*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi Aarre
I struggle with this one myself.
Lets say we arrange the ability of a being from very low ( at effect of every
wind that blows) to very high ( at cause with the ability to create anything
like emotions, games, bodies, planets, universes)
now if i take an opposition position to the low toned being and so much an
sneeze in their direction i am commiting an overt.
however if i annihilate the body, planet or universe of the high toned being
they will just laugh at the fine joke i played on them and remock up what ever
i destroyed.
on this planet where everyone is at effect all the time we are continually
being propositioned by game players to take a role in their game I.e. "Join the
Army and Save the World from Communism" or something.
There is a scale here, at what level do you want to play? I am taking the
position that for every willing criminal on this planet there is a willing
victim looking to be victimized. My wife does not like this idea and wants to
see a world full innocents who are victims of evil people who must be stopped.
What do you think of these ideas?
Keep on TROMing
Pete
On Sep 14, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Aarre Peltomaa <[email protected]> wrote:
> *************
> The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
> ************
> 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
> [email protected]
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Pete Mclaughlin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> *************
> The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
> ************
>
> Hi Ant
> Would you post this to TROM? This is excellent material.
>
> Sincerely
> Pete
>
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Ant Phillips < [email protected]>
> 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
> [email protected]
> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Trom mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
