************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************ 05:33 05.11.2016
The weekend is around the corner and I thought I create some time and do a quick write up for your and my edification. Here it is: Actually there are no such things like goodness or badness. They do not exist actually _because_ they are a matter of consideration and opinion. Only your considerations can create goodness and badness. As such they are a matter of illusion. Which puts them in the same class as anything else which surrounds us. It is simply an additional aspect of our reality which all together is the product of our considerations. Since you can change your considerations or opinions any time, corollary you manufacture and change your world permanently. The seemingly unreality of this idea comes only form the agreed-upon agreements done in the first place when you decided to be part of the game; to be part of a prefabricated "raw" world; to participate in an endeavor which is called co-creation. You forgot about that fact on purpose. Now you get confused since you experience an effect which you were never exposed to in your home universe or anytime you deal exclusively with your own creations caused exclusively by your own postulates. On the other hand you learned what the spirit of play is, which is at the core of co-creation. In the course of engaging on such a playground a being now and then can fail (lose a game embedded in the larger play) and thus gets erroneously convinced of the necessity to operate on the victors postulate. Thus we have what, in TROM is called, mis-ownership of postulate. That is one core and cause of aberration. At the beginning I had placed this sentence: "there is no such things like goodness or badness". It is not possible to give "evidence" or "counter-evidence" regarding that statement. (That impossibility, by the way, is the specific property which classifies an axiom.) It can only be hinted at, by means of metaphors or examples, why an axiom is something to rely on as a foundation for a philosophical construct or even an universe. I try to give you an idea now: We can say: "there is no such thing like good or bad apples." Because the goodness or badness of an apple is only a matter of consideration and opinion. (Even a rotten apple may be considered good - for instance by an insect or microorganism which devours it) Only thing we can say with certainty is that apples exist. And they do exist at various states of ripeness. There are states of ripeness which we consider as better or more desirable than other states of ripeness. Again it is a matter of consideration and opinion. In terms of a race, a single member of a race, be it humans or otherwise, angles or spirits, ... we do sometimes talk about ripeness of a being or a society. But more often we say "maturity" or "grade" or "grade of maturity" when talking about life, theta; and not MEST. So we can conclude that there is no such thing like goodness or badness beyond our considerations or opinions. What we see around us are only different stages of development towards higher states. Therefore we can state: Criticism or judgment in terms of good/bad of others is always criticism of oneself as well. Because we all have done the whole cycle of maturing from begin to end. Therefore criticism is a futile endeavor. (If it tells anything at all, then it usually tells more about the critic than the criticized ;-) The apparency (not the actuality) of existence seemingly teaches us otherwise and makes us believe otherwise. That gives rise to all kind of conflicts and insanities. A factor of importance for mixing-up apparency and actuality in the MEST universe is the factor of time. But time itself is a matter of consideration and actually an illusion. (That's why "timebreaking" or incident running (no matter if narrative or in chains) can work at all. By which I mean: to work for a mind which is designed to interface a MEST environment. That kind of processing would be worthless for other minds which were made for other universes where time - as we know it - does not exist). Since time is not an actuality it becomes obvious that a sequential occurrence in term of cause -> effect does only exist as far as the mind is concerned and not beyond that. In other words anything is simultaneous. But this state of is-ness is perceived by a being as a sequence of events, a chain of incidents along a virtual time-track, with and by the assistance of a mind. The mind serves as a filter and a kind of compass in order to not get utterly lost and confused in the MEST universe. (Theoretically one could immediately as-is his whole track in an instance if he is in very, very well shape. It is kind of funny that a being, which is so well, has no necessity to as-is anything ;-) As long as one is still interested in that universe it is recommendable to not resolve the mind completely, just heal it or repair it. Like it is not advisable for a sailor to throw the compass and sextant over board. If the instruments mislead, you just repair them. Conclusion: Ron's version of Axiom 31 can be regarded as superior to Dennis' truncated version. Most likely Dennis tried to challenge "The Old Man". He failed because he did not have yet reached the intellectual capacities of his foster father. Both personalities held different positions on the tone scale. Other pieces of circumstantial evidence are, that Dennis had perceptional troubles like sub-optimum hearing throughout his life and bad eyesight in later years. (An auditor would as well be suspicious about a PC who tells that he is "easy-running". Of course he would not tell him. It's when a PC does not run anything at all. It's because of an improper gradient for that person. Either too low or too high.) Interesting that Dennis states in regard of Axiom 31 that he had reason to think that Ron himself, in his later years, had doubts about the validity of his Axiom 31. Dennis only makes vague remarks that something in what Hubbard said later hinted at that. Perhaps that was only because Dennis' perceived whatever Ron said very selectively in order to fit it into his own system of believes. That would be quite natural. Further it would not be too unusual if Ron in fact had doubts in old age about something he had said when he was younger. He simply was at his best in terms of intellectual potency and tone when he was younger. One can see that quite easy when studying and listening to material from the 50ties and early 60ties and comparing that to material two decades later. Things got more solid, less up-lifting, more degenerated. Still this all together falls into the class of speculation. And all speculations, be it Dennis', mine or anyone else's, are overruled by the mere fact that Ron did never bother to reformulate Axiom 31 in later years. Nothing in the above does in any way imply that the works of Dennis Stevens are below those of Ron Hubbard. Nor does it imply that they are above. They are similar in many ways and simultaneously different in many other ways. Neither does it tell us anything objectively about goodness or badness of those persons. They simply operated - in there time and space - on somewhat different levels of maturity. Which does certainly not - by application of clean logic - establish any good reason to start a game on a high level of solidity or earnestness about that matters :-) One can learn a lot form _apparent_ errors or discrepancies. Often much more than from the rest which can be regarded as "area cognita" *) and which does not disturb. Robin *) I just coined that term in following the term "terra incognita". By "area cognita" I mean: cognition-free area, subject, space, ... I'm almost impressed of my own creativity ;-) _______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
