The Major Flaw in Knowledgism

[nw2394]

What I find odd is pushing buttons for becoming a better consumer of the MEST universe. It is the same old story with a different slant.

An old hag will remain an old hag no matter how much makeup she puts on.

I'm not defending some of Alan's websites - they (some of them anyway) certainly push the wrong buttons for some.

But look at like this. I like to play the game of Bridge - for the majority who play it, it is a pleasant game of cards among mostly pleasant people. But to play it well, one needs to work hard - in fact I've heard it said (and I don't think it is far from the truth) that to play the game really well requires a similar amount of work to taking a University degree. Now, if I, say, put that on a website and use it in the manner of some sort of slogan for my Bridge classes, then I will attract a certain sort of person - and alienate probably the majority of people who would actually play the game.

Alternatively I can plug the fact that, if you are really good, you can earn good bucks playing professionally partnering wealthy clients and playng in sponsored teams, also maybe fleece some idiots at a money game - this would attract a different public - and alienate the god fearing, anti-gambling right.

Or I can plug it as a relaxing game, suitable mostly for the elderly (the majority who actually play) - and I get yet another public.

None of my advertising, however, would be wrong. It is a function of whoever does the advertising (not necessarily Alan in the case of Kn), their reality and who they think their public is. One needs to delve a little deeper, past the window dressing.

Anyway, an old hag may have been a beauty when she was younger - have some compassion - and some real battle axe old women have a heart of gold if you give them a little space.

Nick

[nw2394]

You are right. Any obsession is just an obsession. Eastern philosophy looks at obsession as an obsession and does not recommend it.

It simply points out to the pervading obsession with the creation. The physical universe is a creation. One's ideas and desires are creations.

Of course, creating is natural and there is nothing wrong with creating. But getting obsessed with with what one has created is wrong.

Your description, or picture, of eastern philosophy itself seems obsessive to me. I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing.

But you are excused because you are an Englishman. :D

The direction England is taking... all Englishmen may soon be sitting in lion cloth themselves... watch what you are resisting. :D

.

Ah. Yes. England is not what she once was - nor is the US either for that matter. The centre of power is migrating westward again - but I don't fancy China these days either.

I've been English for too long. I maybe fancy being Norwegian next lifetime.

Nick

[Vinaire]

Ah. Yes. England is not what she once was - nor is the US either for that matter. The centre of power is migrating westward again - but I don't fancy China these days either.

I've been English for too long. I maybe fancy being Norwegian next lifetime.

Nick

So, you are planning to be ex-Englishman... jumping the ship, eh! :D

What policies went wrong? Just kidding... you don't have to answer.

.

[nexus100]

I think the only concern about life in general is unconscious creation. The trap of any philosophy is the degree to which it accepts a "standard" of unconsciousness in order to focus on an area, thereby restricting one's understanding in that area.

You can create anything consciously without a problem because you can exercise the choice of continuing to create or stop. You are putting the chair there then you aren't. The issue comes when your attention is no longer on something you are creating. You created it then moved your attention elsewhere without stopping that conscious creation.

To recover conscious creation you fully occupy the viewpoint, or the space, of what was created. You attention is on it. This is the structure of "as-ising". One actually is taking the viewpoint of that space in the physical universe.

From this it follows creation consists of occupying viewpoints with the intention to create.

Since you occupy space by perceiving space it follows that perception and creation are concurrent processes. The only difference is choice, which is the degree to which you consciously occupy that space.

Consciousness therefore could be said to be the degree of choice we have over our creations.

Since they are your creations you decide your consciousness. You are in charge. You can simply choose to create consciously. But there is a complication.

In this place you can put direct focus on only one thing at a time. That is the entire means of putting the game of this universe in effect. We see through one outlook, as through a binoculars. Therefore to move through the process you focus on one item, then another, then another. This process is what Scientology attempts to predict.

One can occupy any viewpoint. But to understand at one's own pace and go through the process as one chooses is the act of creation for oneself. To the degree one resists that process one will have difficulty with anything. To the degree that the process encourages less than full understanding of all of one's creations within a given viewpoint one may not purely understand, which keeps conscious creation from happening. Choice does not exist.

If one is in a structured search process with another what may happen is that one moves into another area while still unconsciously creating in that just opened viewpoint. This is the reverse of the process that put us here. We have been looking at less, in the new process we are looking at more. But it can cause a crushing effect of feeling out of control because one is now open to much that is only partially understood. One must put an identity there to fix the problem. It is adding another binoculars.

There is no substitute for pure understanding. There is no subsitute for your viewing what you wish when you wish, creating what you wish when you wish. It simply requires putting one's focus, or attention, into a space.

To get started on increased focus I expect most people need help. But I doubt any system works for very long because no one can create your creations but you, or stop creating them. Someone can help you move into viewpoints. But it better be with no agenda but understanding if you want the safest, truest path.

All ideas are inventions. Where they affirm a truth in place of understanding, the shop is closed.

This is really really simple. To understand you look in an area that you don't understand. You simply create that space. At some point you create it fully consciously. Boom, done, onto the next space.

There may be emotion in that space. You may feel anything but understanding. However if you persist the clouds clear up. And each step grows into a bigger sky.

But it MUST be your space and your choice and your creation or the process does not fully succeed. It can succeed and the results are worth the effort if that is the way you wish to go. My opinion.

[alex]

I think the only concern about life in general is unconscious creation. The trap of any philosophy is the degree to which it accepts a "standard" of unconsciousness in order to focus on an area, thereby restricting one's understanding in that area.

You can create anything consciously without a problem because you can exercise the choice of continuing to create or stop. You are putting the chair there then you aren't. The issue comes when your attention is no longer on something you are creating. You created it then moved your attention elsewhere without stopping that conscious creation.

To recover conscious creation you fully occupy the viewpoint, or the space, of what was created. You attention is on it. This is the structure of "as-ising". One actually is taking the viewpoint of that space in the physical universe.

From this it follows creation consists of occupying viewpoints with the intention to create.

Since you occupy space by perceiving space it follows that perception and creation are concurrent processes. The only difference is choice, which is the degree to which you consciously occupy that space.

Consciousness therefore could be said to be the degree of choice we have over our creations.

Since they are your creations you decide your consciousness. You are in charge. You can simply choose to create consciously. But there is a complication.

In this place you can put direct focus on only one thing at a time. That is the entire means of putting the game of this universe in effect. We see through one outlook, as through a binoculars. Therefore to move through the process you focus on one item, then another, then another. This process is what Scientology attempts to predict.

One can occupy any viewpoint. But to understand at one's own pace and go through the process as one chooses is the act of creation for oneself. To the degree one resists that process one will have difficulty with anything. To the degree that the process encourages less than full understanding of all of one's creations within a given viewpoint one may not purely understand, which keeps conscious creation from happening. Choice does not exist.

If one is in a structured search process with another what may happen is that one moves into another area while still unconsciously creating in that just opened viewpoint. This is the reverse of the process that put us here. We have been looking at less, in the new process we are looking at more. But it can cause a crushing effect of feeling out of control because one is now open to much that is only partially understood. One must put an identity there to fix the problem. It is adding another binoculars.

There is no substitute for pure understanding. There is no subsitute for your viewing what you wish when you wish, creating what you wish when you wish. It simply requires putting one's focus, or attention, into a space.

To get started on increased focus I expect most people need help. But I doubt any system works for very long because no one can create your creations but you, or stop creating them. Someone can help you move into viewpoints. But it better be with no agenda but understanding if you want the safest, truest path.

All ideas are inventions. Where they affirm a truth in place of understanding, the shop is closed.

This is really really simple. To understand you look in an area that you don't understand. You simply create that space. At some point you create it fully consciously. Boom, done, onto the next space.

There may be emotion in that space. You may feel anything but understanding. However if you persist the clouds clear up. And each step grows into a bigger sky.

But it MUST be your space and your choice and your creation or the process does not fully succeed. It can succeed and the results are worth the effort if that is the way you wish to go. My opinion.

True, yet some never get to the point of creating the space and understanding. What do we do for them? Tell them to try harder?

Some need a push, a wink, a nod, a swift kick (lovingly) in the ass...

It is simple in concept, less so in application.

But then I go on about gangaji, who has a similar message....

[Vinaire]

True, yet some never get to the point of creating the space and understanding. What do we do for them? Tell them to try harder?

Some need a push, a wink, a nod, a swift kick (lovingly) in the ass...

It is simple in concept, less so in application.

But then I go on about gangaji, who has a similar message....

Try Idenics!

.

[alex]

Try Idenics!

.

I did. I was underwhelmed. Perhaps it is not possible to apply Idenics to Scientologists until we have been deprogramed or something....

I was disappointed when a large mass came into view and the processor ignored my mentioning of it. Perhaps mass is not important in the idenics construct....to me it was. It was something I would have liked to have been guided into and as-is'ed. (my typical auditing experience isnt to have mass so directly available to me, but to run more on attached significance)

I had placed high hopes on Idenics and was disappointed.

(Obviously a few meaty things to "look" at in the above)

[Vinaire]

I did. I was underwhelmed. Perhaps it is not possible to apply Idenics to Scientologists until we have been deprogramed or something....

I was disappointed when a large mass came into view and the processor ignored my mentioning of it. Perhaps mass is not important in the idenics construct....to me it was. It was something I would have liked to have been guided into and as-is'ed. (my typical auditing experience isnt to have mass so directly available to me, but to run more on attached significance)

I had placed high hopes on Idenics and was disappointed.

(Obviously a few meaty things to "look" at in the above)

Would you like to have a free Idenics session from me? If so, send me a PM with your phone number, or Skype name.

Please realize that understanding the difference between "looking" and "thinking" goes a long way in making Idenics work.

Idenics does not work by itself. It works only when a person can LOOK to some degree, instead of just think-think-think.

By LOOKING, I mean, how you look at the wall, the window, the lamp, etc. simply recognizing what is there. There is no more association required other than that.

Now, one may say that this excuse would be used if Idenics does not work.

I am not interested in using any excuses. If it does not work with some particular person then it simply does not work with that particular person.

And that is all there is to it. I can only give it a try with you.

.

[alex]

Would you like to have a free Idenics session from me? If so, send me a PM with your phone number, or Skype name.

Please realize that understanding the difference between "looking" and "thinking" goes a long way in making Idenics work.

Idenics does not work by itself. It works only when a person can LOOK to some degree, instead of just think-think-think.

By LOOKING, I mean, how you look at the wall, the window, the lamp, etc. simply recognizing what is there. There is no more association required other than that.

Now, one may say that this excuse would be used if Idenics does not work.

I am not interested in using any excuses. If it does not work with some particular person then it simply does not work with that particular person.

And that is all there is to it. I can only give it a try with you.

.

Just as in scientology, it is the "confront", the being there fully, perceiving fully what is there, that causes erasure. The significance is just the tag on the "problem", the opposing goals solidified.

I have the concept.

Thank you for your offer. It is very generous considering.

[nexus100]

Just as in scientology, it is the "confront", the being there fully, perceiving fully what is there, that causes erasure. The significance is just the tag on the "problem", the opposing goals solidified.

I have the concept.

Thank you for your offer. It is very generous considering.

You do not get the concept per the above posts, unfortunately. There is no mass or goals involved. To be thinking of those in process stops looking. I know, I was doing something similar when I started. Idenics is not Scientology nor does it have the same construct or results IMO. If you want the results of the COS, stick to them.