************* The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org ************
Hello TROM'ers,
What if someone like Joseph Stalin thinks that millions of people have to be killed; if he liked lime-green skies with polkadots, are we supposed to allow him so because that's his reality, even if it includes murdering millions? Something doesn't sit right in this scenario with me somehow; omitted data big time. I liked LRH's definition of ethics as optimum survival behavior on 8 dynamics. This works until someone stops another from having a good life, and then this premise seems to break down. Do we have to let a gunman shoot people in a school, because that's his prerogative? A mass murderer just has a different reality, a different radio channel so to speak, doesn't he? 'He can ask for Bill's agreement on something, but he can't force it.' Huh? Don't we have to shut down the mass murderer's 'radio channel' against his wishes (force it)? Aarre Peltomaa peltomaa.aa...@gmail.com On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Pete Mclaughlin < pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org > ************ > > Hi Ant > Would you post this to TROM? This is excellent material. > > Sincerely > Pete > > > > On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Ant Phillips < ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk> > relayed: > > > *Pilot'sPosts Z21 > > * > *Co-existence of Static * > > From Post 53 -- April 1999 > > > We are not here to dissolve everything into nothingness. > > The true Nirvana is a creative state rather than a passive one. > > At basic we are balancing the nothingness with a richness of creation. > > Having everything locked down into a single agreed upon reality inhibits > free creation and therefore reduces the richness. It is therefore abhorrent > to a being and as he rises upscale, he objects to it more rather than less. > > But what is wrong is not the creations themselves but the locked down > singleness of the realities available. > > There could be many realities, some shared, some overlapping, some > independent, and all visited by choice. > > Imagine an Internet with many websites. There is communication and > interaction, and yet each is free to create as he chooses, and if he really > likes someone else's creation, perhaps he copies it and if he dislikes it, > perhaps he shuns it, but there is room for anything and everything. > > And then one day there is a virus, and everybody's system is permanently > locked onto the same site. Of course they will fight amongst each other > because each one's creations affects the others. There can be no true > freedom because freedom will be at odds with responsibility. > > Consider what would happen if everyone became a god. One person would wish > for rain and another would wish for sunshine. It just doesn't work if all > are locked into a single reality. > > And yet it is also a failure for each of us to go off into a totally > isolated personal universe, for then we loose the communication and > interaction that are so desirable to us all. > > What should happen is a fanning out of multiple realities. > > When some want rain and some want sunlight, then each occurs and the > multitude of beings individually choose which they want to agree with. > > Many realities but not isolated, except when someone is in the mood for > that. > > In such a scenario, each individual can be a god with the power to make > any postulate stick, at least as far as physical reality goes. The tradeoff > is that he cannot make anything stick as far as trying to enforce or demand > anything from another being, because they are gods too. > > If Joe wants to visit Bill, he has to put up with Bill's postulate for a > tacky lime green sky with orange pokadots. Or he can change the sky and see > if Bill will come along with him, but if Bill chooses to keep the pokadots > while Joe insists on a blue sky, then they will find themselves in > different realities and no longer talking to each other. > > Think of a radio with endless stations and you can tune in to whatever you > feel like. But a particular announcer, whom you might like, is currently > playing music that you don't care for. Its up to you whether you stick with > him or try another station. > > That is total freedom. You can have anything you want, no matter how > outlandish. > > Joe can even mockup a copy of Bill and give him a better taste in sky > colors. But it wouldn't be the real Bill, just Joe talking to a puppet he > mocked up. > > What Joe can't have is control over Bill. He can ask for Bill's agreement > on something, but he can't force it. > > Each and every one of us decided at some point that we had a right to > control others and enforce agreement. That postulate is a two edged sword > and you see the results around you now. If you hadn't made it, you wouldn't > be here. > > And its a hard one to let go of completely. Deep down, you know that some > madman will come at you swinging a sabre and you are not confident that you > could shift realities and just let him hack up his own mocked up copy of > you. And with everything locked down to one reality, he would hack up the > agreed upon copy and you would end up walking around in your own universe > with everybody else out of comm. > > And so we need to loosen the realities first and let go on a gradient. > > Control Mest all you want, but avoid controlling people whenever possible. > Instead work by means of communication and shared postulates and encourage > as much individual beingness as possible. > > LRH's brilliance was in inspiring enthusiasm; people turned over their > lives for the sake of the tech. He erred greatly when he installed strong > controls in the late 60s. The controls were unnecessary, he already had the > enthusiastic willing hands. > > As soon as the organization began to enforce agreement instead of simply > continuing to train and asking people to do their best, it backfired and > the org began to spiral down from high theta towards dramatization and > solidity. > > Control MEST, not people. And as far as auditing and CCHs and other > helpful forms of "control", don't look on it as control, because if you > make that your purpose it will backfire. It is educational guidance, like > holding a child's hand and helping them cross the street safely for the > first time. The idea is not to override their will but to steer them > through new territory. > > The road out is in the direction of less enforced agreement and less > control while increasing communication and affinity. > > Note that this requires developing a tolerance for others disagreeing with > you. > > You can have a TV set with lots of stations. You can like them all and yet > retain your freedom to shift agreements. > > Think how much better that is than having only one station that only plays > the party line. > > Best, > > > The Pilot > ** > > [[A "gem" from the Pilot, of which the above is an example, is send to the > list SuperScio every Wednesday - you can join at: > http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio > > _______________________________________________ > Trom mailing list > Trom@lists.newciv.org > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom > >
_______________________________________________ Trom mailing list Trom@lists.newciv.org http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
