The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[lkwdblds]

You would.

Mathematical principles are simple. Complexity appears to arise from the ways in which these simple principles may interrelate. Focus on the complexity and a person is easily overwhelmed. Learn to see the simplicity and things become clear.

Relatively few people are comfortable with thinking simply enough and clearly enough as to comprehend mathematics easily. Complex assumptions & relationships are the 'norm' for most human activities. The tendency thus becomes looking for complex explanations rather than simply abstracting out the simplicities. Often imaginary data is assumed or supplied to "explain" that for which the underlying simplicity has been overlooked.


Mark A. Baker

I have one specific disagreement with your post, otherwise it's fine.

Where you say "learn to see the simplicity and things become clear" I believe that is too general. A lot of times that will be the case but sometimes it doesn't hold up.

Take an actual example such as my debate with TAJ and S of T. One sees a complex system of parts dovetailing and working together as is seen in nature. The simplicity seems to be to recognize that the system has a design and if something appears to be designed then the simplicity suggests that their is a designer.

If that concept is rejected, then the simplicity suggests that the system occurred because of random interactions. Mathematically, there is a possibility that this is the case, though it's probability is extremely small, it is finite.

If random chance is rejected, the option is to proceed to the next step which you state above; The tendency thus becomes looking for complex explanations rather than simply abstracting out the simplicities. Often imaginary data is assumed or supplied to "explain" that for which the underlying simplicity has been overlooked.

I believe that TAJ and S of T are engaging in this activity. You agree with them and call me ignorant but all I am doing is following your recommendation of trying to abstract out the simpicities.

I'm just stating an opinion and may well be wrong but my question to you is, why would a person doing what you yourself suggest is a correct approach to analyzing a complex problem be called ignorant.?
Lakey

[afaceinthecrowd]

you are simply amazing!

Cakemaker is A-M-A-Z-I-N-G!!!

GREAT STUFF!!!

[lkwdblds]

Thus the birth of the conspiracy theory.

Just curious Ted, do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK on his own without being part of a bigger plan. I'm not a conspiracy theory buff but the JFK assassination is one instance where I believe there was a huge cover up to prevent the truth from reaching the public. There are too many inconsistencies with the official version to render it believable.
Lakey

[afaceinthecrowd]

USS Bolivar (APA-34) was a Bayfield-class attack transport in the United States Navy during World War II. She was named for Bolivar County, Mississippi.
-Wikipedia

Helluva find, Elwood!!!

[afaceinthecrowd]

Your post makes my point : The SO was staffed mainly ( I did NOT say EXCLUSIVELY ! ) by INEPT people - your example of the utter hilarity of having a bass ackwards misunderstanding of pinholing.

It doesn't not matter how deligently or dedicatedly work is done when it done wrong it is wrong, period.

There were afew people who knew what they were doing but they were not the grunts sent on board the ship to "train".

I would guess only in a faux navy can one become an " able bodied seaman " on a ship tied to the dock that the outfit that owns it hasn't the budget to take it to sea.

If my memory serves me right the Bolivar ( not named after Simon - LOL ! ) did make at least one harbor excursion of the Long Beach area and a trip to San Francisco.

Oh, should anyone know if the " commodore " ever set foot aboard the Bolivar please post details. ( Every time I have ever seen " commodore " I have always done a mental translation to a commode ( shitter ) and gotten an image of one...even back in the day - LOL ! )

Nope...The CommodeDoor never set foot on the Bolivar.

Face

[CarmeloOrchards]

Nope...The CommodeDoor never set foot on the Bolivar.

Face

Back in the days of FCDC, when LRH ran the place, Bob Harvey was down in the basement in the mail room. He did have a framed portrait of LRH hanging there. It (the frame) was a toilet seat with the words, "Our Flounder" written on it.

[afaceinthecrowd]

Back in the days of FCDC, when LRH ran the place, Bob Harvey was down in the basement in the mail room. He did have a framed portrait of LRH hanging there. It (the frame) was a toilet seat with the words, "Our Flounder" written on it.

Ya know, Carmelo, having stood looking at and listening to El Ron, face to Face, with Hisself's hands on my shoulders, I sure enough Grok that.

Face

[Mark A. Baker]

... I'm just stating an opinion and may well be wrong but my question to you is, why would a person doing what you yourself suggest is a correct approach to analyzing a complex problem be called ignorant.?
Lakey

Generally I don't bother responding to your posts directly much anymore, Lakey. Not much point. However, since you feelingly have asked in a direct fashion a legitimate question concerning the nature of reasonable discussion I will respond.

The fact is your characterization of your 'reasoning' process is inaccurate. In your posts, you routinely show very little propensity for abstract thinking or the ability to reason with available data. Those are processes which involve stripping concepts down to the minimum and deducing the relationships implied therein. This is very much in the spirit of Einstein's famous quip concerning physics.

Moreover, contrary to your own belief TAJ & SoT, with both of whom I frequently disagree, nonetheless routinely do a pretty d@mn good job on focusing on the essential points of an argument and not wandering around in irrelevancies. That is certainly true as regards the sort of casual discussion characteristic of online discussion boards such as this. In general they are both very conscientious and fairly conservative regarding the conclusions they draw in a line of argument.

You, on the otherhand, leap joyfully across an abyss of unreason & assumptions in order to land upon a favored outcropping, i.e. a pre-determined & favored conclusion. Not not only do you too often fail to grasp the basics of whatever principles are presently being discussed on the board, you frequently interject irrelevant and unrelated data which conforms to your own assumptions; and offered up by you as an 'explanation'.

This is an issue which has been drawn to your attention on numerous occasions on the board and by a variety of different correspondents. So it is not to be dismissed as something 'personal' between us. Believe me, there is nothing 'personal' between us.

Far from being insightful, analytical, or rational, such ability as you routinely appear to exhibit in communication is centered on being seen as 'chatty' and 'affable'. Sociable skills as these are often valued by some in and for themselves, but for the particular purpose of advancing insight through resort to discourse focused on reason, debate, and intelligent discussion, they have a very limited utility.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. don't expect a follow-up. I've little interest in engaging you in a discussion.

[Ted]

Just curious Ted, do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK on his own without being part of a bigger plan. I'm not a conspiracy theory buff but the JFK assassination is one instance where I believe there was a huge cover up to prevent the truth from reaching the public. There are too many inconsistencies with the official version to render it believable.
Lakey

At the time, I believed that LBJ had something to do with it, directly. Now I believe that LBJ had something to do with it, not so directly. I just don't know.

I believe the Warren Commission incapable of a correct assessment.

I believe that a lone gunman could not have pulled off those shots from the Texas School Book Depository with a bolt-action rifle.

I believe that the video of the president's brains blowing out to the back of the limo indicates a shot received from the front rather than the back.

I believe that witnesses have been known die too soon because they are witnesses.

Otherwise, I have no further comment on this can of worms.

[RogerB]

Thanks for this informative post! Speaking of love, I've seen it written on ESMB several times that Hubbard had virtually nothing to say about love. He defined it as "admiration and respect" and then said no more about it, as far as I know.

This omission might have something to do with restricting the growth of C of S worldwide. A religion charging high prices and not regarding "love" as essential is a tough sell as far as bringing people in in droves. Everything else about the church would have to be nearly perfect to overcome these two obstacles and of course that is not the case.

In DM's "church" I would go so far as to say that not only is love not encouraged but it is not even tolerated. DM seems to look at it as human emotion and reaction (HE&R) and a sign of weakness.

Mac Master's primary motivation seemed to be LOVE and LRH barely acknowledged the existence of LOVE. It's not surprising that LRH got rid of MaccMaster just based on that one consideration alone.

Rog, do you see any merit in my remarks or do you think I am oversimplifying or what?
Lakey

Nah,

Hubbard wrote on the importance of Love, and I recall he even spoke of himself as a "symbol" of love in the vein of the earlier great philosophers a la the Buddha . . . I'm just too lazy to dig up the references.

You'll note he always signed his stuff: "Love, Ron."

Now I barf at that!

The trouble is that he was phony: a liar. And his version of love was an inversion and a negative expression of the real deal.

He used "love" negatively, manipulatively and destructively.

And we all aught know the dichotomy of love is hatred. One of the books you read some of Hubbard's writings on love is in 8-8008.

And because of that, he most certainly would have acted destructively toward anyone who expressed true love for his fellows. And it didn't help, in the case of John Mac, that John was gay.

R