An Analysis of Scientology Axiom #1

NOTE: The concepts of STATIC and KINETIC that are in consensus with The Vedas are expressed in the essay: The Logical Structure of the Universe (Part 1) – Static to Kinetic

.

The very first Axiom of Scientology states:

AXIOM # 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

.

However, the axiom uses the article “a” before Static. It further assigns the abilities “to postulate and to perceive” to Life Static. In THE PHOENIX LECTURES, Hubbard states:

“This is a peculiar and particular static, having these properties…”

When describing THETA-MEST THEORY in SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008, Hubbard states:

“In Scientology, the static is represented by the mathematical symbol theta; the kinetic is called MEST. Theta can be the property or beingness of any individual and is, for our purposes, considered to be individualistic for each individual.”

This is simply a restatement of Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” for God brought to the level of the individual.

It is raising the individual to the level of God. The inconsistency is that different individualities do not exist at the level of God. What exists is the awareness of universe as a single system.

.

The THETA-MEST THEORY states:

“Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”

It is consistent because the same fundamental characteristic of motion is considered at all points of a spectrum. Motion is the outward form of awareness as argued in Awareness and Motion. THETA (individuality) is as much an aspect of motion as MEST (matter, energy, space and time) is. Both THETA and MEST are manifestations of motion or life.

However, THETA-MEST THEORY also states:

“It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

This statement is inconsistent because it assumes that one end of a spectrum produces the other end. The fact is that all points of this spectrum represent motion (MEST) as the outward from of awareness (THETA). From one end of this spectrum to the other end only the complexity of awareness and motion (THETA-MEST) increases.

MEST is not produced by THETA as assumed in Scientology. Both THETA and MEST exist together as aspects of existence from one end of the spectrum to the other.

.

Any spectrum, or scale, is a manifestation as a whole. It must exist within the background of ‘no manifestation’. That ‘no manifestation’ cannot be THETA or Static as implied by Scientology Axiom #1. This is argued in Universe and Awareness.

We have the following from the Vedas

The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

The Vedic Process for conceiving the background is: Neti neti.”

This makes the background to be beyond what we can ever consider. The starting point is not individuality as implied in Scientology Axiom #1.

.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On October 25, 2012 at 1:14 PM

    Any use of articles such as “a” or “the” before Static tends to assign the feel of an identity to it. This may lead to inconsistency.

    Any use of Static in a plural form, such as “Statics”,tends to assign the feel of an identity to it. This may lead to inconsistency.

    ..

    • Chris Thompson  On October 25, 2012 at 8:27 PM

      Agreed. Good English.

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 4:24 AM

      In my opinion, the article “a” when taken out of Axiom #1 (at two places) will make it sound much better.

      .

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 4:28 AM

      I would rather rewrite AXIOM #1 as follows:

      LIFE IS BASICALLY STATIC.

      Definition: There is no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time associated with Life Static. There exists the ability to postulate and to perceive.

      This seems to provide a better, more factual look.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 8:45 AM

        Yes. For me, this removes the individuation and makes it more consistent with my current truth about what I am. More semantics. I write “what” rather than “who” since who I am is a beingness; an identity. “What I am” is closer to the physics and nature of the universe and comes closer to the mechanics that we are trying to understand.

      • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 8:51 AM

        LRH uses the term “Life Static” to differentiate it from the concept of STATIC in physics.

        .

        • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 8:53 AM

          Beyond Physics there would always be Metaphysics to be understood.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 9:04 AM

          We should fix this word “metaphysics” as well. We are not looking for “more than physics” we are looking for the “next” physics. Thus proximus physics.

  • Chris Thompson  On October 25, 2012 at 8:55 PM

    Vinaire, over a few posts I would like to express my thoughts on the use of consistencies. It may be hard for me to form up the idea but I will try. To begin with, using your own research for example into religions, you have brought forward some consistencies that most people refer to as a “thread of truth.” What this means to me is that we can also look at another’s truth, look for and possibly find the truth in their ideas that can be acknowledged, understood, and automatically brought forward to the as you say sea of consistency. The problem I am having with this idea is mostly semantical and I will try to work it out and get back to you with it.

  • Chris Thompson  On October 25, 2012 at 8:59 PM

    For instance, since my first contact with Scientology and was introduced to the word static, I always held the same concept for it as you do now for unknowable, I just never knew that word. This is what I mean by consistency. When pure semantical issues are in the road of leveling inconsistency and become the inconsistency then we should see that as it is and level that too.

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 4:11 AM

      That is correct. I see knowledge as a whole. Any knowledge anywhere should be consistent with knowledge anywhere else. If it is not then that inconsistency needs to be looked at more closely and resolved. That is when realizations come and discoveries are made, and the subject of knowledge advances as a whole.

      Labels, such as Western and Eastern, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. and philosophies advanced by different philosophers, seem to divide knowledge. But, much of it may be semantics, as you say. It seems to me that way too. Once we get semantics out of the way, real inconsistencies may become more visible, and give us something real to chew on toward the advancement of knowledge.

      This is very possible in the Age of Information today. It is not a job of a person here or another person there. It is a job that belongs to everybody.

      .

  • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 7:55 AM

    This axiom tells us that even SELF is made up of considerations. Then most basic question then appears to be:

    “How does a consideration begin?”

    .

    • Mano  On February 21, 2013 at 11:02 PM

      Sometimes through dreams, which is beyond your control.

  • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 8:11 AM

    Hubbard says in THE PHOENIX LECTURES:

    The Axioms of Scientology are a list of usable or self evident truths and are a major part of the technical information of a Scientologist.

    Having these we are now operating on just fifty axioms and definitions, where the Dianetic Axioms of 1951 were in excess of two hundred and ninety. We arrived at these fifty Axioms of Scientology through a great many changes, a great many major developments – all of them in the direction of higher workability and simplification.

    A student in training in Scientology is not expected to read these Axioms. He is expected to absorb them, quote them verbatim and by number, understand and apply them.

    Webster’s says that an axiom is a self evident truth.

    Comparing the Axioms of Scientology with axioms in another subject, these are certainly as self-evident as those of, for instance, geometry, which is actually a relatively crude subject in that it proves itself by itself, which is a limitation that Scientology does not have.

    The Axioms of Scientology prove themselves by all of life.

    .

    The last sentence is the most important one.

    The Axioms of Scientology prove themselves by all of life.

    This is what needs to be examined more thoroughly.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 8:43 AM

    Hubbard says further :

    In geometry we find the Aristotelian syllogism arbitrarily cutting across the whole subject. In Scientology we needed a better base than the syllogism and we have a better one. The platform on which we base our understanding is, if something doesn’t work when applied we change what we are doing and find something which does work. We are certainly not bowed down to the great god No Change.

    Well, true enough, these Axioms are self evident truths. But they are not so thoroughly self evident that they leap out of the page and introduce themselves to you. You have to introduce yourself to them.

    The first of the Axioms is a bit of understanding which if you did not have and did not actually understand very well you would not be able to do anything with Scientology.

    It’s just as blunt as that.

    AXIOM ONE: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

    .

    The axioms in Geometry are based on the consideration of space. Space is assumed to be some sort of a fixed consideration or a constant. Geometry is very consistent within itself. But it is subject to assumptions made with respect to space. Thus, new understanding of space may change how we view the subject of geometry.

    Syllogism has to do with LOGIC. The alternative to logic is non-judgmental LOOKING. Most accurate knowledge comes from LOOKING. LOGIC serves well in pointing out where to look. Then one must look to acquire knowledge.

    Hubbard says: “We are certainly not bowed down to the great god No Change.” It is interesting to note that today’s Scientologists do not want to change anything in the subject of Scientology. The subject has become static and all progress in it has stalled since the death of Hubbard.

    So these Scientologists are now bowing down to the great god No Change in contradiction to Hubbard’s spirit. This is an inconsistency.

    These axioms require a diligent study as Hubbard said. So, we are going to do just that on this blog.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 9:00 AM

      In the beginning, Hubbard was brilliant but his iteration was tainted and that took him off onto unholy tangents.

      • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 9:06 AM

        Well, we are going to find out where some kind of a deviation started.

        .

  • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 9:19 AM

    From THE PHOENIX LECTURES by Hubbard:

    And what is this static?

    Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

    This is a peculiar and particular static, having these properties and a further peculiarity, which we find in the next Axiom.

    AXIOM TWO: THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.

    You can’t measure this Static.

    .

    Here we encounter the same inconsistency that was introduced in AXIOM #1 with the use of the article “a”.

    (1) Hubbard is defining this static as peculiar and particular. In doing so Hubbard is assigning an identity or self to life static.

    (2) This then makes the LIFE STATIC not some ultimate reality, but a later reality that was precipitated somehow.

    (3) This puts the Vedic Axiom of BRAHMA (unknowable) senior to Scientology Axiom #1.

    (4) This also puts the Buddhist state of Nirvana (beyond self) senior to the consideration of a Life Static with certain qualities.

    (5) Thus, Hubbard’s deviation first occurred with his disagreement with the Buddhist state of Nirvana as pointed out in Identity versus Individuality. It would be interesting to look more closely at this departure in Scientology from Buddhism.

    .

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 10:59 AM

      Hubbard seems to associate the abilities to postulate and to perceive with individuality, and considers them, and thus individuality, to be the ultimate reality.

      Is there some inconsistency here?

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 28, 2012 at 4:08 PM

        That piece of it seems to be inverted.

      • vinaire  On October 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM

        The ultimate reality, by definition, should precede individuality. If individuality is being postulated, then ultimate reality is already there. Individuality cannot be the ultimate reality.

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM

      Hubbard says, “You can’t measure this Static.” Yet he is assigning certain qualities to it, which gives it individuality, and, thus, a sort of self or identity.

      The moment qualities are introduced, an entity having those qualities is created. This entity is then recognizable by those qualities. Thus, it gets defined and becomes measurable.This means we can have more than one Static. This makes a Life Static measurable. This is an inconsistency.

      An individual is then made of the basic capabilities to postulate and to perceive. These capabilities and individuality would then be considerations relative to the unknowable.

      AXIOM TWO, thus, describes an individual in its purity. Hubbard’s “life static” is therefore, the essence of an individual. It is not the ultimate reality that cannot be measured.

      Hubbard’s concept of LIFE STATIC does not seem to be much different from the concept of THETAN in Scientology.

      Thus, we have the most fundamental axiom, which would make the basis of both individuality and non-individuality, missing in Scientology.

      .

  • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 12:58 PM

    From THE PHOENIX LECTURES by Hubbard:

    When you find something which has no mass, no location, no position in time and no wavelength — the very fact that it can’t be measured tells you that you have your hands on Life itself.

    You can’t measure it, yet all things measurable extend from it. From this Static all phenomena extend.

    You cannot measure a dog by his biscuits and you cannot measure this Static by the phenomena extending from it.

    Space is one of these phenomena. You could say that Life is a space-energy-object production and placement unit because that is what it does. But when you measure these you do not measure Life.

    .

    This is all well and good if you think of STATIC as unknowable, but a curve is thrown in the moment you equate the STATIC with individuality as Hubbard has done here.

    What Hubbard is saying here is that the phenomena of space-energy-object is produced by the individuality. Is that so?

    Individuality itself is a product of considerations, How can it then produce considerations resulting in space-energy-object? The source of individuality would also be the source of space-energy-object. Both THETA and MEST would proceed from AXIOM 0 (unknowable), which is missing in Scientology.

    Thus, the datum that THETA produces MEST is inconsistent. Both THETA and MEST are manifested in this universe. How they are manifested is unknowable.

    Hubbard’s THETA-MEST Theory, thus, comes under suspicion. It must be looked at more closely.

    I have put the links to THE PHOENIX LECTURES and SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008 under “Link Suggested by Readers” on my Blog. The THETA-MEST theory is described in the book Scientology 8-8008.

    .

    • Mano  On February 21, 2013 at 11:06 PM

      Theta can create Mest. In fact the Thetan is all the time creating Mest. Mest is created by Thetan without you knowing it. Atleast this has been my experience.

  • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

    The THETA-MEST Theory is correct in stating:

    “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”

    It also says correctly,

    “In Scientology, the static is represented by the mathematical symbol theta; the kinetic is called MEST.

    “Theta can be the property or beingness of any individual and is, for our purposes, considered to be individualistic for each individual.”

    But, then it includes this assumption, which is arbitrary and inconsistent,

    “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

    The hunt for the most fundamental inconsistency in Scientology is now over. We now need to investigate how this inconsistency has propagated itself through rest of the subject of Scientology.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM

    Looks like. You may be getting down to it right here.

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM

      Yes. The inconsistency is that of one end of the spectrum (THETA) is being considered to produce the other end of the spectrum (MEST).

      The whole scale, as well as both ends of it, must come from the same source, which is unknowable.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

        Honestly, I thought you were going to say that Hubbard became inconsistent by proposing that Theta as theoretically intangible had qualities and/or quantities.

        Is there a reason that Theta as Unknowable is inconsistent? Or does it simply correct Hubbard when we bring the Theta concept back into consistency by noticing the added inapplicable attributes that Hubbard gave it after correctly defining it to begin with?

        • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 3:04 PM

          I don’t think Hubbard had the concept of UNKNOWABLE (Ů) to start with. It was totally missing from his conceptualization.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 11:45 PM

          Well he seemed to have the idea of unmanifested.

        • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 3:07 PM

          You may be right. But, apparently, Hubbard considered qualities to be intangible as opposed to quantity being tangible. AXIOM ONE states Static having attributes in terms of quality (ability).

          From Dictionary,

          in·tan·gi·ble   
          1. not tangible; incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch, as incorporeal or immaterial things; impalpable.

          2. not definite or clear to the mind: intangible arguments.

          3. (of an asset) existing only in connection with something else, as the goodwill of a business.

          .

          I have not seen “intangible” being equated with “unknowable.”

          The concept of “unknowable” doesn’t seem to exist in the Western hemisphere.

          .

        • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 5:07 AM

          It seems that Hubbard looked at ‘unmanifested’ only in terms of quantity and not in terms of quality. He is assigning qualities to the unmanifested.

          If something is unmanifested you wouldn’t be able to perceive its qualities either.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 6:44 AM

          Correct. This is where we have gotten.

        • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 6:47 AM

          Well the qualities are quantities as well. Since we have all failed it seems to provide the reason for the appearance of iteration, we give it a reason to appear from outside the manifested universe — making the assumption that there is such a thing as outside.

        • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 7:02 AM

          Inside and outside are considerations.

          .

      • A.H. Jessup  On April 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM

        I must respectfully disagree. While the states of life energy from assumed location on down to heavy facsimiles form a spectrum with MEST presumably at its lower end, the static is not “one end of the spectrum”. It is the zero which contains the infinity of forms and locations, to put it another way. It is a “static” (a no-motion) when contrasted with the kinetics of thought and energy.

        • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2013 at 3:15 PM

          AHJ: It is a “static” (a no-motion) when contrasted with the kinetics of thought and energy.

          Chris: Respectfully, the first step of that would be for us to decide which of Hubbard’s definitions you want to work with. Next step would be to negate what is not static until you arrive at the nothing that we like to throw about as though we know what we are talking about. When we get there, we run out of metaphor and out of MEST. But do we? Or is that a conjecture? Does one run out of MEST ever? I am pretty sure that anything you know about static is not static.

        • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 3:28 PM

          I am very happy to get your input Mr. Jessup. Let me explain my viewpoint more clearly. Maybe that will help resolve the inconsistency that you are looking at.

          Hubbard assigns to Static certain abilities in Axiom 1. These abilities then become part of individuality when expressed. Thus, I find Hubbard identifying Static with individuality.

          If individuality exists then it is part of existence. If the potential for individuality exists then that is part of existence too.

          The scale of no-motion to all-motion applies to existence. It is the scale of existence. So, I see individuality, the potential for individuality, and the Static (as defined in Axiom 1) to be part of existence.

          What is beyond existence may only be speculated or theorized because it would be an absolute. At best, the Static is a theoretical absolute.

          .

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

      The following axiom is missing in the subject of Scientology:

      AXIOM ZERO: THE ULTIMATE REALITY IS UNKNOWABLE (Ů).

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 3:23 PM

        I love this because the subject has now been sifted down to as fine a consistency as words will allow and now all that will remove the final inconsistency is absolute silence, if that. Is there such a silence? We don’t know.

        Now the laughter: hahahaha! Possibly this was the sound of the Big Bang — laughter?

        • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 4:32 PM

          Good one! 🙂

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 11:56 PM

          I never had attention on metaphors until Rafael pointed mine out to me, then I realized he was right. In an absence of scientific education and in the presence of cultural story telling, metaphors have quite a bit to do with the way that I think.

          As I was working this summer with understanding and using orders of 10, I also began thinking in fractals and orders of magnitude and this was useful as well. (If the earth was a small marble and the moon was a bb and the sun was a . . .)

        • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 5:13 AM

          It is definitely useful.

          .

      • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 5:12 AM

        Another way of looking at ‘unknowable’ is ‘beyond consideration’. Unknowable cannot be considered.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM

          Yet we continue to. Why?

        • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 3:28 PM

          May be we want to verify our conjecture.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 8:28 PM

          Yes, that seems natural but we have to be clear to ourselves what is conjecture and what is real.

      • A.H. Jessup  On April 23, 2013 at 1:08 PM

        I submit that you are wandering into a Kantian paradox. If by unknowable you mean unable to be sensed, measured OR experienced by living awareness, then the proposition is self-defeating, unless you are positioning yourself as a higher life form than all others, able to know the unknowable. It seems to me you are considering a lot of unknowability right here, while saying it cannot be considered.

        If you mean unknowable as “data”, then it seems reasonable that the static would be unknowable, as it has no representation, location or frequency. True, the scale and scope of this phenomenon called “Static” is not known in full, even though a good deal has been teased out about it. That does not make it unknowable, however.

        • vinaire  On April 23, 2013 at 3:40 PM

          Mr. Jessup, you are right. Unknowable is also a theoretical absolute like Static. I have pretty much dropped that framework.

          I am currently operating from the framework of mindfulness, which is “to see things as they are.”. That has led me to the following:

          PHILOSOPHY PROJECT

          .

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM

      I can see why this axiom is missing. It simply doesn’t exist in the western hemisphere, just like the understanding of “division by zero” does not exist. 😉

      [The above is a joke.]

      But just for the heck of it, ask 3 people, “If you divide 5 by 0, what do you get?” Check if you get the answer that it is infinite (undefined).

      .

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 2:41 PM

      It seems that UNKNOWABLE (Ů) is a more fundamental harmonic of INFINITE (∞).

      .

      • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM

        Over the centuries it has taken a considerable effort for people to come to terms with concepts of like that of zero, negative numbers, infinity and imaginary numbers. Now it is the concept of UNKNOWABLE (Ů) that we are struggling with.

        The concept of UNKNOWABLE (Ů) is not a new concept. It has been there since the time of the Vedas. But it is only now that it is invading the consciousness of the Western culture.

        Next few years will show how the understanding of this concept evolves.

        .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 11:41 PM

        I don’t understand your point here, neither do I get how you get infinite as the answer to 5/0. Please explain?

        • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 4:49 AM

          Division means how many times you can take one number out of another number. For example, 30/5 means if you have 30 pennies on the table, and you want to take away 5 pennies at a time, how many times can you do so until no penny is left on the table. The answer is 6 times.

          30 – 5 – 5 – 5 – 5 – 5 – 5 = 0

          Thus, division is ‘repeated subtraction’. You already know that multiplication is ‘repeated addition’.

          Now try this with 5/0.

          5 – 0 – 0 – 0 – 0 – … (how many times) = 0

          The answer is ‘undefined’ or ‘infinite’ because it is not possible to divide by zero. Looks like this demonstrates the point of my post above. 🙂

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 2:30 PM

        I do not know what you mean by UNKNOWABLE (Ů) is a more fundamental harmonic of INFINITE (∞). How can this be?

        • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 3:27 PM

          It seems that Ů underlies ∞ and not the other way around.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 8:24 PM

          Vinaire: It seems that Ů underlies ∞ and not the other way around. .

          Chris: I feel uncomfortable reminding you that we don’t know anything about Ů. That it underlies, overlays, surrounds, is surrounded, infiltrated by or into, cause of; effect of; any or some or none of these things apply to Ů.

        • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM

          There seem to be unknowable in infinite, but no infinite in unknowable.

        • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM

          This looks like an assumption since we have no way of knowing this.

    • vinaire  On October 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

      Geir went nuts at the thought of UNKNOWABLE (Ů).

      That was funny and unfunny at the same time.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 3:07 PM

    More than ever it seems to me that that we never will be able to say anything consistent about Ů since there is nothing to unknowable to say. There is not and never will be anything real about Ů. But I do like your symbol.

  • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 3:11 PM

    Unknowable (Ů ) is a hope for something which we can never clearly express. It is this inconsistency about something consistent hoped for which is the root reason for any upset that this subject manifests. This is your neti-neti and I am ok with that.

  • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 3:23 PM

    I like Axiom Zero. This has been a long time coming.

  • Chris Thompson  On October 26, 2012 at 11:44 PM

    Are you saying that they do not mean the same or equivalent unmanifested nothing?

    • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 4:58 AM

      ‘Infinite’ means ‘no limit’. ‘Unknowable’ means ‘cannot be known.’

      Can it be known precisely that infinite is actually manifested? Or, that knowledge may only be approximated?

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 6:43 AM

        It seems that both and neither of these definitions may apply to static. We don’t know what or if anything unmanifested or nothing is there.

        Our very first exchange centered around this gobbledy-gook if I recall correctly. At that time I said that Static was nothing as in No-Thing. I was heartily slammed all around for this. So have we progressed beyond that definition? Do we know more today?

        • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 6:59 AM

          The unknowable cannot be known, by definition.

          .

  • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 5:22 AM

    This blog has many articles on UNKNOWABLE under the category of PHILOSOPHY.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM

    But wise men through all ages have come to this — not just since the Vedas, Christ, Scientology, Theosophy, whatever!

    What is it within us which can resolve something like Axiom Zero and then be ready in the next breath to look for Axiom Zero-Zero?

    • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 1:51 PM

      What do you see?

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 7:41 PM

        1. I see consistent considerations laced with inconsistent considerations.
        2. Noticing the inconsistent considerations seems to dissolve the inconsistent aspect of the consideration, leveling it and leaving in its place a stimulated, calm and peaceful brain laced with natural narcotic feeling such as results from dopamine, adrenaline and the like.
        3. Then this cycle repeats.

    • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM

      As far as looking goes (we are not using logic at this level) there is no difference between you and those wise men.

      They faced the same situation.

      ..

      • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 8:12 PM

        . . . faced the same situation . . . solved it satisfactorily for themselves and possibly even worked out the exercises others could use as tools to work it out as well.

        I see people arising and vanishing and each has to sort out their lives for themselves to their own satisfaction. This urge to not just live and survive but to also understand seems innate to mankind.

        I seem to only be able to solve these mysteries for myself and except for the written record, my findings will be forever lost to mankind.

        This prompts me to view myself as an iteration of a peculiar sort who experiences tasty moments of faux free will but is ultimately slave to a universe which seems to have spawned him.

    • vinaire  On October 27, 2012 at 3:25 PM

      It could be the mother of all games. The ultimate desire seem to be to know the ultimate reality.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM

        For men and women like us, it does seem to be the most seductive game. Others, however, are different and iterate differently; give different importances; different values to life goals. The paths are as numerous as there are people.

  • vinaire  On October 28, 2012 at 6:11 PM

    I have now revised the OP to present Scientology Axiom #1 for what it is, and not the way I would like to see it.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 28, 2012 at 9:15 PM

    (a) Any static of peculiar and particular properties would simply be a prime consideration.

    (b) It would be that stable datum on which the whole philosophy has been formulated.

    (c) The whole philosophy of Scientology has been formulated on the stable datum of individuality.

    .

  • vinaire  On October 30, 2012 at 5:48 AM

    Having an Eastern background I always equated Hubbard’s concept of “Static” instinctively with “Unknowable.” It is a big surprise for me to find myself to be wrong in this regard.

    Hubbard truly meant “Static” to be “individuality.” He did not have the concept of “Unknowable.”

    “Individuality” is a very basic consideration because each manifestation is individual as it occupies a different location in space.

    I have now updated the OP with this understanding.

    .

  • idealgoal  On November 9, 2012 at 5:19 PM

    Vinaire, nice you work on the concept of “inconsistency” (even if for me you have not yet grasped the simplicity and precision of it, which is, applied to a postulate or on axiom: the non-logical coherence OF THE CONSEQUENCES, or “theorems”, deduced from it with the rest of the theory), but looks to me you are far having read and heard all about M. Hubbard (so do I any way!).

    In a lecture, I’m sorry I don’t remember the reference, Hubbard talked about the thetans having became MEST, like particles, planets, etc.

    An other thing is all when he talks about “PANDETERMISM”, and to “BE” without limit and that the “other guy” is not an “other guy” (for this few lectures in the series named “Factors”).

    It means that MEST is itself of THETA nature, with is consistent with “The Factors” of the same author, so there no “inconsistency” about the tow extremities of the scale… (I remember you Hubbard didn’t stop his researches in 1954…).

    So, your conclusion that the first Axiom of Scientology (1954) is inconsistent would be correct IF it has been claimed as “the ultimate thruth”. IT IS, but for “a” life static, but not for any kind of “entity”.

    You have already my own idea of cosmogony, any way on your blog, that states the source of any “static” is both potential infinite knowingness and UNDIFFERENCIATED, and that is its own reflexive awarness that produces the effect of DIFFERENTIATION in an infinite quantity of specific INDIVIDUALIZED viewpoints, so still of the same basic nature of the First Cause.

    And for now, the most consistent definitions I can see are that

    – “THETA” is this “First Cause” (as INFINITE KNOWINGNESS) and

    – “THETAN” is one the levels of “INDIVIDUALITIES” that THETA is source of;

    like the “dymamism entities” that governs cells, mulitcells organisms, a couple, an organization sometimes too, still having the awareness of link with “The Ultimate Cause”, or not.

    Though, as any “thetan”, to honor the work of L. Ron Hubbard, is of nature of “Theta”, is still connected to it, but aware or not of this connection, there is no inconsistency (still epistemological definition) with the possibility, for a thetan, to “know” about “The Ultimate Cause”, so “Theta”. Proof of it: we are talking about, so means that we already know that “something of that sort”, an “Ultimate Cause” should exist, so that is obviously a none “unknowable” entity for us.

    And as Napoléon Hill said in his book “The Prophet” (by memory, needs to be rechecked): One can only know / understand what he already knows somewhere. I think this is the basic idea.

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM

      IG said: “So, your conclusion that the first Axiom of Scientology (1954) is inconsistent would be correct IF it has been claimed as “the ultimate thruth”. IT IS, but for “a” life static, but not for any kind of “entity”.”

      What that means is that the following is missing in Scientology:

      KHTK AXIOM ZERO

      AXIOM ZERO leads us to the realization that

      MEST is not produced by THETA as assumed in Scientology. Both THETA and MEST are aspects of existence.

      .

  • Watchful Navigator  On November 13, 2012 at 8:08 PM

    What a powerful “positive process” neti-neti is. I went exterior just reading about it and… “looking.” = >

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 9:37 PM

      Yes, it is. I am glad that you discovered it for yourself.

      I am finding that MINDFULNESS can replace the E-meter in running many Scientology processes.

      .

  • vinaire  On February 21, 2013 at 6:07 AM

    This is in response to Spyros:

    http://isene.me/2013/02/13/scientology-results/#comment-30587


    Individuality in SCN is only 1st Dynamic. According to LRH one IS all 8 Dynamics. If one allowed his 1st to hinder ARC with all the rest, it wouldn’t be alligned with SCN philosophy. I understand there can be misunderstanding/misapplication of the philosophical principles –that is very common.

    I’m not implying the only reason one would misunderstand/misapply is a misunderstood word. There is something above that, and that is what one duplicates in this universe (others would say ‘in his mind’). I know people that have read similar stuff as myself have understood completely different things, as they combine them with different ideas that they have. So, I cannot claim that I am right over them. But I’m certain that SCN was not meant to empower ego nor the group (such as in the case of the SO, that was more important than all). It is a balanced thing. All dynamics are equally important.

    .

    When we talk about individuality of Scientology Axiom #1, we are talking about a much more basic concept of discreteness, rather than the concept of First Dynamic.

    It is digital versus continuous. That is the dichotomy being looked at here. It is the digital popping out of something continuous. It is the appearance of a manifestation. It is what creates separation and space.

    Scientology Axiom #1 institutionalizes this discreteness as being fundamental. I question that. It is just one half of a dichotomy, which is being assumed by Hubbard as the basis of everything.

    This is a false assumption.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM

    Here is my concept of individuality.

    At the core of individuality there is perception-point. A perception-point is like any other perception point. The only characteristic it has is to perceive. It can shrink to a location in space; or it can expand to pervade the whole universe.

    Any individuality comes from logical association which fixes the perceptions around the perception point as filters. Layer upon layers of filters come about around the perception-point. This is like layers of an onion.

    The “center of filters” acquires “self-awareness.” It becomes the “I”.

    Thus, the source of “I” are these filters. Without these filters there is no “I” or individuality. There is only pure perception.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 10, 2013 at 12:58 AM

      Vin: Thus, the source of “I” are these filters. Without these filters there is no “I” or individuality. There is only pure perception.

      Chris: I don’t have this nailed yet.

      • vinaire  On May 10, 2013 at 5:06 AM

        Of course, not. I have yet said that perception-point itself is a construct.

        Haha!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 10, 2013 at 10:34 PM

          Perception-point is a construct. Therefore it comes into being and goes out of being.

          This idea of “pure perception” is troubling to me. By the time there is a perception, there is a manifestation. By tagging the adjective “pure” onto perception, I get the idea that we are reaching for something deeper. For me, this seems to miss.

          I am trying to pay less attention to manifestations and I’m going to continue to look for a reason why something manifests. Because the world around me looks fractal, and because fractal dimension points are the resultant points of a mathematical iteration, I am going to assume that a crank is turning — spitting out coordinates. I am being mindful that this is a metaphor. I am being mindful not to fasten to ideas too firmly. While making assumptions, I am trying to be mindful that is what I am doing.

        • vinaire  On May 11, 2013 at 5:55 AM

          The idea of “pure perception” is perception without filters.

          But this is theoretical only because filters start from the very appearance of the manifestation-perception dichotomy.

          Maybe the very appearance of manifestation-perception dichotomy is because of some primary filter.

          Who knows? Haha!

          The last line of The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda comes to mind.

          .

  • vinaire  On May 9, 2013 at 8:35 PM

    I think that initially the perception-point is pervading the whole universe. It starts to shrink as it starts to associate perceptions logically and filters are created. The thicker these filters get, the more this perception-point shrinks. Thus, “I” gets more and more condensed and solid as it associates more and more perceptions.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2013 at 9:06 PM

      Vin: I think that initially the perception-point is pervading the whole universe.

      Chris: Nice. Keep going.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2013 at 9:09 PM

      Vin: It starts to shrink as it starts to associate perceptions logically and filters are created. The thicker these filters get, the more this perception-point shrinks. Thus, “I” gets more and more condensed and solid as it associates more and more perceptions.

      CHris: Like pinpoints of condensation? Like so much warm moisture on cold glass… This pattern you write reminds me of my perception of the elasticity of space… These moments are worth waiting for.

  • vinaire  On May 9, 2013 at 8:36 PM

    The fundamental dichotomy is ‘manifestation-perception’. I have no idea how this dichotomy comes about, but it seems to be a fundamental dichotomy. At the formation of this dichotomy perception seems to be fully pervading the manifestation and vice versa.

    A postulate seems to be some sort of logical association among whatever is thought to be perceived. The moment a postulate is made it is manifested as a filter around the perception-point. In other words the perception becomes subject to the scope of that postulate.

    As more postulates are made, the more filters come about, and the perception is regulated to that degree.

    Thus, any postulate serves to affect the pure perception and limit it in some way. The idea of viewpoint would be a filter. The idea of presence would be another filter. The ideas of cause,effect, create, experience, etc. will also add to the filters. Anything created, any qualities imagined would all add to the filter.

    Thus, the perception starts shrinking to a point as “I’ comes about in the form of filters that condense space and create solidity.

    Welcome to this universe!

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2013 at 9:12 PM

      Yup, Welcome!

      The entire subject of individuality obfuscates what is really going on. The quicker we dispense with the I, the quicker we can see more clearly.

      • vinaire  On May 10, 2013 at 5:32 AM

        Neti, neti!

        • Chris Thompson  On May 10, 2013 at 10:53 PM

          Careful. Neti neti is ideology, or it can become ideology. Used judiciously I am having success with it. But it will not be found to be a panacea for it ultimately arrives at nothing.

          The answers will ultimately be something rather than nothing. Unknowable is synonymous with unmanifestable. This is my current hypothesis. I will cling to it lightly, only enough to test it. I have to go this way because I am never going to know nothing until I am gone, and even then I will not know nothing but I will not know anything. I hope my double, triple, and quadruple negatives are helpful!

        • vinaire  On May 11, 2013 at 6:01 AM

          “Neti, neti” to me simply means what you are saying.

          Do not take anything for granted.

          But you are approaching the asymptote.

          .

  • vinaire  On June 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM

    Hubbard’s “Static” is a mental concept that exists in mental space if not in physical space. Like Kant’s “thing-in-itself” it is still subject to the “manifestation-filter-perception” model of existence. Please see CHAPTER 5: Manifestation at

    Reality & Mindfulness

    .

  • vinaire  On October 18, 2014 at 11:21 AM

    I have modified the main article to add reference to Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover” and to clarify the meaning of the spectrum of Motion used in Theta-MEST Theory.

  • vinaire  On January 16, 2015 at 10:32 AM

    @iamvalkov… Lately I have been mentioning “interiorization into ‘I’.”. Another version of that interiorization is “interiorization into ‘source’.”

    To you denial of THETA as a source means accepting MEST as a source. You think that there MUST be a source. This is human-centric bias and absolutism.

    I think that the following observation about “motion” by LRH is simply brilliant:

    “Scientology is essentially a study of statics and kinetics. If anything, it is more exact than what are called the physical sciences, for it is dealing with a theoretical static and a theoretical kinetic which are at the opposite ends of a spectrum of all motion.”

    It is brilliant because it reflects part of what Buddha said 2600 years ago:

    “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.”

    Buddha was talking about CHANGE, which in modern terms may be represented as motion. Both Buddha and LRH are talking about change / motion to be the factor underllying reality. LRH was brilliant in employing the idea of “spectrum or scale with gradients” to reality.

    But then Hubbard succumbed to human-centric bias as follows:

    “It is now considered that the origin of MEST lies with theta itself, and that MEST, as we know the physical universe, is a product of theta.”

    First he calls the two ends of the “spectrum of motion” as theoretical, and then he turns them into absolute terminals, without any explanation.

    THETA and MEST are neither absolute nor are they terminals. They simply represent gradients of “change” or “motion” pure and simple.

    THETA is the awareness of motion. It may be called the subjective aspect of motion. (Please see What is Awareness, Scientifically?)

    MEST provides the appearance to motion. It may be called the objective aspect of motion.

    THETA-MEST go hand-in-hand throughout the spectrum of motion, simply becoming more complex by the gradient.

    This provides a clearer view of what Buddha saw. I credit Hubbard for supplying the modern vocabulary.
    .

  • vinaire  On January 17, 2015 at 12:30 PM

    I do not see THETA as the ability to create. I see it as the property of ‘awareness’ just as there is the property of ‘form’. Motion or change has the properties of form and awareness.

    Create is the appearance of a new form and a new awareness to go along with that form. Creation is the output because of some input. Input is converted to an output by some system. That system can be a system of natural laws, but the ignorance of those laws can be short circuited and hidden behind the idea of a thetan. So, one sees “a thetan creating.”

    The ideas such as senior-junior, good-bad are matter of opinions. They change with the viewpoint.

    The absolutist concepts, such as, Supreme Being and thetan are result of short circuiting of understanding and a compression of confusion. Please see

    https://vinaire.me/2015/01/08/interiorization-exteriorization/#comment-56498
    .

  • N/A  On April 21, 2015 at 1:27 AM

    I Ching says, “All change (MEST) needs a fixed point (THETAN)
    to which it refers, else everything dissolves in chaotic movement.”

    • vinaire  On April 24, 2015 at 1:54 PM

      I see the absolutiist division between THETA and MEST as arbitrary. There is no such terminal as a THETAN in an absolute sense.

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: