INCONSISTENCY

[Revised March 17 , 2012. Revisions are in blue.]

There is no absolute truth or untruth. Truth is found only to be relative. Please see the essay THE NATURE OF TRUTH

What appears to be true simply dissolves into a sense of harmony. This harmony forms the very background of what one is. There is nothing specific about this background to be asserted. This background may only highlight things that are not in harmony.

Thus, as far as specifics are concerned, there are only things that are not in harmony with this background. We may call them inconsistencies. An inconsistency may manifest itself as uncertainty, incoherence, confusion, contradiction, dissonance, illogic, discord, conflict, unwanted condition, etc.

It is only when all inconsistencies are resolved that one may go back to one’s natural equilibrium. Only then the ultimate truth, if there is one, may be grasped.

THEORY

Sensory input, as it is processed, flows down as follows (see KHTK 4 & 5):

  1. Perception
  2. Experience
  3. Information
  4. Hypothesis
  5. Theory
  6. Principles
  7. Axioms
  8. Self

Each succeeding layer represents greater integration of input. The degree of integration depends upon the harmony among the elements. A greater integration and harmony means increased rationality.

A greater harmony brings about increased rationality.

An inconsistency may enter at any point when this processing is interrupted or corrupted.  The inconsistencies just float around since they are not integrated. They influence the thinking in unpredictable ways, making it irrational.

Inconsistencies introduce irrationality into thinking.

.

(a) Thinking & Memory

Thinking involves retrieval of required memory from the mind. The data exists in the mind in the form of the layers as described above. There is no ready made memory. At the time of retrieval, memory is created newly from the indexing of data among these layers. 

It would be difficult to re-create memory when the data is not properly indexed. Lack of indexing occurs due to a lack of integration of input, which, in turn, is caused by the presence of inconsistencies.

The problem with some memory is not that it cannot be accessed. The problem boils down to the presence of unresolved  inconsistencies in the mind. If a memory in certain area is “difficult to access” then the approach should be to identify and resolve all inconsistencies in that area.

Underlying any difficulty in accessing memory there are inconsistencies that needs to be identified and resolved.

.

(b) Thinking & Visualization

Thinking also involves the visualization of new possibilities and solutions. These visualizations then feed back as input into the layers above. When these visualizations are in harmony with the processing of the sensory input they speed up the integration greatly. On the other hand, when these visualizations are not in harmony, they may contribute to inconsistencies themselves.

For example, a belief may come about in an effort to restrain some confusion. This belief may then appear as an inconsistency at the level of hypothesis when not in harmony with the sensory input.

.

(c) Nature of Inconsistency

Inconsistencies on various levels may be named as follows:

  1. Perception …..(Engram)
  2. Experience …..(Unwanted feelings & emotions)
  3. Information …..(Indoctrination)
  4. Hypothesis …..(Beliefs)
  5. Theory ……….(Doctrines)
  6. Principles …….(Fixed ideas)
  7. Axioms ……….(Fixed viewpoints)
  8. Self …………..(Fixed identity)

The inconsistency may be defined as the variance between the way something appears and the harmony that should be there. Therefore, the method for dissolving any inconsistency would be to look at the area of inconsistency non-judgmentally and without resistance as described in KHTK 1 & 2. This will help restore the harmony.

APPLICATION

In the absence of a guide these exercises may be done by oneself. The guide may help the student as follows.

(A) Go over the theory section with the student.

  1. Answer any questions as best as you can.
  2. Discuss the theory materials until no questions remain.
  3. Make sure the student understand the main points highlighted in bold in theory section.

(B) Have the student do the exercises in sequence.

  1. Guide the student through the exercises.
  2. Maintain an open and friendly communication about student’s experience on the exercise.

EXERCISE

THE PURPOSE OF THESE EXERCISES IS TO PRACTICE SPOTTING THE INCONSISTENCIES AT VARIOUS LEVELS. 

Preliminary steps:

  1. Find a place where you can sit comfortably for a while without being disturbed or distracted.

  2. Simply observe with your eyes open. If you find your mind adding to what is plainly visible, simply notice that fact and continue.

  3. Once you can comfortably notice what is there, you may close your eyes.

Step 1

Pay close attention to what comes up in the mind. Continue until some confusion or thought appears, which does not seem to make sense. 

Step 2

Observe the layer on which that confusion or thought seems to belong to. Then approximate the possible nature of the underlying inconsistency from the list below.

  1. Engram = Inconsistency on the layer of perception
  2. Unwanted feelings & emotions = Inconsistency on the layer of experience
  3. Indoctrination = Inconsistency on the layer of information
  4. Beliefs = Inconsistency on the layer of hypothesis
  5. Doctrines = Inconsistency on the layer of theory
  6. Fixed ideas = Inconsistency on the layer of principles
  7. Fixed viewpoints = Inconsistency on the layer of axioms
  8. Fixed identity = Inconsistency on the layer of self

Step 3

Examine that inconsistency more closely by applying KHTK principles.

  1. Simply perceive what is there without adding anything to it.

  2. Experience any emotions as they come up without putting any resistance.

  3. Acknowledge any ideas, thoughts, and considerations that come up without being judgmental.

  4. Continue until your attention starts to move by itself to another subject.

.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Rafael  On August 8, 2011 at 10:08 PM

    Great addition to KHTK. Gives much more consistency to the whole group of essays. I have to do those exercises.

  • seth  On September 4, 2011 at 3:17 PM

    Is it necessary to “layerize” experience? What purpose does it serve?

    • vinaire  On September 4, 2011 at 3:29 PM

      I am not quite sure what you mean. Experience is simply one of the layers. There are other layers beside experience.

      .

      • seth  On September 4, 2011 at 3:39 PM

        sorry…the levels of inconsistency (step 6-2) as in “approximate the possible nature of the underlying inconsistency”

        What is the point of doing that step?

      • vinaire  On September 4, 2011 at 4:19 PM

        Oh! I see. Maybe I didn’t express it too well that the inconsistencies as worded have one to one correspondence with the layers. For example,

        Engram = Inconsistency on the layer of perception
        Unwanted feelings & emotions = Inconsistency on the layer of experience
        Indoctrination = Inconsistency on the layer of information
        Beliefs = Inconsistency on the layer of hypothesis
        Doctrines = Inconsistency on the layer of theory
        Fixed ideas = Inconsistency on the layer of principles
        Fixed viewpoints = Inconsistency on the layer of axioms
        Fixed identity = Inconsistency on the layer of self

        So, if the confusion seems to be connected with information, you would look for inconsistency in the form of indoctrination you got exposed to.

        If the confusion seems to be connected with experience, you would look for inconsistency in the form of unwanted feelings and emotions

        If the confusion seems to be connected with perception, you would look for inconsistency in the form of engrams.

        And so on… I am using the word confusion in a very general sense. Maybe a better word is needed.

        Your feedback may help me clarify and communicate the theory better, or to revise it altogether.

        .

  • Chris Thompson  On November 20, 2011 at 8:31 AM

    So I understand you to say that you believe there is truth beyond what is physical?

    • vinaire  On November 20, 2011 at 9:02 AM

      Inconsistencies when spotted disappear. What is left after all inconsistencies are gone, I don’t know.

      .

  • vinaire  On February 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

    I have made some changes in this essay to bring more clarity. The following section is revised:

    (a) Thinking & Memory
    Thinking involves retrieval of required memory from the mind. The data exists in the mind in the form of the layers as described above. There is no ready made memory. At the time of retrieval, memory is created newly from the indexing of data among these layers.

    It would be difficult to re-create memory when the data is not properly indexed. Lack of indexing occurs due to a lack of integration of input, which, in turn, is caused by the presence of inconsistencies.

    The problem with some memory is not that it cannot be accessed. The problem boils down to the presence of unresolved inconsistencies in the mind. If a memory in certain area is “difficult to access” then the approach should be to identify and resolve all inconsistencies in that area.

    Underlying any difficulty in accessing memory there are inconsistencies that needs to be identified and resolved.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On February 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM

      Quite right. Good way of expressing this.

    • vinaire  On February 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

      Hubbard was obsessed with resolving the problem of memory not being accessible. But he did not have the right why and the right model.

      Hubbard assumed incorrectly that every moment was recorded to the last detail as perception. That is not only physically impossible, but also very inefficient and impractical, looking at the amount of storage space that would require.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On February 7, 2012 at 4:10 PM

        Yes, seemed to be aware of the storage problem. Even from his viewpoint in the 50’s he stated that if every atom in the human brain stored one datum, it would fill to overflowing in 3 months. This subject of memory is one of a few obsessions that I entertain with regard to existence. I still have plenty of materials to study before I can ask a cogent question about where and how memory is. But having written that, I think that unraveling where and how are pivotal points of understanding everything and are key to writing a T.O.E.

      • Chris Thompson  On February 7, 2012 at 4:32 PM

        I have been working on three thought experiments. The first one is done and is interesting using some basic math to ferret out the orders of magnitude that are in play when discussing time.

        The second experiment involves using laser and long distance to separate a stream of photons into impulse-packets but it is snarled up. What began as a clear idea has snarled with inconsistencies now that I’ve put pen to paper.

        The third pivots on the second and hopes to “shed light” (no pun) on understanding pulsars.

      • vinaire  On February 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

        Less storage space is required depending on more efficient algorithm used. For example, look at “icloud”.

        The layers described in the article above are increasingly efficient ways of storing data. The most efficient storage is in “self”. How about that! 🙂

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On February 7, 2012 at 5:15 PM

          Amazing. And we are back to self. But then again I suppose we never left self, did we?

  • vinaire  On February 15, 2012 at 7:26 AM

    I am having wonderful successes in applying KHTK principles to others in simple discussions and bringing relief, which then makes a person become more and more alive. There is much more in terms of inconsistencies than just “engrams” and “identities.”

    Scientology believes that one simply has to address “engrams.” That would handle all problems that a person has. This is not true. Engrams are inconsistencies at the top level of perception. There are much deeper level of inconsistencies as sketched out in this article on inconsistencies. Thus, people find that after traveling up the “Bridge” of Scientology, they still have many difficulties.

    Idenics goes deeper than Scientology. It primarily addresses the inconsistencies of unwanted feelings and emotions at the level of experience. It then goes into unraveling fixed identities, which are inconsistencies at the level of self. Results from Idenics are very good. But there still remains a lot more to be addressed.

    Science has a wonderful methodology to address inconsistencies. But it addresses inconsistencies only at the physical level. It is not good in addressing inconsistencies at the mental level.

    Philosophy also addresses inconsistencies over a broad spectrum. It looks at cultures and beliefs and tries to unravel inconsistencies on large scales. But it seldom addresses them at the level of the individual.

    Psychology addresses inconsistencies at the level of the individual using scientific approach, but there is a long way to go still.

    In KHTK we go back to a simple scientific approach at mental level, first announced by Buddha 2600 years ago. It is a dynamic approach of identifying and addressing inconsistencies as they occur in life and tracing them through all the levels identified in the above article. KHTK approach accomplishes at mental level what the scientific approach accomplishes at the physical level.

    The key to this approach is not assuming anything. There are many assumptions underlying Scientology. There are less assumptions underlying Idenics, but there still are some. These assumptions channel the manner in which a person’s problems need to be addressed. Thus, there are slews of processes that address different things.

    A dynamic approach would address where a person’s attention is stuck at any point in time. It would be un-stacking the inconsistencies in the mind in the manner they are stacked up.

    KHTK provides that approach. So far, this approach has worked beautifully. KHTK is available freely on this blog. It can be learned and applied by anybody with great benefit.

  • vinaire  On March 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM

    In the revision of today, I have tried to clarify better what I see as inconsistency.

    An inconsistency can be something insignificant, or it can be very significant. But no inconsistency should be left unexplained.

    That very insignificant inconsistency could be a tip of an iceberg. One would not know it unless one examines it.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On March 21, 2012 at 1:40 AM

      Leveling inconsistencies seem analogous to fine arts. Both are irrational activities if related to mathematics. The goal is to create a product as refined as you wish. You are finished when you say you are finished, however, there is no other particular standard to apply to the activity and there can always be found more to polish if one looks.

    • vinaire  On March 21, 2012 at 5:27 AM

      An inconsistency has to do with oneself really. Resolving inconsistencies is same as simplifying oneself.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On March 21, 2012 at 10:02 AM

        Yes. Or you could also call it refining oneself. You could call it smoothing the line. You could call it leveling.

        Maybe you are right, but I am no longer certain of the dissolving part. Maybe death has a surface tension which breaks.

      • vinaire  On March 21, 2012 at 5:24 PM

        Whatever you may want to call it, it is up to you. For me, it is simplifying self to a point that it is no longer necessary.

        .

  • vinaire  On March 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM

    It seems to me that purposes and goals that an individual follows are the resultant of how various inconsistencies (engram, unwanted feelings & emotions, indoctrination, beliefs, doctrines, fixed ideas, etc.) add up for him.

    There are no purposes and goals that are knowingly determined. Even when the person thinks he is being self-determined, he is not really. There is deep conditioning influencing that person as a result of these inconsistencies.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On March 21, 2012 at 10:04 AM

      Do you feel that your personal goals are mathematical-algorithmic in nature? Deterministic, yet highly complex, enough so to seem like free will?

    • vinaire  On March 21, 2012 at 12:13 PM

      My personal goal seems to boil down to “simplifying complexity.”

      It is the mind wanting to unwind itself. Maybe it may like to wind itself in some way later. I don’t know.

      .

    • Brian  On May 1, 2012 at 10:51 PM

      I have to disagree with you on this matter of there being no purposes or goals that are knowingly determined. Certainly there are plenty of knowingly determined purposes and goals. Shopping, eating, etc. are all done on a knowing basis. I know my car is almost out of gas and I need to get more, so my (knowing) purpose becomes “finding a gas station”. If you mean to say that there is a concatenation of prior decisions that go into the making of some of a person’s goals and purposes, yes, certainly this is true, and yes they may be working below the person;s awareness level, but still when I decide to do something – I know I have decided to do it, the “motivation” might be unknown, but the decision itself certainly need not be. Also, I’d point out that there doesn’t always have to be a “reason why”. Because “I just did it” can be all the reason why that there is. Insisting on prior cause is an error, for one’s 1st postulate had no prior “reason why”.

    • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 12:52 PM

      Here some clarification is needed to what I mean by knowingly. There seem to be a gradient of how knowingly something is determined. If you think that the goals of eating, shopping, etc. are determined on a 100% knowing basis, then I would question that.

      Yes, it can be said that such goals and purposes are determined on a “knowing” basis. I would grant that. But are they determined on a 100% knowing basis? I would say, “No.” Why? Because, as long as there are unresolved inconsistencies that exist in one’s system, these would influence one’s goals and purposes in some unknowing way.

      Knowing doesn’t mean that one has to know the reason always. All I am saying is that unresolved inconsistencies influence one’s very thinking, and one is not fully aware of those influences, in my opinion.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On March 21, 2012 at 2:03 AM

    LRH as well as many others hold that the comparative dichotomies such as good and bad; beautiful and ugly; etc.; are similar considerations and have no basis in fact except for opinion. I had to go deeply into this to understand it fully and then deeper still in order to disagree with it.

    In a discrete and fractal and uttterly mathematical universe, there may indeed be beautiful v ugly which transcends opinion. This may turn out to be true of other dichotomies as well. I now see in the vast universe the possibility that all of its magnitudes from the largest star and interpositions or possibility of superpositions of space may truly have at its root form the simplest mathematical code. If Las Vegas can turn on an algorithm, then why not the entire universe?

    I am looking deeper into the universe as a determinism and wonder at what I will find, how deep is this rabbit hole, and what future my self has as a result of this query.

    Something that I have realized from the study of physics in my new beginning is that a totally knowable and deterministic universe might very well exist. And which can contain plenty of room within itself for another infinity of knowable and deterministic universes. To say nothing of omni-present Unknowable.

    I am arrogant beyond belief to walk this path. At best, I am more deluded than any Don Quixote. Yes, I have reached the loony-bin stage of deterioration, and yet feel that I am only just beginning to get anywhere.

    • vinaire  On March 21, 2012 at 5:30 AM

      The future I am anticipating is the dissolution of self.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On March 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM

        ahh. You anticipate a final layer.

      • vinaire  On March 21, 2012 at 5:22 PM

        What is beyond self is unknowable to me. But there seem to lie the ultimate freedom.

        That is my conjecture.

        .

  • Brian  On May 1, 2012 at 10:37 PM

    “The future I am anticipating is the dissolution of self.”

    If you take a look at: “Who is watching the watcher?”, you may find that “self” is purely a (complex) mental construct. You cannot be dissolved 🙂 – but what you consider “self” to be, yes, that you can dissolve. However, if you wish to remain in this universe you will find that having a self is useful for playing games.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 2, 2012 at 8:11 AM

      Agreed. I have not yet met the being who could play in this universe without self. I think it is just one of the rules of participation. Maybe I could be a spectator, incapable of interaction without self. I don’t know, just a speculation.

      The desire to dissolve self utterly seems to me unnecessary. I would only think that was a good idea if I were having a bad time of it playing games . . . e.g. suicide terrorism.

    • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM

      Well, self may be defined in many different ways. So, it basically comes down to what exactly one wants to dissolve. The first response that comes to my mind is: FIXATION. So, how does one dissolve fixation related to self?

      If one wants the self to retain some fixed form, then that would be fixation, in my opinion. If it is ok for the self to change its form dynamically, then there is no fixation. And that is ok. Then there is nothing that one is attached to.

      .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: