|
|
 21 Oct 2009 @ 12:45
In Scientology, there is the triangle of Understanding, i.e. Affinity plus Reality plus Communication equals Understanding. As far as the reality leg of the triangle, this reality is created through agreements--even Hubbard said that. It is "agreed-upon reality." Another term for this "agreed-upon reality" is a morphic field, a field of agreement. These fields of agreement have particular characteristics. Not only are they created through agreements, but through disagreements within the field and also disagreements with those outside of the field.
It bears noting that just because something is real does not necessarily mean that it is true. Morphic fields are such an example; very real for many people but not necessarily true, true as in manifesting from Source. They are a substitute for manifesting actual creations in space. For instance, there is a clear and obvious field of agreement amongst Americans (in the United States). And a specific agreement amongst them is that they are "legally free." There is disagreement amongst them as to how they should maintain and ensure this so-called freedom; and there is collective disagreement with other nation-based morphic fields, which takes the form of disagreeing that other nations possess the so-called legal freedom that Americans possess.
Now one must ask oneself whether Americans are legally free in truth? The answer is that they are, by definition according to official legal documents such as the United States Constitution, in bondage. Factors to consider, like the nature of the Federal Reserve, the notion that treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land (despite the agreement that the Constitution holds status as such), and the 14th Amendment, are beyond the scope of this article.
The disagreements amongst Americans as to how they should ensure and maintain this agreed-upon freedom and the collective disagreements they hold in opposition to other nation-based groups both serve a specific purpose. Both internal and external disagreements serve to reinforce the solidity of the agreed-upon reality. They serve as justifiers, designed to further ensconce the agreed-upon reality. For instance, based upon the agreement that other nations do not possess the freedom that Americans possess, Americans decide to engage in freedom-obtaining military campaigns for the sake of other nations, under the guise that Americans are obtaining freedom for the other less-fortunate, slavery-ridden nations. Ironically, the true situation is that one sees slaves freeing slaves. The reinforcement this serves to the field of agreement amongst Americans takes this form, "If Americans weren't free, then why do they have such stellar ability and willingness to free others (historically, Iraqis, Afganis, Vietnamese)?" Also, as far as the internal disagreements, one can see a similar means for reinforcement, i.e. if Americans quibble and quibble and spend such excessive time and effort debating and discussing how to ensure and maintain their freedom, then it follows that they must be free.
Another example is the field of agreement that surrounds and pervades romantic relationships. Obviously, the primary agreement among most romantic couples, like Americans believing that they possess freedom, is that the couple possesses love. There is always discord amongst the two as to how they should go about expressing, maintaining, ensuring and reinforcing the agreed-upon love. Moreover, external disagreement, agreements against others, takes the form of romantic exclusivity. In other words, the couple can only love each other romantically and cannot love others romantically, and the result of such external agreement is jealousy. However, it bears noting that if a person loves another person, then the lover understands that if his or her beloved decides it is best for his or her beloved to be romantic with another person, then this is should not be of any concern to the lover. In other words, if I love someone, then I want what's best for that person and if that person is to be enriched and appreciated through relations with another person, my love does not exclude, deny or disallow such a movement.
In Scientology, there was another word for morphogenetic field, it was group mind. The term itself reveals much about the nature of these fields of agreement. The mind is designed to invent certainties. Group minds are linked minds, adding insult to injury by forming collective agreements around mind's invented certainties. The result is a very real, and perverted, unreality. An unreality that seems to stand at a cold and insuperable distance from infinite life. When I see the functioning of a morphic field, I see its members all alone in their inverted spaces; they firmly believe they are looking at the same thing but in fact they are all transfixed on the contents of their minds. There is no co-existence there. The answer is to spot the agreements that form morphic field, not to disagree with them as this only creates an oppositional field. The answer is to learn how to feel with conviction the difference between truth and lies that the mind feeds us. More >
|
|
|
|
 27 Mar 2008 @ 05:18
Not really. I wasn’t born in what we Ohioans call “the county.” In fact, I lived only on the edge of it from the ages of seven to twenty-four. Yet, it is in my blood…and I forgot. More >
|
|
|
|
14 Feb 2007 @ 01:16
I encountered a synchronicity the other day. Mere hours after reading Flemming Funch's blog on Free Will I went to class only to have my friend Jenny hand me a paper she had written on free will. I got to thinking about the subject and this is the result. I don't think it in any way is typical of what one might find in a typical exposition on free will. More >
|
|
|
|
22 Nov 2006 @ 17:25
Anyone unfamiliar with the ideas of the Sufi Ibn ‘Arabi might be missing out some brilliant ideas and perspectives... More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 |
