NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 14

 
timbo: Accordingly, if there is still no evidence of an afterlife
Well why, there is such evidence, and plenty of it, a lot of it. Another thing is that you probably don't consider them serious, as they are not scientific (not reproducible).

Here is one such, from the Scientology milieu, at the level of legend (I heard it from local authorities, when I was seriously hanging out there). There were two Scientologists (husband and wife), they were taking courses in the local branch of the Church of Scientology, and they had a child, about five years old and very capable. The kid was weird, babbling about a past life, OT7 and some kind of engram from a fatal accident that he wanted erased, and other Scientology terms for the highly advanced that only those in the know would know.

Well, the parents, not to be fools (also Scientologists after all, they should have thought), took the child to the Church department, to an auditor (something like a psychiatrist in Freudianism). The child quickly recounted everything - what name he had had in the past life, which branch of the Church he had gone to, what Scientology heights he had reached (this is OT7, the level is very high) and how he died. The archives were pulled up (and they record everything and keep it there for a long time) - and that's exactly how it turned out!

Here it is, direct evidence of the existence of past lives. But it is direct only for those who are inside and know much enough inside this system. A vicious circle appears: in order to receive such direct testimonies, one must be inside. And from outside, working in NIHRAVO (i.e. truly scientific organization), you will not receive any evidences, because you will not be ready for them...
 
Mathemat:
The parents, who were not fools (they were also Scientologists, so they should have thought about it), took the child to a Church department, to an auditor (something like a psychiatrist in Freudianism). The child quickly told them everything - what name he had had in his previous life, which branch of the Church he had gone to, what he had reached as a Scientologist (this is OT7, a very high level) and how he died. The archives were searched (they record everything and keep it there for a long time), and it turned out that way!
In what year did this momentous event take place? How many years does it take to reach that high level? "Long kept" is how long? How old is this ancient teaching?
Somehow this story doesn't even pass the most trivial reality check on dates.

"Want to get rich? Make up your own religion!"
 
timbo: "You want to get rich? Invent your own religion!"
Well yes, timbo, one of the first media associations associated with Hubbard's name is exactly that. Well you already know everything then.
In what year did this momentous event take place? How many years does it take to reach this high level? "Long kept" is how long? How old is this ancient teaching?
"In what year": the story itself was no later than 1994 (I was told it then). That's all I know, and it's precisely from the category of matters of faith, not evidence.

"How many years to spend" - depends on the money you have (and money in the official Church takes a lot - several hectakilobaks: one hour of procedures at the highest levels costs about several thousand quid). You can do it in a year, or even faster (I think Tom Cruise made it to OT7 in about half a year). But it would probably not be of very high quality. You have to take not only basic courses, but also additional ones. Then longer, of course.

How long they "keep" - I don't know, but probably forever. If they've got a billion-year contract in the Sea Org, then what about the retention time for information like that. ...

"How old is the doctrine?" Officially, since about 1950-51, and unofficially, according to the Founder, many thousands.

I won't go on about Scientology, there's no need for a reality check.
 
Mathemat:
I won't expand on the subject of Scientology any further, there's no need for a reality check.
Well, don't do it, don't do it... It would be enough to present to the scientific community a 5 year old child with the intelligence of an adult, even if he is a Scientologist, not an imbecile. Just a dozen adult questions to a "child" and a worldwide sensation! However, the question is chewed up in the depths of the church, instead of facts there is a "one grandmother said" story. Was there a boy?
 
And fuck knows, timbo, whether there was a boy or not. The Church of Scientology is quite coded in terms of management methods, and some of their techniques are, to put it mildly, not very clear. Maybe they did charge him, but decided not to mention scientology (well, say, at the request of the parents)?

P.S. In light of the in-house books with descriptions of real working techniques that I saw when I was there, such a boy is very, very likely - even if the story is made up. It's again a matter of faith.
 
Mathemat:
P.S. In light of the in-house books with descriptions of real working techniques that I saw when I was there, such a boy is very, very likely - even if the story is made up.
Do you want me to write a book saying that I am another reincarnation of the one deity Buddha-Jesus-Allah-...-Kulthu. For the sake of credibility, I'll label it "for internal use". And then I will refer to it as an objective and independent source of information. According to this book it will be very probable that I am the great Kulthu.
 
Thanks for the suggestion, timbo, I'll think about it.

And in general, your scepticism is understandable. But the fact is that at least some of these techniques really work, it's been tested. When there was a terrible earthquake in Sakhalin in 1995 (summer), our staff from the Hubbard Humanitarian Centre in Moscow went there and used some of the techniques, and they worked brilliantly (assistants, for example): bad wounds were literally healed before our eyes.

If you want to see for yourself, start with L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. It doesn't work on everyone equally effectively (on me - frankly badly), but - it works. It was Hubbard's first publication on the whole thing, which later grew into Scientology, and the first book with which I fell ill with Scientology.

P.S. The real attraction for a technically minded person is that there is no unnecessary mysticism in the presentation of the material, all ambiguities are immediately clarified, and the complexity of the material grows naturally, in proportion to its degree of assimilation.
 
Mathemat:
If you want to check it out for yourself, start with L. Ron Hubbard's book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. It doesn't work for everyone (for me it's frankly bad), but it works. It was Hubbard's first publication on the whole thing, which later grew into Scientology, and the first book that made me sick of Scientology.
Thanks for the offer, but I have Financial Economics: with applications to investments, insurance and pensions on my agenda.
The book is as thick as Hubbard's, but I think the techniques outlined there will be more useful to me.
 
timbo:
Morality is a purely pragmatic notion. To begin with, the concept of morality differs from culture to culture. In Papua, it may still be considered high morality to eat your enemy, thereby elevating yourself and going to the astral. What kind of morality are we talking about? In today's western-type society, "don't kill", "don't steal" and other "don't..." are economically profitable. They are simply encouraged by the ruble, and morality and spirituality have nothing to do with it. There is a clear tendency that the higher the level of material well-being of society, the lower the level of crime, corruption, traffic accidents, environmental pollution, destruction of historical heritage, etc. Are the people of Sweden, for example, more moral than the Russians? But the statistics of all sorts of NOT violations somehow say that in Sweden there are many times fewer of them.

That's exactly what I wrote - the historical, incoming nature of morality => its relativity. Classic materialism. And everything written below does not correspond to this very practical reality. In modern society it is economically profitable to steal, kill and so on. It is not morality that holds it back, but the colossal apparatus of violence, the sufficiently good work of the organs of that apparatus, and the system of punishments. And the "clear tendency" is also a fiction. If we can still argue about the level of corruption (there it is not less, but more. Only its methods are more subtle and not in direct conflict with the law. Pay attention - with the law, not with morality), then about road accidents, crime, destruction of historical heritage, etc. we cannot even talk about it. This is something that has changed in recent decades, but only because western society has already reached the brink, especially in pollution.

Anyway. That's all beside the point. If you don't kill just because you can get the electric chair, it has nothing to do with morality.

And to get an idea of what we are talking about here, you just need to take all your principles by which you live, all your ideas of what is good and bad, good and evil etc. and cross out everything that has any material, selfish, personal, emotional, physiological and other interest-driven motives. If anything remains, it will be that which constitutes the aspects of morality.

timbo:
This is called empirical generalisation. A generalisation of what is observed. Accordingly, if there is still no evidence for the existence of an afterlife, one can accept the probability of its existence as negligible. A condescendingly patronising tone in the absence of any argument is a strong move in discussion, I would say highly moral, all superhumans do so.


The evidence is overwhelming. I know dozens of them. Tens of thousands have been described in books. What's more, for the most part, no one is interested in collecting such evidence anymore. In ancient times there were quite a few books that described how to live and what to do in order to achieve certain things. They used to be secret, now they are available to everyone. It is a direct guide to obtain all the desired proofs oneself. A person who wants to sit and do nothing, but have those around him fuss over him and try, by slipping proofs, to persuade him nevertheless, can hardly count on anything. Even at school or university, in spite of all the evidence in the textbook, if one wants to learn something, one must do everything with one's own hands.

Mankind has had an idealistic conception for thousands of years. Even 200 years ago the word "atheist" was a swear word. Can we really suggest that all mankind has been fundamentally wrong all this time, that is believing in something that is a mistake ? I would say otherwise: the direction has been correct and quite justified by practice, but the level of awareness has gradually changed. From the lower astral, which ate its enemies, to the awareness of the one God, who is the source and cause of the unity of this entire World. And it's the same story with reincarnation. For thousands of years these notions have existed, but each generation demands its own experience and its own proof. And it certainly gets it. Otherwise, all this would have died a long time ago.

By the way, the example given by Mathemat , from the category of ordinary. It is enough to watch modern TV programs about indigo children to understand that there are hundreds of such cases in Russia alone.

And now I wonder, is there any proof that would motivate you to change your worldview? After all, what was enough for me, you may seem like meaningless nonsense. And a change of outlook - it's not like changing socks. I have many arguments, but firstly, it is not my aim to change anyone's mind, and secondly, everyone has his own arguments.

If my tone seemed condescending and patronizing to you, I'm sorry and I apologize. I didn't mean it and I didn't aim for it.

 
Yurixx писал (а): И "четкая тенденция"- тоже вымысел. Если еще об уровне коррупции можно поспорить(там она не меньше, а больше. только методы у нее более тонкие,не вступающие в прямой конфликт с законом. обрати внимание -с законом, а не с нравственностью), то о ДТП, криминале, разрушенииисторического наследия и пр. даже говорить не приходится. Этов последние десятилетия кое-что изменилось, но только потому,что западное общество дошло уже до грани, особенно в загрязненииокружающей среды.
Why don't you search the net for statistics on corruption, crime, traffic accidents, air pollution levels in Russia and in developed western countries, and then we can talk about fictions.
"We don't want to look at the world through Sienkiewicz's eyes!"