*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
I just take something from the header: coexistance.
By that we have agreed to be connected to all we coexist with. The
solution cannot be found there. You find it in godhood where you are all
of them.
Also you do not find it way below coexistence where there is ethics and
reason. It is too short sighted, lacking too much awareness.
If the whole world is at peace and one guy wants war, there will be war.
It is the counter thesis to the peace movement from the 70`s when people
philosophized: what if there is war and nobody attends ?
cheers
xriz
Am 15.09.2012 02:53, schrieb Aarre Peltomaa:
*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
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
peltomaa.aa...@gmail.com <mailto:peltomaa.aa...@gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Pete Mclaughlin
<pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com
<mailto:pete_mclaughlin_93...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
<mailto:trom@lists.newciv.org>
************
Hi Ant
Would you post this to TROM? This is excellent material.
Sincerely
Pete
On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Ant Phillips
<ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk <mailto:ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk>>
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
<http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio>
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
Trom@lists.newciv.org <mailto:Trom@lists.newciv.org>
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
Trom@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
_______________________________________________
Trom mailing list
Trom@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
