DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Things of the Mind
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11922--------------------------------------------------
Mental Machines
By: Kerry Date: April 18, 2016, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ever wonder how you can do some things automatically without
thinking? Like if someone asks what two plus two is, do you
really need to think about it? Or what five times seven equals?
Or do you have to think about how to ride a bicycle after you
learn how?
Scientology explains these things by what some call "mental
machines." You can train your mind to perform certain things.
There are two types of mental machines too. The first type is
under your conscious control, more or less. If you want, you
can ignore what it tells you. You can override it. If you
have a gadget that you can use without thinking and it breaks,
often you can retrain yourself to be able to use it in its
broken state. If you are used to chewing your food a certain
way, you can retrain yourself consciously to chew it more or
less. Nervous tics are mental machines -- blinking your eyes
under stress for example -- if you're focusing on it, you can
force yourself not to blink.
The second type can be problematical since it does things on
its own and in general you can't ignore it and sometimes you
can't override it.
These machines are real but not physically. They are
constructed out of mental mass and energy; and generally they
have have been made by the individual to do jobs for him,
usually having been set up so as to come into operation
automatically under certain certain circumstances. The
problems arise when the machines get out of control and start
running the person instead of the person finding the machines
useful.
Various mental problems can result from mental machines running
amok; and even some physical problems can be caused by them.
#Post#: 11924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mental Machines
By: HOLLAND Date: April 18, 2016, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Ever wonder how you can do some things automatically
without thinking? Like if someone asks what two plus two is,
do you really need to think about it? Or what five times seven
equals? Or do you have to think about how to ride a bicycle
after you learn how?[/quote]
It could be, Kerry, the working of the unconscious, or rather
subconscious, that part of the brain whose working and thoughts
have not risen into the consciousness of the person having the
mental activities and thoughts in question.
[quote]Scientology explains these things by what some call
"mental machines." You can train your mind to perform certain
things. There are two types of mental machines too. The first
type is under your conscious control, more or less. If you
want, you can ignore what it tells you. You can override it.
If you have a gadget that you can use without thinking and it
breaks, often you can retrain yourself to be able to use it in
its broken state. If you are used to chewing your food a
certain way, you can retrain yourself consciously to chew it
more or less. Nervous tics are mental machines -- blinking
your eyes under stress for example -- if you're focusing on it,
you can force yourself not to blink.[/quote]
This first type seems to be the working of consciousness that we
are aware of with the subconscious working in tandem to it.
[quote]The second type can be problematical since it does
things on its own and in general you can't ignore it and
sometimes you can't override it.[/quote]
This could be the subconscious working on its own as a unity;
or, if it is somehow split destructively into various
functioning and autonomous loci such as in schizophrenia. I
feel entirely comfortable with the idea that there are normal
splits in the subconscious and may emerge into consciousness
that we are aware of and that your posting seems to hint of.
Regrettably, I am not aware of psychologists and psychiatrists
interested in possibly healthy forms of schizophrenia.
[quote]These machines are real but not physically. They are
constructed out of mental mass and energy; and generally they
have have been made by the individual to do jobs for him,
usually having been set up so as to come into operation
automatically under certain certain circumstances. The
problems arise when the machines get out of control and start
running the person instead of the person finding the machines
useful.[/quote]
This is very interesting, Kerry. I wonder why the
scientologists use the term “mental machines” for a mental or
biological function. Perhaps this idea goes back to the science
fiction that L. Ron Hubbard developed in the course of his
fiction writing. Maybe the original ideas surrounding the ideas
involving “mental machines” involve high technology matrixed to
them, these features of the mind, which allow for the
magnification of human abilities and machinery. I am not,
though, familiar with Hubbard’s science fiction writings and so
cannot confirm them.
I am not entirely sure if there is a thing such as “mental mass”
per se. “Mental energy” would seem to have a biological basis
rooted in human metabolism and also in the nervous system.
[quote]Various mental problems can result from mental machines
running amok; and even some physical problems can be caused by
them.[/quote]
This would seem to be apt description of destructive splits in
human consciousness such as schizophrenia.
In a certain sense, “mental machines” have appeared in fiction
posted on Love God Only in the two stories, Authoring A Story
Together and The River of No Return. In the first story, the
Hospirin most likely have a “mental machine” which I call an AI
or autonomous intellection, which would be an autonomous mental
functioning that is not in the conscous awareness of the host
infected by the parasite. Jella would have to confirm this, of
course, and provide further detailing concerning it. In both
stories, the Star People, would have multiple autonomous
intellections functioning as part of their psionics, and is
something that makes them so dangerous.
I am now curious about how L. Ron Hubbard made use of this idea.
I wonder if his ideas parallel some of my own fictions.
An informal study of schizophrenia has been a long-time
occupation on my part. It has been fascinating and has made my
science fiction/fantasy writing possible.
#Post#: 11930--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mental Machines
By: Kerry Date: April 18, 2016, 10:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=1070.msg11924#msg11924
date=1461019112]
It could be, Kerry, the working of the unconscious, or rather
subconscious, that part of the brain whose working and thoughts
have not risen into the consciousness of the person having the
mental activities and thoughts in question. [/quote]What is the
unconscious? How did it get there? Hubbard discovered that
some things in the subconscious started off as conscious and
then got put into the subconscious for convenience. Take
someone learning how to type. Practice, practice, practice --
and at first you think about it; but later it is submerged into
the subconscious. You think of a word and most of the time
your fingers hit the right keys without you needing to put any
conscious attention on it.
He also discovered that events which happen when someone is
unconscious (drugs, boozes, accidents or violence) are recorded
by the subconscious. That is fairly easy to verify too if you
know someone who drinks to excess and has memory lapses the next
day. He may forget what he did the previous night; but if you
get him rip-roaring drunk again, presto there the memories are
again -- he can recall them perfectly well. What is said
around you during operations can also form mental machinery --
or circuits.
[quote]This first type seems to be the working of consciousness
that we are aware of with the subconscious working in tandem to
it. [/quote]It really is a convenience when the subconscious is
performing correctly; but if it is misbehaving, our minds can
resemble computers with viruses. I'd say most
obsessive-compulsive behavior is linked to mental machines.
[quote]This could be the subconscious working on its own as a
unity; or, if it is somehow split destructively into various
functioning and autonomous loci such as in schizophrenia. I
feel entirely comfortable with the idea that there are normal
splits in the subconscious and may emerge into consciousness
that we are aware of and that your posting seems to hint of.
Regrettably, I am not aware of psychologists and psychiatrists
interested in possibly healthy forms of schizophrenia.[/quote]It
may depend on the definition of schizophrenia. When I was
studying psychology, my teacher told me psychologists didn't
know what it was! At the time, if they couldn't diagnose you
with something else, they tended to say you must have
schizophrenia. Of course, there are some key clues.
However I'd say if you are in control of your mind, it's not
schizophrenia since one person is in control. I'd add too that
if certain thoughts might occur to you and you realize it
wouldn't be wise to tell others or to act on them, that too is
not schizophrenia. I can be aware of more than one reality at a
time. I saw a "shadowy figure" at my Father's funeral. We
didn't communicate; but I was guessing he was visiting to see
how his own funeral was going. That was one reality. The
other was I was in a church with many other people with a
funeral going on. I did not discuss what I was seeing with
other people. One way to judge mental health is if you know
how to relate to what others consider reality. I think I know
what others think is real, and I usually "fit in" with it --
even if other things are going on which I know others aren't
seeing or hearing.
On the other hand, I read at another forum once where a woman
said she saw a dark shadowy figure; and she turned to the woman
next to her and asked her about it. I thought that was
slightly mentally unbalanced -- since the woman who could see
ought to have known the other woman most likely wasn't seeing
it.
[quote]This is very interesting, Kerry. I wonder why the
scientologists use the term “mental machines” for a mental or
biological function.[/quote]They behave like machines. And
they aren't physical. They interface with the biological unit
however. Hubbard also discovered that most headaches are caused
by collisions between opposing ideas -- the mental masses
collide and form ridges. Often one is the truth and the other
a lie -- but both could be untrue, I guess. But if you find
them both and then pick one as true and reject the other, the
headache will go away.
There is often mental mass involved in toothaches too; and that
goes way back in evolution before we were even "humans." Those
ideas are "inherited" more or less along with the biological
unit; but if something rouses them, they can create these mental
masses to occur.
I heard stories too from my friend who once ran the Washington
Org. He said they'd be working sometimes at getting this mental
circuit or that under conscious control, and the person would
blow off most or all his mental machinery. He didn't know how
to go to the bathroom without consciously thinking about it and
recreating the mental circuits. \
I also "observed" mental masses around someone once. It was
as if his head was surrounded by a dark cloud.
Most people experience something but rarely see anything. Have
you ever known someone who depressed a room of people just by
walking in? Or perhaps the whole room seemed to get a little
darker? That's an oppressive type of mental mass.
[quote]Perhaps this idea goes back to the science fiction that
L. Ron Hubbard developed in the course of his fiction writing.
Maybe the original ideas surrounding the ideas involving “mental
machines” involve high technology matrixed to them, these
features of the mind, which allow for the magnification of human
abilities and machinery. I am not, though, familiar with
Hubbard’s science fiction writings and so cannot confirm
them.[/quote]His science fiction is trippy, that is for sure;
but you can't correlate things exactly since some of his science
fiction doesn't meld precisely with Scientology. I would say
his mind was open to all sorts of ideas, both in fiction and in
philosophy. Don't forget too that he was trained as a
physicist; and there is no doubt in my mind that the E-meter
works by measuring how the mind is influencing the electrical
fields of the physical body -- the ohms -- the resistance.
You can see the needle jump when you say something to someone
hooked up on an E-meter.
[quote]I am not entirely sure if there is a thing such as
“mental mass” per se. “Mental energy” would seem to have a
biological basis rooted in human metabolism and also in the
nervous system. [/quote]
Hubbard didn't go into this so far as I know since he was
results-oriented sometimes and ignored some theory; but I'd say
the mental energy and mass exist at the plane known as the
"mental plane" and also on the plane known as the astral plane.
Someone once created a flying animal -- I'd rather not specify
in public what it was -- and sent it to me when I was sleeping.
It hit my body and created a minor electrical disturbance. I
absorbed it and decided to trap it. Eventually I let it go
back to the person who sent it along with a message, "Don't do
this again." I was wide awake another time when a black "orb"
was bothering me and my cat -- and the cat could see it since he
moved his head to follow it -- and the orb hit my solar plexus.
It was supposed to alarm me; but I laughed and said, "Is that
the best you can do?"
Such "things" are not spirits so far as I can tell but rather
creations of spirits. I do believe I could manufacture them
myself and send them out into the world -- but it's not
advisable. We tend to have only so much "mind" -- and sending
off bits and pieces like that isn't smart.
[quote]This would seem to be apt description of destructive
splits in human consciousness such as schizophrenia.
In a certain sense, “mental machines” have appeared in fiction
posted on Love God Only in the two stories, Authoring A Story
Together and The River of No Return. In the first story, the
Hospirin most likely have a “mental machine” which I call an AI
or autonomous intellection, which would be an autonomous mental
functioning that is not in the conscous awareness of the host
infected by the parasite. Jella would have to confirm this, of
course, and provide further detailing concerning it. In both
stories, the Star People, would have multiple autonomous
intellections functioning as part of their psionics, and is
something that makes them so dangerous.
I am now curious about how L. Ron Hubbard made use of this idea.
I wonder if his ideas parallel some of my own fictions.
An informal study of schizophrenia has been a long-time
occupation on my part. It has been fascinating and has made my
science fiction/fantasy writing possible.
[/quote]People often know things at a certain level; and when
they write science fiction, the truth can come out.
Let me get now to the next thing I want to discuss. I posit
that there are two types of so-called demons. Jesus indicated
there was; and it seems so to me too.
The first type is an artificial being which seems to be alive on
its own, but it's really a creation of someone, a mental
machine. This type is easy to get rid of. Jesus' disciples
could get rid of them when he sent them out. They could not
get rid of the other type -- which I believe is a real spiritual
being.
This opens the door to why some people in other religions seems
to have success at exorcisms while others have disastrous
results just as some Christian attempts at exorcism produce
disasters. I do not believe that what most people would call
demons are real demons at all -- most are mental machines. I
think real demonic possession is extremely rare.
I think it also may explain various "gifts" and "anointings."
We know, for example, that sometimes people who are gravely sick
or knocked unconscious sometimes return to wakeful awareness
speaking other languages fluently. I assume that somehow they
acquired a mental machine that allows them to convert their
thoughts into a language that they never learned. I assume
too that such things can be passed on by an act of volition by
the laying on of hands if the active person had the right
intention and the strength to do it and the passive person
wished to have it so.
#Post#: 11954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mental Machines
By: HOLLAND Date: April 20, 2016, 9:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]What is the unconscious? How did it get there?
Hubbard discovered that some things in the subconscious started
off as conscious and then got put into the subconscious for
convenience. Take someone learning how to type. Practice,
practice, practice -- and at first you think about it; but later
it is submerged into the subconscious. You think of a word and
most of the time your fingers hit the right keys without you
needing to put any conscious attention on it.
He also discovered that events which happen when someone is
unconscious (drugs, boozes, accidents or violence) are recorded
by the subconscious. That is fairly easy to verify too if you
know someone who drinks to excess and has memory lapses the next
day. He may forget what he did the previous night; but if you
get him rip-roaring drunk again, presto there the memories are
again -- he can recall them perfectly well. What is said
around you during operations can also form mental machinery --
or circuits.
It really is a convenience when the subconscious is performing
correctly; but if it is misbehaving, our minds can resemble
computers with viruses. I'd say most obsessive-compulsive
behavior is linked to mental machines.[/quote]
I still find it interesting, Kerry, that Hubbard conceives of
the activity of thought as likened to that of a machine. I
would suggest that consciousness itself in, either in the form
that we are consciously aware of, and that of the form that we
are not aware of, the subconscious, are not to be identified
simply with knowing something per se; but, rather, that knowing
is either a function of the apprehension of something and the
seeking of the understanding of it; or, it is the function of
memory and that memory simply is a part of the subconscious
until it is called into conscious awareness. When we are
consciously thinking, and if we know something apart from
memory, it is still an active part of our consciousness and is a
part of the thought process of how we relate to ourselves and to
others in the world we are interacting with.
[quote]It may depend on the definition of schizophrenia. When I
was studying psychology, my teacher told me psychologists didn't
know what it was! At the time, if they couldn't diagnose you
with something else, they tended to say you must have
schizophrenia. Of course, there are some key clues.[/quote]
I tend to follow what existentialist psychologists identify as
schizophrenia, the recognition of splits in human consciousness
that affect insight and emotional affect. I would comment that
there is a disgraceful history behind the word because so many
people were diagnosed as such, but, later, upon legal challenge
could not support or explain what they meant by it as
justification for the enforced treatment of the identified
patients that had been unwillingly provided for.
As a concept, schizophrenia seems an analogously similar concept
to Hubbard’s mental machines in that they are autonomous
workings of the conscious and subconscious.
[quote]However I'd say if you are in control of your mind, it's
not schizophrenia since one person is in control. I'd add too
that if certain thoughts might occur to you and you realize it
wouldn't be wise to tell others or to act on them, that too is
not schizophrenia.[/quote]
I would disagree stating that we have in our consciousness many
actions of mental processes that are autonomous, yet we are in
control. In this I would ask you to consider the idea that
schizophrenia, as it is understood by the tribe of psychiatrists
and psychologists, is an oversimplification in that it doesn’t
properly consider the full working of the mind that recognizes
that not all splits in human consciousness are destructive, and
that these splits in consciousness are part of the supposed
normal working human mind.
[quote]I can be aware of more than one reality at a time. I
saw a "shadowy figure" at my Father's funeral. We didn't
communicate; but I was guessing he was visiting to see how his
own funeral was going. That was one reality. The other was
I was in a church with many other people with a funeral going
on. I did not discuss what I was seeing with other people.
One way to judge mental health is if you know how to relate to
what others consider reality. I think I know what others think
is real, and I usually "fit in" with it -- even if other things
are going on which I know others aren't seeing or hearing.
On the other hand, I read at another forum once where a woman
said she saw a dark shadowy figure; and she turned to the woman
next to her and asked her about it. I thought that was
slightly mentally unbalanced -- since the woman who could see
ought to have known the other woman most likely wasn't seeing
it.[/quote]
I’ve never had experiences such as this, Kerry. I don’t know
what to think of them. I always think that it is more important
to deal with locutions from God through the Holy Spirit rather
than to deal with dreams and visions that may derive out of
human flesh rather than the Spirit.
[quote][quote]This is very interesting Kerry. I wonder why the
scientologists use the term “mental machines” for a mental or
biological function.[/quote]
They behave like machines. And they aren't physical. They
interface with the biological unit however. Hubbard also
discovered that most headaches are caused by collisions between
opposing ideas -- the mental masses collide and form ridges.
Often one is the truth and the other a lie -- but both could be
untrue, I guess. But if you find them both and then pick one as
true and reject the other, the headache will go away.
There is often mental mass involved in toothaches too; and that
goes way back in evolution before we were even "humans." Those
ideas are "inherited" more or less along with the biological
unit; but if something rouses them, they can create these mental
masses to occur.
I heard stories too from my friend who once ran the Washington
Org. He said they'd be working sometimes at getting this mental
circuit or that under conscious control, and the person would
blow off most or all his mental machinery. He didn't know how
to go to the bathroom without consciously thinking about it and
recreating the mental circuits. \
I also "observed" mental masses around someone once. It was
as if his head was surrounded by a dark cloud.
Most people experience something but rarely see anything. Have
you ever known someone who depressed a room of people just by
walking in? Or perhaps the whole room seemed to get a little
darker? That's an oppressive type of mental mass.[/quote]
I don’t know what to make of these statements, Kerry. I suppose
that Hubbard was philosophically an idealist, like Plato or
Plotinus, positing mind or soul apart from body and having a
reality that did not correspond to physical reality but used the
body as a person uses a tool (what St Augustine referred to as
the user tool analogy as to how the mind or soul relates to
body). This philosophical premise would not have been accepted
by many social scientists of his day though it would have given
a unique cast to Hubbard's science fiction writing.
[quote]His science fiction is trippy, that is for sure; but you
can't correlate things exactly since some of his science fiction
doesn't meld precisely with Scientology. I would say his mind
was open to all sorts of ideas, both in fiction and in
philosophy. Don't forget too that he was trained as a
physicist; and there is no doubt in my mind that the E-meter
works by measuring how the mind is influencing the electrical
fields of the physical body -- the ohms -- the resistance.
You can see the needle jump when you say something to someone
hooked up on an E-meter.
Hubbard didn't go into this so far as I know since he was
results-oriented sometimes and ignored some theory; but I'd say
the mental energy and mass exist at the plane known as the
"mental plane" and also on the plane known as the astral plane.
Someone once created a flying animal -- I'd rather not specify
in public what it was -- and sent it to me when I was sleeping.
It hit my body and created a minor electrical disturbance. I
absorbed it and decided to trap it. Eventually I let it go
back to the person who sent it along with a message, "Don't do
this again." I was wide awake another time when a black "orb"
was bothering me and my cat -- and the cat could see it since he
moved his head to follow it -- and the orb hit my solar plexus.
It was supposed to alarm me; but I laughed and said, "Is that
the best you can do?"
Such "things" are not spirits so far as I can tell but rather
creations of spirits. I do believe I could manufacture them
myself and send them out into the world -- but it's not
advisable. We tend to have only so much "mind" -- and sending
off bits and pieces like that isn't smart.[/quote]
This would seem to be ideas that relate to theosophy. I have no
knowledge, of course, of these things directly and so cannot
comment on them.
I find that the workings of God’s Holy Spirit to be the thing
that most fascinates me in all my experience. In Christ we have
found wonderful things as disclosed by the Spirit!
[quote]People often know things at a certain level; and when
they write science fiction, the truth can come out. [/quote]
This has been the way it has been with me. I find that when I
write fiction, I discover people anew. I look upon them in a
new way. The imagination helps me to empathize with them, to
better understand them. In creativity, I find that I
participate in a working that I share with God. It humbles me
and I marvel that I can share in that participation in the
divine however faint it is in respect to his majesty. To God be
the glory!
[quote]Let me get now to the next thing I want to discuss. I
posit that there are two types of so-called demons. Jesus
indicated there was; and it seems so to me too.
The first type is an artificial being which seems to be alive on
its own, but it's really a creation of someone, a mental
machine. This type is easy to get rid of. Jesus' disciples
could get rid of them when he sent them out. They could not
get rid of the other type -- which I believe is a real spiritual
being.
This opens the door to why some people in other religions seems
to have success at exorcisms while others have disastrous
results just as some Christian attempts at exorcism produce
disasters. I do not believe that what most people would call
demons are real demons at all -- most are mental machines. I
think real demonic possession is extremely rare.
I think it also may explain various "gifts" and "anointings."
We know, for example, that sometimes people who are gravely sick
or knocked unconscious sometimes return to wakeful awareness
speaking other languages fluently. I assume that somehow they
acquired a mental machine that allows them to convert their
thoughts into a language that they never learned. I assume
too that such things can be passed on by an act of volition by
the laying on of hands if the active person had the right
intention and the strength to do it and the passive person
wished to have it so.[/quote]
The thinking behind this reminds me of Carl Gustav Jung, and of
depth psychology. I don’t think that the Bible ever represents
a demon as being only a construct in the human consciousness but
attributes the demon as having its own separate existence apart
from our minds and consciousness. In theory, if a person
descends into madness, it is possible that the demonic can be
part of the creation of the affected person’s consciousness, but
I would presuppose that an actual demon may be present affect
that person’s consciousness.
I would say that the spiritual gifts and anointings have nothing
to do with our consciousness but are the working of God’s Spirit
directly upon the person to whom the gifts have been given and
to the ekklesia.
I think that schizophrenia probably best describes splits in
human consciousness and subconsciousness, that is to say
autonomous intellection in the human consciousness, either
constructive or destructively.
#Post#: 11986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mental Machines
By: Kerry Date: April 25, 2016, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Finally back to you. How tardy I've been!
[quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=1070.msg11954#msg11954
date=1461206673]
I still find it interesting, Kerry, that Hubbard conceives of
the activity of thought as likened to that of a machine. I
would suggest that consciousness itself in, either in the form
that we are consciously aware of, and that of the form that we
are not aware of, the subconscious, are not to be identified
simply with knowing something per se; but, rather, that knowing
is either a function of the apprehension of something and the
seeking of the understanding of it; or, it is the function of
memory and that memory simply is a part of the subconscious
until it is called into conscious awareness. When we are
consciously thinking, and if we know something apart from
memory, it is still an active part of our consciousness and is a
part of the thought process of how we relate to ourselves and to
others in the world we are interacting with. [/quote]I wouldn't
say all thinking is mechanical like a machine. Mental machinery
is part of the subconscious.
I'd say there are different ways of becoming aware of "other"
things. Perhaps the highest form is temporarily "becoming the
other." I know this sounds impossible; but I've experienced it
to a certain degree. This does not involved thinking.
There is another form of awareness which does not involve
thinking -- observing reality without the lens of biases and
theories. Most children can do this, at least until they
start to "grow up" and accumulate biases and theories.
That brings us to the mind which is constantly evaluating
reality and "feeding" the person its conclusions. Sleight of
hand and that sort of magic often depends on people having
expectations of reality and being fooled. A magician can say
something and wave one hand dramatically while using his other
hand to hide something like a card in a pocket. The audience
will listen to his words and follow the hand that is moving
dramatically and not notice the other hand. If you know this
and can "turn off" the chatter of the mental machinery that is
feeding you its expectations and conclusions, you can see what
he's doing with his other hand. You can see him put that card
in his pocket.
Going further down the scale, we can get people no longer able
to turn off their mental machinery. They're almost completely
on automatic. They are not experiencing reality at all. They
are experiencing what their mental machinery tells them about
it. I'd say this is a form of "hell". I tend to believe
people create their own hells; and people can become trapped
after death by the delusions of their minds. I can prove
anything by telling I've seen this sort of thing; but I have.
Spirits trapped in "realities" they helped create and are still
obsessively creating by projecting things.
[quote]I tend to follow what existentialist psychologists
identify as schizophrenia, the recognition of splits in human
consciousness that affect insight and emotional affect. I would
comment that there is a disgraceful history behind the word
because so many people were diagnosed as such, but, later, upon
legal challenge could not support or explain what they meant by
it as justification for the enforced treatment of the identified
patients that had been unwillingly provided for.
As a concept, schizophrenia seems an analogously similar concept
to Hubbard’s mental machines in that they are autonomous
workings of the conscious and subconscious.[/quote]
Hubbard's goal was to restore as much of the human mind back
under the control of the person as possible. The awareness tied
up in unconscious mental machinery that can pose threats to
existence becomes freed. Thus the claim that Scientology
improves IQ. While that claim may have been exaggerated, I'd
say it is true to some degree. I saw improvements in one
person whose mind has been warped by drugs -- and yes, drugs can
create mental machinery. I knew him before and after.
[quote]I would disagree stating that we have in our
consciousness many actions of mental processes that are
autonomous, yet we are in control.[/quote]You can control your
breathing to a certain extent. Some other autonomic functions
may be able to be controlled to some extent.
You can also teach yourself how to ride a bicycle without
becoming overwhelmed by the machinery of riding one -- it
doesn't become your boss. You can teach yourself habits --
and then let your unconscious mind take over by saying, "This is
how I want to do things and I don't want to need to think about
it." This is giving direction to the mind and granting it the
right to operate that way. A commandment that may perplex
some people is when Jesus said we should love God with all our
minds or when Paul said all thoughts need to made captive and
brought in line with the Spirit of Christ. The human mind
ought to be something we can direct, not something that controls
us.
[quote]In this I would ask you to consider the idea that
schizophrenia, as it is understood by the tribe of psychiatrists
and psychologists, is an oversimplification in that it doesn’t
properly consider the full working of the mind that recognizes
that not all splits in human consciousness are destructive, and
that these splits in consciousness are part of the supposed
normal working human mind. [/quote]I wouldn't call a
non-destructive form schizophrenic. I'd use that term only for
the destructive form since the term has negative connotations.
[quote]I’ve never had experiences such as this, Kerry. I don’t
know what to think of them. I always think that it is more
important to deal with locutions from God through the Holy
Spirit rather than to deal with dreams and visions that may
derive out of human flesh rather than the Spirit. [/quote]There
are ways of discerning things. First if God wishes to
communicate with someone prophetically by dreams or visions,
the methods are known. It will always be either by speaking in
a dream or by appearing in a vision. Moses said that, and I
agree. When the dream or vision is over, the prophet's mind
will be alert. He will not be groggy or sleepy. It is like
walking from one room to another through a door. He knows
what's going on.
Bogus prophets often get confused. They believe what they're
seeing in a vision might be something solid or physical.
There should never be any confusion about this. If you're
seeing a spiritual object or hearing a spiritual voice, it's
essential that you know it and don't think it might be physical.
I've heard a few times a voice calling my name -- and it
seemed so "clear" I thought it might be coming from someone in
the room that I didn't know was there. I dismissed this as
either hallucination or an attempt from the Dark Side to contact
me. I will admit however that sometimes angels will send this
kind of voice in order to reach someone in special cases when
there's no other way to get through and something needs done;
but that's on a case by case basis. If Heaven wishes to
establish an ongoing relationship with a prophet, they want
that prophet to be certain about things and Heaven will wait
until that prophet develops heavenly eyes or ears.
[quote]I don’t know what to make of these statements, Kerry. I
suppose that Hubbard was philosophically an idealist, like Plato
or Plotinus, positing mind or soul apart from body and having a
reality that did not correspond to physical reality but used the
body as a person uses a tool (what St Augustine referred to as
the user tool analogy as to how the mind or soul relates to
body). This philosophical premise would not have been accepted
by many social scientists of his day though it would have given
a unique cast to Hubbard's science fiction writing. [/quote]He
was trained as a physicist; and at first, he concentrated the
variations in the electrical field in the human body -- and he
got results. So far as I know, he hadn't posited much of
anything about it then; and this stage his work went under the
name Dianetics.
Going over large batches of records of people who had gone
through this processing, he noticed a lot of them had claims of
memories from past lives. No one ever asked these people to
talk about past lives. They may have been asked to go back to
the oldest memory they could recall about -- say, headaches.
Typically, if you do this, you'll get memories from this life at
first. Typically too, the oldest memories you get will not be
from infancy. But the longer you hang in there, the older
memories you'll reach. You'll get memories from being in the
womb. And then you start memories from past lives. This
just happens. You don't need to teach people about
reincarnation. If you clear up enough of this life, those
memories (if they're there) will start appearing automatically
-- if they're in the subconscious tied up in mental machinery
waiting to be brought into consciousness.
Hubbard then realized that awareness did not always coincide
with the physical body. It could leave one body and go to a new
one. There was a "spiritual being" there which he dubbed a
"thetan." This became the basis, more or less, of Scientology.
It wasn't something he made up out of his own mind.
[quote]This would seem to be ideas that relate to theosophy. I
have no knowledge, of course, of these things directly and so
cannot comment on them.[/quote]If you visualize a black cat, is
it real? If you're dreaming, is what you see real, or are you
hallucinating? I say no doubt these things are real but they
are not real in the same way physical objects appear to be.
It does relate to theosophy in a way and to magical theory and
to Kabbalah. And to the four cherubim and the three heavens and
the earth.
You will doubtlessly find this impossible -- but what we think
of as real is perhaps the least real. There are three heavens
said to be of fire, air and water -- and the three cherubim
correspond to those. These are "more real" than the earth and
the cherub of the earth, the calf. Earth is really not
something real by itself but a mixture of the other three. It
appears so solid though because of the conflicts within it --
when volition, mind and "soul" or emotion are conflicting with
each other. Bring those three to perfection and under control
-- and you could make your physical body appear and disappear
the way Jesus did. That's next to impossible however as long
as the physical body is "sinning" -- because of the conflicts
within its members. The cherub of the "red calf" is sacrificed
and "burned" reducing it to ashes -- and those ashes make holy
whatever they touch. "Things" are separated by the process
back into the three elements of fire, air and water. Then you
can put them back together again -- if you want -- with a
spiritual body that can appear and disappear.
Jesus was "practicing" this when he multiplied the bread and
fish. If you have the intention to do it and can project a
mental picture of something strongly enough and accurately
enough, you're well on your way to being able to made objects
appear out of thin air. Without the correct emotional state
however, this can be black magic -- if Love is present, it's
Divine Magic. The "thoughtforms" that come into existence on
the physical plane by black magic are not exactly stable -- they
will eventually degrade. You need the proper "mix" of fire, air
and water to produce a stable physical object.
Many "things" already exist in the heavens. The heavenly
things, for now, exist mostly in the Heavens of Fire and Air.
They have not yet become true or existent in earthly terms. The
Temples the prophets saw and measured come to mind. The
Heavenly City too is there -- and when John says it's coming
down from Heaven, he means it making progress into taking on
physical expression where nonspiritual people could see it with
physical eyes. It was coming down then and it's coming down
now; and the prayer, Thy Will be done on earth as it is in
Heaven" is a powerful one since it is adding your volition to
the volition of others to have things on the earth "follow" the
pattern of the things in Heaven. [quote]The thinking behind
this reminds me of Carl Gustav Jung, and of depth psychology. I
don’t think that the Bible ever represents a demon as being only
a construct in the human consciousness but attributes the demon
as having its own separate existence apart from our minds and
consciousness. [/quote]
Jesus said there were two kinds of demons. If you can't agree
with my theories, you still need to explain the two types.
I also ask what you think of this:
Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star
fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of
the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out
of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the
air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and
unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have
power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass
of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but
only those men which have not the seal of God in their
foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but
that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was
as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it;
and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared
unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like
gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were
as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron;
and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of
many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings
in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the
bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but
in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
The allusions to the cherubim are worth noting as is that this
part of John's vision is during the "trumps." This vision is
at the level of "air" -- the second heaven. I could give you
my take on it, nearly line by line, but that's probably worth
doing; and I can tell you I've also seen similar smoke which
when observed up close appeared to be made up of nasty insects
-- I didn't see them in the detail John did. I knew what they
were when I went up close enough to see what the smoke was made
of -- and I could see the direction they were moving in at the
time -- from Afghanistan over Iran over Iraq and continuing
west.
Some ideas are trapped by Heaven and "imprisoned" in what is
called the bottomless pit -- this exists outside time and space
as we know it. They are imprisoned there when mankind can't
deal with his own creations, his own mental demons and projected
thoughts. When man is strong enough to deal with them, they
will be let loose. Black magicians also seem able to summon
some of them out. This verse is true for Christians in one way
and for all mankind in another:
1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such
as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer
you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the
temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to
bear it.
There is nothing going on today that people are unable to bear.
If they wanted to, they could profit by the temptations that
come on them; and we should never, never, believe God is the
author of any temptation. On the contrary, God prevents us
from summoning certain temptations into our lives when He knows
they're more than we could deal with.
[quote]In theory, if a person descends into madness, it is
possible that the demonic can be part of the creation of the
affected person’s consciousness, but I would presuppose that an
actual demon may be present affect that person’s
consciousness.[/quote]
How humans control their bodies is slightly different from most
animals. There is a type of consciousness in every human body
that "runs it" more or less. But there is a Spirit too that
arrives and takes over -- and it has to "teach" the body to do
what it wants. Other animals aren't like that. Animals have
one Spirit for the whole species; and the "soul" or "animating
force" in each animal knows how to run the body of that species
without teaching it or learning how to do it.
The physical body, once adapted by the spirit, is unique; and
for another spirit to come along and try to run it would almost
certainly kill it. About the only way I can conceive a true
possession could take place would be to invite a demon to come
in and share your body -- and then it could learn where the
"controls" are in the brain and minor nervous centers. I've
never done that; but I have invited Jesus and other angelic
beings in to inhabit my space -- and the effect has always been
gentle and peaceful.
[quote]I would say that the spiritual gifts and anointings have
nothing to do with our consciousness but are the working of
God’s Spirit directly upon the person to whom the gifts have
been given and to the ekklesia.[/quote]
A discussion of "mantles" may be in order. It was more than
Elijah's earthly mantle that fell on Elisha. It was a spiritual
mantle too. There is a form of intelligence and purpose in
this kind of mantle. When being passed on, it slips over the
head first. Thus the laying on of hands is best done on the
head. Angelic beings can transmit such mantles too -- I can
remember receiving two that way.
I base my views on personal experience as well as the Bible; but
I add to that on my knowledge of Buddhism. Indeed, Buddha
himself was one of the beings who put his hands on my head; and
I was bewildered by that when I came back to ordinary awareness
since Buddhists are very careful about anyone touching someone's
head. (And well they should be, and I think Christians also
should take Paul a little more seriously when he talks about
heads and their coverings.)
[quote]I think that schizophrenia probably best describes splits
in human consciousness and subconsciousness, that is to say
autonomous intellection in the human consciousness, either
constructive or destructively.[/quote]
I was looking around; and it seems as if the psychologists still
don't know much.
HTML http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/conditions/schizophrenia
Nor does Scientology have much to contribute since Hubbard
advised not allowing anyone with a history of mental illness to
join the church. That was to avoid lawsuits in case they
freaked out and got worse. Some people are accepted if they
sign waivers; but as a rule, not too many people have been
involved -- thus Hubbard's records weren't of people who had
been diagnosed with some mental disorder.
#Post#: 12056--------------------------------------------------
Re: Mental Machines
By: HOLLAND Date: May 1, 2016, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
^^^^ I will consider what you say here, Kerry.
I thought I would expand on what I call constructive and
non-constructive schizophrenia and how it relates to the concept
of mental machines.
I have defined schizophrenia as splits in the human
consciousness and unconsciousness that are autonomous and are
human mental functioning that contains trained responses to
human situations, the rapid reasoning contained within those
splits in respect to those situations, and the suppression of
emotional affect in coping with these same human situations.
By what I had meant by supposed “healthy” or constructive
schizophrenia would be those deliberate splits in consciousness
that are necessary for certain human situations, such as
training a young soldier for war.
The young soldier is brought into a training camp and then is
subjected to harsh discipline and is taught to do various
military actions automatically with little thinking and where
feelings regarding morality, and the repugnance to the act, and
to fear are separated from the military actions in question.
This can be illustrated by a soldier who, once trained, will
move over a battlefield as part of a squad, which is part of a
platoon, and which is contained within a battalion and perform
certain necessary functions to advance the battle to the enemy.
The soldier will move in combat, with nearly automatic, or
rather autonomous thinking, of how the ground of combat is, how
it is to be fought for, and how it is to be defended. In
conflict, much of the battle happens quickly, sometimes so
quickly that it leaves little time for thought. The soldier
fights on the basis of the training the soldier receives. The
soldier, for example, will come upon an enemy machine gun
position. The soldier will identify the situation, the enemy
field of fire and the soldier as part of a squad will advance
and flank the enemy position by prior training. The soldier
will see great horrors, and may help create these horrors, but
will push them out of mind in order to see the mission
accomplished.
These responses are not Pavlovian responses but involve human
intellection in respect to a certain human situation in war.
The soldier sees the war as a unity on the battlefield, but in
combat, the soldier has to quickly focus upon the situation and
so the training which leads to combat solutions come in. The
splits in consciousness are part of the training that makes the
human response to the battle possible allowing rapid
intellection for a solution to a military problem and separates
the soldiers mind from the horrible emotions that will emerge
and be a result of combat. It is a focused intellect response
to a situation that also partakes of the unconscious response to
it; and, it is where the emotions regarding the situation are
repressed.
It is only when the military service is over and the soldier has
been discharged that the soldier discovers that the training has
affected the soldier’s consciousness. The soldier is always
ready for attack and read ground for battle even in the civilian
life and this can continue for many years given how strong the
memories and training have been placed in the individual
soldier.
After this military service the emotional affect returns and
causes problems. Because the training has expired and is not
being renewed in further training and refresher courses to make
the soldier more effective are not being pursued, the splits in
consciousness gradually fade but do not entirely disappear. At
that time the emotions concerning the memory of combat emerges
and then the soldier has the horrible emotions of what the
soldier had experienced in combat. The soldier then has what is
called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Given the politics that is behind psychiatry and psychology,
this form of schizophrenia, that is contained in military
training, is not regarded as such, and the soldier is viewed
with honor.
This is not so with those who have had to go through supposed
“unhealthy” or non-constructive schizophrenia.
An example of this would be a young child who is raised in a
family situation where the child faces extremely perilous
situations where the child could be beaten or even killed. The
child faces the situation with no training and has to devise
mental processes or “mental machines” to cope with the
situation. It involves splits in consciousness which can
involve withdrawl or running away or oppositional defiance, or
whatever stance that may be needed to cope with the situation.
But given that there is no training to deal with the situation
but is a blind groping to a solution, in many instances the
stances to the situation are not possible except for an internal
mental withdrawl and a kind of shutting down of the unitary part
of the consciousness. When this happens the mind of the child
in question is surviving in these splits in consciousness with
the child losing insight as to the situation and to the loss of
the horrible feelings the child is experiencing, except for
perhaps fear. In this the child has faced danger every bit as
bad as the soldier but is not honored for survival. The child
is viewed with dishonor as a paranoid schizophrenic and is
viewed as mentally defective.
These splits in consciousness, largely autonomous, are very
interesting. The human consciousness strives for unity but it
needs multiple foci in order to function given human situations.
“Mental machines” are a curious way of describing it, but given
splits in consciousness, in schizophrenia, and their autonomy,
gives one to pause and reflect about the matter.
*****************************************************