Theism versus Atheism

Prayer

[June 19, 2014: This document is now obsolete. It is superseded by the document Theism, Atheism and Non-theism]

Reference: The Theistic Viewpoint of God

.

Theism views God existing of itself from eternity, and considers it the cause of all other things. In this special role God is separate from all existence.  A theistic culture assigns a similar role to self and assigns it a spiritual status, which is senior to, and separate from the physical existence around it.

Atheism is based on the reality of existence. An atheistic culture does not separate self from other things, but sees everything as part of the same reality of existence.

Abrahamic religions, such as, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are theistic. The Eastern religions, such as, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism, are atheistic.

Theism, therefore, is self-centric. Atheism is reality-centric.

Theism is based of subjectivity. Atheism is based on objectivity.

Theism takes the affinities of people and molds it into a reality that is built around the idea of God.

Atheism takes the existing reality and transforms it into a sense of all-inclusive affinity.

The focus of Theism is on the separation of self (individuality). This gives rise to the ideas of us and them.

The focus of Atheism is on oneness of all existence. Thus, differences may arise but they are secondary.

Theism holds a special idea of God. The idea of being one with God is unacceptable to it.

Atheism holds no special idea of God. The idea of being one with ultimate reality is part of it.

.

NOTE:

The account above is from eastern perspective. West looks at it differently.

The fact is that western atheism is a reaction to western theism. The concepts of Theism and atheism are exclusively western.

In the East there has been no theism, so there has been no atheism either.

West looks at eastern religions through its filter of theism-atheism and comes up with further terminology like monotheism and polytheism.

All these terminologies are foreign to the East and do not apply to the eastern religions.

.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 9:53 PM

    That Big Bang was actually a spiritual-physical big bang, and not just a physical big bang.

    There has to be an intense postulate shooting out along with an intense light. It was after all the start of the cycle of this spiritual-physical universe.

    Can’t imagine what that would have been like.

    There cannot be a physical universe starting by itself, or a spiritual universe starting by itself.

    We do not perceive physicality without spirituality or spirituality without physicality.

    The two always go together.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 10:25 PM

      “That Big Bang was actually a spiritual-physical big bang, and not just a physical big bang.”

      Yes! It was an everything big bang and given what we know about the universe, to extrapolate that big bang was anything other than the end of another similar or complementary process would be inconsistent. Yes?

      • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 7:43 AM

        Could you please clarify that further. Thanks.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 6:35 PM

          Sure! I just think that beyond reality is more reality.

        • vinaire  On May 29, 2014 at 6:41 PM

          The universe should be considered as a whole per its definition. If people talk about “multiverses” then there is still a superset called UNIVERSE that would include all the multiverses. We can play with these terms, but the superset will always mean a UNIVERSE. So, the concept of CONSCIOUSNESS should be applied to the UNIVERSE as a whole per Vedanta.

          This is very important to understand, because the self-centric approach tends to divide the consciousness into selves. But the reality-centric approach starts with considering the consciousness in a perspective that is universal.

          Here are some thoughts on soul or self.

          (1) The present reality is a filtered view of the ultimate reality.
          (2) The filter is made up of mental and physical forces or energies.
          (3) The soul is trying to understand itself.
          (4) But the soul is looking at itself through this filter.
          (5) So the soul appears to have mental and physical forces or energies.
          (6) As filters lessen the energies comprising the “soul” also lessen.
          (7) The complete cessation of filters is nirvana.
          (8) At that point the soul and its view of itself as “soul” become one.
          (9) Both soul and “soul” annihilate each other.
          (10) There is no longer that effort to understand oneself.
          (11) No longer is any awareness needed.
          (12) With its “reflection” gone, the soul is gone too.
          (13) There is only BRAHMAN.

          So, when one looks at Possession (Artha), Knowledge (Dharma), Ability (Kama), Being (Moksha), these are all, in the ultimate sense, part of this filter made up of mental and physical forces or energies.

          The filter is the UNIVERSE existing against the “background” of BRAHMA.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 7:23 PM

          If you got multiverse from my comment, I didn’t say it right. My opinion is that whatever we think of as real is only scratching the surface of THIS universe. As a matter of fact, I think “universe” is a redundant statement and I’m going to just call it the ‘verse from now on.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 7:29 PM

          “The filter is the UNIVERSE existing against the “background” of BRAHMA.”

          Awesome recap and post!

      • Eric S  On May 29, 2014 at 11:52 PM

        Chris

        Your statement:… “My opinion is that whatever we think of as real is only scratching the surface of THIS universe.”. runs parallel to my on current thinking.

        Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:00 AM

          Thanks Eric, and you know, re-reading what I wrote is less than I meant. Not just “think of as real” but what we can observe and measure only scratches the surface of the universe. It is not just more and less of what we already know. The universe is not only bigger and smaller than what we can observe and measure, it is bigger and smaller than we currently can even guess at. The future is exciting when I think of the knowledge that is waiting to be discovered. As Vin wrote, if multi-verses are discovered, then they will in turn become subsets of the universe.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 11:37 PM

      I’ve been wondering at the very different understandings that people exhibit about egocentrism and reality centrism. Each person, finding consistency within his own frame of reference seems to think he has found “it.” If we imagine a scale of beingness, possibly the disturbance scale, and we attempt to plot self-centric and reality centric on this scale and assume a baseline at the dividing point between the two, we could then plot all existence including beingness to match.

      • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 7:55 AM

        The scale of beingness may be the same thing as the scale of filters. One’s frame of reference would be determined by one’s filters. Come to think of it, one’s beingness would consist of one’s filters.

        Filters could be thick or thin. Ultimate reality would be no filters. no beingness.

        • Eric S  On May 29, 2014 at 11:48 PM

          Vinaire

          I am in accord with this statement…

          “Filters could be thick or thin. Ultimate reality would be no filters. no beingness.”

          Eric

        • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 10:23 PM

          Thank you Eric.

          Regards,
          Vinaire

  • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 6:36 AM

    In Philosophy, being means ‘existing’; and beingness means ‘existence’.

    Hubbard gave the word BEINGNESS a new twist. He redefined it as the spirit or essence of a person. These were the abilities that were inherent in a thetan that made a thetan a thetan.

    Unfortunately for those who believe in an immortal thetan, this beingness can be observed and as-ised.

  • Eric S  On May 29, 2014 at 2:22 PM

    Vinaire and Chris

    Thank you for the welcome to this blog and for the conversations.

    Vinaire, when I approached this blog I had no idea that you had put together such an extensive accumulation of your ideas and research in written form. It is an admirable accomplishment.

    The responses to my communications have often directed me to various parts of this data, and although potentially valuable to me in terms of different ways of looking at things, I find I seem to lack sufficient interest, at this time, to pursue it with the diligence that I feel would be required to understand it sufficiently to communicate from an informed position. The scope of It goes beyond the joy of a simple communication and becomes “study”. “Study” was not what I was attempting to engage in.

    But here is another difficulty I am having.

    Viewing only what has transpired between us so far, I see a lot of attention on “inconsistencies”. I can certainly see that resolving inconsistencies in one’s thinking, or postulates, is potentially a route to more cohesive thinking. I do that myself as I sort things out. It is part of “why finding” and “data analysis” which I consider is fundamental to “living.”

    What I find, however, is that when one directs another person’s attention, directly to that person’s inconsistencies, ridges can form. The person this has been done to generally does not consider that he has inconsistencies, and so attempting to point out that he has, often results, to a greater or lesser degree, in ARC breaks.

    This is not always the case of course. Some people seem to love having their views challenged because they see it as an opportunity to re-evaluate their own data. Some, but in my experience, not many.

    And although I may be doing it to you in my forgoing statement, it is not my preferred way of sharing knowledge.

    I prefer to simply be able to state my views, as related to a particular subject, and, in return, have the other person state theirs.

    “Discussion” would only take the form of each party sharing their own viewpoints and attempting to understand the other person’s viewpoint. (from the other person’s viewpoint) Questions about the other person’s viewpoint would only take the form of “clarifying the origination”. There would be no overt evaluation of that viewpoint. There would be no attempt to “correct” or “teach”. There would be no “pointing out inconsistencies.”

    Now it is up to each party, should they choose, to take away these new viewpoints and use them as “potential” data in re-evaluations of their own viewpoints.

    That is my preferred way of going about “learning”. It is also my preferred form of communication.

    Eric

    • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 5:31 PM

      Good post Eric. That is really a good observation about one person pointing out another person’s inconsistencies. The thing is that when a person views his life self-centric’ally (with egotism) all the data streaming in seems to be about him. When a person works at and begins to view his life reality-centric’ally he becomes more extroverted and able to experience whatever the world has to offer more easily. Every coarse comment does not feel sharp and jagged to him. That’s pretty much all the attitude that we’re trying to bring to the discussions. We’ve kind of got an agenda here, I’m not sure how to express it. Maybe “view things as they are and not only as they seem to be” covers it. We make mistakes and sometimes we are “self-centric” but when we are and when we notice it, we try to extrovert and we try to stop being rude. I hope that wasn’t your experience but if it was, sorry about that, hang in here.

      • vinaire  On May 29, 2014 at 5:43 PM

        Well put, Chris. I appreciate you stepping in answering for me. I could not have said it better.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 5:46 PM

          You’re welcome. I’ve been a little out of pocket and am trying to catch up on all your work! Saw Eric’s post and just have a good feeling about him (my self-centric! haha).

      • Eric S  On May 29, 2014 at 7:27 PM

        Thank you Chris (and Vinaire)

        It seems I may need some work on that. (the communication aspects, that is.)

        But on the concepts of “self-centric” and “reality-centric” I offer this…
        (This is not intended as any kind of challenge to anything you have said, or not said. It is simply my present time expression of my present views)

        It has been said that, to a being, all in-coming flows (all perception included) are “motivator” flows, and all out-going flows are “overt” flows. (“Motivator” in the sense of initiating a response [even personal evaluation of the inflow would be considered as a response], and “Overt” in the sense of initiating a flow, presumably initiated in order to elicit more inflow.)

        The trick, it seems, is in how to make this “breathing ideas” or perceptions as “life-enhancing” as possible, for every”thing” involved.

        We will see how that goes….

        And then there is this…

        I see that I do consider the universe from what you may be calling a “self-centric” viewpoint.

        At this point I cannot conceive of any universe (or part thereof) that I am aware of, that I do not have considerations about, or postulates about, that are not self-generated or self-evaluated. I am unable to conceive of any “universe” that I am unable to perceive or evaluate. (bit of a redundant statement, but I am going to let it stand by way of illustration.) Anything that may possibly be occurring beyond my perceptions and/or considerations, I do not have as “data”, and therefor am unable to use in any evaluations. But as “i” discover more, “I” evolve.

        Without “me”, MY personal universe would cease to exist, leaving behind whatever would be left behind. Whatever is left behind really has little value to me, because “I” wouldn’t be there to care.

        I am not suggesting that “I” am the center of all possible universes. I am only saying that I am an inextricable part of any universe that means anything to “ME”. (that “I” have perceived or evaluated, or is possible for “ME” to perceive or evaluate.)

        Beyond that I have little to no interest, because if “I” were not “there” how could I possibly “care” or value any part of it? (rhetorical question)

        The possibility of “awareness”, as simply “awareness”, without any “ownership”, is interesting, but seemingly it would include all of what “I” presently consider “MY” awareness, along with all other “awarenesses”.

        Eric

        • Eric S  On May 29, 2014 at 7:43 PM

          Regarding “awareness”…

          I would like to add that I have no idea whether “awareness”, as simply “awareness”, would be part of a continuum of individual awarenesses, that have become “one”, or whether it would be “exterior” to individual awarenesses, viewpoints, beingnesses, etc.

          Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 8:03 PM

          My tinitus began bothering me a few years ago to the point where my anxiety about it was rev’ing up. I sat myself down a few times and through looking at my complaint enough I was able to reason out that the tinitus was not a problem with my hearing exactly and that I could hear pretty good. So after that, I stopped listening to the “cicadas” in my head and I have not had further trouble with the tinitus. Is the buzzing still there? Yes. But I do not need to pay attention to it as that part of it is under my control. This is an example of a problem because of a self-centric view which I altered using a reality based view. Do you get my meaning?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 7:57 PM

          That’s another good post Eric. Keep going, you’re doing great!

        • Eric S  On May 29, 2014 at 11:03 PM

          Chris

          First off, well done on getting in control of the tinitus. It can be a bitch.

          Regarding: “This is an example of a problem because of a self-centric view which I altered using a reality based view. Do you get my meaning?”

          I get what you said there but I seem to have a different view of what it “means”.

          When I do similar things, what I find myself doing is, upon gathering new applicable data, I then re-evaluate, and make a new postulate. “I” let go of the earlier postulate and create a new one. The “actuality” about which I had, or have, thoughts or postulates, may not have changed, but I have changed my view of it. Perhaps the new view causes fewer concerns or such, but, in the end, it is still my view of it.

          I have no idea whether it more closely represents “actuality” because, as I see it, it is still the result of an evaluation, (call it “reason”,or logic, or whatever) based on perception,(which is already at least one step away from “actuality”) created and/or adopted by “me”.

          Does that help you understand where I am coming from?

          Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 11:16 PM

          Yup, very well said.

          Vinaire and I have been digging under the metaphors or I should say that Vin has been digging and I’ve been throwing more sand back in the hole with my metaphors. For myself, only coming up with more metaphors. Sometimes I feel like a cow at the grocery store and just am out of place and have no business in there. lol

        • Eric S  On May 29, 2014 at 11:30 PM

          Chris
          Regarding my last post to you , responding to… “This is an example of a problem because of a self-centric view which I altered using a reality based view. Do you get my meaning?”

          You see… In my perfect world I should have ended that communication at the end of this sentence… “I get what you said there but I seem to have a different view of what it “means”…. until I got some indication from you that you were interested in my view on the matter.

          Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 8:45 AM

          I’m not sure I understand. Why should you have ended at that point?

        • Eric S  On May 29, 2014 at 11:39 PM

          Chris

          About being “a cow at the grocery store”: Yes… LOL… I am familiar with similar feelings.

          Thank you for your tolerance with my “Cow at a grocery store” antics.

          Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 8:47 AM

          🙂

        • Eric S  On May 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM

          Chris

          Re: “I’m not sure I understand. Why should you have ended at that point?”

          In your case, no point, as we have already established that you want any inconsistencies in your thoughts brought to your attention, so that you can learn from it. Also, in this case, you already asked for my evaluation of the data.

          In my experience, where an evaluation of their data is not asked for by the originator, in many cases it is not expected, or wanted by them either. Stopping at that point would give them the option of pursuing it or not.

          It is simply a communication “nicety”.

          Once it is established that the other terminal is generally interested in what your viewpoint is, then you can eliminate that middle step.

          Eric

        • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 4:51 PM

          Eric,

          The ideas of inflows (motivators) and outflows (overts) are self-centric because the flows are relative to a being (self). However, the interesting point that you bring up is:

          What would “life-enhancing” mean in a reality-centric view when one is not focused on a being?

          I think that life is basically involved in making one’s way through the filters. This could be very engaging. I believe that life starts to get better as filters are reduced. I cannot see life getting enhanced with more filters. For example, using hypnotism to get rid of smoking habit may simply create other side effects.

          In my opinion, a personal universe is made up of creative imagination as writers demonstrate it so very well. I am always amazed at the book Dune that presents a very real universe. I believe that the personal universe does exist in reality as being made up of thoughts and ideas. All personal universes are subsets of this Universe.

          What we call a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’, in my opinion, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies, which are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.

          In physics, the center of mass is the weighted average location of all the mass in a body or group of bodies. Various important calculations in mechanics become simplified when quantities are referenced to the center of mass, or when the entire mass of a body is treated as if it is concentrated at the center of mass.

          We may regard the Self in a similar manner. A SELF could be looked upon as a weighted average location of all physical and mental energies or forces related to a person, much like the “center of mass.”

          Nobody is trying to get rid of the “I” here. It is just a shift of focus. One is interiorized in a body because one is so focused on the body. Similarly, one can be interiorized in a self because one is so focused on it.

          A reality-centric view simply exteriorizes one from the self. The self does not cease to exist as a result, just like body does not cease to exist when one exteriorizes from the body.

          Regards,
          Vinaire

    • vinaire  On May 29, 2014 at 8:22 PM

      Eric,

      The effort underlying this blog is to promote education by reducing complexity of knowledge as much as possible. The focus of this blog is to make self-learning possible. The essence of self-learning is recognizing things for what they are.

      The participant on this blog are focused on the subject and not on each other. So no personal comments are made, which may contribute to any ridges.

      When there is willingness to look no ridges are formed. A ridge may come about only when a person feels he does not need to look because he already has the answer. It is that resistance to looking that forms the ridge.

      If you do not want your views to be inspected and commented upon then let us know and we would leave you alone. We won’t comment on your views. We would comment only when you comment on the views of others..

      Regards,
      Vinaire

      • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 8:24 PM

        Yup!

      • Eric S  On May 29, 2014 at 11:25 PM

        Vinaire

        RE: “The effort underlying this blog… ”

        Thank you. I appreciate you pursuing these goals.

        I think I may just watch a bit before I comment further.

        Eric

  • vinaire  On May 29, 2014 at 9:34 PM

    There are no teachers on this blog, Nor are past authorities used as teachers. We all are students on this blog.

    If there is any teacher it is the reality out there.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 5:39 AM

    Somebody sent me this joke

    Egotist = Someone who is usually me-deep in conversation.

  • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 6:13 AM

    “So, what does as-isness really mean?”

    We are looking at a Cycle of Action, which Hubbard defined as, “CREATE, create, create, create…no-creation, nothingness.” One starts with nothingness and ends up with nothingness.

    What I noticed just now is that Hubbard’s concept of “nothingness” does not include the observer. He has an observer outside of nothingness observing the nothingness, which makes nothingness a consideration and not a true Nothingness as postulated in the concept of BRAHMA. Wow!

    So, Hubbard’s “create” is creating out of a consideration of nothingness. This amounts to changing the consideration of nothingness to a consideration of something. It is an ALTER-IS and not a true AS-IS.

    A true AS-IS would also include the observer. Hubbard’s concept of as-isness does not include the as-isness of the observer, so it is simply a form of alter-isness.

    From a reality-centric view, Hubbard’s definition of Cycle of Action amounts to,

    “Consideration of nothingness altered to consideration of something (CHANGE), change, change, change…, change back to consideration of nothingness.”

    I am not quite sure yet where this realization is going.

    .

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 6:15 AM

      True CREATION would then mean the creation of both the observed as well as the observer.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM

        “True CREATION would then mean the creation of both the observed as well as the observer.”

        Your medicine is strong Kemosabe!

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 6:38 AM

      It is like curve on a graph being created along with its reference point.

      A complete system shall include both observed as well as the observer.

      Thus, the observed and observer are relative to each other.

      An observer cannot be there all by itself as something absolute.

      A consideration of “nothingness” is relative to the observer. It is not the same thing as the Nothingness in the absence of observer.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM

        “A consideration of “nothingness” is relative to the observer. It is not the same thing as the Nothingness in the absence of observer.”

        Nothingness in the absence of the observer is really unknowable.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 5:36 AM

          Yup! Geir may still disgree though. Haha.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 7:22 AM

          Well, he agrees with us. He just can’t convince us that he knows nothing about nothing and that we don’t too! LOL!

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 7:37 AM

          He has the filter of logic.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 2:29 PM

          What I got was that he didn’t want to grind on what we cannot know which is different than grinding on what will eventually be known. I think the idea of something being unknowable is kind of a conundrum for a mind which feeds on knowing for its existence. How do we come to postulate the unknowable? Is it because of Bertrand Russel’s “”the set of all sets that are not members of themselves paradox?” Because I do not believe in paradox and only think that paradox urges us forward to rethink and find a new angle, a new way, to me there must be another way to understand and possibly that way is through understanding that we are operating on assumptions which are false, 3D space, time, etc.,. Paradox is our good tool for exploiting inconsistencies if we allow it to. Possibly paradox exploits self-centric thinking, makes it show up for what it is.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 2:41 PM

          To me unknowable is simply another way of saying that there are no absolutes… that there will always remain something yet to be known. This is a beautiful eventuality to me because I will never feel bored.

          This is a very simple concept. Somehow I was not able to get it across to him. I guess he was looking at it through some filter of his own.

          OT levels do seem to induce a heavy self-centric filter. This is just my opinion.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 2:53 PM

          The salient point of it for me is how do we come to consider the possibility of unknowable? It does seem to be covered, described mathematically, doesn’t it?

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 3:14 PM

          Trying to determine exactly how many times nothing can be taken out of something. In other words, try dividing a number by zero).

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 3:17 PM

          Yes, that is one way.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 6:45 AM

      So, Hubbard’s idea of “creating in a new unit of time” fizzles out. As long as it is the same observer there is no new unit of time.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 6:48 AM

      Hubbard’s “create, create, create….” is just a continual alter-is by an observer.

      A true create would involve a creation of the observer as well.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:38 AM

        Then maybe we are created anew every tick of a universal clock. There is something physical in the half-life of isotopes to suggest this to me.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 5:40 AM

          What is “created” the same again and again is the filter.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 7:24 AM

          The universe is so enormous, we think there is randomness. That’s how enormous it is.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 7:40 AM

          “The universe is so enormous, we think there is randomness. That’s how enormous it is.”

          Well said!

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 6:11 AM

          The “creation” is actually a changing flux of BRAHMA. There is no absolute nothing, and no absolute something.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 7:27 AM

          “The “creation” is actually a changing flux of BRAHMA. There is no absolute nothing, and no absolute something.”

          That is a consistent observation.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 6:52 AM

      “Unchanging observer” would be a fixed idea or a filter.at the very fundamental level of self. It would be the “self-centric” filter.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 6:56 AM

      A “changing observer” would be the same thing as the “changing observed”. Here we have true living.

      “Survival” belongs to the fixed observer, to Hubbard, to his philosophy of Dianetics and Scientology.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:41 AM

        Yes, the desire and attempt to endure unchanging seems to me a huge philosophical mistake.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 6:58 AM

      “Survival” belongs to the immortal, unchanging thetan. Haha!

      • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:42 AM

        “Survival” belongs to the immortal, unchanging thetan. Haha!

        We harmonize.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 6:59 AM

      There is life beyond the thetan.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 7:08 AM

      Here is the most fundamental of all equations:

      Oberver = Observed

      Spiritual or Metaphysics is on the observer side of the equation.
      Physical or Physics are on the observed side of the equation.
      What separates them is the filter of considerations.

      If observer is the same and only observed seems to be changing, then it amounts to changing of observer’s considerations.

      When the observer is changing then the observed would also be changing in a more lively sense.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:20 AM

      “This amounts to changing the consideration of nothingness to a consideration of something. It is an ALTER-IS and not a true AS-IS.”

      I don’t think so. . . ? The notion of something from nothing is as-is and the idea of something from something else is alter is. Only referring to the defs we learned in Scientology.

      I’m not even sure that thoughts can spring up from nothing. My garage building example has a trail you can follow back and back to totally non-garage related events.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:26 AM

      “A true AS-IS would also include the observer. Hubbard’s concept of as-isness does not include the as-isness of the observer, so it is simply a form of alter-isness.”

      My knee jerk writing didn’t include the rest of your statement. This is quite clever. This will sound nutty but for weeks, I’ve been seeing the self (here comes another analogy) like watching the interaction of multiple signal inputs on an oscilloscope. Watching as they seeth both harmonizing and interfering. It seemed too weird but it resists as-isness hahaha. Make the self immensley complicated with every human input and internal and external process intermingling and you get a feel for my hallucination! hahaha

      Where the devil is Rafael?

    • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:28 AM

      “I am not quite sure yet where this realization is going.”

      Like pi, it seems to just go. We can stop calculating when we feel like it or can we? To stop calculating, that would be Nirvana?

  • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 7:10 AM

    “Creative imagination,” “Thinking out of the box,” etc., are the moments when the observer itself is changing.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 7:18 AM

      New awareness will come about only after true creation of both observer and observed.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 7:21 AM

      A thetan is an unchanging observer and a boring existence.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:49 AM

        Like heaven and hell. Years ago, just before Scientology, I thought the eternal punishment of hell was flawed as one would get used to it. Heaven is like a pretend Nirvana where one goes without dropping the self. It is a flawed idea.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:45 AM

      ““Creative imagination,” “Thinking out of the box,” etc., are the moments when the observer itself is changing.”

      This is powerful! This is for me the counterintuitive solution. I’ve been using it without identifying it as you’ve just done.

  • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 7:29 AM

    Does observer change with a change in consideration? Only when the most fundamental consideration creating the observer is changed.

  • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 7:32 AM

    “So, what does as-isness really mean?”

    It is seeing things as they are.
    It is mindfulness.
    It occurs continually at all levels for an awakened person.

    .

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 7:35 AM

      A person who is afraid to change is merely a filter.

    • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 7:37 AM

      A thetan as described by Hubbard is simply a filter.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 9:52 AM

      “It occurs continually at all levels for an awakened person.”

      . . . as a person wakes up. The awakened person may not be into interacting much? It is like being near the speed of light – near Nirvana.

      • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 6:31 AM

        Yes. There is no going back. Haha!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 7:33 AM

          “Yes. There is no going back. Haha!”

          Maybe!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 2:43 PM

          “Yes. There is no going back. Haha!”

          When I wrote “maybe” I didn’t mean we could go back. What I should have said is “Yes, there is no ‘going back’ but there is being similar to the way we were (stupid) before, again.” LOL This is the way of a recurcive and self-similar universe. Reasoning backward, this recurcive and self-similar phenomena might support the idea of a mathematically fractal universe. At least the part we know.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 3:00 PM

          When one resolves an inconsistency, such as, being self-centric, then new inconsistencies (not seen before) shall now appear at a deeper level.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 3:01 PM

          Like mowing an eternal Florida lawn.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 3:23 PM

          The bottom of the rabbit hole is unknowable.

  • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 7:53 AM

    Hubbard also uses the word COUNTER-CREATE in describing the Cycle of Action as opposed to NO CREATION.

    It seems that “create, create, create…” is continuing alter-isness that is consistent within itself. It stops at the point when there is no further creation and persists as such. This explains the example of a person who postulates to be doctor. So he or she engages in actions towards becoming a doctor. This the continual and consistent alter-isness of the cycle of action.

    When the person acquires the skills of a doctor, when he has demonstarted them satifactorily, and is certified for having them, then his original postulate is fulfilled. The cycle of action is complete. But it does not end with “back at nothingness” It ends with the outcome of the completed postulate.

    On the other hand, counter-create would be “alter-isness” that is inconsistent with the original postulate. It would derail the cycle of action and would result in something different from the original postulate. The original postulate would not be fulfilled in that the person did not become a doctor but ended up as a drug addict.

    Counter-creation can occur on a gradient. It is much easier to understand in terms of the introduction of inconsistencies.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM

      “Counter-creation can occur on a gradient. It is much easier to understand in terms of the introduction of inconsistencies.”

      Hubbard felt “countered,” his reasons are his own, but it is the reason that his verbage is so combative. Counter-create for me is simply additional or other create. There are all sorts of creates occurring at all times all around. The problematic ones come from the self, and the way to effectively visualize them are as harmonic and interference patterns. When I want to build a garage and I do substantial and correct planning together with effective execution of the plans using suitable materials, then these various “creates” are in harmony and reinforce the wavelengths involved. When done with a mixture of non harmonious postulates and executions then a person may be left with the question, “Why must life be so hard?”

      • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 11:33 AM

        LOL!

      • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 6:40 AM

        The trouble comes when one does not look at one’s own contribution to an inconsistency. That is the case with self-centric people because they want to keep self as a constant.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 7:35 AM

          The trouble comes when one does not look at one’s own contribution to an inconsistency. That is the case with self-centric people because they want to keep self as a constant.

          Excellent!

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 7:45 AM

          I wonder how Eric is doing!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 2:46 PM

          hahaha Probably doing something fun out in the sunshine for the weekend! Not everyone blogs 23×7 the way we do! hahaha

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 3:05 PM

          What can one do besides looking at bodies, minds, spirits and reality, or dealing with them. I think that dealing with reality directly is the most theraputic activity there is. Looking at pretty women is one of them.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 3:10 PM

          Yes! Very good therapy! OUCH! (nevermind that was just Shelley hitting me over the head with the rolled newspaper!)

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 3:56 PM

          I didn’t know Shelley was there. I better shut up!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 5:20 PM

          (just joking!)

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 5:28 PM

          I know; but there can also be a slippery superegos.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 6:26 PM

          My super superego would enjoy my wife getting jealous! A little but! 🙂

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 7:12 PM

          I still think that looking at pretty woman is quite therapeutic. 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 7:40 PM

          You’re preaching to the choir! 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 2:36 PM

          On a job this morning, a man I was working with told me that he was involved in a 12-step recovery program. He related something he was told to do and which I thought was brilliant. He told me that he looks in the mirror with hands extended and palms up and indicating himself to himself says, “Allow me to introduce to you, ‘The Problem’.”

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 2:55 PM

          LOL! I like that. It is a humorous way of presenting the self-centric idea.

          I bet that exteriorization from self can be very beneficial. It would be a tremendous relief not to be stuck to a self all the time.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 2:59 PM

          Exactly!

  • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 12:52 PM

    This universe (the glorius filter) is basically a cycle of action within which there are infinity of cycles of actions. Within each of those cycle of actions there is another level of infinte cycle of actions… and there are infinity of such levels.

    This universe is simply wonderful. There are infinity of cranks turning away at each of the infinite levels. It is the mother of all fractals.

    Just completeing a little cycle of action at our level is quite an accomplishment.

    How many cycles of actions did you complete today? Haha!

    • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 1:33 PM

      None yet! I am too damn busy blogging! TV Commercial: Woman sitting couch in darkened TV room, guy comes in and plops down beside here. Not looking up she says, “I thought you were surfing the internet.” He stares at TV and says, “Yeah, I finished it.” (I don’t remember what they were selling but I sure remember that joke!) LOL

      • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 2:07 PM

        LOL!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 2:20 PM

          So we can never finish it. But we can experience it and revel in it. And we can be kind and we can help one another.

        • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 2:23 PM

          The real help would be a coordinated effort to blow up the universe filter as much as possible.

          MATRIX! My favorite movie.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 2:27 PM

          Why wouldn’t that be everybody’s favorite movie!?

        • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 2:29 PM

          It is reality-centric. I wonder what the self-centric theists think of it!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 30, 2014 at 2:35 PM

          This introverted/extroverted difference is a nice clean way of looking at the inversion point of how one views the world. Being excited about the world is so much different from being excited about what the world means to me.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 7:17 AM

          Great to see you becoming reality-centric. Maybe you were reality-centric all this time and just got side-tracked by Scientology. Anyway, you are making a great comeback!

          You are a long way away from that snarling critic when you first came to Vinaire’s blog. Haha!

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 2:33 PM

          I want to say how satisfying the journey is being. My postulate for knowing, that started me walking the path of Scientology, has been satisfied and extinguished.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 2:42 PM

          I am very happy for you.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 2:54 PM

          Thanks Vinaire, you are an important part of that resolution and my friend.

  • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 2:12 PM

    “What would be a realization in physical terms?”

    I think that it would be the as-isness of some infinitesimally small portion of the filter. As-isness of a larger portion of the filter would be quite a blowout. It could complete many cycles of actions.

    In physical terms, The associated EMR that was trapped as a particle, loosened up enough to again flow as EMR and exhausted itself by fulfilling the postulate.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 6:24 AM

    There is neither absolute nothing
    Nor absolute something
    There is no absolute creation
    Nor absolute destruction

    The dichotomies are there
    But they are not absolute
    Just an ever changing flux
    Seems to be all that there is.

    There is calm and turbulence
    There is consistency and inconsistency
    Is it all relative or…
    Just a magnificent illusion?

    • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 7:31 AM

      “Is it all relative or…Just an illusion?”

      The question should be “Absolute or illusion?” The answer is neither and both. These are archaic terms that need the statement you’ve made preceding them to bind up the seething roiling universe of all.

  • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 6:48 AM

    A stable datum is needed to restrain confusion. But the confusion is restarined only in the narrow sphere covered by that datum.

    When that stable datum is inconsistent within a wider context then new confusion is generated in that wider context. A new stable datum is needed to control confusion in a wider context.

    Being body-centric is having a stable datum that resolves confusion for the body. But it generates confusion in the wider context of the self.

    Being self-centric is having a stable datum that resolves confusion for the self. But it generates confusion in the wider context of the reality.

    Being reality-centric is having a stable datum that resolves confusion for reality But it may generate confusion in the wider context of BRAHMA.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 3:16 PM

      Yes, I see one’s path as two almost parallel lines – widening vectors. As the years pass, the arc seconds might be the same but life is no longer the same size… at least this is how I teach it to my children. It is just an analogy. I teach that as well so that the things I say are not taken too seriously and become sticking points of in a future frame of reference, false data.

  • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 7:05 AM

    A stable datum at one level can operate as a fixed idea at a wider level.
    .

    • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 7:09 AM

      A “stable datum” is used to restrain some confusion. If the confusion is disposed of then the “stable datum” can also be disposed of.

      Many things in Scientology acts as stable data for lot of people. It is time to look at the confusion they are supposed to be restraining, and get rid of that confusion.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 3:09 PM

        “Many things in Scientology acts as stable data for lot of people. It is time to look at the confusion they are supposed to be restraining, and get rid of that confusion.”

        Auditing is supposed to do that. Too many rules and too rigid a construct. This is why I can see how I wouldn’t want to solo audit everyday. One creates a totally egotistical world for themself. Done in moderation without preconceived results can be good. The thing is that I did get benefits from doing auditing but I did get them because I was certain that I was going to. At times ones own inconsistencies sit right on the bridge of their nose as mine did this past week when I had my ass handed to me blogging elsewhere. My logic was sound but my manners went out and what should have an easy discussion turned into an ugly argument with me looking like a bad guy. I didn’t like that much so took a look at (audited) it and easily sorted out what occurred like in 5 minutes or less. I changed my tune and the thing resolved. What did I learn? Moderation and manners, and one more tautology: “If you cannot get your point across, you cannot get your point across.” LOL

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 3:38 PM

          Yes. That is what I am learning with Elizabeth Hamre. But she keeps on going even after I have apologized for being coarse or blunt.

          I think, one should not be afraid of making mistakes because that is an important way to learn something new. One should not be withdrawing trying to figure out how to bypass the filter of the other person. Yes, one must not intend any harm to the other person, but sometimes one has to take a stand when the other person is just trying to be right by repetitive postings of putting one down.

          Elizabeth Hamre is a good study of the self-centric abyss that Scientology can throw one into. But if she is happy then I am glad that she is happy. But she is not somebody with whom one can discuss with any sense or reason.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 4:06 PM

          The focus on thetan in Scientology pins one down into being self-centric. Scientology auditing is not effectively neutral. It pushes certain ideas from the “source”..

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 4:28 PM

          Much better than solo is mindful contemplation: See “L03” below.

          https://vinaire.me/research-on-learning/

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 31, 2014 at 5:47 PM

          LO3 as you pointed out is how I do solo auditing. For a few months I was particular about model session as I had been taught but as time when on, it seemed to mechanical and slow and keeping the admin was tedious. Then I just started looking. It became quite fast and that has stayed with me.

        • vinaire  On May 31, 2014 at 6:58 PM

          Yup! That’s more natural!

%d bloggers like this: