathematical forms are equations that must yield finite solutions. This is so that information may be deduced about what underlies REALITY.

    What is missing in Physics is that space, energy, matter and time are aspects of a manifestation. If there is no manifestation there is no space, time, energy and matter. The “background” in which a manifestation would occur has to be devoid of manifestations. An absence of manifestation would also be an absence of information. Thus, there can be no information available about the background in which a manifestation (of space, time, energy and matter) takes place. That background is UNKNOWABLE. Thus, there are no mathematical equations that could capture REALITY and yield finite solutions representing the source of REALITY.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2013 at 11:58 PM

      Vin: The “background” in which a manifestation would occur has to be devoid of manifestations.

      Chris: This seems to be a leap. It seems more accurate to say that the background of processes which we do detect, would contain ongoing processes which we have not detected.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2013 at 12:01 AM

      Vin: Thus, there are no mathematical equations that could capture REALITY and yield finite solutions representing the source of REALITY.

      Chris: Possibly the recent lack of progress in particle physics is due to Godel’s incompleteness. Possibly we are hitting a wall caused by our operations taking place within a subset of the universe which cannot know what is outside its own set. This is not to say we cannot move outside the set we currently operate in, after all the universe is a big place and we are part of it.

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 6:58 AM

    Apparently, motion and awareness are a package deal. They occur together. The background in which they occur has to be devoid of both motion and awareness. That background is UNKNOWABLE.

    How does the transition from Unknowable to knowable takes place? How do motion and awareness come about?

    Mathematics tells us where to look. We have to do the looking.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 7:28 AM

    It amounts to a phenomenon looking at itself.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 11, 2013 at 6:27 AM

    Chris: “To me, it seems fair to state that there are processes about which we are aware and underpinning these processes are more processes of which we are not specifically aware. We can call these processes of which we are not aware but conjecture something is there “the probabilistic state.” Meanwhile, we can continue to reason and to look.”

    .

    Vin: Excellent point.

  • vinaire  On November 11, 2013 at 6:42 AM

    2ndxmr, what personal experiences make you think that there is awareness unit?

    Is awareness unit a phenomenon or a creator of phenomena?

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 7:28 AM

      I’d had a few oobes as a youngster and more as a University student. This was years prior to even knowing anything about Scn. I’d also had between-lives recall as a child that I remembered having after running into more of the same during auditing. I validated one memory by going back to that location (1200 miles away) and seeing the same building as I’d seen (quite distinctly) in the auditing recall.

      The oobes I’d had at University (no drugs!) were vivid and as 3-D as you’d get looking around a room. The location was distant and not one I would have consciously thought of going to. That was a case of ending up at a location.

      I expect the awareness unit is capable of creating phenomena, knowingly or unknowingly. The awareness unit could be called a phenomenon if it was a spontaneously occurring result from the “void”, a result similar to the probabilistic state in QM. I don’t believe, however, that it would be a result of some condensation within the quantum foam of this universe.

      • vinaire  On November 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

        How does one recognize a between life phenomenon? What makes it different from imagination?

        .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 11:14 PM

          V:”How does one recognize a between life phenomenon? What makes it different from imagination?”

          When you apply mindfulness do you imagine or just take what is there?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM

          2X: When you apply mindfulness do you imagine or just take what is there?

          Chris: I like this question and it is consistent with my burgeoning idea that in the inception of thought is fractally geometric in nature, rational or irrational, and resulting in a model. Models upon models.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2013 at 4:41 AM

          Vin: How does one recognize a between life phenomenon? What makes it different from imagination?

          Chris: I am going to guess “orders of magnitude.” 1. Because there is room in the universe for this to be the case. And, 2. Because this is consistent with my previous conjecturing on the relevance of fractal geometry. And, 3. Because this is consistent with my new belief and faith in Phil, the Feeler. Katageek’s best work yet.

    • vinaire  On November 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM

      I look at awareness as a phenomenon to be studied, and I don’t want to take it for granted just because I have awareness. Even though I have awareness it doesn’t mean that I understand everything about it.

      The following video provides some interesting data about awareness:

      .

      • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 8:29 AM

        Pretty good. I agree with just about everything she said. Her attention was still slightly inwards and on her identity and relationships as opposed to being outwards and not on personal identity.

        What she said about the space she occupied (during the coma) and location change by focus of attention was quite real.

  • vinaire  On November 11, 2013 at 4:45 PM

    Does the double-slit experiment behaves the same way with light as with electrons?

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM

      V:”Does the double-slit experiment behaves the same way with light as with electrons?”

      Yes. According to some physicists, even basket balls would behave the same way – if you could make pairs of them that were fully entangled.

      (Alteration of the condensed state has apparently been done with diamond at the size level where the change was visible to the naked eye.)

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM

    2ndxmr said in https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13703:

    “You need to expand on that because it comes across as an egotistical assertion i.e. if you are not aware of it, it’s not a dimension. You ar only aware of up, down and sideways because of gravity. Take away gravity and your sense of sight and you could claim (based on your assertion) that there is no up, down and sideways, i.e. no 3-space.”

    The definition of dimensions in Physics is: “any of a set of basic kinds of quantity, as mass, length, and time, in terms of which all other kinds of quantity can be expressed.”

    To me, anything that can plotted on a scale, shall constitute a dimension. Some of them are basic. Others may not be so basic. But I would not like to exclude any dimension just because it is not considered to be basic.

    The idea of good-evil may be plotted on a scale. To me that shall constitute a dimension.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2013 at 2:33 PM

      This is an interesting argument. We should try to break it down into its parts.

    • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 4:46 PM

      Dimensions are of the following types:
      (a) Basic
      (b) Derived
      (c) Physical
      (d) Metaphysical
      (e) Concrete
      (f) Abstract

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 7:33 PM

    From 2ndxmr in https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13704:

    “Probabilistic implies lack of dimension, therefore position cannot be ascertained or predicted either absolutely or relatively.”

    .

    Probabilistic implies lack of exact knowledge. We need a different way of looking at wave-particle duality. My conjecture is that a wave transitions to a particle in infinite gradients as resistance to motion increases.

    Degree of transition from wave to particle = f (resistance to motion)

    Generally, there is resistance experienced by EMR as permittivity and permeability.

    Permittivity of “space” is a constant that relates to the amount of resistance encountered when forming an electric field in a classical vacuum.

    Permeability of “space” is a constant that relates to the amount of resistance encountered when forming a magnetic field in a classical vacuum.

    The speed of light c is determined by permittivity and permeability. I would suspect that permittivity and permeability would slightly increase, and the speed of EMR shall slightly decrease, with increase in frequency of the EMR radiation. If my conjecture is true, the speed pf gamma rays would be slightly slower than the speed of microwaves in classical vacuum.

    The speed of electron shall definitely be slower that the speed of light. The speed of fundamental particles is expected to decrease with their mass if my conjecture is true.

    Has such experiments been carried out?

    .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM

    From 2ndxmr in https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13705:

    “That is tautological and does not take into account inertia-less photons, for example…”

    .

    Photons have inertia and that is why c is not infinite. c is limited by permittivity and permeability.

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 12, 2013 at 11:23 PM

      V:”Photons have inertia and that is why c is not infinite. c depends on permittivity and permeability.”

      If they had inertia, would they not have to accelerate to light speed?

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 6:00 AM

        I don’t understand your question.

        • MarkNR  On November 13, 2013 at 9:01 AM

          And here we have what appears to be an outpoint in physical laws. If electrons have inertia, that implies mass. They are said to have a certain mass. Mass can never reach the speed of light, only approach it, from any stable point of reference. Yet electrons always travel at ‘c’ in space. In a conductive materiel, the speed is slightly slower due to not traveling in a straight line as it goes from atom to atom.
          Do electrons accelerate when they jump from atom to atom or are they already traveling at ‘c’ in their orbits around the nucleus, thereby no acceleration is necessary. Is there a moment when electrons change states from an object with mass to a particle/wave with no mass.
          There is a common phrase among people when talking about emotional issues that says “You can’t have it both ways”, but in QM there are several instances where you can “have it both ways”. It seems to me that many of the illogical laws, outpoints, and exceptions of physics were simply created in order to make things work out right. You make 10 rules. 2 of them conflict. So you say “Except when…….” in order to solve the problem.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:19 PM

          Good post MarkNR.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 4:45 PM

          2X: I don’t understand your question.

          CT: Does an emitted photon simply emit beginning at light speed like from “zero to c” instantaneously or does it have to accelerate from 0 to c over time?

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 8:33 PM

          When we think of speed we think of the rate of change of position. The implicit assumption is that of a partcle because particles have position.

          A wave does not have a position. So the idea of speed when applied to a wave has a totally different meaning. Speed of a wave and speed of a particle are two very different concepts… like apples and oranges.

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        V:”Photons have inertia and that is why c is not infinite. c depends on permittivity and permeability.

        2x:”If they had inertia, would they not have to accelerate to light speed?

        CT: I’m seeing it this way too. Acceleration implies higher quantum energy states, added by the Planck second (conjecture). Even if a photon accelerated to c, and even if we said there is plenty of unmeasurably short time available for this to occur, acceleration demands additional energy be added by the moment. Said another way, increasing relative motion requires the addition of energy. Regarding the photon, how would we account for this?

        • MarkNR  On November 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM

          C.T.:
          Perhaps the particle which becomes a photon when released was already moving, or was in a state of apparent or potential motion, at ‘c’ before it was released from it’s object of origin. The energy required to project light may be simply used to 1. convert the particle to a photon and 2. separate it from its parent particle. It’s apparent ‘velocity’ may have already been ‘c’ in a state of vibration or rotation. Therefore no acceleration is necessary.
          Thoughts?
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 7:11 PM

          MarkNR: Thoughts?

          Chris: Because there are paradoxes involved, and because I don’t believe in paradox, my thinking is that down the road, when these mysteries are illuminated, we will see that we hadn’t laid these problems our correctly and thusly were off base by quite a bit. That generation may have a good laugh at our expense the way we snicker at the old ‘uns before us.

          That was my escapist thought. My real conjecture about your question is that the universe may have a digital basis and there may not be any motion at all, only quantum jumps per second. When the quantum jump occurs every Planck second, that may correspond with the speed of light. Therefore according to my hypothesis, there would be no acceleration of a photon, only a wave packet appearing each and every Planck second. The rest of us would therefore appear less often since we are more massive and move more slowly. I once did a calculation to compare this to say a jet airplane travelling at 1000 kM/hr and found that it moved very seldom, hanging mostly still in mid-air and moving only 1/4 mm every so often. Compared to Planck time, it was moving so slowly that it hardly moved at all. Anyways, in my model, there is no motion, only quantum leaping with gaps of disappearance in between while potential energy built up until there was enough energy for next quantum leap could occur. There are many unexplained holes in this idea though it is a bit fresh when compared to extant ideas about movement. However, to me it is consistent with and explains why the speed of light would measure the same for all frames of reference, it is because the light “beam” is not actually in motion.

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 1:52 AM

          C.T.:
          Fascinating concept. Motion is digital rather than analog. A successive series of quantum jumps, according to a continuous intention. It would be interesting how apparent spin and angular momentum would play into that.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:29 AM

          As I say, a lot of holes in that idea but a few consistencies as well. Did I ever tell you how I brilliantly came up with the theory of spontaneous generation in a past life? It all came about when I observed mice spontaneously generating from grain which had been stored in a dark corner! haha

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:34 AM

          MarkNR: “according to a continuous intention.”

          CT: I’m not sure I used the word intention. I feel that I do not know the underpinning of original space-time, that may take a bit longer to work out. haha

          Currently, I have degraded thetans from creators of the universe to integral part of the universe, at least until I figure out this last bit.

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

          C.T.
          Sorry, ‘intention’ was my injection, and I failed to point that out.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM

          No worries!

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:42 AM

          The assumption seems to be that “motion occurs in space”.

          This violates KHTK Axiom #3.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

          The “motion occurs in space” assumption is fallacious as motion cannot be separated from space-time. In my model, and for this discussion, motion and space-time are synonymous.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 5:56 PM

          In my model, the universe is a huge motion, and that is expressed as space and time. There occurs a gradual solidification of motion into energy and matter.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:11 PM

          I don’t quite understand what you mean by solidification of motion into matter.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:21 PM

          Solidification = increasing inertia = increasing fixation.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:14 PM

          Vin: In my model, the universe is a huge motion

          Ct: All things being relative, the universe in your model can be a huge solid as well, for no solid is truly solid, is it?

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:22 PM

          What does solid mean to you?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:45 PM

          Same thing that it means to you.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 7:13 PM

          What does it mean to me? Does Katageek Q&A?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 8:01 PM

          It is a joke. Katageek writes with what I consider extreme nonconformity which I consider useful for breaking the back of the status quo of extant science and philosophy. When we feel stuck with an idea that is going nowhere then the counterintuitive approach is useful to me.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:16 PM

          How did that approach work this time?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 6:26 AM

          Pretty good.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 6:28 AM

          Can you document that approach as an exercise?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 6:47 AM

          Come again?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 6:54 AM

          Oh wait, I get you. Yes, good idea but I have to think about it to break down what I do. Briefly and off the cuff, when I feel stuck I try to take a reverse vector or possibly 90 degrees. It is an offshoot, a leftover from my youth when working with horses. They are big, and a person relies on their cooperation to move them around. Sometimes, when puling on their lead rope, they resist. To “unstick” them, I might pull on the rope 90 degrees pulling their head to the left or to the right to make them shuffle their front feet to keep their balance. This results in getting them to “take a step” then by continuing to pull on the rope, inertia takes over and then begin walking in the direction I wanted in the first place.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 6:58 AM

          So it boils down to selecting a different vector of force than the vector that is meeting too much resistance and feeling too much inertia. But what to do to exercise this? Probably many people do this when problem solving, I doubt the idea has any type of originality. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again on another vector.”

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 7:12 AM

          Vin: Can you document that approach as an exercise?

          Chris: It would be good for this question if Katageek would chime in on this to see how he arrives at his counterintuitive ideas about enlightenment, meditation, etc.,.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 7:14 AM

          Vin: Can you document that approach as an exercise?

          Chris: It’s like if I was looking at a tree and thinking about leaves and kind of getting nowhere then I might for a while instead of look at the space between the leaves and noticing the shape of that space, etc.,. That’s what I mean by different vector as well.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM

          From the angle of mindfulness, it would simply be meditating over the concept without resisting it, to see what pops up.

          .

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 7:03 AM

          The “manipulation” part would be looking at that concept from all angles.

          .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 9:12 PM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13706

    V:”(2) Awareness is inextricably linked with motion. Therefore, any theory about motion is also a theory about awareness.”

    That is an assertion that can be contradicted easily.

    It is quite conceivable that a person could sustain complete loss of sensory input from combined nerve and spinal damage, yet remain aware.

    Awareness is a quality that can exist without motion or perceived dimension.

    .

    Whenever there is awareness there is also relative motion. If there is absence of moving physical objects then there are always mental objects that are in relative motion. Mental objects are those perceived by the mind, such as, thoughts, emotions, impulses, etc.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2013 at 9:27 PM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13713

    “2ndxmr: Per the classic double slit interpretation, in the distance between the emitter and the detector the electron exists only as a probability.”

    .

    I question that interpretation.

    It seems to me that, in the distance between the emitter and the detector the electron exists at a certain state of wave transitioning to particle because of inherent resistance due to permittivity and permeability.

    Experimental setup to observe electron as a particle provides enough additional resistance to the system to collapse electron as a particle.

    .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM

      V:” …detector the electron exists at a certain state of wave transitioning to particle…”

      I think the electron is more binary than that i.e. it presents as either fully wave or fully particle.

      If it were able to transition on an infinite gradient there would be an infinite number of detectable states of the electron. This would violate some basic rules of QM. It would also mean that the electron could be found in an infinite number of energy levels as it orbits a nucleus. Doesn’t happen.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 6:23 AM

        There are infinite states of MOTION. Electron is one of those states.

        Not all those infinite states may be stable, but some may be like nodes of a standing wave.

        .

        • 2ndxmr  On November 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM

          I use my Rubic’s cube model to consider stability, too.

          Consider the different colors of the cube having different weights (masses). There will be stable orientations of the cube (like when it is resting on a flat face) and temporarily stable orientations (like standing the cube on a edge. If the masses are in a proper distribution the cube might just balance on an edge for a while, but will be unstable, easily falling onto one of its stable faces.)

          The cube could be oriented onto a corner, and, again, there may be a distribution of mass that will allow it to remain that way, for a while, before it collapses to a stable flat side.

          Take a reasonably stable on-corner orientation and spin it and now the cube may be more or less stable that the un-spun on-corner orientation.

          These models demonstrate why some elementary particles are stable and some are short-lived before they collapse into other particles or energy levels.

          No particle has an infinite number of orientations that it can be stable in, or will ever be seen in, so I consider it unlikely that the particle would gradiently change between orientations.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:05 PM

          Vin: There are infinite states of MOTION

          Chris: I am not going to yield to this just yet. Granted, the smallest meaningful movements are very very small, however, I believe they occur by quantum jump and they are not infinitely small. Almost! But not quite. The way we would show this is to get down and measure the smallest meaningful dimensions, movements, and see if they were truly continuous or whether they had digital gaps between.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:34 AM

          What is there in the gap?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM

          Vin: what is in the gap?

          Ct: The unseen half of the sine wave? The moment of appearance in the parallel universe? Anti-matter? Correct me if I’m wrong! hahaha

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:03 PM

          You are on a roll!

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:31 PM

          Vin: You are on a roll!

          Ct: To resist me is futile! I cannot be undone, I have been reading too much Katageek, I am Phil!

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:34 PM

          Resistance only generates inertia.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 7:41 AM

          Planck length is based on the premise that there is a smallest meaningful measurement… Much smaller than we can measure, it is nevertheless not infinitely small.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 8:16 AM

          To have a meaningful measurement there must be states or point having a difference between them to be measured. What happens when those states or points themselves are fuzzy?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 4:33 PM

          Maybe give an example.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 4:54 PM

          Locations get more precisely defined as transition occurs from wave characteristics to particle characteristics. Thus, locations are better defined for particles. A length is a measure of distance between two locations. If the locations are fuzzy, the length is going to be fuzzier still.

          We assume locations in space to be precise because of Euclidean geometry. I don’t think that works at atomic scales.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 5:08 PM

          This is a good example of how Heisenberg sees velocity v. location – fuzzy. The more closely one pins down one, the fuzzier becomes the other. Or does this correspond with your understanding? If so, how can that be? Why would it be difficult to accurately determine both the velocity and location of an object in space-time?

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 4:38 PM

        2X: I think the electron is more binary than that i.e. it presents as either fully wave or fully particle.

        Chris: And alternately fully present or fully absent by moment by moment? Remember we have a tremendously large ‘slush fund’ of time to play with.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:40 AM

          What keeps it as an electron?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

          Good question. However, not a deal breaker as we are already discussing how an electron doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up, until acted upon in some way. Currently, we are using the model of “observation”as the mechanism which collapses the wave function. However, this is a rudimentary, even if brilliant, but rudimentary observation. We’ve a long way to go.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM

          As I read my comment “However, not a deal breaker as we are already discussing how an electron doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up, until acted upon in some way.” It read like the definition or part of the definition for inertia.

          Is inertia tied to the wave function in some way? Vin says that observation provides resistance. Is this true and thus “acting upon” the wave function collapsing it? Is this related to inertia?

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 4:43 PM

        2X: It would also mean that the electron could be found in an infinite number of energy levels as it orbits a nucleus. Doesn’t happen.

        CT: Yes, it doesn’t happen. I am curious of the ordering of magnitude of one shell state to the next. This seems like an answer which may be commonly known among chemists or physicists. And if I understand correctly, the energy state does not move from one state to another, but appears at one and then disappears from at that one only to appear at the next. And I am curious about the length of any time lag transitioning between energy states. Is there any?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 13, 2013 at 11:35 PM

          CT: Yes, it doesn’t happen. ”

          You’ll have to expand on what you’re thinking there as you would not find one educated physicist who would say that the electron could occupy an infinite number of energy levels around an atom.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:27 AM

          You’ve misunderstood my point… The fact that electrons occupy discrete energy shells about a nucleus, as you said, makes my point. I don’t think there are smooth analog type transitions of energy state – anywhere – as I believe all energy states stair-step with the riser in the stair metaphorically representing the quantum leap. i.e., not infinite energy states. Really small increments, yes. Infinite, definitely no. This is empirical evidence of something, if not this point, what?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 12:11 AM

          CT: Yes, it doesn’t happen.”

          I made a syntactical error there with this sentence. Read it as “Yes, it does happen”

          So, yes, “no, it doesn’t happen” 😉

          CT:” I am curious of the ordering of magnitude of one shell state to the next. ”

          Think of the orbital as a volume of space. Also think of it as an energy level.

          Energy is directly proportional to wavelength and length is a dimension in the equation for volume.

          So the wavelength that the electron would manifest if freed from any particular orbital is going to have a determining effect on the volume of that orbital.

          The electron is a composition of waves in different dimensions: such and such many cycles in the “x- axis”; so-and-so many in the “y-axis”, etc.

          Certain wave combinations will be stable, most others won’t, so that limits the number of presentations the electron will make, and, therefore the number of possible orbital shapes (volumes) that would appear around the nucleus.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:34 AM

          Yes, I think that is my understanding as well. More specifically, I’m wondering if the orbital shell volume is uniformly proportional for example, 1,2,4 8, or any other geometric or arithmetic progression such as 1,2,3,4 and I’m referring to the energy level of the consecutive shell and I’m wondering what differences in radioactivity that makes.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 12:57 AM

          CT:”…I’m wondering if the orbital shell volume is uniformly proportional for example, 1,2,4 8, or …”

          That’s a good question. It would be easy enough to get an answer since the energies of the levels are known.

          Another interesting factor is that orbital shapes (sphere, dumbbell, club) reappear at the different energy levels. This may relate to the fundamental space geometries of the universe that I have previously speculated on. Another fractal.

          It would be very cool if the image of the universe was written on the skin of an atom.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:18 AM

          2X: It would be very cool if the image of the universe was written on the skin of an atom.

          CT: Very cool and poetic.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:36 AM

          2X: I made a syntactical error there with this sentence. Read it as “Yes, it does happen”

          Chris: Lost me. Now you agree with Vin’s infinite gradation of energy states or you think the quantum energy states of the orbital shells jump (what they taught me 40 years ago in high school.)???

        • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 1:08 AM

          2X: I made a syntactical error there with this sentence. Read it as “Yes, it does happen”

          Chris: Lost me. Now you agree with Vin’s infinite gradation of energy states or you think the quantum energy states of the orbital shells jump (what they taught me 40 years ago in high school.)???

          I think we’ve sorted it out above. To reiterate:

          No, I don’t agree with Vinnie (ever, ever, ever!!!) 😉

          At least I don’t agree on the point of infinite energy levels of an electron.

          I expect all energy levels that can be occupied will be defined by an integer number of full wavelengths, and those wavelengths are ultimately tied to the cycle that defines a Planck second.

          I speculate that cycle is defined by an expansion and contraction of space.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:24 AM

          2X: and those wavelengths are ultimately tied to the cycle that defines a Planck second.

          CT: The one we are guessing at or are you referring to a known process?

        • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 9:51 AM

          CT: The one we are guessing at or are you referring to a known process?”

          Planck’s constant is already in the equations of physics, so, yes, it’s an acknowledged process though arguably not fully known.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM

          I mean “the cycle that defines a Planck second” . . . are we talking about the underpinning process, I’m probably reading too much into this as usual.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:26 AM

          2X: I speculate that cycle is defined by an expansion and contraction of space.

          CT: Nice teaser… You should expand this as it sounds intriguing.

  • 2ndxmr  On November 12, 2013 at 11:29 PM

    V:”It seems to me that, in the distance between the emitter and the detector the electron exists at a certain state of wave transitioning to particle because of inherent resistance due to permittivity and permeability.

    Experimental setup to observe electron as a particle provides enough additional resistance to the system to collapse electron as a particle.”

    That would mean that as the electron travels it will be accelerating from particle speed to light speed.

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 6:06 AM

      Or some speed in between depending on inertia. That is my conjecture.

  • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 7:11 AM

    Here is my understanding from what I have read about double-slit experiment.

    (1) There are infinite gradients of motion depending on the resistance or inertia associated with each gradient.

    (2) Some of those states are stable like the nodes of a standing wave. A photon is one of those states, An electron is another.

    (3) A particular state of motion may generate different light patterns depending on how it is being “observed”. It is the light pattern that is recorded.

    (4) A light pattern may correspond to that commonly associated with a wave. Another light pattern may correspond to that commonly associated with a particle.

    (5) There may be other light patterns.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:10 PM

      There is a very good argument at the bottom of these questions and conjectures. Will it be won by discovering the digital or analog Nature of the universe, or will we discover that these two concepts do not sufficiently cover it ?

  • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 8:33 AM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13774

    V:”How does one recognize a between life phenomenon? What makes it different from imagination?”

    2nd: When you apply mindfulness do you imagine or just take what is there?

    .

    What is there about between life phenomenon, or about exteriorization, that is different from imagination?

    .

    • MarkNR  On November 13, 2013 at 9:25 AM

      Here we have a question about the fundamental definition of reality. What is the difference in memory and imagination.
      According to Scn. principals, at it’s most basic level, all reality is imagination that has gone on so long and is agreed upon by so many that it has become reality. When you recall something that “actually happened”, is that just re-imagining it in present time? If so, then why is it that recalling a stressful incident that “actually occurred” produce relief that isn’t produced when one recalls an incident that didn’t “actually occur”?
      Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.
      Mark

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM

        Good points.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 8:18 PM

        (1) In my model, the reality start as speculation about the unknowable.

        (2) This is like the most basic wave motion that has no fixed location.

        (3) But as wave motion gains inertia, it first start to gain properties of a particle, and then becomes a particle that has motion.

        (4) Similarly, as the speculated realty gains inertia, and starts to become more fixed, it turns into beliefs that have life of their own.

        (5) Particles group with other partcles to generate increasingly complex forms of matter.

        (6) And beliefs group with other beliefs to generate increasing complex forms of awareness.

        (7) In my model (see KHTK Axiom #2), motion and awareness seems to go hand in hand. Maybe the two different types of progressions described above are one and the same.

        (8) Here is some good fodder to chew upon.

        .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 12:43 AM

          Vin:
          I can agree that it is possible that this is one of the rules of this particular universe that we have learned to operate with. But I can’t agree that it HAS TO BE THAT WAY. But I will agree that we need to accurately understand all these rules in order to work effectively with them. That motion seems to be necessary for reality is a plausible idea. This would explain the experiment that showed that hydrogen when cooled to a few billionths of a degree above 0-Kelvin, began to lose cohesion as matter. It seemed to disperse as matter but did not convert to energy. This experiment was conducted at one of the ivy league schools in the US, I’ll try to find some info on it.
          Mark

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 12:53 AM

          And perhaps the laws of matter and energy and the rules of reality and awareness are analogous and metaphorical, but not solidly linked.
          Ponderous.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 5:34 PM

          I am only interested in this universe for now as it is plenty to keep me occupied. 🙂

          .

    • 2ndxmr  On November 13, 2013 at 1:33 PM

      V:”What is there about between life phenomenon, or about exteriorization that is different from imagination?”

      We’ll have to have a discussion about the mechanism of memory, because that’s what you’re getting into. That will be a long one. For now, try this:
      – mock up the picture of an apple.
      – Now change it’s color.
      – Now make it rainbow colored.
      – Add a worm coming out of it.
      – Have the worm carrying a sign saying “Bite me.”
      – Keep that picture there, focus on that.
      – discontinue mocking it up

      Now, recall an apple.

      Is there a difference?

      In accessing memories, creative mockups of some sort may help in accessing the memory: if you wanted to recall a particular apple you might start by thinking of a generic apple, mocking it up red, then green until you remember it was a yellow apple. It’s much like trying to find the right adjective to modify a noun:
      – is my hair mousey? or dirty? or bed-headed?

      Once you find the right adjective you are satisfied. Similarly with memory: it develops and that can take some inspection. But in the end you know whether you’ve got the recall right or if it’s still off, or if it’s completely off. That is, if you’re honest with yourself. If you can’t be honest with yourself then that’s a problem you have to fix, first.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 7:13 PM

        2X: If you can’t be honest with yourself then that’s a problem you have to fix, first.

        CT: You were going great until this very last subjective bit.

        • 2ndxmr  On November 13, 2013 at 11:48 PM

          2X: If you can’t be honest with yourself then that’s a problem you have to fix, first.

          CT: You were going great until this very last subjective bit.

          Really? You’ll have to tell me the benefit of knowingly lying to yourself, since that would seem to be the implication here. Whether it’s Vinnie’s mindfulness or Hubbard’s auditing process, the goal is the same – to find the actuality (another word for the hot-word “truth”) of the thing that’s causing an undesirable affect. It can be difficult enough sorting out the mental residues when one honestly TRIES to do it. Hoping to sort it out if one won’t make an effort to honestly look at it is a hope beyond hope.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 12:28 AM

          No disrespect for the truth, just trying to be mindful of the mindfuck possibilities as well.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 7:56 PM

        I believe that forcing a recall goes against mindfulness. A recall will trigger automatically at the right question and the mind will unstack. Creative mockups might help, just as auditing questions might help, but the recall must emerge by itself. When the question being asked in auditing is wrong, the recall ends up being forced. There will always be problems when recall is forced resulting in speculating on the part of the preclear.

        Bringing in the question of honesty is playing into the hands of Scientology’s punishment system. It is blaming the pc for not being able to recall when the question being asked is the wrong question in the first place. So rather than bringing up the question of honesty, one should bring up the difficulty in the unstacking of the mind.

        The model of the mind in Scientology is very simplistic. There is no basic-basic engram as Hubbard assumes. There are many different levels at which data get stored in the mind. Data must be sorted out at each of these levels to help the person make progress. These levels may be categorized as follows:

        1. Engram (Inconsistency in Perception)
        2. Unwanted feeling or emotion (Inconsistency in Experience)
        3. Indoctrination (Inconsistency in Information)
        4. Belief (Inconsistency in Hypothesis)
        5. Doctrine (Inconsistency in Theory)
        6. Fixed ideas (Inconsistency in Principles)
        7. Fixed viewpoints (Inconsistency in Axioms)
        8. Fixed identity (Inconsistency in Self)

        For additional details, please see https://vinaire.me/2013/02/02/knowledge-inconsistency/.

        .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 1:28 AM

          Vinaire:
          Brilliant post.
          Recognizing inconsistencies is an entire area of case and related to all areas of case.
          Also forcing recalls. This explains the different TRs required on the L rundowns. When an individual has confusions and inconsistencies and recognizes them, it clearly shows up on a meter. But when one has a very basic consideration and has little confusion on it, it doesn’t react physically. Hence, the forceful and accusative manner in delivering questions and commands in parts of the Ls. When one has an erroneous consideration that the PC does not realize is a problem, a confusion must be produced in order to recognize the error. This can be a dangerous path to travel and one must have full confidence in those that are assisting him. Hence, the closely guarded and intense training of Cl-12s. It also explains the exodus of those auditors in recent years. Perhaps trust was lost.
          Mark

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:27 AM

          Interesting observations.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 5:50 PM

          Mark, What I have learned from tutoring math is that one should address the area where the student has his attention on, Start removing his inconsistencies (confusions) one by one. This is like unstacking the mind of all confusions on the subject of Math.

          When the student is not sure what the confusion is, then I quiz him in that area to uncover confusions. I never assume what the students confusion is.

          I do not like the idea of using a forceful and accusative manner in delivering questions and commands in parts of the Ls. I would rather quiz the person in that area of life to see if any inconsistencies show up. Mind you, I am not talking about true or false data because I don’t want to judge a person’s case data. I am talking about inconsistencies like contradictions where one doesn’t know which data is true or false. But one knows both data cannot be true.

          I plan to look at L’s to see if I can create some KHTK Mindfulness exercises out of them.

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 6:31 PM

          Vin:
          A close examination of Ls techniques and subject matter could be a very worthwhile endeavor. I’m sure there are some who are unhappy with their L experience, but all that I have spoken to were very glad to have done them. But I maintain that it is critical that they be done honestly and skillfully.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:34 PM

          Mark. Have you done the L’s?

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 7:07 PM

          No, I didn’t do any Ls. I became disenchanted before I got there. I am going to do them in the Ind. field. I am of the strong opinion that examining ones past fully is an absolute necessity to spiritual enlightenment. It is important to realize that one is mocking up his bank, but it is necessary to view when one actually decided to. Scn. tech, done skillfully and honestly is currently the most effective way to GET YOU STARTED. Then one must grab oneself by the b***s and do it himself, using all knowledge available and taking it from there.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:38 PM

          I have been discussing False Data Stripping with Chris at the following link. I shall start looking at L’s there. Which L RD shall I start with?

          https://vinaire.me/2012/10/05/a-look-at-scientology-auditing/

          .

        • MarkNR  On November 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM

          Vin:
          Try L-11. A different approach to whole track O/Ws. It is said “They really scrub you clean.
          Mark

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 7:15 PM

          OK. I shall start with L-11.

          Stay tuned. Hahaha.

  • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 8:47 AM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13779

    CT: So interesting! I have to keep reminding myself that at that size, there is plenty of space time by many orders of magnitude for anything to be happening. Imagine what it could possibly take, what would have to be built to observe that phenomena.

    .

    Speculation and imagination is limitless. Maybe there are gradients of it.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM

      Vin: Speculation and imagination is limitless. Maybe there are gradients of it.

      CT: That will depend on how we bring together our understanding of speculation and of imagination. We can certainly assume that imagination is limitless, however, would that really be true? Observing a lot of sand on Earth, we might say that the grains of sand are limitless, but our intuition tells us that the grains of sand have a number — a big one! — But nevertheless a number. Personal computers which can process large numbers of bits of data — huge! — nevertheless are limited. Even the backdrop of everything that is may not be limitless for we haven’t seen everything that is.

      • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:36 AM

        All reality seems to start with speculation and imagination which then gets a structure and permanency.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM

          Vin: All reality seems to start with speculation and imagination which then gets a structure and permanency.

          CT: This is consistent with me building my garage, but how far out do you want to push this envelope? Say how you are using “reality” and “all.”

      • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:37 AM

        The present effort seems to be to “unstack” the reality.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM

          Yes, the mental reality. Without the human mind, then are we saying there is no more reality? Or what? (Tree/Forest/Sound)

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:13 PM

          The ultimate reality is unknowable from current vantage point.

          ..

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:42 PM

          Vin: The ultimate reality is unknowable from current vantage point.

          Ct: These mental vantage points are always picked from models. So no problem, let’s design new models until the pieces fit. Many people know, understand, and practice deeper more consistent realities than I do and more will follow who will go deeper still. There is nothing wrong with your unknowable when used incisively and sparingly. It is a thought stopper but I have come to understand or believe that sometimes a thought stopper is needed just as brakes are sometimes needed. But they are only one useful tool to use in the process.

  • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:38 AM

    It seems that as motion gains energy it acts more like a particle. As motion sheds energy it acts more like a wave.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM

      Vin: It seems that as motion gains energy it acts more like a particle. As motion sheds energy it acts more like a wave.

      Ct: Is this consistent with light?

  • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 7:04 AM

    From https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13860

    2x: Energy is directly proportional to wavelength and length is a dimension in the equation for volume.

    .

    From the relationship, E = h (nu), energy is directly proportional to frquency, and inversely proportional to wavelength. Look at the EM spectrum.

    Is there space beyond motion? In my view, space and time are aspects of motion. If there is no motion, there is no space and time either.

    https://vinaire.me/2013/10/05/khtk-axiom-3-awareness/

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      Vin: without motion no space or time.

      Chris: True, but this is a “chicken or egg?” question. Did the universe explode by quantum jumps? Or how?

      Our world appears very analog, everything smoothly and gradually changing. But is it truly? Or is this as it seems to be? Fractal iterations can give the apparency of analog but are not. Biology reproduces and grows precisely in fractal increments. So which came first, the analog or the fractal? OR am I not laying this out correctly?

      • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:10 PM

        Laying what? 😉

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 6:36 PM

          Eggs? No laying out the two ideas side by side whether existence is built up digitally, analog-ally, both, neither.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM

          That is a futile question. I have no expectations. The answer will come when it is ready.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 7:57 PM

          I don’t follow. We have lots of information to sift through.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:13 PM

          Sift the information without expecting it to be digital or analog. Let the truth reveal itself.

          .

  • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:26 AM

    Frm https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13805

    V: ”Photons have inertia and that is why c is not infinite. c depends on permittivity and permeability.”

    2x: If they had inertia, would they not have to accelerate to light speed?

    .
    It seems that photon is a transformation from EMR with inherent velocity of c. So this transformation shall start from the velocity c and may only slow down a little as the inertia forms a photon from EMR.

    Please note that the inherent velocity of c of EMR is nothing like a particle traveling through space. The “velocity” concepts for EMR and for a particle are as different as apples and oranges.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:00 AM

      Vin: The “velocity” concepts for EMR and for a particle are as different as apples and oranges.

      CT: Maybe this needs its own thread?

  • 2ndxmr  On November 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    V:” The assumption seems to be that “motion occurs in space”. This violates KHTK Axiom #3.”

    The only way axiom #3 would be correct is if this “motion” is a something capable of creating space. Otherwise this “motion” would be a motion in the void, which would violate the definition of void.

    • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:05 PM

      There is no void. There is only unknowable.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    The following is in response to Chris (https://vinaire.me/2013/11/02/khtk-axiom-2-and-scientology/#comment-13987)

    .

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenburg_principle

    In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa…

    The original heuristic argument that such a limit should exist was given by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, after whom it is sometimes named the Heisenberg principle. This ascribes the uncertainty in the measurable quantities to the jolt-like disturbance triggered by the act of observation. Though widely repeated in textbooks, this physical argument is now known to be fundamentally misleading. While the act of measurement does lead to uncertainty, the loss of precision is less than that predicted by Heisenberg’s argument…

    Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical “explanation” of quantum uncertainty. It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology. It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer…

    .

    The above is very interesting. The Heisenberg’s observer is taken out of the equation, but the awareness of the phenomenon must remain. That is the natural awareness due to the characteristic of overall motion.

    It seems that a wave is simply a fuzzier particle; and a particle is a just condensed wave wrapped around itself.

    Our space is defined in terms of particles. When we observe waves on the surface of a pond, there are partcles. It is the pattern of the movement of those partcles, which appears as that wave. So we assume that there are precise locations associated with each part of a wave. We start to visualize waves mathematically as a sinusoidal curve.

    But this is not the reality at quantum level. The whole idea of space becomes fuzzier because there are no particles underlying the wave motion. The wave is no longer a pattern underlying particles. It is what becomes a particle when it acquires inertia.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2013 at 8:26 PM

      Vin: The wave is no longer a pattern underlying particles.

      Chris: Isn’t it? Or is it? This is what I mean when I say our models aren’t laid out quite right. Metaphorically, I can talk about electricity as though it is water through a garden hose, and at some levels I can make useful and cogent points and even teach practical electricity after a manner but not if we begin to look more closely.,

      In my digital model of space-time and motion of particles and keeping Heisenberg in mind, one explanation and a consistent one (at the water through a garden hose level of model?) that if one were to locate the exact location of a particle its velocity would be either zero or possibly even non-existent. But it’s a model of the universe and not the universe. This is why today I’ve been promoting Katageek’s counterintuitive approach as he makes models, sometimes ghastly models, sometimes warm and fuzzy models because he can and he is not too fixated on the correctness of his model. In scientific discovery, we imagine a model and then test it. But if we are too solid or too sure of extant science then our minds cannot imagine and we cannot overcome let alone see the inconsistencies of our less workable models.

      • vinaire  On November 15, 2013 at 8:58 PM

        The electromagnetic magnetic wave is not made up of a pattern among particles like a wave on the surface of water is.

        .

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: