************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Paul,
I interspaced a couple of comments: David, your recent write-up regarding know/believe/believes/facts/... conclusively covers those subjects. Liked it very much. As a "by-product" you delivered a good explanation for the reason why Dennis may have chosen "To Know" as goal of seniority to anything else for his technique TROM. There is not much to add, to what you wrote, from my point of view. Perhaps one small remark regarding believe(s). I often use that word. And I use it in two different senses. One occasion is, when I want to indicate that I'm not certain about the truth-content of an idea or piece of "data" which I convey. I want to tell others that they should not take it as fact and should be skeptical, use their own discernment and reevaluate at their own. D> Yes, That is a proper use of the word. ::: To indicate "uncertainty". And that is also the way I use it, when I have to. The other meaning of believe or systems of believe goes in the direction of deeply felt inner convictions which represent a kind of personal truth. That does not mean that those thoughts are static in the sense of "not being subject to corrections". It as well does not mean that others feel the same way. But it certainly means that those believes are the creative power which establishes a beings own reality and thus its own universe. D> The sense people use it in your above example means or includes "certainty". They believe that believing in something makes it true. Which is a quasi truth or even a pseudo truth. This is an ambiguous or nebulous and tangled (even stumping) area to get deep into, which I hate. (You either know or don't know or are not sure. You can't be all at the same time. This is a type of insanity. Overall the word "believe" is a very bad word. It is deceptive. It is the worst word, the most problematic word in the English language. (I would like to know about how it is used and defined in other languages?) In the English language it has several definitions. The main two are: 1. to mean uncertainty and 2. to mean uncertainty. Two opposite definitions. It can mean certainty and uncertainty. (That is a form of insanity too.) They often unwittingly or unconsciously or inadvertently (ignorantly) use the word with both meanings in consecutive sentences. Even linguists and academics use the word wrong too. Journalists are also very bad for the wrong use of the word. And as supposedly experts or professionals in communication, they should know better. Most people (the unconscious ones) use it to mean "certainty". And most people are not aware that it has different meanings. (Ignorance) People also use it to mean "think". And it is a wrong definition of believe and therefore a wrong use of the word. Many use the word "believe", when they mean "think". If you carefully listen to people when they use the word "believe", and ask yourself: what do they really mean when they use the word "believe"? You will see they unconsciously use the word to mean quite a few different things. (At one time, ....I think it was the Bush election, I did a careful study and wrote it all out. I made notes of all the ways people used the word, political candidates, pundits and journalists.) Especially do this when watching TV. You will see that they really do not know what they are really talking about. It is all ambiguity and trying to convince each other of their lies and the other guy's lies. You will see that they often use the word to convert an uncertainty to a certainty. They use it to make you accept a "lie" as a truth. Especially politicians, and especially in the insanity that is going on now in the US elections. I watch CNN and get sick of it after a few minutes. Very carefully watch what they say. The word "believe" is used probably more than any other word, one party wants to over wump the opponents or the electorate with their lies as well as their non lies, or truths (usually policies). It is just a mish mash of BS.) And this is an example of what Hubbard was referring to when he said: Not knowing the difference between a belief and a fact is the cause of all insanity and incompetence. He should of included conflict and failure. In our previous local election, I phoned all the candidates and asked them if they knew the difference between a belief and a fact? That was an interesting exercise. I sure stumped most of them. Overall I hate the word. When people use it, they confess they do not know what they are talking about. And use it to deceive. They use it to try and make you accept their lies, and ignorance as "truth". It is sometimes necessary for me to use the word, and I try and qualify (define) what I mean, (I mean that I am uncertain) when I do, if I get the opportunity. David Not knowing the difference between believing and knowing is the cause of much of the world's problems. Best regards Robin P.S.: A wise man once said: "The only thing that I know is, that I know nothing." (I hope I've translated that correct into English). On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:34 AM, The Resolution of Mind list < [email protected]> wrote: > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] > ************ > David, > > your recent write-up regarding know/believe/believes/facts/... > conclusively covers those subjects. Liked it very much. > > As a "by-product" you delivered a good explanation for the > reason why Dennis may have chosen "To Know" as goal of seniority > to anything else for his technique TROM. > > There is not much to add, to what you wrote, from my point of > view. Perhaps one small remark regarding believe(s). > > I often use that word. And I use it in two different senses. > > One occasion is, when I want to indicate that I'm not certain > about the truth-content of an idea or piece of "data" which > I convey. I want to tell others that they should not take it > as fact and should be skeptical, use their own discernment > and reevaluate at their own. > > The other meaning of believe or systems of believe goes in > the direction of deeply felt inner convictions which represent > a kind of personal truth. That does not mean that those thoughts > are static in the sense of "not being subject to corrections". > It as well does not mean that others feel the same way. But it > certainly means that those believes are the creative power which > establishes a beings own reality and thus its own universe. > > > Best regards > > Robin > > P.S.: > A wise man once said: "The only thing that I know is, that I > know nothing." > > (I hope I've translated that correct into English). > > > --------- > > > On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 04:36:52 +0100, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Send TROM mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of TROM digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Oahspe (The Resolution of Mind list) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 13:14:54 -0400 >> From: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> >> To: The Resolution of Mind list <[email protected]> >> Subject: [TROM1] Oahspe >> Message-ID: <[email protected]> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Robin, >> >> >> 1. At first I did not remember telling you about the Oahspe. >> >> But now i maybe vaguely do remember. >> >> >> >> 2. No it is not easy reading. >> >> >> >> >> 3. I call myself a truth seeker, a "truth scientist" a Truthologist. >> >> >> I do not believe anything. >> >> To believe something, means to accept something as true without proof. >> >> Or to raise an assumption, or a hearsay, a whim, or a fabrication (some >> arbitrary) to the level of a fact or truth, without proof. >> >> To believe something is intellectual dishonesty. >> >> To believe something is a confession of ignorance. >> >> There are only three states of knowingness: >> >> 1. You know. >> You know something with certainty. You can prove it. >> >> 2. You don't know. >> >> 3. You are not sure. >> >> >> Beliefs and opinions fall under two and three. >> >> >> Not knowing the difference between a belief and a fact is the cause of >> much >> insanity and much incompetence. >> >> Not knowing the difference between a belief and a fact is the cause of >> much >> conflict in the world, and most other problems too. >> >> >> >> >> I have learned that the truth is nothing more or less than the right >> answer >> or the most right answer to any problem or question. >> >> Or the datum that solves the most problems in the best possible way, for >> the greatest number of dynamics, for the longest period of time. >> That is what truth is. >> >> The truth is that which is in alignment with universal law. >> >> Failure is feedback from the universe that something was not/ is not in >> alignment with universal law. >> >> >> >> *(I digress a bit: Universal law consists of the laws of nature, (natural >> law) the laws of physics, biological laws, the laws of God, God's plan, >> the laws of right and wrong. * >> >> >> *Anything that fails or anything that is wrong, broke some universal law.* >> >> >> *Some laws we know, some we don't.* >> >> *The universe does not care what you believe. * >> >> >> *Some laws when broken or violated, the results, the feedback is instant, >> like the law of gravity.* >> >> >> *The breech of most laws of physics is usually quite fast. * >> >> >> *Some laws take yrs or generations or longer to see the results, the >> effects. For example: The correct operating data to maintain civilization, >> to prevent civilization from self destructing, or to prevent someone from >> blowing the planet up.. * >> The correct operating data to maintain a civil society. >> >> At the rate civilization is going at the present time, or the data it is >> operating on is leading to self destruction. >> >> But from the beginning of civilization to present is an eon in time. >> >> So the law of what the correct operating data is to maintain a >> civilization, takes an eon to realize whether it is correct or not. >> >> >> >> *Def of civil: 1. of, or in a condition of, social order or organized >> government; civilized <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/civilize> : * >> >> >> *civil peoples.* >> *2. adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in >> common courtesy: * >> >> >> *After their disagreement, their relations were civil though not cordial.* >> * 3. polite but not necessarily friendly : only as polite as a person >> needs >> to be in order to not be rude * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * 4. adequate in courtesy and politeness :5 not rude; marked by >> satisfactory (or especially minimal) adherence to social usages and >> sufficient but not noteworthy consideration for others >> <https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/civil#s99456>6. having a high >> state >> of culture and development both social and technological7. courteous and >> polite, orderly and safe * >> >> >> >> I return: >> >> That is what is meant by: Seek the truth in all things and the truth will >> set you free. >> >> Or: Only the truth will set you free, from the bondage of your problems, >> >> or: Seek to KNOW the truth in all things and the truth will set you free. >> >> and it's other variants. >> >> Not: Seek to "believe" the truth in all things and the truth will set you >> free. >> >> >> >> >> People fail in any endeavor for only one reason and that is for the lack >> of >> the right knowledge (the truth) to solve the problem at hand. >> Find the right knowledge and you can solve any problem. >> >> The biggest room in the world is room for improvement. >> >> Knowledge is not static. >> There are several different dynamics of truth. >> Some truth is temporary, some are eternal. >> What was true yesterday may not necessarily be true today. >> >> The truth is not determined by authority, by opinions, by beliefs, by >> political correctness, or by who wins an argument. >> >> It is not effected by such nonsense. >> The truth is the truth. >> The truth is ultimately determined by universal law. >> >> >> I also apply the data in "How to Study a science" in "Scn, A new slant >> on life", to the fullest spirit of it's meaning or intent. >> >> >> In my words; Ron is saying to his followers, in that article, to stop >> parroting him, because parroting is a form of insanity. >> >> Parroting is a very low level of intelligence. >> >> He is saying for his followers to think for themselves, question >> everything, do not believe anything he says, and do their own research and >> build their own bridge. >> >> And build a better one. >> >> >> He also means for his followers to complete the cycle of learning. >> >> That means to read all other material of comparable magnitude in the known >> universe. >> >> And any book that helps man better himself, helps him lead a more >> successful life in all aspects, and helps him understand the universe >> around him better, is a good book. >> >> I began doing that 27 yrs before I come across scn in 97. >> >> >> I still do it. >> >> I do it to the fullest extent I am able to. >> >> A long time ago, someone told me that you will not be able to find the >> truth unless you ask that empty space in front of you to teach you the >> truth in all things. If you don't ask, you will be led on a wild bird >> chase. That empty space is alive and well and all knowing. Ask non >> ceasingly. >> >> The truth is out there but it is hidden and protected by many layers of >> lies, deception and traps to protect it from fools, snakes, prostitutes >> and >> swine. >> >> >> Ron's directive also includes the data, the idea that one subject cannot >> be understood from within itself. >> >> In order to understand something, you have to compare it to something >> else, >> much preferably to something of comparable magnitude. >> >> And the more other subjects (datums/ objects) you can compare something >> to, >> the better you will understand the subject. >> >> >> >> When I read, I do not look for things to believe. >> >> I question and test everything I read, to determine it's usefulness. >> >> I seek to know the truth. >> I have developed a good truth / BS (false and limiting data) filter. >> >> >> >> Sometimes I read a large book and only find one useful datum that I could >> use. >> >> Sometimes none. But that is ok. >> >> I also sometimes read opposing viewpoints. >> >> I sometimes read and evaluate what critics say. >> >> >> Then I do my own evaluation as to the value of the data. >> >> I test it to see if it helps me (or not) solve any problems, answer any >> questions, or help me understand the universe and how it works better. >> >> And file it accordingly. >> >> I read everything and glean what is good or useful and chuck the rest up >> to >> experience. >> It is cheaper to learn from others mistakes, than your own. >> >> >> I do not really know anyone in the world that has applied the data in: >> How >> to study a science, at least to the degree I have. >> >> I don't know anyone in the world who has done scientology properly. >> >> >> And you can't properly understand scientology unless you do. >> >> >> Amongst many other things, many other definitions; Scientology is the >> science of knowing how to find and KNOW the truth of something. >> >> >> No one has figured that one out, that I know of, other than I. >> >> >> In my pursuit of understanding of scientology and truth, I particularly >> spend a lot of time reading the works of other great minds (ex >> scientologists) (critical thinkers-not parrots) who have learned as much >> as >> possible of scientology, critiqued it, gleaned as much useful data as >> possible from it, and built upon that, and developed their own bridges, or >> their own processes. Like Dennis Stevens, Bob Ross, Geoffrey Filbert, >> Electra, Homer Smith, Zivorad Slavinski. Those are the names that come >> to >> mind now. >> >> Geoffrey Filbert said that only 1/10th of 1% of what Hubbard said and >> wrote is true. >> That is pretty to close to the truth. >> >> It is also true of Geoffrey Filbert who wrote in Excalibur revisited. >> >> >> And if you have not done scientology and done it properly, you know very >> little of anything that is useful. >> >> >> Everything most people know, that is of any significance, is wrong. >> >> >> In the process of completing my cycle of learning, I learned a lot from >> the >> bible but a lot more from the Urantia and also a lot from the Urantia. >> >> I think those three books are essential reading as a balancer to scn. >> >> There are more. >> >> >> >> :) :) >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 2:28 AM, The Resolution of Mind list < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> ************* >> The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] >> ************ >> David, >> >> it was you who recommended Oahspe to me a couple of weeks ago. >> You said that it changed your life. Made me curious if course. >> I'm grateful you did. >> >> Could not manage to finish the book until now (I think I've done >> almost up to page 500 of the 1500 pages. It's not really >> the kind of material one would call 'easy reading' ;-) >> >> Up to around page 100 I was often tempted to abandon it. >> But leaving a book unfinished is so unsatisfying and then it >> fascinated me more and more as I went on. >> >> The problem I had - and still have - with this kind of material >> is, that I can not very well align such data to the technical >> stuff I'm so used to and which is much in the tradition of Scientology. >> It boils down to aligning a pure religion (especially those mono- >> theistic ones with a creator entity) with the views of an application- >> oriented religious philosophy which is heavily biased towards >> 'superiority of the self'. Occasionally it appeared to me that >> the latter must be close to blasphemy from an Oahspe viewpoint. >> >> On the other hand we can perceive the positive effects which processing >> creates upon us. Never the less, your observation that "real life" >> is still restimualtive even when you have wins in therapy is real to me. >> >> In that respect you're most likely correct in stating that Oahspe >> is balancing scientology. >> >> I'm trying to resolving the seeming contradictions like that: >> Books like Oahspe, and similar material, suggest to live your life >> in a certain manner to ascend to higher states of beingness, to >> more fulfillment, completeness, happiness, ... >> While processing-tech is a tool which can support and accelerate >> ones progress along that way. But the mere tool itself will do >> nothing for us. One must some way or other prove under real-life >> conditions its effectiveness. All tech finally pertains to life >> itself. >> >> It becomes plausible why some "bridges" emphasize a two - or even >> three - lane approach. Those are: Processing - Study and Training - >> and last but not least: Application in life. >> (The order is arbitrary; none of those aspect has seniority - as >> far as I see it.) >> >> >> >> The way you look at your case, the way you analyze it ... >> I understand what you're saying. >> >> >> >> The "negativism" subject is interesting. I agree with the >> conclusions you share at the end. >> >> >> >> Robin >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: <http://lists.newciv.org/pipermail/trom/attachments/20161031 >> /400a5dd4/attachment.html> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TROM mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >> >> >> End of TROM Digest, Vol 145, Issue 2 >> ************************************ >> > _______________________________________________ > TROM mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom >
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
