Dr. Chris Halvarson's assumption v. rationalization and TUB.

5 posts · 2 participants · started Aug 2, 2014, 1:22 PM

1. B

   Brooklyn_bornParticipant
   Aug 2, 2014, 1:22 PM

   I thought it was a mind-blowing topic, one I had never considered. Intuitively I was assuming some ideas that,  at the time, I believed I discovered by reading facts in the book. Now “I think” I know otherwise.

   I would like to discuss this with any who is interested.  What do you think about this concept? Chris says you should make an assumption, then search out facts  in the book to support it. He also warned not to confuse assumptions with rationalization, and that there are false and true assumptions. According to what he said last night, or how I understood it, rationalization of TUB is when you find a fact, create a concept or idea based on it, then search out other facts to  bolster the idea. Chris stated that, in your study, revelation should precede the literal reading of the book; you receive the revelation, which then guides the way you read the book —assumptions are rooted in revelations.  He bases this on the fact that epochal and indwelling, revelatory forces, not the words found in TUB, impinge truth onto the mind.

   There were many other ideas he touched on but the ones I just listed grabbed my attention the most.

    

   BB

2. T

   TUBParticipant
   Aug 2, 2014, 2:37 PM

   Hey BB do you have a link?

   Chris has talked a lot about personal creativity vs logical consistency. I know he has mentioned that if you have a speculation about something in TUB, you shouldn’t necessarily accept it unless it can pass the test of holding up to every line in TUB and even then that may only mean there is some truth to it. He wrote about this scientific method on his website. The rationalization stuff is interesting. We can rationalization anything but that doesn’t make it logical. What people call philosophy is usually just an elaborate rationalization scheme.

   I think I understand the message he trying to say in regards to “receive the revelation”. If we have a very factual and intuitive experience of seeing this text as revelation IMO it changes the way we view every line in the book. Some people read the book like they would read any other book. I think if we read this book intuitively knowing its a revelation that it will be easier for the indwelling forces to help us within our mind. I am guessing this is one of the things he was talking about.

   If we read this book without having received it as a revelation, we won’t form that concrete bond to the truths behind the words. It will be more difficult for the indwelling spiritual forces in our mind to help us grasp these concepts. The more we see this book as a revelation IMO the easier their job is, and the more we can absorb the truths that flow through the words. The truth is not words on a paper but something that is dynamically flowing through those words.

3. B

   Brooklyn_bornParticipant
   Aug 2, 2014, 3:24 PM
   TUB wrote:

   Hey BB do you have a link?

   It was the class held on webinar last night. I don’t think they archive these classes or release them to the public. You should subscribe. It is free and you can reserve a seat for each weekly session. The drawback to free subscription is you cannot ask questions.

   Chris has talked a lot about personal creativity vs logical consistency. I know he has mentioned that if you have a speculation about something in TUB, you shouldn’t necessarily accept it unless it can pass the test of holding up to every line in TUB and even then that may only mean there is some truth to it.

    

   He talked about absolutism and how it prevents from receiving other revelations. For instance people who have a radical or extreme focus on Father will tend to lose sight of other revelations.

    

   He wrote about this scientific method on his website. The rationalization stuff is interesting. We can rationalization anything but that doesn’t make it logical. What people call philosophy is usually just an elaborate rationalization scheme. I think I understand the message he trying to say in regards to “receive the revelation”. If we have a very factual and intuitive experience of seeing this text as revelation IMO it changes the way we view every line in the book. Some people read the book like they would read any other book. I think if we read this book intuitively knowing its a revelation that it will be easier for the indwelling forces to help us within our mind. I am guessing this is one of the things he was talking about. If we read this book without having received it as a revelation, we won’t form that concrete bond to the truths behind the words. It will be more difficult for the indwelling spiritual forces in our mind to help us grasp these concepts. The more we see this book as a revelation IMO the easier their job is, and the more we can absorb the truths that flow through the words. The truth is not words on a paper but something that is dynamically flowing through those words.

   Pretty much that is how he explained it.

    

   BB

4. T

   TUBParticipant
   Aug 2, 2014, 5:00 PM

   He talked about absolutism and how it prevents from receiving other revelations. For instance people who have a radical or extreme focus on Father will tend to lose sight of other revelations.

   Yea that makes sense. Its easy to just look at that laser beam of the Father vs that ubiquitous blanket of the Mother. Did he talk about God the Mother?

    

5. B

   Brooklyn_bornParticipant
   Aug 2, 2014, 5:41 PM

   TUB wrote:

   Yea that makes sense. Its easy to just look at that laser beam of the Father vs that ubiquitous blanket of the Mother. Did he talk about God the Mother?

   Yep. He spoke on how certain celestial forces are more creative-spirit natured than others (e.g., Melchizedeks and another race of beings whose name I cannot recall at the moment.) He also touched on the act of “liason,” and how creative forces bring into existence beings that, depending on recessive to dominant trait ratios between the two parents, would express specific inherent natures. He drew parallels between celestial creators, ‘liason,’ bestowing endowments onto their offsprings and human parents passing their chromosomes onto their offspring.

   He touched on a lot of stuff, TUB, but I forgot many of the details; Chris is not an easy person to keep with as he delves into many profound ideas at one sitting. You can easily lose yourself trying to focus on one idea, while the others slip by you.

   I recall Chris mentioning the Midsoniters, also.

   BB

Reply on the current forum