Reference: The Ground State of the Universe
.
In the beginning there is only awareness. Since there is nothing else to be aware of, there is simply self-awareness. This is consciousness.
The fundamental awareness is consciousness.
.
With awareness there is perception. The perception is followed by recognition. Awareness recognizes its nature to perceive. It then perceives, and the cycle continues. Thus awareness as a disturbance oscillates from perceiving to recognizing and so on.
Awareness oscillates between perceiving and recognizing.
.
Since consciousness is an oscillation, there is some justification in making an association between consciousness and light, which is also a fundamental oscillation. It appears that this association is intuitive and it has existed since ancient times. Thus, we may assume consciousness to have the form of light and the essence of awareness.
The essence of consciousness is awareness, and its form is light.
.
Form represents the physical aspect. Essence represents the spiritual aspect. These two aspects seem to be relative and not separate and absolute in themselves.
For a long time space and time were regarded as absolute dimensions in themselves. Newtonian mechanics built on those dimensions has been very successful on a human scale. But, on a cosmic scale, it has been found by science that space and time are relative dimensions.
Similarly, Abrahamic religions have long regarded spiritual and physical to be absolute aspects in themselves. This has been adequate on a human scale. But, on the cosmic scale, we find it necessary to regard spiritual and physical to be relative aspects.
A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued. Thus, consciousness is both physical and spiritual having the form of light and essence of awareness.
Spiritual and physical are relative aspects and not separate and absolute in themselves.
.
Fundamentally, it is the desire to know that generates consciousness by disturbing the ground state. Consciousness, being a disturbance, has a certain frequency. Thus consciousness spreads as a wave with certain wavelength and period. As this desire gets stronger consciousness increases in frequency.
The desire to know pushes the consciousness to higher frequencies.
.
As its frequency increases consciousness develops into more complex forms, such as, inanimate matter, minerals, plants, animals and humans. Thus, every part of existence has the property of consciousness. All things are conscious to some degree if only as the properties they display.
Consciousness is the fundamental property of all existence.
.
Next: The Nature of Form
.
Comments
“As consciousness expands according to the divine Principle; qualities develop, forms take shape, and powerful influences bring the process to fruition.
“All the forms obey the divine Principle and regard their qualities highly. The omnipotence of the divine Principle and the importance of qualities are ordered naturally; not arising from the will of man. Thus, as consciousness expands according to the divine Principle; qualities develop; growth, nurture, completion, maturation, preservation and repetition follows.
“Creation without possession, action without reliance, growth without harvest, such is the profound quality of ascension.”
~ Lao Tzi, Tao Te Jing
LikeLike
We should discuss the physics of desire.
LikeLike
The divine principle seems to be the unknowable Ground State disturbed by the Desire to Know.
“The omnipotence of the divine Principle and the importance of qualities are ordered naturally; not arising from the will of man.”
We were “earth-centric” once thinking that earth is the center of the universe.
But we are still “matter-centric” in how science views relativity through the eyes of Einstein and Quantum Mechanics.
And we are still “human-centric” in how religion and philosophy view existence through the eyes of the human society..
LikeLike
“Centric” refers to our orientation reference point. We can get traction from and many insights from this.
LikeLike
Very much so. Infinity being relative is an interesting insight for me. I can see Ground State intellectually, but realizing it is still quite unimaginable to me.
LikeLike
” I can see Ground State intellectually, but realizing it is still quite unimaginable to me” This is a condition that I want to understand better and not take it too lightly. I don’t want to take it for granted. At first glance, there seems to be a great illumination. At second glance, there seems to be an imagination at work to imagine a-minus disturbance level that is has ruler flat sine wave. All that we are and all that we know tells us that if we look closer at this flat sine wave then roughness will appear.
LikeLike
Please see https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/the-nature-of-forms/#comment-25640
LikeLike
The following is an interesting post from Marty to me. I have to contemplate on it.
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/clear-and-beyond/#comment-309336
“You are beginning to demonstrate the scientology principle popularly known as ‘op terming’. You preach so vehemently – and judgmentally – that you begin to resemble that which your preach against.”
What is “op terming”?
From Scientology Tech Dictionary:
OPPOSITION TERMINAL,
1. a designation of a type of GPM item (R6 material). (HCOB 23 Aug 65)
2 . one of a pair of reliable items of equal mass and force, the significance of which the thetan has in opposition to his own intentions. (HCOB 13 Apr 64, Scn VI Part One Glossary of Terms)
3. an item or identity the pc has actually opposed (fought, been an enemy of) sometime in the past (or present) is called an opposition terminal. As the person identified himself as not it, he could experience from it only sensation. An opposition terminal when its mental residues (black masses) are recontacted in processing, produces only sensation, never pain. Symbol: oppterm. (HCOB 8 Nov 62)
.
LikeLike
I believe that when one is presenting one’s observation, and it is out-gradient and people don’t understand it, then it may appear as preaching.
LikeLike
The solution to this problem would be to make one’s observations more clear. That would mean I have to do more work on my blog in expanding on the KHTK postulates.
LikeLike
“The solution to this problem would be to make one’s observations more clear.”
I think the solution has to do with finding the target wavelength, then tuning one’s own wavelength to harmonize. Like tuning a radio in reverse, from the broadcast end. Discovering the wavelength the receiver is tuned (filters) to and then adjusting the broadcast to match (those filterts). I think it has little to do with the message.
LikeLike
That is an excellent observation. 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you for saying so. I am stimulated by your onslaught of analysis.
LikeLike
I am realizing that one just cannot discuss those ideas defined as “postulates” in Scientology because they are arbitrary assumptions. They are not based on some consistency that can be defined through logic, but they are fiercely defended..
LikeLike
I think that three of the things going on are philosophical, social, and political. From that point of view I can see different motives for why people blog.
LikeLike
“. . . and it is out-gradient and people don’t understand it, then it appears as preaching.”
I rather think of preaching as a communication tool representing one style of conditioning.
LikeLike
Can you clarify that a bit more? Could it apply to LRH’s style?
LikeLike
For me, it seems clear that thought and communication of thought is done with waves. For me, preaching is an attempt to use excessively forceful communication to adjust the receptive filters of the receipt point of the communication. I believe this is well covered in the subject of rhetoric. In this example, I’m thinking of reception filters somewhat like polarized filters allowing only light vibrating in the plane of polarization. Preaching seems to attempt to get the receipt point to rotate their own filter until the waves of communication can pass through the filter. Preaching is one form of rhetoric.
LikeLike
Yes, awareness seems to be the fundamental manifestation. It has a wave form. It underlies thought and communication. So, it makes sense that thought and communication of thought is done with waves.
Preaching, in the context that we are talking about, seems to be identified with ideas being presented in obtrusive and tedious manner. There is dislike, disharmony and resistence. Now such disharmony can be addressed through discussion, especially in a discussion forum.
But when the attempt at handling disharmony of ideas is through complaining, then, obviously, a discussion is being avoided. This indicates an opposition to ideas being presented that can be asserted only but cannot be discussed logically. Scientology is full of such ideas called “postulates”. Scientologist resist any discussion of these “postulates” They just want to assert them. This makes any discussion impossible with scientologists.
So, when a scientologist says, “You are preaching,” then it is an indicator that you are getting too close to some holy cow. It is then best to withdraw.
LikeLike
People who are trying to learn discuss. People who are trying to be right debate. I to understand and not assume the motives of people.
LikeLike
I think I try to present my argument as if in a discussion, but people take it as a debate rather than discussion. Their attention is more on making their own point right. They are really not aware of what I am saying, and when I repeat my argument it just gets worse.
So, yes there is no communication to the degree people are in a debate mode and not interested in a fruitful discussion.
LikeLike
I hope we can move this problem toward a resolution by understanding it’s physicality.
LikeLike
https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/scientology-and-suppression/
LikeLike
“So, yes there is no communication to the degree people are in a debate mode and not interested in a fruitful discussion.”
Communication and understanding must be a two way street for either to occur. This is the source of my soreness with Marildi. She never tries to understand but rather performs a kind of verbal Judo to deflect and twist another’s opinion into agreement with her own view of Scientology whether or not Scientology is even being discussed. She seems obsessed and fixated upon resolving Scientology as a consistent world view and theory of everything. Discussions with her are like writing one’s opinion into a kind of wikipedia search box which then performs a search and produces the relevant LRH quote. Failing that, she becomes nasty and complains she is being treated unfairly, producing name calling “1.1, SP, suppressive, psychotic, etc.,.”
What I am taking away from this is that I cannot have a discussion with everyone, but for those who are trying it is on me to understand their view before presenting my own. Then I must tailor my communication to account for their filters if I expect my communication to be well received.
LikeLike
Marildi operates on the Scientology idea that “Reality = agreement.” Thus, she operates on the basis of agreement or disagreement. To her something is as real or true as there is agreement to it. So, if Marildi were born among flat-earthers, she would never accept that earth could be round. She is just not capable of direct observation without the filter of agreement.
This is the sort of filter we are dealing with Scientologists in general, and also in the society to quite some degree. Hubbard appeals to the person on the street because he is using the same filter.
The only handling I have for people like Marildi is to strictly apply the Discussion Policy, which forces one to evaluate ideas without the filter of agreement. I ignore all her talk about agreement and don’t respond when she takes the argument to a personal level.
I care for truth more at the moment than about how my communication is received because “research time” is more important for me. I make more headway communicating with you than with anybody else.
LikeLike
“Op terming” seems to mean electing somebody as an opposition terminal. When an observation goes against another observation then that would be “op terming”.
Does that mean one should stop observing? I think that would mean looking at the opposing consideration more carefully.
This boils down to discussing in a way that avoids unpleasant emotions getting restimulated..
LikeLike
I think we can see OP terming in the double slit when waves cancel. I think we can see “ground swell” grassroots movement in the double slit when we see waves double.
LikeLike
Hahaha! You are getting there!
LikeLike
Physics is far from being a dry subject. For me, it is full rich lush.
LikeLike
I am now looking at both Physics and Metaphysics in parallel.
LikeLike
“I think we can see OP terming in the double slit when waves cancel. I think we can see “ground swell” grassroots movement in the double slit when we see waves double.”
“I am now looking at both Physics and Metaphysics in parallel.”
Do you see what I see when I mention Op-Term with reference to double slit?
LikeLike
Op-terming seems to involve intention of setting somebody up as opposing you. At least that is how Marty seems to have used it. Am I correct?
How would that translate to double-slit?
LikeLike
“Op-terming seems to involve intention of setting somebody up as opposing you. At least that is how Marty seems to have used it. Am I correct” That is the correct self-centric view of what is going on.
LikeLike
What is the counterpart of intention in the reality-centric view, or in the double-slit experiment?
LikeLike
“How would that translate to double-slit?” By applying the reality-centric view.
LikeLike
The idea of “Op terming” seems to boil down to the intention of opposing or resisting something.
On Marty’s Blog I commented on the “invalidation” button. This was in response to Oracle accusing me of invalidating her. Oracle felt invaldated because I insisted with examples how self has to be composed of a belief system. Oracle had said earlier that she doesn’t represent a belief system.
Was that “op terming” or just a disagreement. Looks like the digreement here was very deep and subjective for Oracle. Maybe Oracle was a pc of Marty, and Marty was concerned about her case being upset. Anyway, I simply ended the cycle on Marty’s blog by apologizing to Oracle, because no sane discussion was possible. It was becoming a touchy issue for Oracle.
Now here is a person who is apparently OT and who has been audited on Ls. This person’s case should be very stable. Why do I get the feeling that I must walk on egg shells when talking to her? A person after TR bullbaiting is much more stable.
But this seems to be the case with most Scientologists. Something does not make sense here.
LikeLike
In this case, considering this as a social problem, it might be helpful to consider it dispassionately in terms of waves interacting.
LikeLike
I see lot of resistance from Scientologists. They simply do not want to discuss what goes against the ideas they are identifying with. The root problem is identification with ideas.
https://vinaire.me/2014/07/16/scientology-and-suppression/
LikeLike
This way of looking at it as a problem is self-centric. I think its better to turn the vector around and view the wave filters of those you wish to communicate with. “How can I understand you?” is a good place to start. You might discover there is nothing really to say if their filters are heavily layered and rotated every few degrees to block out almost everything.
LikeLike
My interest is in research and not in convincing anybody of my ideas. I think I am doing quite well from that viewpoint.
LikeLike
On Marty’s Blog, I got more reaction from Marildi and Valkov when I showed some flaws in Hubbard’s philosophy with respect to individuality, such as, Creative processing stops short of the destruction of individuality. Other people who were outright down on Hubbard did not get as much reaction.
Here again I seem to be getting into sensitive areas that are taken seriously. Thetan, self, and individuality seems to be a very touchy area. I must be getting closer to some truth that is within the reality range of scientologists and is being heavily resisted.
Haha, there is “op terming”.
LikeLike
Self-awareness is consciousness. It is taken as the root of spirituality. It is considered as absolutely spiritual with no physical aspects.
In my opening post, I am going against that belief that spirituality is absolute in itself. I am suggesting that there is a physical form to it at all levels. For example, the earliest manifestation of awareness shall have the form of light.
I am sure there is going to be opposition to this hypothesis.
LikeLike
Agreed, all points.
LikeLike
Marty used the term “op terming” for my activity on his blog.
From THE “INVALIDATION” BUTTON
Scientologists use a special word at the first whiff of any criticism – INVALIDATION, as in, “You are invalidating me.” But words like WOGS and RAW MEAT are built into their vocabulary for those who are not scientologists.
Scientologists not only scream against being invalidated, but they also invalidate back immediately using convenient Scientology vocabulary like “suppressive,” “antago” or “1.1”. This button of “invalidation” tends to be very prominent among Scientologists both ways.
Marty is still a Scientologist.
.
LikeLike
It seems natural enough to behave as we have been conditioned. Goals for personal growth differ.
LikeLike
So far Marty is allowing me to post on his blog. He is measuring me up at the moment. He is not impulsive like Geir, and that is in Marty’s favor.
LikeLike
People have different interests and different tolerances. Marty used to filter out my attempts (years ago) to comment and so I didn’t try. The last few times, like 3 or 4 times or something, my comments were put right up. The thing is I see him as really changing and not into the new prince of Scn that I thought he was going for a few years ago. I believe his wife has had a profoundly positive influence on him and made for a safe place for him to land. That really makes a world of difference… All the same, he is covering ideas that we’ve long since passed and his public would not be interested in the things I’m interested in. I don’t even think the bulk of them are particularly interested in the changes he is going through or maybe some are. Anyway, it’s just not such an interesting place for me.
LikeLike
I am butting my head against Oracle, Valkov and Marildi on Discussion Policy on Marty’s Blog. That is a very interesting going. Marty is allowing that without interfering.
LikeLike
I get a strong sense of “I am right, you are wrong” from most scientologists.
LikeLike
It is natural for people to be defensive. We can call this social inertia. What is both counterintuitive and unnatural is to embrace the natural irrationality of our world. I see this in short supply everywhere. Einstein must have endured intense isolation and loneliness in this regard.
LikeLike
Inertia = Invisible activity going on
People are defensive because they are holding on to ideas close to their chest and they know that if they let go of those ideas they will be very confused. At the same time they cannot defend those ideas logically so they can’t afford to get into discussion.
Look at Marildi and Valkov. They are holding very tightly to Scientology ideas. The moment they see an argument which they cannot counter but can’t accept either (becuase it goes against their tightly held ideas), they start commenting against the person..
The Discussion Policy forces a person to discuss ideas for what they are. People who are identifying with their ideas cannot do that. Geir had that problem. He was quick to take things personally.
LikeLike
preach
verb (used with object)
1. to proclaim or make known by sermon (the gospel, good tidings, etc.).
2. to deliver (a sermon).
3. to advocate or inculcate (religious or moral truth, right conduct, etc.) in speech or writing.
verb (used without object)
4. to deliver a sermon.
5. to give earnest advice, as on religious or moral subjects or the like.
6. to do this in an obtrusive or tedious way.
Origin:
1175–1225; Middle English prechen < Old French pre ( ë ) chier < Late Latin praedicāre to preach ( Latin: to assert publicly, proclaim). See predicate.
Marty appears to be pointing out that I am giving "earnest advice" in an obtrusive and tedious way. This is obviously an opinion. To a scientologist any non-scientology proclamation will appear obtrusive or tedious because of their resistence to any ideas that seem to be different from Scientology. But they would give "scientology advice" and it would not appear obtrusive and tedious to them.
LikeLike
“Marty appears to be pointing out that I am giving “earnest advice” in an obtrusive and tedious way. This is obviously an opinion. To a scientologist any non-scientology proclamation will appear obtrusive or tedious because of their resistence to any ideas that seem to be different from Scientology. But they would give “scientology advice” and it would not appear obtrusive and tedious to them.”
Good, but now remove the self-centric view, or change the vector of this observation to a reality-centric view and see the waves at work. I think we can get some traction from this if we grant beingness (see as it is) the filter blocking the attempted communication. If we communicate a disharmonic wave, we are going to get interference and that is just the way it is. To object to this is to insist upon or to assert a self-centric view. There is no point to complain about the filters, screens, contrary opinions, etc., of those in the world around us. If we want to communicate and to make that communication heard, I feel we must estimate the filters around us and design our own waveform to harmonize (pass through) these filters. In my opinion, this would be the reality-centric point of view.
LikeLike
Well, Marty hasn’t acted like a jerk as Geir did. He hasn’t blocked any of my communication. He is more tolerant.
The situation is like writing about earth being round on a blog that has lot of flat-earthers as its members. All I can do is write only occasionally on that blog and focus on improving my research.
LikeLike
I am getting closer to the area of filters, and looking at them more closely.
LikeLike
Scientologists can be very suppressive to ideas that do not agree with their ideology.
LikeLike
This seems a natural characteristic of man.
LikeLike