The Major Flaw in Knowledgism

[justaguy]

I find most of this thread, on either side, a bit ridiculous as I have a strong tendency towards atheism, or agnosticism, or something in that vein that's difficult to put into words. But whatever. that's not the point, and is a subjective thing.

what is the point?

oh yeah. I like the way scientology puts it when you cut out and most of what LRH says: life is a game, if you want you can stop playing it. It's a decent way to say some of the stuff a lot of religions say.

My feeling, though, is that I'll stop playing the game when I die. I can't bring myself to believe that after I die I'll be likely to be still stuck in the illusion.

Whatever. General philosophy discussion can continue somewhere else if anyone is interested.

[nexus100]

I agree with unique. If you were correct, Alex, all would be a trap. But as finishedman was pointing out on another thread, the trap and the idea of the trap are one. Run down the idea of a trap and it is gone.

If you were going to think of being trapped, you would see traps. If you were going to think of freedom, you would see freedom. Neither concept is accurate because they are realities. They exist because they are what one sees.

Freedom cannot exist without entrapment and entrapment cannot exist without freedom. Neither is true. We aren't even really in this place, we are looking in, so it would be a bit tough to be free or trapped. What is true is your perception. And you decide what you see.

This means that you can track down any belief and blow it out of the water, by real communication with it as unique points out. But real communication means seeing it as it is. If you see something as a concept, outside you, it don't work.

It is truer to say we are free than we are trapped. But neither concept is worth pursing except to locate why one has to believe in it.
My opinion.

[Vinaire]

Is it playing in the hands of MEST universe, if one is entertaining goals in the MEST universe?

Hinduism seems to think so. But then West and East have very different philosophies.

.

[uniquemand]

I find most of this thread, on either side, a bit ridiculous as I have a strong tendency towards atheism, or agnosticism, or something in that vein that's difficult to put into words. But whatever. that's not the point, and is a subjective thing.

what is the point?

oh yeah. I like the way scientology puts it when you cut out and most of what LRH says: life is a game, if you want you can stop playing it. It's a decent way to say some of the stuff a lot of religions say.

My feeling, though, is that I'll stop playing the game when I die. I can't bring myself to believe that after I die I'll be likely to be still stuck in the illusion.

Whatever. General philosophy discussion can continue somewhere else if anyone is interested.

"Life is a game", IMO, is an overlay you can put on life, to make it seem to make better sense. It "works" as a philosophy. Some people take that to imply that nothing matters, that nobody is anything other than a piece on the board of the game, and that nothing is sacred. That's the problem with the "life is a game" philosophy, but I do think it's workable, given those caveats.

[alex]

Again, I disagree. Attention is receptive intention. The intent to receive.

and the creation of who?

we create that intention to receive. all depends on creations of self.

[Zinjifar]

Who's 'We' Whiteclam?

Zinj

[alex]

Interesting quote from Roger B in

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=9666



" As an example, in Scn we all referred to exteriorizing from a body and operating about in the physical universe — when in fact, both the body and the physical universe are mere manifestations within the domain of our true existence. It is in fact an unknowing and limiting case state to consider oneself “in” the physical universe (unless one knowingly chooses and creates that)"

Same point I was making earlier.

[nw2394]

It is true that there is a lot of material available on the knowledgism web site. None of it seems to be the course materials or the advanced stuff.

But valuable information none the less.

Knowledgism hasnt had a leak of its advanced materials that I know of.

If you've not seen advanced stuff you haven't really looked - or seen but did not recognise.

Nick

[Bee Sting]

It doesnt seem that that is the goal. More like big powerful game winners with abilities as the avenue, rather than awakening abilities to further progress beyond the game.

That is one on the key difference in my opinion between scientology and Knowledgism, scientology the philosophy was all about getting out of the trap, while knowledgism seems to want to win in it.

But then I personally enjoy human life.....so its not a bad thing in itself, but also the goal of transcending it is important.

But isn't Knowledge-ism in Scientology-ism the same-ism that keeps us trapped in the -ism? Where to do you transcend to as different from knowledge-ism or Scientology-ism? Or, could "they " perhaps be one and the same depending ?

Interested Bees awaiting the curiosity of stimulative or stimulations response. We'll take either. Thanking you in advance for your technology-ism.

Honey Love,

Bee Sting

[alex]

If you've not seen advanced stuff you haven't really looked - or seen but did not recognise.

Nick

Forrest for the trees...or some reciprocal...or the elegant simplicity or some aspect?

Please point me in the right direction.

The processes that address entities are certainly not on the site. And I have seen reference to series of bulletins and such that are not even mentioned on the website or otherwise available to a non knowledgist.

I do admit that I have a problem sometimes thinking outside the scientology construct. It spoiled my experience of idenics.

Frequently real simple stuff really is the most important...

?? Links? Clues?