Monthly Archives: January 2015

The questionable wisdom of not receiving communication

Posted on by
Reply

Ethics: “do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it”

The above ethical principle originated in Scientology and was penned down as part of a writing called ‘The code of honor’ by L. Ron Hubbard. It was accepted without question by many of Hubbard’s followers.

It formed the basis of the practice of disconnection that the Church of Scientology is practicing consistently as soon as one of their kind deviates from the norm.

Apart from upset families, it has also resulted in many people within the perimeter of that church, never finding out that almost the same technology was delivered by other people outside of the control of the church and more efficiently at that.

Man is very much dependent on what the othermembers of mankind are doing and thinking. One cannot in fact disconnect from mankind, nor from the Earth.

Everyone should have the right to agree or disagree with anything communicated but to restrict communication to what is desirable is tantamount to cutting oneself off from the real world. Much of what could turn out to be vital information comes in uninvited.

One most likely does not desire to be presented with information or ideas that go against one’s belief system. Even more likely one does not desire to be offended, maligned or worse, yet receiving such communications may be of crucial importance to maintain awareness of what is going on around one.

The rule given above in fact amounts to installing communication blocks and the least that can be said about it is, that it is unworkable.

I definitely do not desire to hear about another restrictive law or tax raise yet it may save me endless troubles if I am informed beforehand.

Another example is when one does not desire to receive communication regarding sexual abuse. It may be just be that one finds out a little late that a convicted sex offender was living just on the other side of the street. A much more workable precept would be:

“Stay in communication with the world around you but do not automatically accept or agree with what was said, written or shown”.

De Nada

The classification of scientific disciplines

Posted on by
1

Traditionally–going back to the classics of Ancient Greece–the classification was based on the subject of study such as zoology, psychology, physics, chemistry etc.

In this century most studies are multi-disciplinary and a new system of classification of sciences is very necessary. The first thing one should take into account now is not the subject but the scientist, the mind of the scientist is the primary concern.

These scientific minds are attached to bodies that drive cars etc. and need money, these bodies carry IDs and are subject to governments and other pressure groups.

Most scientific endeavors are multi-disciplinary, therefore the key classification of science now becomes:

A) Public Science

this is what is done and published by independent individuals, scientists at universities and is published in books that can be found in the public domain, moderately financed. It is what one sees in such magazins as New Scientist, Scientific American etc.

B) Private Science

this is the advanced science and research known and done by scientists of the military, governmental, ‘national security’ guarded establishments and/or contractors, it is highly protected and secret and there are no known limits to funding.

One could also say there are free scientists and ‘captive’ scientists. Some scientists are free in the start of their careers and cease to be so. Victor Schauberger, who was forced to work for the Nazis was a typical example. There are also scientists who self-determinedly choose to work for governments, some captive scientists are posing as free scientists, just as is the case with their journalistic colleagues. And there are fortunately still a few advanced scientists, usually not main stream, who made it anyway into the public domain.

But keep the above separation in science in mind, it is symptomatic of the contemporary competitive culture on Earth.

de Nada