ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Oh! God!!!

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Vinaire, May 6, 2009.

  1. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    post #576
  2. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Clearing up 4 questions

    POINT #1 - Per your first paragraph, I will from now on call what you believe a "DESCRIPTION OF HUMAN FUNCTION"

    POINT #2 - I only get upset when you don't answer my question and skirt around it and keep on with your indoctrination. I never have gotten upset
    with you or anyone else answering a question of mine.

    POINT #3 - I strongly disagree with your assertion that "the only purpose in having a dialogue is to convert the other person to your view" I am trying to find understanding and could care less if I convert your to my view.

    I believe that the more viewpoints which I can duplicate and understand, the closer I will come to understanding life. I believe each viewpoint is endowed with God like qualities and it behooves me to duplicate as many of them as I can.

    POINT #4 - If you are happy with endlessly repeating your DESCRIPTION OF HUMAN ACTION to a non receptive audience that is fine with me.If I understand you correctly, you believe the people hearing it will file it away in their memory banks and then, whether they agree with it or not, when the memory is recalled they will automatically accept your system as truth as reality. If this is an accurate description of what you believe than I now have full conceptual understanding of why you are doing what you do and in the manner you are doing it. I was after two things when I wrote you my last post, #1 What to call your DESCRIPTION OF HUMAN ACTION and #2 Why your were repeating the same DESCRIPTION OF HUMAN ACTION over and over and not directly answering any questions or engaging in dialogure. You have now provided me with answers to both points. Please continue your activities. I am happy with what you do now that I understand it better. Good luck to you!.....lkwdblds
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2009
  3. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Here is what I posted on the thread "The Nature of Evil."

    Last edited: Jul 14, 2009
  4. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Quoted from Field (physics):

    My interpretation:

    An electrical field is most intense (concentrated) near or at the “electrical charge.” It requires force to move an electrical charge in this field. The reaction to this applied force moves through the electrical field at the speed of light. One may conclude then that an electrical field is spread throughout space providing a medium for an electrical disturbance to travel. This disturbance travels at the speed of light. This reaction force at the electrical charge would be perceived as inertia.

    But what is "electrical"? At this point I would simply explain it as some sort of "condition in space."

  5. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Quoted from Field (physics):

    My interpretation and comments:

    An electrical charge may appear as a particle, but it is like potential energy concentrated at a location.

    What keeps that concentration there? Why doesn’t this concentration of potential or “tension” dissipate itself throughout the electrical field?

    NOTE: Other examples of fields are: gravitational field, temperature fields, pressure fields.

  6. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Hi Vinaire! Personally, I have no clue really. I suspect that one can't ever know past a certain point when viewing these things through the five senses using devices made at this grosser level of reality.

    Here are a few possibilities. These are entirely of the nature of theories and imaginary guessing.

    First, in occult literaure, there is much discussion about "bodies" made of finer particles than what you see around you here down to atoms and molecules. Supposedly, the "causal" body or "etheric" body, is made of some energy and "matter" than exists concurrently with what we see here. These bodies intersect with and in a sense are actually other aspects of each of our own physical bodies. If there is any truth to this, then these other bodies have "organs of perception" that tune into an entirely different range of "energy", "vibration", "pattern" and "form". I would guess that looking from and through these other perceptual channels might add a great deal to what is going on with "electricity", "magnetic fields", and the whole panorama of sub-atomic phenomena. Because THEY also have their counterparts in the realm of the "causal" and "etheric".

    Second, I have heard that certain Yogis can look without the need for any body or channel of perception. In effect, he or she can create the "organ of perception" at will needed to view at that level of resolution. Heady stuff indeed. They can zoom out and "see" the universe or zoom in and "see" the smallest sub-atomic motion. If such is possible, this would certainty present another angle on all of this. In the end though, as has been found in Quantum Physics, you have to first decide what to see to see it. There may be MANY ways "too look".

    I see the problem is that we exist at a certain level of abstraction in this physical reality. It is like taking a picture on a computer screen made up of so many millions of pixels. When you are close, you see little blobs of color and size and shape. When you ZOOM OUT sufficiently, then you can see and relate to the picture of the tree, or a house, or whatever is pictured. Living this life at this level involves remaining ZOOMED OUT to a certain degree.

    In one regard, a tree really is made up of billions and billions of atoms and molecules, organized in many different ways, with various processes going on 24 hours a day both internally (waste removal, chemical movements, cellular activiites, etc), and externally in relationship to the environment (photosynthesis, absorbing nutrients, etc.). What goes on in any 10 second time period is mind boggling. In a sense the activity in the tree is not unlike an entire universe unto itself. No person, no scientist can or ever will KNOW and understand about all of these things on THOSE levels. But, in another regard, the tree matters only at THIS level of ZOOMING OUT. It is a large thing that gives us shade, or looks nice (from a distance), or can be chopped down and cut up into lumber, etc. We exist at a certain level of "resolution" viewing reality out of and through these physical body forms. The tree primarily has meaning to us in relationship to the bodies and physical senses we use now.

    To view and understand any other level requires being there and looking at some finer degree of resolution THROUGH and WITH organs of perception that exist at THAT LEVEL of resolution. Possibly, that can only be done by divorcing ones awarness from THIS body, and either creating or finding another body with which to view things at another level of greater ZOOM and finer resolution.

    Things look different, in fact are experienced differently, depending upon form where you look at them (Einstein's theory of relativity). I think modern science will remain forever at a brick wall until the resolution barrier is broken. That involves consciousness and NOT new gadgets with which to examine.

    Anyway, it is always fun to read and think about what you have to say.


    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
  7. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Hi Gadfly! Thanks for your participation. I very much value your observations and comments.

    I believe that it is neither possible nor necessary to know all the details. At the moment I am using the following formula to reach a better understanding:

    (1) Trace the observations back to the underlying postulates, or the basic assumptions. All physical observations seem to lead back to the concepts of matter, energy, space and time.

    (2) Examine the consistency of logic from those basic postulates to the actual observations. This has got me looking at the phenomenon of electromagnetism at the moment. Next on my list is the phenomenon of gravitation.

    (3) Look at a wider set of observations to see if a more fundamental set of underlying postulates can be obtained. Here, at the moment, I am looking at various scientific theories to see if I can better understand the abstractions called “space” and “energy.” Next on my list are the abstractions called “time and “matter.”

    At every step I am watching my own preconceived notions. I am not wasting my time going through the math at the moment for the following reasons:

    (1) Math simply proceeds from basic postulates. It is not fundamental in itself.

    (2) The function of math is to check the consistency of logic from basic postulates to the observations of the phenomenon, and to unearth relationships that are not intuitively obvious.

    (3) The math that exists currently has been checked over and over again by many brains much sharper than mine.

    (4) Assuming math is correct, helps me proceed faster with the examination of the fundamental ideas, and, thus, consolidating my understanding.

    Just now I have been looking at how Planck’s constant came about, which gave birth to the whole new field of Quantum Mechanics. Of course, at the back of my mind is whatever spiritual understanding I have been able to garner so far.

    Whatever ideas and understandings that come to me, I use this thread to sound them out. I guess this is the game I am enjoying at the moment.

    I hate thinking about money and finance. That is for beings with much better capabilities than mine. I just live simply, so I can enjoy this research without other cares. I feel so lucky that Internet came about in my lifetime, and also this ESMB and its wonderful members.

    Thank you, every one of you, for being there.

  8. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    Vinaire ... Please consider these words without attaching them to me. You are free to distort, garble, or criticize them. Simply interpret them however you please while remembering that the realm out there where words, knowledge and thoughts dwell is like the air we breathe. They belong to everybody equally and each one is at liberty to pick and choose from them that which they want to utilize at that moment without fear of how they come across to others (especially if we see the intentions as for the sake of knowledge and not as knowledge used for the sake of self aggrandized power over others:

    We use thoughts, from the realm of knowledge available to us, to achieve a goal, to accomplish, to attain a goal; whether it is material or spiritual, it really doesn't matter. So we need this to achieve our goals. So if you don't want a thing, there is no thinking at all. Whether you want this material goal or spiritual goal, or whether you want to be an enlightened man, or a spiritual-man, or whether you want to run away with the most beautiful girl living next door to you, the society may condemn such a thing, but basically the instrument which you use to achieve your goal and act to achieve your goal is only through the help of thought.

    Assuming you agree so far ….. Look at thought, if you will for a moment, as a protective mechanism. Try to be very honest with yourself here or at least pretend to feel in a sense that it is the constant utilization of thought that gives continuity to a sort of separate self and that this state of affairs is very much inside of you attempting to give essence to what you actually are(not you only, Vinaire, but even myself and all others). Now, can you catch a glimpse of the possibility that this activity isolates one from the totality of nature, which cannot be separated from him?

    So the situation here is that it may be difficult for us to accept that we are not separate from the totality of things that we call nature -- that every form of life is also part of this nature. When I use the word nature, I use it in the general sense; it's not that I have a general insight into nature that others don't have. You are not separate from nature; nature means the world around you. All the species that we have on this planet are integral parts of what we call nature; it cannot be separated from that. But unfortunately, through our thinking we have succeeded in separating ourselves, and through the help of this knowledge we continue to maintain the continuity of the knowledge, and that is the reason why we have invented all this integrity -- becoming one with nature, and all that kind of thing -- and we are not going to succeed, because we don't understand and realize that what it is that separates us from the totality of things is the thought. And the thought cannot be used to bring about an integral unity. Basically, we are all integrally united, and unfortunately, through our thinking, we have separated ourselves, and we are acting from this point of separateness, and it is this that is responsible for the chaos in our personal life, for the chaos in the world around us.

    So the thought is a self-perpetuating mechanism. And when I use the word self, I don't use it in the sense used by the philosophers and metaphysicians -- it’s like a self-starter.

    The body is not interested in that at all. The actions of the body are responses to the stimuli, and it has no separate, independent existence of its own. Unfortunately, time is the one that has created the beginning and the end, and it is interested in permanence, whereas the functioning of the body is immortal in its own way, because it has no beginning, it is not born, so it has no death, you see. So there is a death to the thought, but not to the body. Thought does not want to come to an end.

    All this amassing of knowledge and thought (‘mind’) is interested in creating an artificial immortality -- of an entity, soul, self, whatever you want to call it. It knows in a way that it is coming to an end somewhere along the line, and its survival, its continuity, its status quo depends upon the continuity of the body. But body is not in any way involved with the thought, because it has no beginning, it has no end. It is the thought that has created the two points -- this is the birth and that is the death.

    Some spiritualist declare that our illusion that we have a mind is born out of fear. So we do not want the fear to come to an end, because the end of the fear is the end of the thought. If the thought comes to an end, the body falters and what is left after that is something the body does not know. For you I am alive and not dead, because you see I am responding. But is there really somebody who is talking? Perhaps there is nobody who is talking, but there is only talking. Just joking.

    It is the thought that has created the body, and established a point and says it's born here, and is going to end there. So it is the thought that has created the time factor.

    We don't know the beginnings of it for sure. So the whole concept of the creator is redundant. We are caught up in the field of logical thinking, and that there is no beginning, that there is no end, is something which shatters the whole fabric, the foundation of our logical thinking.

    So, this body, we talk as if it is separate from the totality of the universe or totality of nature, or whatever you want to call it. It is the thought that has created the body, a separate entity, and tells that this has a beginning, this has an end. This is the end that is the beginning. It has created the space. Thought creates the space, thought creates the time. So it cannot conceive the possibility of anything outside the field of space and touch. Actually, the thought is the one that has created the space and experiences the space, but actually there is no such thing as space at all. What is there is a space-time-energy continuum, which is a continuum, but it has no end.

    Thank you for your consideration.
  9. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I can agree with most of this. "Thinking" is the mechanism by which each of us takes the unified organic wholeness of reality and slices it up into a tremendous amount of individualized "things". The analytical mind of concepts and ideas organizes order out of what is basically utter chaos. The thinking mind in each of us acts as a direct barrier to experiencing the raw reality "as it is". The intellect has a tremendous downside. But besides all this mental slicing and dicing, you then make the additional mistake of identifying with this whole internal mental universe (which is quite different for every person), and thereby compound the problem.

    It is a bit absurd to desire agreement and real understanding between people, because no two people see things the same way. Not ever, not really. First, you each look out from a different location. BANG, by implication of Einstein's Theory of Relativity alone, applied to consciousness, the view of reality MUST be different for each human being, because he or she is observing from a different location. You don't see the same world as anyone else; you can't see the same world as anyone else. Well, actually you can, but that ability is too far away to even consider at this point. But more importantly, the entire complex structure of ideas, concepts, relationships between ideas, abstractions, experiences, intelligence and more cannot be other than VERY different for each person. Of course, as long as you chronically assume that everyone must somehow see and think as you do, and that how you think and see is some how "better", well, to that degree you have effectively cut yourself off entirely from the entire universe.

    This idea is common in Buddhism. One must cease all the internal chatter, the mental habit of breaking up everything into its constituent parts, and become born anew innocent, able to look without the blinders and interference of a chronic "thinking apparatus". "Rational thought" while very useful in one regard, is entirely a hindrance in this regard. In a very real sense the untrained intellect conditions the world around you in exact alignment with ITS OWN HABITS, STRUCTURE AND PATTERNS. You see and experience a world almost entirely dictated and defined by YOUR OWN THOUGHTS AND IDEAS ABOUT IT. Until you knock that off, you can never see what might be there without your own chronic, unconscious and constant mental meddling and interference.

    That is one of the problems with ANY belief system. It creates a barrier between you and reality, making it impossible to see anything other than a world that aligns with and completely validates your own personal belief system. It is a Catch-22. It creates a never-ending merry-go-round. While this of course applies very much to Scientology and its members, involving as it does such a highly developed belief system, unless you have become highly aware of this in yourself and have broken down this in yourself, you will largely remain the effect and victim of your own self-created mental universe. When you leave Scientology, you still take your personal belief system with you. Yes, it will be different, and it IS always changing, but ANY belief system acts to place you in a little box. The worst part is that you are entirely unaware that you are even in a box - that is entirely of your own making!

    I have done this before. During waking open-eye meditations, I have allowed all thoughts to cease, and further, have discarded the habit of seeing "separateness". In those moments my awareness of what is around me has changed dramatically in two steps. First, I am there with nothing at all except the observer and the observed. Second, when I push it just a small bit further, my space suddenly expands markedly, and I am there "at one" with my surroundings, and even the sense of "observer and the observed" has vanished. In a very real sense, I "meld" with it. At that moment, to a degree, and in a very real way, I become the organic whole of "life". It is a very interesting state of consciousness.

    What I never liked about Scientology in this regard is that while this can and does happen from time to time, it is NOT under the control of the PC, and just happens as an occassional by-product of auditing. First, it's not recognized as important, much less explained this way, and second, there is no training available to enable a student to create this mental state at will.

    Realize that when you do this, there is no thought of any sort; you aren't "thinking" about this, you aren't "imagining" doing this, you aren't wondering whether you are doing it right or not, but you are simply doing it and being it. ALL thought has been temporarily suspended entirely. Note: There are subtle layers below layers in any mind, and you will never be able to detect them until you master the ability to stop all internal noise at will. Few people know what this actually means, much less can come close to honestly and effectively doing it. The modern world places a very small value on such ideas and abilities.

    If anyone takes the times to STOP THINKING for awhile, the results can be quite magnificent. :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

    I just remembered, LRH has a great drill about this. I forget what it is called. It is in one of the PABs. It is very simple. Just do this for 5 or 10 minutes every day for a few days:

    Sit in a chair, close your eyes, grab onto the back two corners of the room (with your mind) and hold onto them, and DON'T THINK.

    That's the whole drill. It never fails to get great results. It is an amazingly powerful drill. But again, you must DO IT. It can be difficult at first.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2009
  10. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    Try this drill:

    Look at thought.....

    .... or to make it a little simpler, look at knowledge, then look at how thought is the maneuvering or manipulation of knowledge. Ok .... look closely at it ... the machinery inside you, the mechanisms inside you .... keenly observe it.

    ....Now, tell me what is looking at it?

    Does this result in the observed/observer concept?

    Is there a way you can look at anything without the `looker', who is the product of this thinking?

    Even the physical looking is influenced by thoughts. There is no way you can look at anything without the use of the knowledge (projection) that you have of what you are looking at. In fact, it is the knowledge that is creating the object. It is your thinking that is creating the observer. So this whole talk of the observer and the observed is moot. The existence of the `observer' , the `observed', the talk of the `perceiver' and the `perceived', the `seer' and the `seen' becomes all fuzzy stuff.

    What do you think, Gad? Sound crazy?
  11. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    There is desire. This is recognized as something very basic in Hinduism.

    I am going to stop right there.

    I simply look at thought as thought. Why should I add anything more, such as, the consideration of “protective mechanism”, to it?

    Thought is neither good nor bad. It is simply there. Desire is neither good nor bad. It is simply there. It is putting “additives” to these basic considerations which starts to make things complicated.

    My philosophy is to simply look at something and recognize it for what it is. If I don't recognize it then I look further.

    I can see that you are trying to prove some point. Alright, so that is what you are trying to do. I recognize that.

    I have no desire to put an additive to thought there and make it unnecessarily complicated.

    If you have some confusion here then let me know. I shall try to assist you as I can.

  12. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Granting Beingness to Finishedman

    Vin - In my post #582 about 24 hours ago, I asked 4 questions of Finishedman and I was able to get the answers I was lookding for. Two of the questions are very important in understanding where he is coming from.
    First, he does not consider his thoughts to be a philosophy or a belief system but says he is only describing human function so I now refer to his agenda as "Description of Human Function." Second, he says he does not care whether readers of his posts agree with him or not. He keeps endlessly repeating the tenets of his system in the knowledge that his readers will file what he is saying into their memories and then per his "Descriptiion of Human Function" he believes that what is in the person's memory will eventually become their reality.

    Now that I know how he defines his tenets and why he uses TR 3 so strongly and has no interest in TR 4, I am not irritated by his writings. I am "flat" on FM! Let him write all he wants! His writings will attract people or repel people on the basis of their merits and that is OK. That's what this Board is about.
  13. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    Highly praised ingenuity and cleverness still springs from thinking, which is essentially a protective mechanism. The mind has invented convictions, beliefs, opinions, involvements, system, practices, values, attitudes, obsession etc. and violence to protect what it regards as its best interests. There is no good or bad in this sense. Don't you see? All these bad, brutal, terrible people, who should have been eliminated long ago, are thriving and successful. Don't think that you can get off this merry-go-round, or that by pretending to be spiritually or intellectually superior you are avoiding any complicity. You are the world; you are that.
  14. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Well he could be trying to condition other people's thinking and their reality.

    As I wrote earlier earlier, he does not seem to have a theory but just some fixed ideas.

    Last edited: Jul 14, 2009
  15. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    You say you are irritated when listening to certain persons

    You are incapable of listening to or figuring out anyone . You are interpreting and translating, distorting. It is you who you are hearing.

    You are the medium of my expression. I respond to you; I have nothing of my own. The expression of what is here occurs because of you, not me. That medium -- you -- is corrupt. The medium is only interested in maintaining its own continuity for its own purposes. You are not doing the same thing you claim I am doing? Yes, Ok I am doing it too. Jousting or whatever. So anything that happens there is already dead.

    My interest is not to knock off what others have said (that is too easy), but to knock off what I am saying. More precisely, I am trying to stop what you are making out of what I am saying. This is why my talking sounds contradictory to others. I am forced by the nature of your listening to always negate the first statement with another statement. Then the second statement is negated by a third, and so on. My aim is not some comfy dialectical thesis, but the total negation of everything that can be expressed. Anything you try to make out of my statements is not it.

    You sense a freshness, a living quality to what is being compared here. That is so, but this cannot be used for anything. It cannot be repeated. It is worthless. All you can do with it is to try to organize it, thus destroying any life it may have had in it. No individual can be helped by such things. They only help those who would live by the gullibility of others.

    What is there is only a movement to capture the essence of life, nothing else. All the rest is speculation.
  16. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Do you have a confusion that I can help resolve?

  17. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    Thanks Finishedman

    Finishedman - I had been irritated by your posts but I am beginning to understand your writings and am no longer irritated. I will read your newest post carefully. Thank you for your clarifying comments. You have the right to post on this website, please continue doing so.
  18. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    FM, I can now see that you are trying to sort something out with yourself.

    Would you like an Idenics session?

  19. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Here is my current view of SPACE, subject to change:

    Space --> Locations --> Distances --> Directions --> Dimensions

    The key consideration underlying space is “separation.”

    Dimensions are “extents” independent of each other, that may be visualized as number lines perpendicular to each other.

    A location to be manifested must be occupied by a “dimension point.”

    A dimension point is anything that one can be aware of… from the lightest consideration to the heaviest piece of matter.

    Space is a collection of relations among dimension points, given by their distance and direction from one another.

    Space is discrete and not continuous because dimension points are discrete and not continuous.

    Space is not manifested independently of dimension points.

    Dimension points may be considered subjective when viewed as constituting the viewpoint, but they may be considered objective when viewed as being outside the viewpoint.

    Relative motion of viewpoints would determine how dimensions are perceived in each other’s space, and thus, determine the level of agreement or disagreement among them.

  20. finishedman

    finishedman Patron with Honors

    You create space when you start from a point (of view) and measure from that point towards whatever it is you want to achieve. There is no viewing that originated in you because you are not one thing, and life another. It is one unitary movement and anything said about it is misleading, confusing. You are not a "person", not a "thing", not a discrete entity surrounded by "other" things. The unitary movement is not something which you, the non existent viewer, can experience. So the viewer is a product of something other that what he is. And anythying formed and measured from that illusory point is false; all relationships within the space created are false as far as the individual is concerned.