Phil Scott ( wrote:
>   ***I would extend that to indicate from my experience that 
>the being is not just disinterested... for no cause...but is 
>disinterested because he or she can see with stunning clarity 
>the liability of gettng involved in the 'down scale' 
>activities. ***

     You treat the tone scale as a scale of mistakes the being is
making.  Perhaps by the time he hits tone 21.0 Spirit of Play, he has
already hit the skids, and spirit of play is a make right of the wrong
direction he took at 26.0 Apparencies are Reality.

     *I* would say the whole thing is fair chosen from day one, and
the being has great interest in games, even at the top of the tone
scale or else he wouldn't have created the ramp down to 21.0 to get
involved in them.

     Of course at 40.0 fair chosen interest in ludicrous demise is
very different than the compulsive interest in games at 21.0.

>You do not see that because you are approaching from the other 
>end of the spectrum looking at any game as above oblivion, so 
>its good...and then improving games as an ultimate goal.

     This is your interpretation of what I am writing, your personal

     People do however have to climb the tone scale in a gradient.

     One is not going to get people OUT of games without rehabbing the
ability to MAKE games and get stuck in them.

     The way in is the way out.  Any other way out is up the pole.

     Clearly there is something more to life than creating games, one
can just BE forever.  Try it sometime, see how long it lasts though.

     Games provide just the right mixture of alter-is in order to
maintain desirable persistence.  That they always end in ludicrous
demise further down the tone scale is just part of the games as
>thats the trap... its both totally true and a total trap at 
>the same time.   I discussed that in my previous reply to your 
>earlier thread.  The goal to have games backfires... as games 
>are part of see?    Hubbard saw that but 
>not well enough to avoid the trap himself... so he sold you on 
>the idea that games were good and necessary to life...

    I do not get my ideas from Hubbard.

> it is the ego that craves what you wish to call a 'game'... 
>beyond that a being sees all of that, ego, and doing the game 
>approach  etc as simply ignorant and self destructive beyond 

     Without games there is no civilization, exploration, discovery,
risk, evolution, growth, creation, nobility, glory, success against
great odds etc.

     There is just beingness, people who can have anything they want
just by thinking of it.  Well they thought of games and it looked good
to them.

     People who are up the pole on beingness like to put down
becomingness as beneath them, something others ought to know better
than to engage in.
     But people who are REALLY up at beingness are spending their time
planning the next cycle of becomingness to out class any that have
gone before.

     "You think that last game was a rip roarer, wait until you
see this one..."


Fri Mar 24 21:55:32 EST 2006