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: Universe: 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.

.

.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

Comments

  • 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.

  • Eisermann  On July 18, 2021 at 5:06 PM

    L Ron Hubbard

    by Bernd Eisermann 6.2.54 preclear
    Germany

    there are no new powers vektorielle kräfte
    which could
    change
    the movement of the planets in the
    universe….

    Urknall…….a long time ago?

    scientology dianetics support human beings
    to have fun,joy and less problems.
    freedom means to be free of problems,
    pain etc.

    tech by LRH works.

    be

    Leibniz prästabilierte Harmonie
    …Homo Sapiens | Thetans
    Universe / MEST matter energy space time

    we can post things on Mars.
    we have space stations

%d bloggers like this: