Space: A Definition

Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, says in THE PHOENIX LECTURES:


Do you know that physics has gone on since the time of Aristotle without knowing that! Yet we read in the Encyclopedia Britannica of many years ago (the Eleventh Edition, published in 1911) that space and time are not a problem of the physicist. They are the problem of one working in the field of the mind. And it says that when the field of psychology solves the existence of space and time why then physics will be able to do something with it. And all those fellows with their Ph.D.’s — not for centuries actually but a number of decades (it seems like centuries if you’ve ever listened to their lectures) — going back to the days of Wundt, The Only Wundt — about 1867 — they didn’t read the Encyclopedia Britannica and find out that they held the responsibility for identifying space and time so that physics could get on its way.

And because they avoided this responsibility we have to pitch in here and discover and develop Scientology — not to work in the field of physics, however, but to work in the field of the Humanities. But it so happened that I discovered very, very early while I was studying nuclear physics at George Washington University that physics did not have a definition for space, time and energy. It defined energy in terms of space and time. It defined space in terms of time and energy, and it defined time in terms of energy and space. It was going around in a circle. I first moved out of that circle by putting it into human behavior — be, do and have, which you’ll find in Scientology: 8-8008, but the point is here that without a definition for space, physics was and is adrift. One of our auditors was recently talking to an engineer in an Atomic Energy Commission plant, and happened to remark, “Well, we have a definition for space.” This engineer said, “Uh, you do?” and got instantly interested. Of course we didn’t make this definition for nuclear physics, but they could certainly use one. The engineer asked, “What is the definition of space?” and the auditor said, “Space is viewpoint of dimension.” This fellow just sat there for a moment, and he sat there, and then all of a sudden he rushed to the phone and dialed a number and he said, “Close down number five.!” He had suddenly realized that an experiment in progress was about to explode and one of the reasons he knew it was about to explode is that he had found out what space was. This is of great interest to nuclear physicists, but they will get one of these definitions and then they will start to figure, figure, figure, figure, figure. They don’t take the definition as such and use it as such. They figure-figure, and they lose it.


Hubbard implies that space is generated by viewpoint. But a viewpoint, being a point, must itself be part of space. It appears that space has both physical and mental (spiritual) aspects to it. The following seems to be the characteristics of space:

  1. Space is basically a field, or an expanse, made up of points or locations.

  2. This expanse of points is infinite having no limits.

  3. Each point is recognized by considerations attached to it.

  4. The primary consideration is that of being part of a matrix.

  5. The consideration at a point may acquire the dimension of being a “point of reference.”

  6. That point then becomes a viewpoint from which other points may be viewed or considered.

  7. The points in space may have considerations of their own as matter, energy, space and time (MEST).

  8. These points may also be viewed through considerations generated at the viewpoint, such as, perceptions, experience, information, hypothesis, theory, principles, axioms, and self.

  9. A point in space is known by its considerations, and the considerations that are attached to it by the viewpoint.

  10. The points become unknowable as they move farther and farther away from the viewpoint.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On October 30, 2012 at 4:34 PM

    Here is what I see:



    Note: The symbol Ů represents the ultimate reality as unknowable. Ů underlies the concept of infinity (∞) in the sense that the limit of infinity cannot be known.

    Defintion: Matter, energy, space, time, individuality, cause, effect, and the capabilities to consider, postulate, opine, etc. are all aspects of what is manifested. The ultimate cause of manifestation is unknowable.



    Definition: Matrix is something that constitutes the place or point from which something else originates, takes form, or develops.

    Definition: Consideration is that, which is deemed to be there; a thought or reflection.



  • vinaire  On October 30, 2012 at 6:10 PM

    I see the following too.



    With the rediscovery of AXIOM ZERO I now see a change propagating through Scientology axioms. This is resulting in KHTK axioms. I see a lot of energy here.



    • Chris Thompson  On October 30, 2012 at 9:34 PM

      I am conjecturing a possible TOE when we unravel space-time.


    • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 4:40 AM

      This KHTK AXIOM TWO comes into play when one wants to wiggle one’s finger.

      Here may lie the secret to action from a distance.

      The secret to gravity may lie here too. It is simply a matter of how space is set up with a matrix of considerations.



  • vinaire  On October 30, 2012 at 6:18 PM

    I have now started to toy with the idea of doing a Ph.D. in philosophy. 🙂



    • Chris Thompson  On October 30, 2012 at 9:35 PM

      I applaud that kind of thinking.


    • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 4:27 AM

      I shall start writing a thesis once the KHTK AXIOMS are shaken out of the Scientology Axioms. These KHTK AXIOMS have to be totally consistent. They must be verifiable against all life.

      Hubbard had set the same criterion for himself but he missed AXIOM ZERO.



    • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 4:30 AM

      This way the consistency of KHTK AXIOMS shall be checked out by academia against the Buddhist literature, and I would not be struggling to preserve my fixed ideas.



  • Chris Thompson  On October 30, 2012 at 8:33 PM

    Please say why you have split space-time apart. What are you looking at?


    • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 4:23 AM

      I see space as a primary consideration. Thus, there are spatial locations in the most abstract sense. Time comes into play as further considerations are attached to these locations turning them into viewpoints and dimension points.



    • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 4:35 AM

      Time is more basic than viewpoints and dimension points.

      Space is the bed rock on which Time operates.



  • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 3:19 PM

    I would like to look more closely at space as defined by Hubbard in “Scinetology 8-8008”:

    H: “Space is creatable by a thetan. He may also conserve, alter and destroy space.”

    (1) Thetan is “individuality” manifested as a live being.

    (2) Any manifestation must exist in space. So, I would think that a thetan would be situated in space. If we look at space as a “matrix of considerations” then thetan would be consideration of a live being placed in that matrix.

    (3) What Hubbard seems to be talking about is considerations being extended from a live being. Other points (unknowable) in space would be impinging on the live being as “inputs”. These would then be interpreted as perception. This would give the being “space as perceived”.

    (4) Thus, Hubbard seems to be talking about “space” based on perception, and not the space that impinges on the being.



    • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 3:43 PM

      H: “Space is the first condition necessary to action. The second condition necessary is energy. The third condition is possession or not possession.”

      (1) Action may be looked upon as the original consideration of a thetan being added to the matrix of space.

      (2) Points of matrix then impinge on the consideration of a thetan. This matrix is unknowable until perceived.

      (3) The result from this impingement is perception. This perception would be colored by the considerations that make up the thetan.

      (4) The perception would then provide a “knowable space” to the thetan.

      (5) If we look at energy as “propagation of change through space” we find that any change in consideration by the thetan would then propagate through the “space” of the thetan because all that “space” is based on the thetan. That would be “thetan’s energy”. The thetan’s action would be a “change in consideration.” The thetan will then have a modified space.



    • Chris Thompson  On October 31, 2012 at 6:14 PM

      Yes, you are exploiting the indecision on the part of Hubbard of what constitutes and what does not constitute Theta. I think that if we understand that Hubbard was being scissored by neti-neti and going back and forth between ,em>what Theta Is, and what Theta Is Not then we understand the mind of Hubbard and the spirit of what he was writing better than if we go for something like falsification.

      I believe that you are also being sandwiched by “what is” and “what is not” every time you write the word Unknowable and I feel this is a sticking point at this time. Do you think this is a problem or do you have a different and new take on what I have written?


      • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 9:32 PM

        I think Hubbard was very definite about Static or Theta being “individuality.” Please see the LRH Quotes that I have provided in Scientology Axiom # 1



    • vinaire  On November 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM

      H: “For the purposes of processing, and possibly for many other purposes, space can be considered to be the equivalent in experience of beingness. One is as alive as he has space and as he can alter and occupy that space.”

      (1) Perception seems to provide the knowable space to the thetan.

      (2) Within that space lie extrapolations from one’s experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, self, etc.

      (3) This space is entirety of one’s beingness. One is as alive as one can alter and maintain this space.

      (4) This space is the entirety of what needs to be straightened out in terms of processing. All the processing that is really required is the leveling of inconsistencies.



    • vinaire  On November 1, 2012 at 12:21 PM

      H: “The workable definition of space is “viewpoint of dimension”: there is no space without viewpoint, there is no space without points to view. This definition of space remedies a very great lack in the field of physics, which defines space simply as that thing in which energy acts. Physics has defined space as change of motion or in terms of time and energy. Time has been defined in terms of space and energy; energy has been defined in terms of space and time only. These definitions, thus interdependent, made a circle out of which there was no exit unless one had a better definition for one of those items: time, space or energy. In such a way was the science of physics limited.”

      (1) “Viewpoint of dimension” would be the perception generated in response to “unknowable input” from original matrix.

      (2) This may be termed the knowable space. It has its contents.

      (3) But underlying this perception (knowable space) would be the unknowable matrix supplying the “input.”

      (4) Thus, actual space lies beyond the self or viewpoint. Self or viewpoint is one of the points in that unknowable space.

      (5) The science of Physics seems to go beyond the self or viewpoint into the realm of the unknowable matrix of space.



    • vinaire  On November 1, 2012 at 12:55 PM

      H: “Space is the viewpoint of dimension. The position of the viewpoint can change, the position of the dimension points can change. A dimension point is any point in a space or at the boundaries of space. As a specialized case those points which demark the outermost boundaries of the space or its corners are called in Scientology anchor points. An anchor point is a specialized kind of dimension point. Any energy has as its basic particle a dimension point.”

      (1) The individual or self seems to be the “center of beingness” much like the concept of “center of mass” in Physics. Beingness seems to be made up of a set of considerations. Self seems to be the “weighted average” of beingness established at a point.

      (2) Beingness is a set of considerations. But a subset of these considerations may be called a viewpoint. This viewpoint may shift around as the subset of considerations shifts around.

      (3) The viewpoint will have its own perceptual field that it is aware of due to its make up. What it views at any time would determine its scope of attention. This attention may be focused.

      (4) What comes under the focus of attention may be called a dimension point.

      (5) The viewpoint may use certain dimension points as reference points when evaluating other dimension points. Such reference points may be called anchor points.

      (6) Energy is constituted of shifts which then propagates through as shifts in other dimension points.



  • Chris Thompson  On November 1, 2012 at 3:45 PM

    This is some really good work… I especially can work with the “weighted average” of beingness. Several things about this I can work with.


  • vinaire  On November 1, 2012 at 5:04 PM

    H: “The dimension point can be of different kinds and substances. It can combine in various ways, it can take on forms, become objects. It can flow as energy. A particle of admiration or a particle of force are alike dimension points. Dimension points, by shifting, can give the viewpoint the illusion of motion. The viewpoint, by shifting, can give the dimension points the illusion of motion. Motion is the manifestation of change of viewpoint of dimension points.”


    (1) A dimension point is that which comes under the focus of attention to be viewed. As one looks closer, one may look at parts of a dimension point as new dimension points.

    (2) A dimension point is how the unknowable “input” is perceived. Thus, a dimension point is made up of considerations extended from the viewpoint.

    (3) Thus, perception of dimension points may appear as different kind of substances, forms, objects, etc.

    (4) Shifting of a dimension point may bring about shifts among other dimension points. This propagation of shift is flow of energy. The shift itself is motion.

    (5) There can be relative shifts between viewpoint and dimensions points causing the perception of relative motion.

    (6) Admiration and force may be perceived just like solid substances are perceived



  • vinaire  On November 1, 2012 at 6:16 PM

    H: “Viewpoints are not visible, but viewpoints can have dimension points which are themselves visible. The basic hidden influence is then a viewpoint. A material of the universe cannot exist in any universe without something in which to exist. The something in which it exists is space, and this is made by the attitude of a viewpoint which demarks an area with anchor points.”


    (1) Dimension points are extension of viewpoints. They are an expression of how the unknowable “input” is perceived through that viewpoint.

    (2) The viewpoint and its dimension points may thus be viewed as a whole.

    (3) There is no hidden influence other than the fact that to some degree dimension points may appear and disappear without prediction.

    (4) Space (perception) is a matrix of dimension points as extended from a viewpoint. Each viewpoint, thus, has its own space.

    (5) Like pixels on a computer screen, different points of matrix may evolve further into energy and matter with infinite variations, appearing as a universe of matter, energy, space and time.

    (6) Energy and matter, therefore, are not separate from space. The transition from space to energy to matter appears as time in the form of increasing duration of dimension points.

    (7) Each viewpoint has its own perceptual apace. But the viewpoints themselves, with their perceptual space, are points in a more basic matrix of space.



  • vinaire  On November 1, 2012 at 8:29 PM

    H: “Rather than existing on theory, in common with other principles of Scientology this manifestation of created space can be experienced by an individual, who discovers that space can be made coincidentally with any other space. Space then, is not an arbitrary and absolute but it is creatable or uncreatable by a viewpoint.”


    (1) Actual space is that in which the viewpoint exists. This space is unknowable.

    (2) Unknowable “inputs” from this space impinge on the viewpoints giving rise to perception.

    (3) The perception forms the knowable space, which is experienced directly through the viewpoint.

    (4) Perceptual spaces from different viewpoints overlap the unknowable space and, thus, each other.

    (5) This perceptual space is creatable and uncreatable by the action of unknown space on the viewpoint.



  • vinaire  On November 1, 2012 at 8:47 PM

    H: “Any being is a viewpoint, he is as much a being as he is able to assume viewpoints. Thus in any society we would inevitably have a statement of the infinity of viewpoint such as “God is everywhere.” Beings instinctively assign the most beingness to that thing which would be everywhere and when Man desires to assign an unlimited power or command to anything he says that it is everywhere.”


    (1) A viewpoint is a subset of the considerations that make up the being.

    (2) The beingness operates through innumerable viewpoints that can be formed.

    (3) Ability to view through infinity of viewpoints would be like viewing through the whole beingness.

    (4) The is considered as viewing from everywhere.



  • vinaire  On November 1, 2012 at 9:13 PM

    The model that seems to be emerging is that there are infinite number of viewpoints. These viewpoints are grouped as beings. Each being is capable of having viewpoints everywhere.

    The beings are situated in a space that is unknowable. The viewpoints are subsets of beings, and are impinged upon by unknowable “inputs” from this space, This brings about perception or knowable space.

    This knowable space overlaps the unknowable space. Thus, the perceptions through the viewpoints overlap each other, and physical space with energy and objects is created.

    [I shall look at this tomorrow after a good sleep.]



  • vinaire  On November 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM

    Space is all encompassing. It can be said to have many layers from unknowable to matter. The main layers of space are:

    1. Unknowable
    2. Perception
    3. Motion
    4. Energy
    5. Matter

    Space is not something that simply contains energy and matter. Actually, it is space that transitions into various forms of energies and matter at its various locations.



  • vinaire  On November 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM

    Let’s look at the level of space, which appears as perception. Perception shall include all senses, both physical and mental.

    What one perceives may be listed as follows:
    0. What is actually there.
    1. Modification of what is there by one’s expectations and presumptions.
    2. Addition to what is there in terms of assumptions, judgmental opinions and further speculation.

    (01) What is actually there is, in fact, unknowable, and it is triggering one’s perception.

    (02) So, what one is perceiving has elements of some fundamental programming underlying the viewpoint. This programming is creating for the person what is there.

    (11) One’s expectations and presumptions would provide a filter that would give some color to what the person perceives.

    (12) One is generally not aware of one’s expectations and presumptions. But one may become aware of them later by noticing inconsistencies.

    (13) It is quite possible that one may unknowingly evaluating one’s own expectations and presumptions when one is being judgmental.

    (21) Here the person is adding assumptions, biases, and speculations and judging what is there in a way to feel comfortable with it.

    (22) This is the final form of space that a person may perceive in the first iteration.

    (23) There are two layers of filters as covered in (11) and (21) above. The second layer of filter in (21) is likely to be more accessible. It can be gotten rid of rather easily.

    Thus, it may take many iterations to see what is there without the additives one is putting there in terms of filters in (21) and (11).

    Beyond that there is the fundamental programming of the viewpoint, which is determining what is there. But to get rid of this programming would be to get rid of the viewpoint altogether.

    One may then be able to see what is actually there. But that would amount to a discovery that one was never aware of.



  • vinaire  On November 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM

    I have looking at the various definitions involved with space. It seems that

    BEINGNESS = existingness or manifestingness

    BEING = Manifestation of a set of considerations from which new considerations may be extended.

    SELF = A “center of beingness” analogous to “center of mass” in Physics. It is the “weighted average” of all considerations that make up the being, and which seems to be concentrated at a point.

    VIEWPOINT = The “weighted average” of a subset of being, which seems to be concentrated at a point.

    Assuming another’s viewpoint could be gathering up all the considerations that one sees as making up the other viewpoint, and taking it from there.



%d bloggers like this: