*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Hi Pete,
thanks for your comment. I do intersperse some remarks into your
text:
Robin
I have heard the theory that Earth is the isolation ward for the
criminally insane and we were all dumped here to protect the rest of the
universe form our bad behavior.
I've heard that story as well. Guess it's wide spread with scios.
But the theme is present as well in some religions in the form of
heavens and hells which are arranged in a kind of hierarchical
fashion for the purpose of maturing (betterment) of beings up to
divinity (sometimes referred to as nirvana). I do not comment on those
things more than that: I rather prefer to call them a metaphor instead
a theory.
Your theory necessitates a fundamental benevolent authority who will
sort out the more insane from the less insane and provide the sane and
benevolent guards to keep them cloistered.
Because of the connexion with what you said above I assume you refer with
"theory" to the "quarantine-proposal". It was meant as a possible solution
(there may be many more, and much better ones I'm not aware of) for the
problem of criminality.
The statement that "... necessitates a fundamental benevolent authority
..." you leave unproven. So I can only classify it as your opinion.
To reduce the goodness/badness issue of Axiom 31 to criminality only does
not do justice to that axiom. It's scope is much, much larger.
Ron did not mention beauty/ugliness in one sentence together
with goodness/badness to have the latter replaced in the heads of some
people with terror, rape, murder, a.s.o. I do not get it why people are
so biased towards those "spectacular" things. Possibly too much TV and
mass-media consume? Makes people stupid. Have you ever met a terrorist,
a murder or rapist in your culture? I haven't in this life.
There is no such set of Guardian Angles around to protect us from
ourselves so why put up this theory?
How do you know? Perhaps there are Guardian Angles which have saved us
from 3rd WW? I personally neither say that they exist nor that they
do not exist. I've no evidence for their existence and none to the
contrary.
Because I can not say for sure Guardians exist, I do not rely on them
and rather use my brains.
I have evidence from looking into the subject of history which indicates
that folks made progress along a line of great ideas which served as
paradigms to shape cultures in their time. Therefore I rely on ideas
which seem plausible to me. And I like to communicate them. One never
knows if they fall on fertile soil :-)
Those ideas emerge sometimes slowly, sometimes abrupt, sometimes born
in great pain sometimes joyful.
Reality is that people who are not compulsively playing games are good.
People who are compulsively playing games elevate the importance of
winning to the point that they justify any behavior no matter how
inhumane in the name of winning.
I respect your reality and opinion in that regard. And I even agree with
the inherent basic meaning. I only dislike the representation in such a
simplified black/white form. Because the statement does neglect the
possibility that a seemingly bad game might be part of a greater scheme
unknown (not understood) by us.
The only people who can spread this understanding to the population of
Earth is us.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.
But it is not necessary for me or you to do that work. It is only
necessary for us to clean up our own cases, become master game players
and find a way out of this universe by letting go of our compulsions to
keep coming back lifetime after lifetime to continue playing the games.
Particularly the first sentence in the above paragraph falls in the
class of "believe".
And doesn't it partly contradict what you said just before that?
Do you agree that this universe is a co-creation?
If no, it would explain why you hold the above opinion.
If yes, your believes are contradicting each other to some degree.
I see it as necessary for me to do some of that work you're
referring to. Which does not mean that I've made it my one and only
game to save the world from its own stupidity. Neither am I willing
nor do I have yet the potency to do so.
But if I see that someone struggles obviously with a misinterpreted
concept or misunderstood words I do not just shut up and wait
until they fall out of a game. Yes, I know one can always pick up the
pieces and put them together again later.
Never the less I accept it when others care only about their own
case and businesses. It's great when they do. It's already a big
advance. And further I do agree that in many instances it is better
to not intervene or only intervene when help is asked for.
I do not think, that you're the kind of person who would just
stand by and look when seeing someone doing a very dangerous or stupid
thing. Would you really think: "Well, I'm busy with caring about my own
case; to hell with that kid messing with dad's gun."?
I guess we would not surviving too well on a 1st-Dynamic-only-approach.
---
Okay, that was the answer/comment to your post from my point of view.
The subject line however refers to Axiom 31 once more.
I've myself trailed off-topic terribly :-)
Below you Pete - and everybody else whom it may concern - is
invited to read my final attempt (I promise ;-) to explain Axiom 31.
This time I take another route of argumentation. One I should have chosen
already from the start. (I think it was Albert Einstein who said:
"All thing go this way: from primitive -> to complicated -> to simple."
Here we go:
Axioms describe the isness of this world. They do not
say anything about what this world should be or could be.
They certainly are not meant to represent the isnesses
of heaven or nirvana.
They simply describe the reality of our _*co-created*_
MEST universe.
Those who can not wrap their heads around Axiom 31 think
about the axiom's meaning either at a stimulus-response
level or simply have misunderstood the words and/or meaning
of its definition. The latter is easily remedied by word-
clearing. The reason for the first one is a fixation
upon the words "goodness" and "badness" which can have a
hypnotic effect on humans. Those words carry significances
which serve as buttons in the mind of many individuals.
(Seems that the words "opinion" and "consideration" do
not have that much hypnotic power. Either people have no idea
what they mean or they're simply no buttons for most of us.
That's even more interesting when you analyze Axiom 31.
In the descriptive sentence the words goodness/badness
are the "passive" parts while e.g. "opinion" is the part
which manipulates the former terms.
You can see this when you imagine the Axiom 31 definition
as a kind of mechanism or machine with levers, buttons, cog
wheels, a.s.o. Assign those elements to the key-words.
Make a mock-up or a drawing of such a construct.
Okay, now what is the lever which - most likely - does make the
machine do something meaningful?)
If they would think once again analytically and if they
would clarify the words first, it would become obvious
to them that Axiom 31 (as all other axioms) only tells us
about how the universe _is_. And certainly not how it should
be or could be.
If you change the wording of the axiom it will no longer be
congruent with the co-created reality and thus rendered
meaningless in relation to reality.
If you have a desire to change the axiom you must at first
change the universe. Make the universe a better place, then
- and only then - we're legitimated to change wording or
replace or even nullify a certain axiom.
If one thinks he lives in a world where goodness and badness
are not a matter of consideration he most likely is in a state
of amnesiac to a more or lesser degree. Which is "normal" ;-)
One only needs to take a look around.
Now, do we live in the best of all worlds or don't we?
If you feel depressed about that somehow, it's advisable to
change your attitude and concentrate on the goodness-part.
(Or just stop watching TV.)
It is up to us to add to that goodness. We're free to create
our own universe where this axioms have less or no meaning.
If one can make (motivate) others to co-create a better
world with him, the undesirable aspects of this world will
gradually diminish and the descriptive power of Axiom 31 -
as we currently know it - will diminish to the same degree.
(Any government, ruling power, legal entity, a.s.o. should
make it it's most important aim to finally dissolve itself
(make itself unnecessary). What we see in current reality
is exactly the opposite.
In terms of a family this means:
It's the most important task of a parent to make itself
obsolete for the offspring. While the most important task
for the child is corollary to stand on its own feet and
migrate into a state of grown-up as fast as possible.
Parenting which does not support such a development, or
hamper it, is lousy parenting.
In terms of the individual's 1st dynmaic it could mean:
To resolve ones mind's dysfunctions; make the reactive part
of the mind obsolete.)
If you think you can resolve this universe by changing the
wording of a valid axiom - like Dennis tried to do - and
then expect that the universe bows to your wishful thinking
- be ready for disappointment.
If you think that an instable datum like the "common-sense" of
an insane society will save you - be ready for even more
disappointment.
One can do much better than that when looking
inside and rely on ones own consciousness instead.
It's usually not good enough to just reverse cause and
effect and expect things to go your way. You can do that in
your home universe perhaps, but for sure not in a co-created
world.
(It would be like some scientist hoping to change the paths
of the planets by making "adjustments" to Newton's formulas.
When the planets do not comply, they try to explain
it away by stating how wrong and bad Newton was.)
One can do a lot with an axiom but one can not prove its truth.
Simply because it's the agreed upon central consideration.
(That is the Scientology definition - the one we work with.)
The standard definition - from the dictionary - states that an
Axiom is a self evident truth.
Which is nonsense because a truth is a static. And a static
never carries a label (attribute) like: "self-evident".
One can describe a static in terms of absences.
E.g. the absence of space, time, mass, wavelength, a.s.o.
"Agreed upon" indicates that we're dealing with _co-creation_.
You have to agree upon something in order to create a common
reality (or universe).
(Please look up the definitions in the Tech. Dictionary for
yourself if you feel unsure. Otherwise you're liable to not
know what this is all about.)
Best regards
Robin
-----
Keep on TROMing
Pete McLaughlin
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 7, 2016, at 11:26 AM, The Resolution of Mind list
<[email protected]> wrote:
*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Well, let's take another look at the subject at hand.
This time from a slightly different angle.
First of all the opponents of Ron's Axiom 31 base their argumentation
on the wrong assumption that man is basically bad(!).
And they use that assumption to prove that Axiom 31 contradicts
e.g. The Creed Of Scientology. Which as its most important point
states that "Man is basically good".
This is one of the most funny lines of argument I've ever heard of :-)
If they would not base their arguing on "man is basically bad"
as they obviously do (because why then should they have reason
to attack Axiom 31?) but instead accept that "man is basically good"
then what would they have to fear from Axiom 31?
If man is basically good the worry about man's opinions and
considerations have no basis. (Remember: Goodness/Badness is
a matter of consideration and opinion - Axiom 31)
As a side-note: Anyone entertaining the opinion that man is bad
must include himself as well as a matter of consequence.
(So if we could get rid of the Axiom 31 opponents perhaps we
could have a peaceful world? (I'm just joking, ok.))
Now let's take a look at the other side.
How many people of that 7.3 billion inhabiting of planet earth
have ever heard of Scientology Axiom 31?
How many of them agree with it?
And how many of those are heavy criminals?
I don't know, but I guess it's not more than a few hundred.
As a matter of fact we have more than enough of what the good
people wish for. There is a tremendous amount of laws, justice,
creeds, commandments, constitutions, amendments, motto, codes,
creeds, regulations, ... you name it. And Billions know that stuff.
One really wonders why this planet does not find peace and freedom
from crime and terror.
(Actually I do not really wonder, I'm very well aware of the
reasons why. *)
So we could conclude that the rules are not worth the paper
they're written on.
*) Justice tries to replace the natural consequence of a
crime with an artificial consequence (a false experience)
for the criminal. Of course the criminal feels mistreated.
He is denied to repent on his own volition. And he is
provided with a strong motivator against society.
That's why "justice" as known in our immature society creates
even more crime which needs even more "justice". That is no
solution. It is known long since: "Evil begets more evil."
The solution to that dilemma lies in clearing and education.
If parents flunk on educating their offspring properly, society
must step in. Provide facilities for clearing, education and
work for delinquents in order to rehabilitate them. Allow them
to go back into society according to their performance, supervised
at first. If you see fit forgive them and let them go their way.
Criminals who had committed heavy crimes like murder, rape, child
molesting and the like, must not be punished but be isolated from
society (put under quarantine) in a remote secluded location e.g.
an isle. They should be provided with tools and all necessary raw
materials to build up their own social structures.
Leave them alone and check in at regular intervals how that
society is doing. Provide corrective measures as needed in form
of advice and/or clearing. Treat them well and equal to the same
standards you apply in your own society. But do not allow them
to reproduce.
In due time criminality should vanish from the planets surface.
Robin
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
End of TROM Digest, Vol 145, Issue 17
*************************************
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
