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 It is superseded by the document Theism, Atheism and Non-theism]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.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Eric S  On May 25, 2014 at 11:28 PM

    Vinare

    Interesting delineation of viewpoints. Thank you.

    I apparently tend toward an “atheistic” viewpoint.

    I often find it difficult to communicate at the level of the address of this post due to factors of missing, or inaccurate terms available to communicate these concepts. Dualism, or “separateness” seem to be hard-wired into the available terms or concepts.

    Of the concepts that I have some grasp of, I find that that of a superior entity or “beingness” the least easy to consider as an “ultimate truth”. (or whatever wording would represent the seemingly all pervasive aspect seemingly extant in this universe…. You see where language fails me…)

    Eric

    • Chris Thompson  On May 26, 2014 at 1:55 AM

      Dualism, or “separateness” seem to be hard-wired into the available terms or concepts. Yup.

    • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 6:00 AM

      I always wondered what “dualism” is. Well, now I know. And I also understand why I am having such a difficulty in getting myself understood.

      What I write is very often misinterpreted, so much so that I am forced to develop the use of new vocabulary like self-centric, reality-centric, filters, etc., to get my point across. I guess there are both advantages and disadvantages of belonging to a different culture.

      My basis is mindfulness, which became real to me when applying the confronting exercise, TR0, in Scientology. But it soon became clear that it went against the idea of “agreement is reality” that was indoctrinated in Scientology and which is based on self-centrism of duality.

      Scientology is a mixture of inconsistencies. It is trying to saddle itself between “dualism” and “non-dualism”. Seems like Hubbard was a genius, but also a very conflicted person. It is up to us to learn from the experience of Scientology, and not to just accept or reject it robotically.

      Yes, language seems to be limited in expressing non-dualism. It is oriented towards dualism because that is what reality appears to be. “Dualism” is the common reality of the masses. “Non-dualism” does not manifest itself until one looks very closely at reality.

      Anyway, that is what it is. We have to look at many spiritual definitions in the dictionary and clarify their bias toward dualism.We need to look at the spiritual concepts more objectively. I believe that to be the direction of any spiritual progress.

  • christianscientology  On May 26, 2014 at 2:30 AM

    A must watch video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQFUpOOINd8

    Love
    Pip

    • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 6:18 AM

      In this video the first issue that OSHO takes up is that of consciousness.

      Theism looks at consciousness as something subjective and does not make effort to understand it any further. Atheism looks at consciousness objectively as a phenomenon to be understood.

      My understanding in this area of consciousness rests on the postulates summarized in the following essay.

      https://vinaire.me/2014/03/06/khtk-postulates-for-metaphysics-part-1/
      .

    • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 6:29 AM

      It is the same error that one makes, in my view, when one says that

      (1) The spiritual brings about the physical, and therefore the spiritual is senior to the physical.

      (2) The physical brings about the spiritual, and therefore the physical is senior to the spiritual.

      Both of these statements are in error in my humble opinion. They try to establish a sequence. There is no such sequence.

      The objective observation is

      Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same reality.

      .

      • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 1:59 PM

        Vinaire

        “Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same reality.”

        That is a concept that I am struggling with…

        Perhaps there is a third possibility to add to your list.

        Perhaps the “spiritual” and the “physical” are simply two different universes or “dimensions” that overlap. Perhaps they do not have any “connectedness” at all, except by association.

        Perhaps like air and sky. They are not “of” each other. Neither is the creator, or “cause” of the other. They are not “one”, and “two aspects of the same thing.” Perhaps they simply “overlap” in some objective or subjective way(s).

        Eric

        • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM

          The idea of two universes side by side is an inconsistency if you look closely at the definition of UNIVERSE.

          UNIVERSE (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universe?s=t)
          Origin:
          1325–75; Middle English < Old French univers < Latin ūniversum, noun use of neuter of ūniversus entire, all, literally, turned into one, equivalent to ūni- uni- + versus (past participle of vertere to turn) = the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

          Basically, what you are saying is that the universe can be split cleanly into two components: spiritual and physical. Could you please elaborate on that. Can you give an example of something that is purely spiritual with no physical association?

        • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 2:46 PM

          Vinare

          “The idea of two universes side by side is an inconsistency if you look closely at the definition of UNIVERSE.”

          Yes, I had thought of that as I was writing that post.

          You asked… “Can you give an example of something that is purely spiritual with no physical association?” NO. Not in this “universe”, as the concept of “universe” includes all existence and phenomena.

          I think that the very definition of the term “universe” has perhaps dictated a unity of everything (and non-thing) in it, as ONE, at all levels. This is perhaps only a “semantic” relationship and does not reflect “actuality”.

          I find myself unable, at this point, to fully separate the “spiritual” from the “actual” because so far, my entire available experience as “spirit” is experienced in somewhat objective terms. I have never experienced “spirit” without the presence or awareness of some physical aspect.

          But somehow I want to leave that door open. I want to have the option of two unique but interactive “universes” to consider when viewing physical/spiritual interactions.

          Eric

        • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 3:18 PM

          I believe in the actuality of the Universe as the overall set. Afterall, I love mathematics. 🙂

        • Eric S  On May 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM

          Vinaire

          We seem to have gotten several lines of discussion going here at once, but I want to address them all.

          Your statement: “I believe in the actuality of the Universe as the overall set. Afterall, I love mathematics. :)” is interesting to me.

          From my viewpoint(s) I seem to be detecting an inconsistency within that post itself.

          The way I see it, “Mathamatics” as a tool, or as a “game” was not created by, nor does it seem to have any value to the physical universe itself. The value seems to revolve solely around “observer” viewpoints. It appears to be the result of “something” with the capability of evaluation, translating the universe that it “observes” into “code”. It could potentially be called “programming code” for the physical universe.

          Curious thing is though… I can not see any evidence that the physical universe itself has any use, need, or even “awareness” of it.

          Elsewhere on this thread you ask me about my views on “spirit”. Mathematics appears to be an example of “something” that is a reflection, or interpretation, or a “filter” that is seemingly not required by the physics of the universe in order to exist or change.

          The only “value”, or use that I can see it having, is to something else..

          This I call “spirit”. “Spirit” seems to “value” mathematics for its potential use (as a filter) in understanding and dealing with the physical universe.

          (This next bit is all said in good humor.)

          Seemingly, for some wild and crazy reason, perhaps not even known to themselves, some beings feel they can better communicate with the physical universe if they “talk with it in code”.

          Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 4:52 PM

          Eric, You have many good ideas. KHTK basics can help narrow this down and get one grounded in reality. I am recommending it. Maybe tell us a little more about yourself, experience, religion, Scientology, etc.,.

        • Eric S  On May 27, 2014 at 11:39 PM

          Hi Chris

          You have asked about me and my experience. (I hope to get to the rest of your communication as I can).

          I am Canadian. I live in British Columbia on a five acre wooded property, on the lower slopes of a small mountain, and overlooking a “sound” between us and Vancouver B.C.

          I just turned 65, and am in good health.

          I was brought up in a Protestant Christian household (well, at least my mother).

          In 1971 I got into Scientology. The last acknowledged Scientology state is Clear. I have done L12.

          I am trained as a Hubbard Professional Course Supervisor, and all the supervisor courses below that, as well as being an HDG (Hubbard Dianetic Graduate) which is a supervisor specifically trained to run the Standard Dianetic course.

          I am Staff Status II, Org Officer mini hat, Esto full hat, ED mini hat, PRD,

          I have been on and off staff several times at our local mission and once at the local Org.

          My favorite part of my Scientology history is the times when I was supervising. I loved supervising the Comm Course especially.

          I also was very good as an Ethics Officer. (Since leaving The Church I have developed an “Ethics Orientation” to assist people with their understanding and use of Ethics as a tool for changing their lives.)

          I am a declared “suppressive”. (about five years back)

          Recently I have stopped considering myself a Scientologist.

          That is the “nut-shell” version.

          Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 11:47 PM

          Wow! That is a helluva a pedigree Eric! I am so glad you’ve decided to communicate here. I was declared suppressive over 20 years ago and my oldest daughter is still not allowed to communicate with her mother who is still in the SO. I have been decompressing ever since the early 90’s. I had no idea from your posts and thought you were some young curious guy! haha laugh’s on me! Take your time there’s no rush or pressure. There are many smart and savvy exes who read and comment here — lotta canucks it seems! I am the only guy from Arizona that I know of.

          I’m gonna be off this channel now for probably a day so if I don’t write, I will soon. Nice to meet you.

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 8:27 AM

          Eric, thanks for the introduction. You live in a lovely place. I enjoyed my trip to British Columbia.

          I am glad in a way that you didn’t do any OT Levels. They do something weird to a person. They really buid the self-centric filter in a person.

          I had started to convert the L’s into KHTK processes. That project still needs to be completed. Here is a process that came out of that study

          PROCESS: The Intention to Harm

          I think that those people who became word clearers and course supervisors in Scientoilogy really wanted to know and understand. If that postulate to know did get fulfilled is another matter. I was the word clearer on Flag for the TRs Course.

          Ethics is an area I haven’t delved much into. It would be interesting to look at it in a new unit of time.

          By the way, here SP means a special person who can think for himself or herself.

          Wecome to Vinaire’s Blog.

    • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 6:45 AM

      Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same reality just like an object and its properties are two different aspects of the same reality.

      One may compare it to software and hardware also. But here I would broaden the definition of software as the property of the hardware.

      What would be the spirituality of an atom? It would be the pattern of electrons around the nucleus and the resonances they are capable of with other atoms.
      .

  • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 10:40 AM

    According to Scientology “man creates his past, present and future by postulates. His past, present and future exist to the extent that he can postulate them.”

    I find the above to be inconsistent.

    By Hubbard’s definition, a postulate is a truth created by oneself for oneself. This is like an assumption, premise or a hypothesis. It can bring about a future for a person through visualization. It could be a belief in the present (consideration). A belief (consideration) is a continuing postulate. Beliefs are created in the past and continue in the present. Beliefs can influence one’s view of the past.

    One can certainly consider a different past, but one cannot create a different past.

    The beliefs of a person may be changed through application of force, such as, brainwashing, implanting, etc.

    Beliefs may also be changed through gradual agreement, which is essentially the application of logic. We try to do this through debates.

    The best way of changing beliefs is through better understanding. This comes from the application of mindfulness by oneself as in a discussion.

    .

    • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 10:42 AM

      A debate is self-centric.

      A discussion is reality-centric.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 26, 2014 at 11:42 AM

        A debate is self-centric. A discussion is reality-centric.

        Excellent! The difference between between the goal of winning and learning.

    • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 1:04 PM

      Vinaire

      Yes,

      The concept that … “man creates his past, present and future by postulates. His past, present and future exist to the extent that he can postulate them.” … does not seem to reflect the actuality of the situation.

      I would suggest that the first sentence would more reflect “reality” if it read….”man EXPERIENCES his past, present and future THROUGH (as in “filters”) HIS postulates.

      The second sentence would then read something like… “His PRESENT TIME EXPERIENCE OF HIS past, present and future IS MODIFIED BY HIS PRESENT TIME postulates REGARDING them”…

      I also consider that “One can certainly consider a different past, but one cannot create a different past.”

      We have the ability to create a different view of the past, but I do not consider that that alters the “reality” of the past in any way.

      Eric

  • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 10:50 AM

    Anther dictum of Scientology, “What is true for oneself is true” is an inconsistent statement. It may be true “for oneself” in terms of a filtered reality, but it may not necessarily be true in terms of what is out there as unfiltered reality.

    By postulating, one creates past, present and future as a filtered reality only. The actual past, present and future as unfiltered reality can be very different.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 26, 2014 at 11:39 AM

      “The actual past, present and future as unfiltered reality can be very different.”

      The concepts of past, present, and future seem to be human abstractions for “relative ongoing processes.” These divisive words for me obscure an understanding of what is physically ongoing. Just saying that I am clinging lightly to these definitions and though I use them in daily life I am remembering that they are abstractions.

      • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 11:52 AM

        Time is essentially a sequence. An example would be the sequence of prgramming instructions in a program.

        Present would be the program instructions being executed.
        Past would be the sequence of program instructions already executed.
        Future would be the sequence of program instructions yet to be executed.
        .

        • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 1:36 PM

          Vinaire

          Currently I am considering that there is only “the present”, or perhaps “time” is only experienced in the present. I do not consider that the past, present or future have any “time” (continued existence) in them at all.

          It seems possible that the concept of “time” is an experience created by “spirit”. There is apparently a constantly changing “reality”, but the concept of “time” could seemingly only belong to an “observer of change” not the change itself.

          Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 26, 2014 at 1:40 PM

          To make progress in this field of knowledge, it takes a lot of dilligent effort – a lot. It gives me pause and makes me wonder at knowledge and how it is aquired.

        • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 1:47 PM

          Ultimately, Time (sequence) is also a filter, just like Space (separation) is a filter. But going that far is not productive.

          What is productive is spotting inconsistencies in what we perceive at the moment.

          Do you think that there is a “spirit” that “creates”? If yes, could you please elaborate on your beliefs in this area!

        • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM

          Vinaire

          You asked… “Do you think that there is a “spirit” that “creates”?

          At this point I do consider that there is something (this word lacks the breadth of possibilities) that is capable of creating, that is associated with, or part of, this universe. The creation that “it” seems to demonstrate falls generally into two categories, “pure” creation, which does not necessarily manifest in the “physical universe”, and the altering of energies and spaces that appear as created or altered effects observable in the physical universe.

          This “something” appears to be unique, or different from the forces and spaces of the physical universe, in that it seems to be capable of perceiving and recording phenomena, and through combining and recombining these perceptions and evaluating the results, creates something that only “it” and perhaps “others of its kind” (assuming that that is a possibility) consider valuable.

          The stuff and spaces and energies of this universe seem to have no such ability.

          Hugely simplistic, but it is a start.

          Eric

        • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 9:24 PM

          Yes, there has been this nebulous idea of spirit that is very subjective. People think that there must be some truth to it because it has been around forever. They accept it while not able to define it. To me this falls under the category of inconsistency.

          I have found mindfulness to be very useful. Here are the 12 aspects of mindfulness as I understand them:

          1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
          2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
          3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
          4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
          5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
          6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
          7. Experience fully what is there.
          8. Do not suppress anything.
          9. Associate data freely.
          10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
          11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
          12. Let it all be effortless.

          When I mindfully look at the subject of spirit, I find it to be a theoretical postulate that is assumed to be real. I have looked at myself as to what this spirit is. The best I can come up with, having a scientific background that spirit is the sumtotal of all the mental and physical energies that I am composed of. Here is an essay that I wrote on it.

          https://vinaire.me/2012/07/29/the-self-and-the-soul/

          If you have any different ideas, let’s look at them.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 26, 2014 at 11:30 PM

          I wonder does light have a past?

        • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 6:43 AM

          From what viewpoint are you wondering?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 12:36 PM

          Good. If I wonder from my eyeball, where I watch starlight on my back porch. If I wonder considering the span of the entire universe, looking as though I can embrace the whole. If I wonder considering from the wave crest of a photon as it emanates across the universe.

        • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 1:02 PM

          If you are viewing the universe as a 5-dimensional object then there is no past.

          https://vinaire.me/2014/03/11/the-4th-and-5th-dimensions/

          Your question is very interesting. Electromagnetism seems to be the basis of all physicality. Time would vary with Disturbance levels. But one would be able to see all variations of time when viewing the universe as a 5-dimensional object.

        • Eric S  On May 27, 2014 at 4:30 PM

          Vinaire

          In your post to me on the inconsistencies of the concept of “spirit” as separate from the physical universe, you stated…

          ” The best I can come up with, having a scientific background that spirit is the sumtotal of all the mental and physical energies that I am composed of.”

          Yes, I can see how you arrive there based on the viewpoints that you have shared.

          But in your statement you seem to have left out one factor that I think makes all the difference. You have not addressed the “fact” that “you” care, or that “you” wonder, or that “you” feel… No… it does not seem to show up in physical terms, and it is very unlikely that it will be found by “science”, or even mathematics, (though these may reveal some inconsistencies) because with these filters one cannot “see” things, except in their own terms. They, like most filters, are “self fulfilling”.

          I would postulate that the one would be wise to attempt to view all phenomena from as many viewpoints, or filters, as one is capable.

          At this point I am guessing that “breadth of one’s data base”, from as many viewpoints as possible, will eventually lead to the best “why” finds and evaluations.

          Seems we always come back to what we are calling FILTERS.

          Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 5:05 PM

          “You have not addressed the “fact” that “you” care, or that “you” wonder, or that “you” feel… No… it does not seem to show up in physical terms, and it is very unlikely that it will be found by “science”, or even mathematics, (though these may reveal some inconsistencies) because with these filters one cannot “see” things, except in their own terms. They, like most filters, are “self fulfilling”.

          Eric, Vinaire does very little without addressing how his research addresses the “I.” If this is what you are primarily interested in, then read through this voluminous blog before correcting it. When you become very well grounded in science and mathematics or well grounded in a piece of it is a better time to throw out what cannot be known through science and mathematics. You have lept into an ocean of ideas without first testing the water with your toe. I recommend reading and drilling KHTK basic principles to find your center of balance and see what is there rather than what seems to be there.

          Science is the way to organize one’s observations and ideas for testing them to see if they are sound. It is science and not Scientology which is self correcting.

          Mathematics is the most beautiful and eloquent language in the world and shows the precise relationships between things. No poet can describe all the vectors necessary to land a rocket on the moon but mathematics can. Mathematics makes it possible for man to view the heavens in ways never dreamed of before the advent of telescopes and a knowledge of the light spectrum… What would be more beautiful than this?

          This path that you want to walk requires a commitment to knowledge that for me is daunting. Between the adventures of living, I spend as much time as possible learning facts rather than piling on more beliefs.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 5:08 PM

          “seems we always come back to what we are calling FILTERS.”

          It is just a word and we have refer to filters with many expressions. Another word for this that I like is assumptions, and another is considerations. Get a thesaurus for more synonyms, they are all good. We’re just trying to pair down the difference between a belief and a fact.

        • Eric S  On May 28, 2014 at 12:04 AM

          Vinaire

          You invited me to share my ideas on “spirit”.

          To discuss this fully will likely take some time but I will include aspects of my thoughts on it as they apply to other posts and subjects.

          I have also given some of my ideas in answer to some of your other questions to me about the area.

          But first I would like to address one other aspect, brought up in the early part of the post I am responding to.

          In looking over the numbered statements on Mindfullness, I noticed an inconsistency when numbers 2,3, and 4 are included together.

          Here they are:

          “2. Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.
          3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
          4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.”

          Number 2 suggests that one not assume anything, and yet both number 3 and number 4 include assumptions in their statement,

          The assumption in number 3 is that “something is missing”. The assumption in number 4 is that “something does not make sense”. Neither of these is purely observable. They are evaluations.

          Oh, damn… Just noticed the time… gotta run…

          but I will get back to the “Spirit” thing tomorrow.

          Eric

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 9:34 AM

          An assumption is something taken for granted. Aspects of mindfulness #3 and #4 are conditional statements. There is nothing taken for granted in those statements. Please see the exercises on them here under the section on Mindfulness.

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

          .

    • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 1:18 PM

      Vinaire

      Yes, this is an interesting one. I believe one of Ron’s statements of that concept is… ” What is true for you is true for you.”… which strikes me as pretty much a “throw-away” statement.

      I have come to the consideration that “all “truth” is personal. “Truth” is not “reality”. “Truth” is one’s consideration of the reliability of his own postulates regarding something. ( And the “something” itself is not necessarily a “reality” either, but could already be someone else’s postulated reality.)

      Eric

      • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 1:38 PM

        Scientology looks at all truth as subjective. It has no concept of objective truth.

        This kind of thinking comes from self-centric approach which is characteristic of theism.

        • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 2:18 PM

          Vinaire

          What you are calling “objective truth” I seem to be calling “reality”. (somewhere the term “actuality” was used to represent this.)

          I am using the concept of “truth” as separate from “reality”(actuality). I am using the word “truth” to represent what one considers, or postulates, and “reality” as what IS. (actual existence)

          Eric

        • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 2:27 PM

          How do you know that what you are perceiving is the actual existence?

          Usually what one perceives is the filtered reality (think of filtered light). One may say that somewhere there is unfiltered reality back of all those filters; but that would be theoretical for a person who doesn’t even know that he has filters.

          Eric, are you sure that you have no filters?
          .

        • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 3:00 PM

          Vinaire

          You asked… “Eric, are you sure that you have no filters?”

          Absolutely not! The likelihood of that seems seems almost unimaginable.

          Actually my involvement with Scientology was initially simply to be able to eventually view the universe, or universes, without what I called “rose colored glasses” and you call “filters”.

          It became apparent to me that how I experienced the world around me was totally dependent on my own considerations and postulates. So far I have not experienced any unalterable “reality” as I compulsively view things through my own filters.

          But I haven’t given up on attempting to remove filters. I think one aspect of discussion, or experiencing different realities, is that hopefully “actuality” may shine through from time to time.

          Eric

        • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 3:20 PM

          Eric, my method of discovering my filters is as follows.

          https://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/subject-clearing/
          .

        • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 9:03 PM

          Vinaire

          You also asked…”How do you know that what you are perceiving is the actual existence?”

          Well… I don’t. I am not even certain that that is “knowable”.

          Some of my thoughts on this…

          Anything perceived, by whatever is perceiving, is already an alteration of “actuality”. Any perception, or recording it makes, already contains altered space, altered energy, and altered time. The perception itself may have its own actuality, but it is not the original actuality.

          The only way to experience, duplicate. etc. (all these words fail to convey unfiltered actuality) some aspect of the “physical universe” would be to totally exist solely in the terms of that universe. Nothing would have been perceived, duplicated, “been”, etc, it would simply exist as it exists.

          Eric

        • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 9:41 PM

          That’s pretty good. It makes sense to me. 🙂

        • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 9:49 PM

          In my view the only way one can view the unfiltered reality is by erasing the filter.

          Generally, one is not aware of the filter so it is difficult to erase it. The only way to erase the filter is to become aware of it and examine it closely.

          One can become aware of the filter and erase it only in gradients… little by littlw.

          The way to become aware of the filter is to be alert for inconsistencies and then examine those inconsistencies more closely. The present explanation of “spirit” presents an inconsistency to me as it is too subjective and vague.

          Just by calling it thetan doesn’t make it any clearer.

        • christianscientology  On May 27, 2014 at 2:40 AM

          Hi Vinaire

          Please can you tell me how you understand the difference between THETA and A Thetan

          Regards
          Pip

        • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 6:51 AM

          Theta and thetan are postulates by Hubbard to base his theory on. The definitions of THETA and THETAN as defined by him are available in the Tech Dictionary below.

          https://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/technical_dictionary.pdf

          THETA, 1. theta is thought, life force, elan vital, the spirit, the soul, or any other of the numerous definitions it has had for some thousands of years. (SOS, p. 4) 2 . the life force, life energy, divine energy, elan vital, or by any other name, the energy peculiar to life which acts upon material in the physical universe and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it. It is susceptible to alteration in character or vibration, at which time it becomes enturbulated theta or entheta. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 21) 3. theta is thought; an energy of its own universe analogous to energy in the physical universe but only occasionally paralleling electromagnetic-gravitic laws. The three primary components of theta are affinity, reality, and communication. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 3) 4 . reason, serenity, stability, happiness, cheerful emotion, persistence, and the other factors which man ordinarilyconsiders desirable. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 12) 5 . an energy existing separate and distinct from the physical universe. (SOS, p. 4) 6 . Greek for thought or life or the spirit. (Aud 10 UK) 7 . not a nothingness. It just happens to be an exterior thing to this universe—so you couldn’t talk about it in this universe’s terms. (PDC 6)

          THETAN, 1. the living unit we call, in Scn, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scn to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Abil Ma 1) 2 . the awareness of awareness unit which has all potentialities but no mass, no wave-length and no location. (HCOB 3 Jul 59) 3 . the being who is the individual and who handles and lives in the body. (HCOB 23 Apr 69) 4 . (spirit) is described in Scn as having no mass, no wave-length, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things. (FOT, p. 55) 5 . the personality and beingness which actually is the individual and is aware of being aware and is ordinarily and normally the “person” and who the individual thinks he is. The thetan is immortal and is possessed of capabilities well in excess of those hitherto predicted for man. (Scn 8-8008, p. 9) 6. the name given to the life source. It is the individual, the being, the personality, the knowingness of the human being. (Scn 8-80, p. 46) 7 . energyspace production unit. (COHA, p. 247) 8 . in the final analysis what is this thing called thetan? It is simply you before you mocked yourself up and that is the handiest definition I know of. (5608C——) 9 . the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Aud 25 UK) 10. a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects . (PXL, p . 121 )

          What distinction did Hubbard make between THETA and THETAN should be obvious from the above definitions by Hubbard. As far as I am concerned I consider these fundamental postulates to be flawed.

        • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 9:12 AM

          It is an error to consider THETA and THETAN anything other than postulates made by Hubbard to “clarify” the observations about life.

          These postulates are part of Hubbard’s hypothesis that grew into the subject of Scientology.

        • Eric S  On May 27, 2014 at 3:29 PM

          Vinaire

          Regarding: “In my view the only way one can view the unfiltered reality is by erasing the filter.”

          I think that that is what one would ultimately need to do, but as you say, achieving that is problematical, due in part to the aspect of often not knowing they are there, or what form they take.

          From some of the statements that you have made I take it that you would be looking for inconsistencies based on a physical model. To me, this seems to close the door a bit since it does not seem to consider any other “non physical possibilities.

          My approach is to acquire viewpoints of all kinds, based on all sorts of models. I do not look for inconsistencies based on a single model. By comparing these viewpoints with my own, where I find inconsistencies, I look for filters in my own viewpoint first, and then in the other viewpoints.

          I do not generally pitch out a viewpoint in its entirety simply because I noticed an inconsistency upon a particular inspection. Things change as filters are removed, and new doors open. I maintain all data sets for future evaluations.

          Will this eventually erase all filters? Hard to say.

          So, as an example, here is something that I have come up with from this thread. I was looking for inconsistencies in both our models (as I view them at this point) as compared to each other.

          As I said earlier: “Anything perceived, by whatever is perceiving, is already an alteration of “actuality”. Any perception, or recording “it” makes, already contains altered space, altered energy, and altered time.”

          Even after stating this, I continued to hold the concept that “getting rid of all filters” would be a good thing. (Even the first line of this post reflects this viewpoint.)

          But, upon closer inspection, ( which I have been doing as I have been composing this) I came up with this:

          “Perception” itself appears to be a filter, if that statement is accurate. “Perception” appears to be one of the unique attributes of “life”.
          Personally I cannot conceive of a state of “no perception”.

          By inspecting the inconsistencies between these two viewpoints I have re-evaluated my initial viewpoint.

          At this point, I now am of the mind that “removing filters” is seemingly a limited process. I would still need to test this hypothesis, by attempting to isolate or categorize the parameters of this limitation, but it is a start in a new direction of thinking for me.

          Eric

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 4:40 PM

          “To me, this seems to close the door a bit since it does not seem to consider any other “non physical possibilities.”

          Throughout the history of science and especially before the advent of science, the search for understanding through “non physical possibilities” has brought forth strange and unworkable ideas. I would give a thousand famous examples but you get the idea. Considering non physical possibilities has never been necessary so far. Maybe in the future when we’ve run out of universe to scour?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 4:47 PM

          “To me, this seems to close the door a bit since it does not seem to consider any other “non physical possibilities.”

          One more thing, the search for non physical possibilities yields nothing of substance (pun intended) and undercutting that search if the assumption that “physical possibilities” have already been exhausted. This has always been an error and we are nowhere near exhausting “physical possibilities” to learn about. The advantage? Physical possibilities are, well, there to study. And non-physical possibilities? Well, they are, well, uh, not there. Acknowledging these few items gets one’s research on track and rather than closing the door on the non-physical, it throws wide the door to some serious and we hope fruitful observation. Using Vinaire’s KHTK methods, to me seem fruitful to begin the journey away from the assumptions of unproductive theism and onto the track of beginning to see what is there rather what seems to be there.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 26, 2014 at 1:45 PM

        “What is true for you is true for you.”… which strikes me as pretty much a “throw-away” statement.”

        Eric, for me it is a tautology when describing one’s personal reality (beliefs, the self-centric) and false when describing the objective reality (facts, reality-centric view.)

        • Eric S  On May 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM

          Chris

          Yes

          Eric

  • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 12:07 PM

    CAUSE

    Wikipedia

    Causality (also referred to as causation) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.”

    .

    Scientology

    1. Cause could be defined as emanation. It could be defined also, for purposes of communication, as source-point. 2. A potential source of flow. 3. Cause is simply the point of emanation of the communication. Cause in our dictionary here means only ‘source point’.”

    .

    KHTK 

    When an event is identified as the consequence of another event, then the former is called an effect of the latter cause. Cause is actually the starting point of effect. It is the same event extended in time. It is an error to look upon cause and effect as separate events.

    .

    COMMENTS:

    Cause and effect are abstractions gleaned from associations observed among events. The ‘effect’ event is understood as a consequence of the ‘cause’ event.  A closer look shows cause and effect to be aspects of the same event that is essentially extended in space – time.

    All ’cause-effect’ events seem to be concatenated with each other with no absolute beginning or ending. The point to be emphasized is that cause and effect are relative to each other. Neither cause nor effect exists in isolation. The idea of a potential cause is balanced with the idea of potential effect.

    Cause-effect association is not necessarily linear or one-dimensional. It can easily be observed to be 2-dimensional since an event may be caused by many causative factors, and a causative factor may influence many events.

    Cause-effect associations may even be perceived as a three or multi-dimensional matrix.

    . 

    .

    BEINGNESS

    Dictionary

    1. the state or fact of existing; 2. a point of view gradually coming into being; 3. laws in existence for centuries.”

    .

    Scientology

    “1. the assumption or choosing of a category of identity. Beingness is assumed by oneself or given to oneself, or is attained. Examples of beingness would be one’s own name, one’s profession, one’s physical characteristics, one’s role in a game—each and all of these things could be called one’s beingness. 2. the person one should be in order to survive. 3. essentially, an identification of self with an object.”

    .

    KHTK

    Beingness is the state or fact of existing. It may be looked upon as a matrix of events that are associated with each other through cause-effect relationships.

    .

    COMMENTS:

    If something exists then it is being. The two words ‘existing’ and ‘being’ seem to be synonymous.

    An event seems to come into being by virtue of another event. So the beingness of existence, as such, may be looked upon as a matrix of events that are associated through cause-effect relationships.

    Scientology seems to look at beingness as the property of a being (see below), in terms of a role or an identity. Thus, in Scientology, beingness is defined in terms of a being.

    .

    .

    BEING (INDIVIDUAL)

    Wikipedia

    “Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence. Anything that partakes in being is also called a ‘being’, though often this use is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression “human being”). So broad a notion has inevitably been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly.”

    .

    Scientology

    “1. a viewpoint; he is as much a being as he is able to assume viewpoints. 2. an energy production source (thetan). 3. essentially the beingness of theta itself acting in the mest and other universes in the accomplishment of the goals of theta and under the determination of a specific individual and particular personality for each being. 4. when we say the individual we are talking about something as precise as an apple. We are not talking about a collection of behavior patterns which we all learned about in the study of rats. We are talking about something that is finite. We are talking about somebody. The somethingness that you are and the capabilities you can be and this is what we are talking about. We are not talking about the color of your hair or the length of your feet. We are talking about you.”

    .

    KHTK

    A being is a part of beingness (the cause-effect matrix) that has acquired a sense of individuality and has separated itself from rest of the beingness. This is a specialized “beingness”, which has the purpose to survive as itself.

    .

    COMMENTS:

    A being is thought to be that part of overall beingness (existence) that has developed subjectivity. The subjectivity provides a sense of individuality, which separates it from rest of the existence. This is the view in general philosophy as well as in KHTK.

    Scientology, however, looks at beingness as the consequence of a being. The being is the innermost sense of individuality. In Scientology, the universe exists simply because we all agree that it exists. Thus, Scientology believes that all existence emanates from the individual being.
    .
    https://vinaire.me/2013/08/11/philosophy-definitions-2/
    .

    • vinaire  On May 26, 2014 at 12:15 PM

      In Scientology the relationship between the concepts of BEINGNESS and BEING is reversed compared to what it is in general philosophy.

      It is the self-centric postulate.

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 8:02 AM

    Scientology says (in L. Kin’s words):

    “What is true for oneself – whether referring to the past or the future – is true now, simply because postulates are always now, once they have been made. This is because postulates are thoughts. They are thoughts connected with action or states of being, so they have a dynamic connotation, but still: they are thoughts. And thoughts, as we saw, exist outside the physical universe. The physical universe – or “mest universe” – consists of the components matter, energy, space and time (mest). Thought is outside and above time and therefore outside and above the mest universe. Thoughts and postulates impinge on the physical universe to give it shape, form and dynamic action, yes, but they are not part of it. Thoughts and postulates all by themselves are static. They don’t move, they are not dynamic, yet bring about dynamic action. They “float along in time” as it were; they are always in the present, forever now, no matter when they were made. The totality of all postulates ever made are expressed in the Now of each moment. They determine life in each instant.”

    I think differently. Yes, postulates are always now, once they have been made
    (1) They become considerations
    (2) These postulates determine the truth for you
    (3) They become part of your makeup
    (4)This makeup is dynamic because of changing configuration

    But,
    (1) Thoughts exist as patterns in what is physical
    (2) Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of existence
    (3) Spiritual and physical influence each other (it is not just one way)
    .

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 8:24 AM

    The following is an excellent clarification by LRH:

    A cycle of action starts with creating a postulate
    (1) Life is created on the basis of this postulate.
    (2) It goes on creating-creating-creating.
    (3) It stops only when the original postulate is undone.
    (4) The cycle of action does not come to an end by counter-creating.
    (5) That only sets up a ridge.
    (6) Counter-creating doesn’t do away with the postulate.

    You can undo a postulate only by becoming fully aware of it
    (1) All aspects of mindfulness apply here.
    .

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 8:34 AM

    Can intention be a “suppressed postulate”?

    It is something that one has postulated but cannot bring it about.

    It is just hanging there unfulfilled.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM

      “Can intention be a “suppressed postulate”? It is something that one has postulated but cannot bring it about.”

      IDK. Do the properties of electromagnetic radiation apply?

      • Eric S  On May 27, 2014 at 4:39 PM

        Oh Chris

        I don’t know if you intended that to be funny or not, but it totally broke me up.

        Thanks for a good chuckle.

        Eric

      • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 4:54 PM

        That’s a good question. If awareness and electromagnetism go hand-in hand then what would be a postulate?

        As soon as a postulate is made, it “radiates” influencing other considerations. If those cosiderations do not align with the postulate then its radiation could be “suppressed.”

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 5:13 PM

          Yes. I can face two guitars, pluck a string on one and get a corresponding and harmonic vibration on its twin. Harmony and harmonics in my opinion may contain low hanging fruit.

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

          I am thinking of my recent study of “Cycle of Action” from L. Kin’s book. See page 68 here:

          https://vinaire.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/vol1-the-principles-unveiled.pdf

          When you postulate a palace, there is only a vision. That vision is fulfilled when that palace is actually constructed as visualized. This would be the completion of the cycle of action that started with the postulated palace. This would also be the AS-ISNESS of the original postulate.

          This gives me a different idea then what LRH said about postulating it again in a new unit of time to bring about as-isness of the original postulate. This definition of as-isness does not require the completion of any cycle of action.

          Anyway, it seems that as soon as a postulate is made, it radiates outwards as a cycle of action and it is as-ised only upon its fulfillment. I don’t know how one can turn back the time and unpostulate that postulate.

          Am I missing something?.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 10:22 PM

          “I don’t know how one can turn back the time and unpostulate that postulate.”

          There is a mechanism, a reverberation which continues to iterate the postulate. I do not particularly think the original postulate from the past exists in the present but that is what we were taught and is what we say. Is this consistent with behavior? Maybe. I think it is a type of continuing reverberation which comes to a halt when the iteration-crank stops turning. This is what we call as-isness, the beginning of the iteration and the end of turning the crank (formula).

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 7:14 AM

          So, as-isness is start turning the crank and stop turning the crank. What happens in between?

          According to Hubbard, each turn of the crank is alter-isness. That alter-isness now exists in terms of a beautiful realized palace. There is some confusion here about as-ising the mass of that palace. It doesn’t go away by stop turning the crank.

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 7:16 AM

          Only the tension created by the postulate goes away.

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 7:23 AM

          So, a universe may be postulated. When that universe comes into being, the postulate is satisfied (as-ised). The postulate no longer exists.

          But the universe exists as postulated. How do we as-is that universe? What is keeping that universe there?

          I guess it would be the not-knowing of why did I have that postulate of building a universe in the first place?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 6:40 PM

          You are losing me a little bit by personifying these physical processes… Is this intentional? Not the losing me part, the personifying part. Are you paving a road to an unrevealed idea?

        • vinaire  On May 29, 2014 at 9:44 PM

          Let me try again.

          (1) Say a person has a postulate to be a doctor. (2) He works hard and becomes a doctor. (3) The postulate is fulfilled. This is as-isness of the postulate. (4) But he is now a doctor.  (5) That beingness of doctor is not as-ised. (6) Nor do we want it to be as-ised  (7) Because it would re-ignite the earlier postulate. (6) So, what does as-isness really mean?

          ________________________________

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 10:43 PM

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

          I swear I never liked this term since I first heard it 37 years ago. Probably because of why you and I are discussing it now. So what do we know? It is the coming into and out of existence. I look down at the flowing river and I watch as currents combine to create and dissolve little whirlpools. Is it this simple? We kind of seem to go back and forth about the cause and effect thingy. I only see things popping into and out of existence. Mostly in the mental realm which I think may resemble a tropical storm with lots of dynamic activity. This whole thing of will . . . I went over the idea of building my garage today. From the idea that I needed a garage, to measuring and sketching, serious dimensioning on a piece of paper, architecture drawings, building, painting, finally flushing the toilet for the first time. (Yes, my garage has a toilet, and a tub and a sink. hahaha) You are right about the postulate and how it very nearly extinguished as my little project nears completion.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 6:48 PM

          “According to Hubbard, each turn of the crank is alter-isness.”

          That is consistent with fractal math if we make the analogy of the crank as the formula. There is a seed and a turn of the crank and a coordinate spits out. The new coordinate becomes the seed for the next turn of the crank. Is that take on Hubbard yours? or some reference with which I am not familiar? I am pretty sure that Hubbard did not know about fractals. It ends up being quite an astute observation by yourself for sure, and by Hubbard if the reference is real.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM

          “There is some confusion here about as-ising the mass of that palace. It doesn’t go away by stop turning the crank.”

          What I think that I’ve learned is that in this universe, there is one helluva lot of crank turning going on. Any confusion is not because that idea you expressed is wrong. It is only misleading because of the enormous orders of magnitude involved — both large and small.

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 8:54 AM

    A cycle of action may appear as
    (1) Create – Survive – Destroy
    (2) Things are brought into being because of postulates
    (3) There is an interaction of many continuous create-create-create cycles
    (4) These myriads of cycles may have different and conflicting purposes
    (5) Thus things may change, decay, or be destroyed because of such influences

    But,
    (1) A thetan is merely a postulate to explain what is observed
    (2) “Agreement among thetans” is just one way to describe interactions
    (3) Theta is senior to Mest is just another postulate.
    (4) Postulates may act as filters that color the reality

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 9:07 AM

    The cycle of action provides the perception of time
    (1) Change is the primary manifestation of time.

    If something appears unchanging and merely persisting then
    (1) The viewpoint must be changing to give the perception of persistence

    .

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 9:24 AM

    GOALS PROBLEMS MASSES (GPMs)
    (1) Counter-creation doesn’t undo the original creation (see above)
    (2) It doesn’t complete the cycle of action
    (3) It only forms a ridge called a GPM or Goals Problems Mass.
    (4) Goal is the original postulate of the cycle of action (create)
    (5) Problem is the changes coming out of that postulate (create, create, create…)
    (6) Mass is the counter-create against this creation

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM

      Is all mass then a GPM?

    • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 12:54 PM

      Is a consideration a phenomena of space-time? And Is the GPM a phenomena of space-time?

      • christianscientology  On May 27, 2014 at 1:22 PM

        If considerations are senior to mechanics, which I believe they are, and G.P.M’s are mechanical phenomenon then G.P.M’s are brought about by considerations.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 1:36 PM

          Yes, I am familiar with that idea. I don’t see considerations as apart from mechanics. When I attempt to split them apart, I see many inconsistencies in the resulting phenomena. However when I consider the two as a part of the whole, my understanding of how things occur smooths out.

        • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 7:03 PM

          I think senior/junior is Hubbard’s opinion. To me they are simply two different aspects of the same phenomenon much like software and hardware. These are simply two different functions that go together. The senior/junior consideration is after the fact.

        • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 7:09 PM

          GPMs, to my understanding are those steps above. There are postulates that propagate forward as considerations and interact with other considerations. If they all are consistent the cycle of action goes forward without problem. If they are inconsistent them mass is formed, which may end up as a static ridge.

      • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM

        I think I have to first figure out where postulate fits into the KHTK Postulates for Metaphysics (oh no! that is a lot of work). Consideration is a continuing postulate.

        • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 7:11 PM

          “How does a postulate start” makes me wonder how does an electromagnetic wave ( a point of light) comes about.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 10:00 PM

          I know. What is a photon – really. Feynman says my worst fear when he says about quanta that it is not like anything else. Electricians are fond of using garden hoses and water pressure and volume to make analogies for electric current. But at these levels, they are no longer meaningful. I continue to create analogies and metaphors but I need to keep that in mind, what I am doing and not mistake it for the real thing.

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 5:32 AM

          Can a “postulate/light” be a BANG, if not a Big Bang.

          It appears from “nothing”, or from “unknowable”, and then propagates equally in all dimensions until its cycle is completed!

          As it propagates it evolves according to the seed in it.

          When it is consistent throughout the seed comes to fruition and the cycle is completed.

          When it is inconsistent it ends up in masses and ridges to be resolved.

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 9:30 AM

    All the mass of Scientology currently visible in the Church of Scientology is coming from counter-create against the outcome from the original THETA-MEST Theory.

    The Theta-MEST theory is self-centric as outlined in the OP. This is leading to the US-THEM phenomenon. The phenomenon is counter-created with the use of US-THEM by the critics of Scientology, who are theists (also self-centric).

    The mass is building up as US-THEM.

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 9:51 AM

    The original postulate provides the AS-ISNESS on which to build
    (1) A development consistent with the original postulate provides IS-NESS
    (2) Introduction of inconsistencies in that development will be ALTER-ISNESS
    (3) Counter-create would be the effort to bulldoze those inconsistencies down
    (4) This would result in NOT-ISNESS.
    (5) AS-ISNESS would be to recognize those inconsistencies and reverse them
    (6) Then one would be back on the track of the original postulate
    (7) One would then be able to complete the cycle of action
    (8) And achieve the AS-ISNESS of the original postulate.

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

    If the “original” postulate alters the postulates that went before it, then it would be an alter-isness of prior postulates. It would introduce an inconsistency.

    I think this is what the THETA-MEST theory did. It introduced an inconsistency.

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 10:00 AM

    There is no atheism really. It is an after-thought following the introduction of Theism. Theism itself is an inconsistency introduced in the natural order of things.

    • christianscientology  On May 27, 2014 at 11:56 AM

      I agree atheism is a reaction to the belief in God which is brought about by a misunderstanding of what is meant by God. As I have said before God does not exist HE IS EXISTENCE what OSHO would call CONSCIOUSNESS.

      Love
      Pip

      • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM

        Theism and atheism exist in West only.

        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.

      • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 12:26 PM

        Fundamental spirituality is consciousness (awareness).
        Fundmental physicality is electromagnetism.

        Consciousness (awareness) is the pattern built into electromagnetism.

    • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 12:01 PM

      I would say that all there is is IS-NESS. Man has been trying to make sense out of it for some time. In doing so a lot of vocabulary has been developed. God is part of that vocabulary.

    • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 12:02 PM

      Associating the idea of SELF with God has been a primary inconsistency.

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 7:26 PM

    Here are some thoughts on soul.

    (1) The soul is trying to understand itself.
    (2) It is actually looking at its “reflection” to do so.
    (3) This is like looking at oneself through a filter.
    (4) The filter is made up of mental and physical forces or energies.
    (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 “reflection” become one.
    (9) Both annihilate each other because who knows which is the soul, and which is its refelection.
    (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.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 10:03 PM

      “(13) There is only BRAHMAN.”

      . . . or Higgs Field. Those Hindu boys were pretty smart.

    • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 5:35 AM

      This is the reversal of Big Bang!

      • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 5:47 AM

        Each postulate is a mini bang. Each realization is a reversed mini bang.

        Or, each postulate is a ‘mini source’. Each realization is a ‘mini sink’.

        A postulate is a start of a cycle. A realization is the end of a cycle.

        Postulate is positive or addititive. Realization is negative or subtractive.

        Brahma is the background of no postulate, no realization.

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 5:54 AM

          No theism / Theism / Atheism was quite a realization. 🙂

          Self-centric (ego-centric) versus realitiy-centric was also quite a realization.

          Hubbard called postulation and realization alike as as-isnesses, but they are different in polarity. One is start and the other is end of a cycle.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 7:08 PM

          “One is start and the other is end of a cycle.”

          So we say! However, is there any evidence of the absolute beginning of anything at all which cannot easilly be shown to be an mental abstraction?

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 5:57 AM

          A point of light starting would be like a postulate. Light disappearing would be like a realization.

          What would be a realization in physical terms?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 7:04 PM

          “What would be a realization in physical terms?”

          Yes, what!?!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 7:06 PM

          Some quality of space-time or EMR? There I go with the tautology – again. Which is the mirror and which is the looker? Or is this a kind of paradox like cause-effect?

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 7:49 PM

    (1) The very first postulate must be that there is the very first postulate.
    (2) So, the universe has to start out tautologically.
    (3) Tautological in spiritual realm would be circular in physical realm.
    (4) A 3-dimensional circularity would be a sphere.
    (5) This tautology-circularity would apply to all dimensions.
    (6) The universe would inherently be tautological and circular.
    (7) So a postulate or a point of electromagnetism that starts out from nothing would have to be tautological and circular.

    I have no idea where this all is leading toward.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 10:06 PM

      “(1) The very first postulate must be that there is the very first postulate.”

      The very first postulate of self-realization, not the very first postulate.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM

      You are showing me something here. Our explanations, our self reflections seem to be tautological. Telling ourselves what we know is tautological. I have been flogging this for a while but this is a newer angle.

      (2) So, the universe has to start out tautologically. (3) Tautological in spiritual realm would be circular in physical realm. (4) A 3-dimensional circularity would be a sphere. (5) This tautology-circularity would apply to all dimensions. (6) The universe would inherently be tautological and circular. (7) So a postulate or a point of electromagnetism that starts out from nothing would have to be tautological and circular.

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

      “I have no idea where this all is leading toward.”

      No, but I like the sense of motion. You are really wearing this down to something – keep going.

      • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 6:08 AM

        A postulate starts, it starts developing, and then it ends in a realization.

        Is this a circle completed or a spiral? At every point in its journey a postulate is tautological. What keeps it going? What is the seed in it?

        The seed seems to be the ‘desire to know’… the desire to know itself… hahaha!

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 6:09 AM

          It finally knows, “How stupid I have been!” Hahaha.

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 6:10 AM

          That is the Mother of all Realizations. Hahaha!

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 6:12 AM

          Existence is a cosmic joke!

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 6:13 AM

          God must be getting red in face!

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 6:15 AM

          Now this would be the mother of all exteriorizations… it is exteriorizing out of oneself. Hahaha!

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 6:17 AM

          Can you imagine a thetan imploding!

        • vinaire  On May 28, 2014 at 6:18 AM

          And turning into a black hole!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 6:58 PM

          I’m feeling your pain and laughter brother! Rafael should drop in.

        • vinaire  On May 30, 2014 at 12:58 PM

          Brother Rafael seems to be missing in action!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 29, 2014 at 7:12 PM

          But seriously, the physical processes that we personify, the way that we do that, intrigues me! Existence IS totally a cosmic joke. But “cosmic joke” is a personification of what we don’t understand. Possibly the filters, the personifications, the self-centrism, and all the rest are burning like a rocket and do not totally fizzle until the last moment and then poof, gone.

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 8:34 PM

    Eric said: “From some of the statements that you have made I take it that you would be looking for inconsistencies based on a physical model. To me, this seems to close the door a bit since it does not seem to consider any other “non physical possibilities.”

    To me physical and spiritual are not separate. They are one phenomenon two aspects.
    .

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 8:47 PM

    Eric said, “The way I see it, “Mathamatics” as a tool, or as a “game” was not created by, nor does it seem to have any value to the physical universe itself. The value seems to revolve solely around “observer” viewpoints. It appears to be the result of “something” with the capability of evaluation, translating the universe that it “observes” into “code”. It could potentially be called “programming code” for the physical universe.”

    Mathematics is simply an aid. It does not do the looking for you or for the universe. Mathematics points this out, and I can see directly without the filter of mathematics that the concept of an overall universe is consistent.

    If you see any inconsistency in the concept of an overall universe then please let me know.

    I go by mindfulness. This whole site is built on mindfulness. If you have any disagreement with mindfulness then those disagreements needs to be sorted out as a priority, otherwise we shall just be wasting time. Please see:

    https://vinaire.me/2013/09/05/the-12-aspects-of-mindfulness-revised/
    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 27, 2014 at 10:15 PM

      Mathematics is the language which is precise enough to allow us to express what we observe. Mathematics expresses concepts and is self-diagnostic for consistency.

  • vinaire  On May 27, 2014 at 9:10 PM

    Eric said,
    But in your statement you seem to have left out one factor that I think makes all the difference. You have not addressed the “fact” that “you” care, or that “you” wonder, or that “you” feel… No… it does not seem to show up in physical terms, and it is very unlikely that it will be found by “science”, or even mathematics, (though these may reveal some inconsistencies) because with these filters one cannot “see” things, except in their own terms. They, like most filters, are “self fulfilling”.

    It is difficult to put everything in a few sentences. There is a lot more said on this subject, which exists here.

    https://vinaire.me/2013/07/24/psychology/

    Besides, this is a developing subject. My latest realization is that soul thins out as filters thin out. In the end when there are no filters then there is no soul either. There is only Brahma. Please see

    https://vinaire.me/2014/05/25/theism-versus-atheism/#comment-22030

    .

  • 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!

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: