*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
<quote>
"The advantage of timebreaking is that it is anchored by the physical
reality around you that you can lay your hands on."
"Anything you mock up is mocked up in the now. It is present time. So you
are just comparing a past scene to a present time mock up without the
anchor of being able to put your hands on the item."
<unquote>
[(c) 25.3.216 - Pete McLaughlin - TROM Digest, Vol 137, Issue 38]
---
This is written for the purpose of tying up loose ends ...
The above statements are valid in terms of "some workability had been
proven
(statistically) by some individuals". I think there are enough
testimonials at hand
to make that claim. The tech based on the above statement works to that
degree - period.
At least that is the reality of people who had applied it. Therefore it is
something of value, obviously.
However, the necessity of an "anchor in present time" can be questioned.
(The idea that an anchor in PT is a necessity is eventually solely based
on the postulate thereof. If enough people agree with it, it finally will
become reality.)
I do not want to argue about this and I certainly do not challenge the
accepted and workable - but anyway relative - truth contained in the
linear time view,
which assumes time as a vector pointing from past to future where present
time (PT) is
the point where past and future meet. Seemingly this point moves along a
time-line
or the PT point is fixed while the time-line moves relative to it.
The very fact that it seems to be this way is seemingly backed by the
perception
of causality. Meaning, that cause is usually perceived as being prior to
an effect.
Never the less I want to bring your attention to at least two other
aspects in regard
of time and how it can be perceived otherwise. Those are not against the
general view
described above.
It is not a question of: this OR that (either or) - and thus a question of
controversy.
Not at all. As I see it, this is about an AND (both ... and, ... as well
as) thing.
In order to explain that (or even confuse it further ;-) let's interject
one or
two examples (if there is some truth in it that God made man similar to
himself -
which is a metaphor of course for: "Static", "Native State", "The Mover
Unmoved",
"All That Is", ... call it whatever you like ... created separated
parts of itself - then what else would that parts resemble more than the
source?
And isn't it all too plausible that whenever you look into MEST, physics,
nature
you ever so often get the impression "I've all this know before somehow
...".
Well, close your mouth and stop staring in wonder. It's only natural that
all creation
carries the creator's "fingerprints" (It is similar to recognizing a
writer, a
composer, a painter, ... by his unique style).
The examples:
In physics you can describe a signal curve form - no matter how complex it
is - in
two ways. Both ways are correct and can exist simultaneously. None is
better than
the other. None contradicts the other. Both do not claim to describe an
absolute reality
or is-ness and thus represent an absolute truth. Nevertheless, both have
their applications.
Certain practical problems can only be solved with one of the metaphors
while the other
is better suited for other problems. (You may have more than one cutting
tool in your
toolbox; a knife and a saw; if you have to cut down a tree you take the
saw; when you
want to make toothpicks from the wood you better use the knife).
Now, the signal form can be described and looked at from at least two
different
view points. The commonly used one is the description in the time-domain.
That means
you describe and put it into equations by measuring the signal amplitude
over
time as time goes by. If you have a electrical representation of the
signal you can
see it on the screen of an oscilloscope in the form of an x-y diagram
where the x-axis
(horizontal) has a time scale while the y-axis (vertical) represents the
signal amplitude.
The alternative view would be from the domain of frequency, the
frequency-domain.
This is for most humans a much more abstract view of reality because it
does not
fit easily into our patterns of thinking. Never the less this is only due
to habit
and with a little training anyone can get over that. In the frequency
domain the time
suddenly seems to be not present anymore. The signal seem to "happen" kind
of
instantaneously or simultaneously. The signal now is not analyzed in terms
of amplitude versus time any more, but rather in terms of its frequency
spectrum-lines
against their respective amplitudes. You could look at this representation
on the screen
of a measuring device called spectrum-analyzer.
The proof that both representations - that on the oscilloscope and the one
on the spectrum
analyzer - resemble the same signal shape, can not easily be perceived by
the human mind.
But it can be proved by mathematics and both representations can be
converted into each
other by algorithms which had been developed by Jean Baptiste Joseph
Fourier (1768-1830;
French mathematician). It is known as Fourier-Transformation and its
offspring
Fast-Fourier-Transformation (FFT).
(Most of the digital wonders we have and we use today, would not be there
without FFT.)
The second example is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which in its
essence postulates
that one can either describe a quantum particle in terms of mass or
velocity. Both at the
same instant is not possible, only probabilities can be achieved.
One can describe and explain the phenomenon of light either in terms of a
particle
stream (photons) or in terms of electromagnetic waves.
By the same token herein reflects this universe's principle of duality.
Another thing is this here:
The sequence of cause -> effect with cause in the past/present and effect
in the present/future reversed: It is conceivable that PT is not
determined by
the past only. One can determine PT form the future. That works like this:
E.g. I desire having a good meal tomorrow at dinnertime. This is what I
postulate.
In order to perceive that in a future PT (which will be tomorrow evening)
I take action
NOW (PT). E.g. I make plans and work the plan, get some money, make
arrangements, ...
in order to make the desired future "true" (haha, it is already true; as a
possibility;
but I enrich the possibility with likelihood up to the level of certainty).
I other words: The future I want, determines my actions in PT and not the
other way
around.
I admit, I'm on very thin ice here. I already hear you say: "Well Robin,
you postulate
a future while you are in PT. So what are you talking about?"
I have not very strong arguments against that. Does this sound
convincingly enough?
a) How do you know I'm not in the future and arranging it all from there?
I can go into my past (at least parts of me) so why shouldn't I go into
the
other direction also?
.... I see the silliness of this: If I'm in the future I may as well
already sit
at the dinner table and there would be no need to postulate/plan/do
anything in PT.
Could I postulate me into the future -> be there -> then postulate the
idea from
future to have the idea to postulate back in PT to have that dinner in
... sounds
crazy :-)
b) I really believe that time-travel without technology is an realistic
option.
Anyone can do that. We most likely do that in dream-state. That's
accountable for the
unreality of dreams and for the fact that most of the stuff can not be
remembered
after awake. I admit that its application in therapy appear currently
limited.
(Never the less, already Sigmund Freud had attention on client's dreams
before it
was abandoned.) That may change again.
(When humans accidentally found first mineral oil it was just useless
dirt to them.
Today we hardly can't be without it.)
All in all I would put it this way now:
1.) I fully subscribe to the idea of linear time for the
purposes of solving problems in the 3D realm including TROM.
2.) I do at the same moment subscribe to the idea of simultaneous time,
and several implications thereof, for the sake of completeness and for
the purpose of practice.
What does that mean now in regard of time and time-breaking:
As stated earlier, what Dennis said in that respect is valid and
time-breaking, as it is, does work (not necessarily for anyone).
However that may be, I propose to keep an open mind - or for those who
have already
resolved their minds - keep an open awareness that time is not necessarily
what it
seems to be to us humans. Time does not need to be treated more
"respectful" than
any of the other dimensions just because it seems to behave peculiar in
that it seems
to be "one-way".
This all may pose a paradox: As long as we are "inside" this universe we
perceive
our 'being here' as a consecutive stream of consciousness along the track
of time.
The mind is not designed to wrap itself easily around the concepts of
nonlinear
time, simultaneous time-lines or timelessness. It can do that only with
"crutches"
like extrapolating from 3D+time and then look at images which show the
extrapolation
in 3D again or by means of higher math. which requires an ability of
abstraction
only possible for few of us. So we have to stick to our anchor in
PT-reality
in order to not get lost. The paradox thereof is, that one has to step
outside the
3D+time realm (in other words: gear up into the next level of dimensions
(>=4D)) in
order to perceive the "simultaneous" (more true) nature of time. But in
that case a
being would probably no longer have a mind like we "know" it and therefore
look for
something beyond TROM to resolve a complete new universe full of new
problems.
I entertain the theory thereof, that the "gearing-up" into higher
dimensional realms
is a natural "evolutionary process" *) which must inevitably happen. Aside
from that
processing and various kind of exercises can accelerate this evolutionary
process.
Still, the main catalyst or the main driving pulse behind the evolutionary
process
is living a life itself.
*) I certainly do not limit that to genetics, species, organisms or the
body - that
is only a junior part of it (not necessarily without relevance). I refer
here to some
kind of spiritual or meta-physical pendant to "evolution" as commonly
understood.
----
The more I think about the idea that the point of PT has more significance
than
any other point in time, the more strange it gets to me. Why granting PT
some special
status? As soon as one grants that privileged status to PT compared to
past and
future it of course must have then a special place/significance in that
being's mind.
We are so used to do that, that it has become an involuntary habitual
ritual -
the ritual of worshiping PT. I still do it myself every day routinely of
course.
I see no way around it when I want to interact with others. Still
subscribing
to the "cult of PT" I still wear a wrist watch as a token of a cultic
ritual ;-)
----
I have not yet figured out how that would relate to Repair of Importance
(RI).
To be done:
- Assign importances to different points in time (P, PT, F, ...)
- Do not limit RI to objects. Create concepts, significances, feelings,
emotions, ...
- Can "importance" be broken down further into constituents?
- Can "importance" exist solely? (= without something attached to it).
----
Robin
Additional Examples:
The metaphor of "time track" - and a metaphor it is because it does not
reflect the actuality (as this words can not convey the actual, original
meaning).
The time-track however was and is a good working model. A work horse so to
speak
which did a good job so far in therapy and for organizing our lives (or
just the
3D+t illusion of it). Beyond that it has its limitations.
----
A movie film is composed of 48 still pictures per second projected on the
screen.
For the perceiving person it looks like the actors and objects in the film
are "moving"
smoothly. This is an apparency. The actuality is that all the still images
on a film
roll are shown consecutively, each for a certain very small moment.
Since the human eye and most likely the human mind can not "follow" the
fast projection-
sequence, the illusion of movement - and thus time - is created in a film.
Isn't it conceivable that people who have a mind that is structured
differently than
the kind of mind we have here in 3D-universe environment perceive time
differently or
even do not perceive it at all?
Imagine a mind that has the ability to "look" at (or through) the film
roll in one
instant and by doing so in the instant "grasp" or duplicate the whole
story-line.
Or imagine, one who cuts the film into all the single images and then
arranges them in
the form of one large image - all side by side - and just by looking once
at this large
"puzzle" grasps immediately the whole meaning of the storyline encoded
therein.
In my opinion this represents a great metaphor for the idea that all time
that is,
actually happens in just one instant. It is part of the deception, that it
can only
be perceived in a sequential mode. That is most likely just a peculiar
limitation
of our human minds. I guess it is to be resolved by the natural
evolutionary
process a species undergoes anyway. Never the less we can accelerate (or
as well
slow-down) this process by "what we do in life; our attitude towards life;
research
into life; processing; ..." - it is a matter of our free will.
What else is processing and/or study as "research into life" while at the
same
moment it is part of life as well?
What interests me is: How would our world look like and especially in
regard to
mental technologies if there would not be that much emphasize on linear
time
and time-track (as e.g. so heavily promoted by LRH and others who had
developed
their tech in the tradition of Scientology), but instead the paradigm
would have
been simultaneous time-lines and therefore parallel universes?
Following up that line of paradigm could eventually provide us with - not
necessarily better tech. - but perhaps some interesting additional tools
for handling the situation we are in. I guess we would have a somewhat
different
approach to science as well.
----
I want to add some detail here, to the film-metaphor above.
A cruder form of film was and still is comics-strips. Comics are drawn
images
in frames which resemble the frames of the still images a film is composed
of.
The level of abstraction compared to a movie film is much higher. The
frequency
of images per time-unit is rather slow and it's the responsibility of the
"reader".
Further you do not have a sound track here. What is written in the balloons
must be read and decoded by the reader as well (kind of subtitles).
Actually the reader is put in a more responsible and more active role than
in
a cinema or TV movie, where one is to a certain degree "degraded" into an
effect role.
*I suspect that thereof comes the highly hypnotic, suggestive and
manipulative impact
that TV and Hollywood productions can exert on people at large scale.*
An even higher grade of abstraction - and thus higher grade of imaginative
work
on the part of the "consumer" - is required if the story is presented in
book
form, in the form of an assay or novel. (Have you ever wondered why so
often
the movie of a book falls short to the original written work?)
A book-reader has a much higher degree of freedom than a movie-goer. In
many
aspects. First of all he has the freedom of choice of time and environment
when
and where he wants to pick up the story. (Of course you can watch a movie
on
DVD, but at least you have to deal with numerous compromises regarding all
the
complexity of the required playback equipment and its limited
transportability
in space and time, compared to "ink on paper" technology.)
Dependent on the abilities of the writer and the abilities of the reader
the
storyline will unfold in the mind of the reader. That is the other - even
more
important - degree of freedom that you have. You go from passive (effect)
in the
role of the couch-potato in front of a TV-set up to a role where you are
more
and more a co-creator of the "story in your head" and thus be in a
position of
cause when reading a book or even when listening to a story-teller.
(The highest degree of freedom is attainable however if you assume the role
of an author.)
If you possess the ability of a "photographic memory" you can just look at
a
page of a book or a comic and duplicate it in just one moment. This is
another
example of "simultaneous time".
The highest form of abstraction - or I should better say of creation - is
to
imagine or dream up all the stories completely by your own.
Robin
P.S.: I was pondering the whole issue of time, sequential time, time-track
and
simultaneous time-lines recently in the context a "variations of
TROM's
L2 & L3, as described in a previous write-up.
Bonus:
[Excerpt from "Cycles of Action"
PDC Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard on the 5. December 1952]
......
It… it’s merely postulates you’re dealing with here. I… I can see on some
of your faces you have this creepy notion that this thing is going to
slide in sideways on you somehow
or other and turn into a very difficult feat in physics. But honest,
HONEST, it… it… it’s
just… it’s just too simple, actually, to be… to be readily grasped. You
have a particle and you
put that particle there, and you have a particle and you put that particle
there.
Well, where do you get these „theres“ from? Well, that’s very simple. You
just say,
„They’re there.“ You have to take a viewpoint of dimension and you have a
viewpoint. Now
you have to say you have a viewpoint before you have a viewpoint, and in
order to have a
viewpoint you have to have something to view. So that’s coincident, too,
isn’t it?
So you get the… the viewpoint, the coincidence of view, uh… the anchor
points and
the particle actually simultaneously. That should tell you something very
interesting. This is
all going on here at once. I mean, they can’t divide these things so that
you have… „Well,
now we have space.“ Oh yeah? Yeah?? The heck you do. If you’re going to
say „space“
you’re going to have to say „anchor point to anchor point“, not just
arbitrarily. The second
you sweep your hand this way or something of that sort, or motion out that
way, you’ve got
an indicator, and you’re indicating a point or a line in which you are now
going to view an
emptiness, and which emptiness you may or may not adventure to fill. But
we’ve got the… all
of these things.
Now what about the intention? You actually can’t state this intention
without it happening. Of course, you could state it in such a way that it
wouldn’t happen. But uh… if you
stated the intention, uh… you say, „Well, now I’m going to put a piece of
space out to here,“
you’ve already lined the thing up, and you can’t have instantaneousness.
Where… we can’t get off zero of the stopwatch with this. Uh… every time we
add one
of these things to another one of these things, we find they’re being done
at the same moment.
That gives people the creepy idea of the simultaneousness of time. And
time, sure enough, is
terribly simultaneous because it doesn’t exist. Time is something they
invented. The great god
Moloch, you know. Uh… he really didn’t exist. But uh… somebody had to
invent him in order to keep the… keep the slaves in line.
And Time… they have to invent him. He has an altar and uh… a beingness and
is sacrificed to in every factory in the land. That is a time clock which
is a nice little altar, and they
come in and they feed him pieces of… little bits of paper, and he goes
„chomp-whirr!“ and
that’s… that’s the Oracle. And every time he says „Chomp-whirr!“ he is
saying, „Bless you,
my child. You will be paid.“
They’d actually get much further if they would simply put a pot-bellied
god up there
on the wall and give it a good-looking face instead of a silly circular
face with Arabic numerals on it, because a god with Arabic numerals all
over his face is kind of dull.
Uh… now they tell everybody that this is an… is an object known as Time
and it is a
great mystery. And it is a mystery which you mustn’t crack because if you
crack this mystery
too solidly, you’re going to crack everything else too, and there’s a lot
of people got a lot of
vested interests around here. They can’t manufacture energy themselves,
they couldn’t build a
universe themselves, three or four people couldn’t get together and slap
one up that uh… looked pretty good, so they say, „We’ve got to keep this
one – we’ve got to keep this one.“
Those people are on the center of this action cycle.
All right. Now what do we have here as an interrelationship of cycles?
Let’s just take a
look at this very broadly and let’s say we – just… just for fun – that we
have to have space
before we have action. Now that’s actually not a… not a good way to look
at it at all. But
uh… we say we have to have space: Space is a requisite to action.
Actually, as you have action, you have space; as you have space you have
action. As you have space and action, you
have havingness. And then… and it’s just all right there in what…
simultaneous time, and it’s
very easy to have simultaneous time because, as I said, that is a myth and
a mystery.
But this other is not a myth and a mystery. You can experience this. So
God bless anything you can experience and to hell with everything you have
to take on somebody’s
word.
So here we go on a first action cycle. We have here uh… space postulated,
you know
what space is. This is the same space we were talking about yesterday. And
that comes
through here to particles. And this comes through here to action, and this
comes through action to solidity, and here you have matter.
Matter is a condensation of space. How much will space condense? It’ll
condense, of
course, back to zero, because you’re not condensing space. It’s just…
you’re just narrowing
dimensional viewpoints on something and postulating more particles in it,
that’s all. It’s a…
you say, „Well, it’s a…“ and so on.
Now you actually have as much time as you postulate space and particles.
And if you
postulate lots of space and few particles you have action; you have a
field of action there can
take place. And if you postulate very little space and an awful lot of
particles you have solid
matter.
Now there isn’t any reason why you couldn’t do that one instantaneously.
You could
say, uh… „Now it’s from here.“ Don’t think these things have to grow. They
don’t. That’s…
that’s the whole trick of the universe. You could have this… you could say
„From here to
here, and there to there, and there to there, and there to there and there
to there. That’s…
that’s a piece of space. And now it is a solid mass of particles – there
you are: a piece of iron.“ I mean, there isn’t any reason you couldn’t do
that. Just simultaneous time.
It does not depend upon any gradient scale of occurrence. Let me make that
very plain
to you: It doesn’t depend upon a gradient scale of occurrence.
Now there are many people around who know this instinctively and they
can’t possibly figure out why they have to go through all this work,
.particle collection idea, in order to
have a whole flock of particles which then go together and form an object.
Or why they have
to go on a gradient scale of this sort of thing. And you can take a little
kid and uh… when he
wants something, he wants it right now. He doesn’t want it „till Daddy
works another month
so that you collect enough paycheck to this and that.“ And „Yes, dear. Now
you want to be
very… you realize, dear, that uh… these things take a little time, and so
forth. And you have
to work for what you get. And if you go to school and you gradually go
across the line uh…
and so on, why, you eventually work for 80 or 90 years and they will
finally let you be a psychiatrist.“
And uh… uh… they… the fellow is in instinctive protest, is saying, „Noooo!
This
doesn’t have to be!“ And every once in a while somebody will jump sideways
on this and say,
„I want it right now! Zing! No gradient scale, anything of this sort. It’s
got to be right now.“
And he’ll get into trouble with the rest of the society. They all come
around and tell him how
this takes time, They don’t tell him what time is. They merely say it
takes time.
What they’re telling him is, „You put a lot of particles in gradually.“
They’re telling
him the difference between, „Now we’ll make this box up here – this big
cube – and now you
want to just say, „That’s all full of particles and all those spaces are
occupied and they’re in
juxtaposition to each other in such a way that they’ll cohese, and those
kind of tetrahedrons in
space are going to do this and that, and therefore you’ve got iron.“ You…
you just want to
say, „Zong!“ and that takes place.“
„Whereas we assure you solemnly that we know utterly that that cannot be
done, because WE can’t do it.“ So they say, „Here’s the way you do this.
First you make this big empty box. Now you’ve got that? Now you can’t have
anything. You’ve just got to have an empty
box and it has the flimsiest possible anchor points. So we can say they’re
practically zero.
Now we’ve got that box, and we take great care that it has the perfect
geometric shape, and so
forth. Now we take a particle – another little piece of space here – and
we take this particle
and we say it’s all full. We say that is in the shape of a tetrahedron and
that is all full.
„Now we’re going to take that particle and we’re going to put that in the
box, understand? All right, now we’re going to take another small piece of
space here, because you
see, we can’t do these big things. We’ve got to do small things. And uh…
just take this second little tiny piece of space here and we say that’s
all full of particles, that’s fine. That’s
another tetrahedron, and we’ll put that in this big box. And this way…
this way, eventually
we will have a box full. And it’s much more satisfactory to do it that
way.“
And if you said, „We will make a large tetrahedron of space and fill it
full of particles.
And then two more, and then four more and then put those in this big box,“
that would not be
fair. And you say, „What’s fair?“
„Well, fair.“
Evidently what’s fair is not well done. And that, by the way, is… is
terribly true all across the line when people start to talk about what’s
fair.
Now you’ll get the idea here, gradient scale. They want a gradient scale.
They can’t do
a lot of it at once, so they want to do a little bit at a time.
Now this universe is built on that postulate that I just gave you. It’s
built on the postulate that you take this space and you make little
particles and fill the big space that way, and
it’s built on the postulate additionally that when you get it just so full
it starts to get smaller.
That’s shrinkage and decay. In this way we’ve got a method of getting rid
of these masses of
things, or maybe a way of collecting them, or something. Nobody’s ever
quite sure what
they’re… what they’re doing on this. But it’s… it’s a game. And it should…
should be just
awfully bare-faced to you, you’re supposed to go down and…
People are building an airplane down here, and they go down and they… they
make
the sheets, and they put the sheets on the airplane and so on. And that’s
all very interesting.
And they build this airplane and they put a motor on the front end of the
airplane and
they put gasoline into the thing. And they take a young boy and they train
him how to fly, and
they take the airplane out to the landing field and they take the young
boy who knows how to
fly and they put him in the cockpit. And they go up here to the… to the
tower and they have a
man in the tower who knows how to dispatch airplanes. And they have radio
men and weather
men to make sure that the airplane won’t get into trouble in weather. And
they have radio
stations and other fields and other places where you can get gasoline. And
they’ve got this all
figured out.
So what? So he can fly. You sit him down in a chair and you say, „Be two
feet behind
your head. Now go to Chicago.“
And you immediately say, „But you can’t take a body to Chicago.“ Why
should he
take a body to Chicago? If he gets hot enough, when he gets to Chicago,
he’ll make one.
That, that by the way, is the essence of teleportation. Well, what do you
want to lug…
lug a body around for? If you… you’d have to lug something around and it
would encumber
you.
A person has to encumber himself to the direct degree that he cannot
create and
destroy. And so if you want to lug this body around all the time… you
could teleport it, sure
enough one way or the other, but uh… why? You just uh… you’ve got this
nice body and
everybody looks at it and it feels solid to them and it’s all set and uh…
you come in and there
they are. And they say, „Well, I think I’ll go to Chicago.“ Poof! Poof!!
There they are – walking through the Loop.
And that’s very simple, but they’d have to be able to re-create themselves
a body
when they got to Chicago which compared to this body, so there would be
identification involved in the thing, if they’re that MESTy that they have
to have identification.
What… what you really get identification on is matter. You don’t get
identification
over here on particles. A person who can BE a universe is not worried
about whether his name is Jones or William’s or Spooner. He… he is not
worried about what his name is. And
possibly the beings which were in his universe, and so forth… he probably
wouldn’t go around with his ear very harshly and solidly to the ground to
make sure that they kept on calling him Jones – anything of that level.
Now you say, „Well, Jones owns so-and-so and so-and-so, and you have
private property. Therefore you have to have a label so that you can tell
what he owns.“ Oh, what the…
what the… hey! Wait a minute! What he owns? You mean to say that the guy’s
got to own?
Oh, this fellow has to own, huh? Why, I thought we were talking about
gods! Gods don’t have
to own, they create! And they don’t sell, they destroy!
There is no traffic in the marts of the Valhalla we’re talking about
.......
[LRH]
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
