I wrote the following on Chris Thompson’s Blog:
I plan to try out the following for size…
In response, my good friend Maria wrote the following:
I can`t help thinking that there is a set of underlying axioms…
.
Here are the Axioms of Reason:
- The Inquiry is into the truth
- By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit
- Truth is all there is or can be; such is the perception of universality
- Truth is indivisibility; such is the perception of unity
- Truth is unchangeableness; such is the perception of permanence
- Truth is eternity; such is the perception of presence
- Truth is not cause or effect; such is the perception of freedom
- Truth must be just what it is and nothing else whatsoever; such perception of the inevitable is the power of truth
- Truth is individuality; such is the perception of humanity
- Truth is God; such is the perception of divinity
- Truth is good; such is the perception of satisfaction
- Truth is intelligence; such is the perception of mind
- Truth is not matter; such is the perception of substance
- Truth is love; such is the perception of bliss
- Truth is life; such is illumination
- Besides truth there is nothing; such is the perception of nature and creation
- Axiom of Assumption: Truth, even as an illusion, is still absolute; such is the perception of reflection
.
I am very happy with the request from Maria to post these axioms on my blog for discussion, because it forwards the purpose of this blog. I am very much looking forward to the discussion in accordance with the discussion policy.
.
Comments
Nice! I have been wanting to discuss his series!
Oh, there`s a typo in the line: It is announced that this is the proper inquiry for all who find I themselves…
It should read: It is announced that this is the proper inquiry for all who find in themselves…
Instead of typing IN, I typed I by mistake.
Please fix it in the copy above — otherwise the line doesn`t make sense.
Maria, I have corrected the typo.
.
Hubbard states in Scn Axiom 38:
Truth is the exact consideration.
This would underlie Burnell’s Axiom #1.
.
From Maria through a separate email:
Here is the second axiom. I`m gone for the rest of the day. enjoy!
I. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
The spirit of truth is the meaning, the significance of truth. That which is, that which is so – in contra-distinction to that which is not so — such is the common, inevitable meaning ascribed to the word truth.
Not what may be so, not what seems so, but what is so in the final analysis; not what is so relatively, but what is so absolutely; for as Spencer affirms, “unless a real absolute be postulated the relative becomes absolute, and so brings the argument to contradiction.” (First Principles, Sec. 26.)
What the reason must admit or abandon its nature; what is so by virtue of the reason’s being just what it is; what is axiomatic in the constitution of the reason; not only what the reason does believe in, but also what it cannot help believing in; that to which the reason can conceive no opposite; that which we cannot doubt, but do and must have faith in; that which we are forced to believe from the inability of the mind to think otherwise; such is axiomatic truth in the reason or faith.
[Please see comment-5450 for more complete version ~ Vinaire]
“What is” is what we perceive. Does that mean perception is the truth?
From KHTK LOOKING: AN OVERVIEW:
“The most accurate knowledge is made up of the perceptions obtained within a span of last 300 – 500 milliseconds.
“All other knowledge is extrapolated from one’s experiences, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, axioms, and self. Such extrapolated knowledge is filtered through the inconsistencies embedded in those layers. Hence it is subject to inaccuracies.”
.
I don`t think that is what he is getting at here. I am not even sure he is speaking of things or objects or manifestations. Doesn`t sound like it. His first essay is discussing a faculty of reason as a faculty of consciousness, a faculty which is not thing at all but an act of judgment (aha!) that we use to detect or monitor or compare concepts and perceptions. Kind of like a truth-o-meter.the extrapolating process or function itself that results in a decision — definiteness versus perplexed. I have long recognized this in myself, I call it my dog-at-a-bone impulse. For me, this is not restricted to points in space-time continuum, in a wavelength or particle mode.
Vinaire & Maria, This is forming up nicely – a really good clash of what? Arts and Engineering? It seems just right to me. Interesting and useful things should fall out of this shake-up.
Yes, Chris. That is exactly what I am hoping. Vinaire has a very different approach to my own and I am counting on that to shake my ideas.
Burnell must be getting at one of these things: (1) Matter, (2) Energy, (3) Space, (4) Time, or (5) Consideration. These five categories cover all that is. Consideration have its own MEST components. MEST has its own consideration component.
From what you wrote, Burnell seems to be dealing with considerations.
“Faculty of reason” is one consideration. “Faculty of consciousness” is another consideration. What we have here are fractals of considerations. In other words, we have consideration of consideration ad infinitum.
I postulate fundamental space to be a “matrix of considerations.” Each consideration is relative to other considerations. There is no absolute consideration. This is like a Theory of Relativity of considerations.
So, “What is” is going to be relative to the considerations at the viewpoint. There are no absolute truths. When one is seeking truths, one should be seeking the considerations at the viewpoint.
Truth of “what is out there” will begin with there are no considerations to filter the view at the viewpoint.
.
These five categories as delineated by the MEST universe theory may or may not be -all of- or -the only- categories to consider. They are convenient categories, that`s all. The absolute truth statement you are making is also an assumption, and again, open to question as such. I think Burnell is getting at what he is getting at and there is a possibility that it won`t necessarily fit with these established ideas. Then again, maybe it will.
What other categories do you have in mind?
.
I don`t. Perhaps they will reveal themselves as we go along. Then again maybe not. It`s all good. I just want to make sure I am leaving that door OPEN and not trying to fit into something else and mistaking that for full inquiry because now it resonates with what I already know.
A good policy.
I shall be interested in any such discovery.
.
I wonder if it would be more fruitful to NOT compare these axioms to Hubbard`s work. It introduces confusion with the terminology he likes to use. I think just looking at it for what it is will help shake out new ways of looking. What do you think — I was really hoping for a fresh view. bye bye for now
I agree that we should not be comparing Burnell’s axioms with those of Hubbard’s. I would like to avoid such a comparison.
But I feel that Burnell’s axioms may provide a fresh perspective to the terminology that Hubbard uses. For example, I want to get further insight into the word “consideration.”
Burnell’s second axiom also makes me curious about how he defines “perception” and “spirit”.
We have to use the turn of the century dictionaries with his materials. I`ve discovered that there has been quite a shift in many philosophic terms which leads to misunderstanding.
1913 Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary
http://1913.mshaffer.com
PERCEPTION: An idea; a notion.
[Obs.] Sir M. Hale.
* “The word perception is, in the language of philosophers previous to Reid, used in a very extensive signification. By Descartes, Malebranche, Locke, Leibnitz, and others, it is employed in a sense almost as unexclusive as consciousness, in its widest signification. By Reid this word was limited to our faculty acquisitive of knowledge, and to that branch of this faculty whereby, through the senses, we obtain a knowledge of the external world. But his limitation did not stop here. In the act of external perception he distinguished two elements, to which he gave the names of perception and sensation. He ought perhaps to have called these perception proper and sensation proper, when employed in his special meaning.” Sir W. Hamilton.
SPIRIT: Intent; real meaning; — opposed to the letter, or to formal statement; also, characteristic quality, especially such as is derived from the individual genius or the personal character; as, the spirit of an enterprise, of a document, or the like.
Can “spirit” be expressed in today’s terminology as
SPIRIT: The starting consideration of a manifestation.
CONSIDERATION: A reflection of what is.
MANIFESTATION: What is.
Since words in English have several different meaning, we might end up assembling our own glossary to support this discussion.
.
. . . spirit as the prime consideration underlying a manifestation?
I’m not sure. It seems so at first glance.
But when I look at it, there is an inconsistency regarding spirit and that inconsistency looks like unknowable.
In this context, and if it makes the statement consistent for you, we can substitute spirit for unknown. Otherwise, we begin to assume and give anthropomorphism to what we are guessing at.
Or am I missing something?
Spirit has a connotation of individuality, meaning there can be more than one spirit. If we use “spirit” as some kind of a common base of spiritual existence, then we are still alluding to some particular characteristic. Opposed to this no characteristics are associated with the unknowable. So, looking at the historical usage, spirit cannot be made synonymous with unknowable.
.
Well, I think my point was that to consider a “prime consideration” underlying manifestation, I don’t need to interject the intermediary consideration of “spirit” between prime consideration and manifestation.
Spirit might be added inapplicable and so might prime consideration.
Yes. What is, IS. Any consciousness or awareness is part of What is.
.
Doesn`t work for me.
I think it is best to let the definitions stand as they are for the purposes of examining this work.
OK. Then we’ll have to discuss the definitions, as they stand, against each other to flush out inconsistencies, if any.
.
I don`t this has anything to do with spirit as a being, be or individual or soul or anything like that.
The phrase is: By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
Rephrased: By truth is meant what is; such is the discernment or cognition of intent–real meaning.
The 1913 definitions that apply:
SPIRIT: Intent; real meaning; — opposed to the letter, or to formal statement; also, characteristic quality, especially such as is derived from the individual genius or the personal character; as, the spirit of an enterprise, of a document, or the like.
PERCEPTION:
1. The act of perceiving; cognizance by the senses or intellect; apprehension by the bodily organs, or by the mind, of what is presented to them; discernment; apprehension; cognition.
2. The faculty of perceiving; the faculty, or peculiar part, of man’s constitution by which he has knowledge through the medium or instrumentality of the bodily organs; the act of apprehending material objects or qualities through the senses; — distinguished from conception. Matter hath no life nor perception, and is not conscious of its own existence. Bentley.
3. The quality, state, or capability, of being affected by something external; sensation; sensibility.
[Obs.]
This experiment discovereth perception in plants. Bacon.
4. An idea; a notion.
[Obs.] Sir M. Hale.
* “The word perception is, in the language of philosophers previous to Reid, used in a very extensive signification. By Descartes, Malebranche, Locke, Leibnitz, and others, it is employed in a sense almost as unexclusive as consciousness, in its widest signification. By Reid this word was limited to our faculty acquisitive of knowledge, and to that branch of this faculty whereby, through the senses, we obtain a knowledge of the external world. But his limitation did not stop here. In the act of external perception he distinguished two elements, to which he gave the names of perception and sensation. He ought perhaps to have called these perception proper and sensation proper, when employed in his special meaning.” Sir W. Hamilton.
That makes more sense. It is consistent with my idea of truth being the “key consideration that defines what is.” This excludes the idea of considerations that one may be looking through, and which may color one’s perception.
.
I am particularly interested that the definition specifically distinguishes perception from conception.
CONCEPT: An abstract general conception; a notion; a universal.
The words conception, concept, notion, should be limited to the thought of what can not be represented in the imagination; as, the thought suggested by a general term. –Sir W. Hamilton.
NOTION: [L. notio, fr. noscere to know: cf. F. notion. See Know.]
Mental apprehension of whatever may be known or imagined; an idea; a conception; more properly, a general or universal conception, as distinguishable or definable by marks.
NOTORIETY: The quality or condition of being notorious; the state of being generally or publicly known; — commonly used in an unfavorable sense; as, the notoriety of a crime.
The culprit may be the double meaning of the word perceive:
PERCEIVE: 1. To obtain knowledge of through the senses; to receive impressions from by means of the bodily organs; to take cognizance of the existence, character, or identity of, by means of the senses; to see, hear, or feel; as, to perceive a distant ship; to perceive a discord.
Reid. 2. To take intellectual cognizance of; to apprehend by the mind; to be convinced of by direct intuition; to note; to remark; to discern; to see; to understand. Jesus perceived their wickedness. Matt. xxii. 18. You may, fair lady, Perceive I speak sincerely. Shak. Till we ourselves see it with our own eyes, and perceive it by our own understandings, we are still in the dark. Locke.
I see that there is a particular way of defining intellect as well.
INTELLECT: The part or faculty of the human soul by which it knows, as distinguished from the power to feel and to will; sometimes, the capacity for higher forms of knowledge, as distinguished from the power to perceive objects in their relations; the power to judge and comprehend; the thinking faculty; the understanding.
Perception and conception may be at the opposite end of the following scale from MEMORY & RECALL
Perception
Experience
Information
Hypothesis
Theory
Principles
Axioms
Self
Thus, self may be the ultimate conception.
.
I find these definitions to be of interest, and explanatory of his first axiom:
REASON: The faculty or capacity of the human mind by which it is distinguished from the intelligence of the inferior animals; the higher as distinguished from the lower cognitive faculties, sense, imagination, and memory, and in contrast to the feelings and desires. Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty.
I like this distinction between the faculty of first truths and discursive or ratiocinative.
INTUITION: 1. Direct apprehension or cognition; immediate knowledge, as in perception or consciousness; — distinguished from “mediate” knowledge, as in reasoning; as, the mind knows by intuition that black is not white, that a circle is not a square, that three are more than two, etc.; quick or ready insight or apprehension. 2. Any object or truth discerned by direct cognition; especially, a first or primary truth.
DISCURSIVE: Reasoning; proceeding from one ground to another, as in reasoning; argumentative.
RATIOCINATIVE: Characterized by, or addicted to, ratiocination; consisting in the comparison of propositions or facts, and the deduction of inferences from the comparison; argumentative; as, a ratiocinative process.
And the 1913 definition of TRUTH: That which is true or certain concerning any matter or subject, or generally on all subjects; real state of things; fact; verity; reality.
There are more definitions that these but they seem to be alignment with his statements.
Truth is relative. There is no absolute truth.
.
Then obviously the statement you have just made is an assumption and is open to question. Certainly the word-concept absolute is open to examination, just as the word-concept truth is.
Sure. To me the following statement of Buddha is quite consistent:
“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”
.
Buddha’s statement above is also consistent with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
.
As I recall, Buddha taught not to accept what another has said, including himself. I prefer to examine this myself and see what shakes out. Besides, this pronouncement appears to be an assumption to me, maybe fundamental, maybe not. In any case it is definitely open to question.
The criterion I go by is consistency and not whether something appears to be true or untrue. To me Buddha’s statement appears to be consistent with other considerations I hold.
How does it appear inconsistent to you?
.
I am unhappy with my examination of the word absolute and the word truth. I am perplexed. DOG-AT-BONE phenomena here due to corner-of-the-eye slippiness going on. I don`t know how to explain this other than the two analogies I have just given. Usually though, if I persist on catching it by the tail its very worth my time. I am unhappy with my general consistency and unhappy with the idea of consistency in general. It landed me up in a roadblock and that disturbs me. I wish I could be more coherent on this. ha-ha on me!
NO! haha. This is where we need to be.
However, this type of digging is in conflict with Vinaire’s KHTK principles of letting epiphany bubble to the surface.
For me, looking means stirring the muck and “helping” those bubbles of understanding float up.
Make sure you understand unstacking versus digging.
When nothing is bypassed in “digging” it is unstacking.
.
Very well Vinaire. I will keep that in mind.
“Absolute” to me means, “This is it, there is nothing more or beyond.” It closes the door to further inquiry. The concept of God is like that.
I am happy to look at truth as “what is.” It does not turn “what is” into some absolute. There are layers to “what is.” The inquiry may continue.
One moves from truth to truth, and not from error to truth, as believed in HINDUISM.
.
And there is no absolute consistency.
Because there is only relative truth and relative consistency, possibly we should be asking another; a different question. Maybe we aren’t seeking the right thing.
Then again, since I can’t seem to ask the right question, possibly the right question doesn’t reside in the reality where “I” resides.
This is fascinating — from the 1913 dictionary
**************************************
Be (is) versus Exist (is)
The verb to be, except in a few rare cases, like that of Shakespeare’s “To be, or not to be”, is used simply as a copula, to connect a subject with its predicate; as, man is mortal; the soul is immortal. The verb to exist is never properly used as a mere copula, but points to things that stand forth, or have a substantive being; as, when the soul is freed from all corporeal alliance, then it truly exists. It is not, therefore, properly synonymous with to be when used as a copula, though occasionally made so by some writers for the sake of variety; as in the phrase “there exists [is] no reason for laying new taxes.” We may, indeed, say, “a friendship has long existed between them,” instead of saying, “there has long been a friendship between them;” but in this case, exist is not a mere copula. It is used in its appropriate sense to mark the friendship as having been long in existence. (note the definition of substance below)
EXIST: To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual.
FACT: Reality; actuality; truth; as, he, in fact, excelled all the rest; the fact is, he was beaten.
MODE: Any combination of qualities or relations, considered apart from the substance to which they belong, and treated as entities; more generally, condition, or state of being; manner or form of arrangement or manifestation; form, as opposed to matter.
ACTUAL: Existing in act or reality; really acted or acting; in fact; real; — opposed to potential, possible, virtual, speculative, conceivable, theoretical, or nominal; as, the actual cost of goods; the actual case under discussion.
REAL: Actually being or existing; not fictitious or imaginary; as, a description of real life. True; genuine; not artificial, counterfeit, or factitious; often opposed to ostensible; as, the real reason; real Madeira wine; real ginger.
SUBSTANCE: That which underlies all outward manifestations; substratum; the permanent subject or cause of phenomena, whether material or spiritual; that in which properties inhere; that which is real, in distinction from that which is apparent; the abiding part of any existence, in distinction from any accident; that which constitutes anything what it is; real or existing essence.
******************************************
These are all considerations, which are considered relative to one another.
.
I do not like this term considerations, and particularly not as the sole fundamental of reason. I speculate that it may be misleading, due to oversimplification and may very well obscure a full examination of all elements of process. That is why I do want to mix this examination with Hubbard`s materials — it is a very specific approach, I want to widen the approach and then review.
I agree Maria. Also I speculate that as we widen the approach we will pull into view more frames of reference. Too many frames of reference will obfuscate our focus and because of the recursive and self-similar result, we will find our feet still firmly stuck in the MEST. This is really causing me to wonder at our approach generally to philosophy.
I am using consideration in the meaning it is intended in English language, and not necessarily as Hubbard intended. If you see any inconsistency in my usage then please point it out.
.
Here is my first critique of
Burnell’s Axiom #1: The inquiry is into the truth.
The axiom assumes that there is a self that is interested in making this inquiry. Thus, it takes Scientology Axiom #1 for granted. So, it can’t be a fundamental axiom.
My critique of Scientology Axiom #1 exists on this blog.
.
You are not interested in an inquiry into the truth?
I sure am.
And what I have to work with right now is what I have to work with right now. Call me self, call me nothing, call me a sophisticated machine, the fact remains that I am here and I have no choice but to work with what I have to work with.
It seems to me that this is every bit as fundamental than self versus no-self because the determination of the veracity of self versus no-self is based squarely on what I have to work with!
I think it will be more productive not to attempt to sort at this stage. Better just to view it as it is for now without bringing Scientology into it. Hubbard has a very specific approach to all this that I think is better left behind while examining this. I have to tell you, I am deeply suspicious (perplexed) about the axioms of Scientology. That`s why I am examining this.
But we need not examine here on your blog if you do not think it is worthwhile to do so– especially if it is not yielding anything of use to you — I just thought it would be fruitful to share the examination process.
I agree Maria about confronting what we have and what we have to work with. This is the reason that I am looking further into the brain as a center of self or ego and possibly looking at the brain from the sense of it as an underachieving or underdeveloped organ.
We truly don’t know what we are dealing with yet in Biology.
OK, so there is inquiry into truth, and truth is ‘what is’. I can accept that without having to bring self or spirit and perception into the picture.
In “inquiry” I suppose both logic and looking are included.
.
I would think so.
Actually Vinaire, “what is” would be a manifestation, wouldn’t it?
Then the question would be can this elusive truth be a manifestation?
Truth = What is = manifestation = awareness
.
I am having trouble understanding the following paragraph:
“An axiom of the reason is discerned by the inability of the mind to conceive of the opposite; the notorious movement of the threshold of consciousness is not found to be actual, but apparent.”
I can conceive that the opposite of day is night.
.
Vinaire: consideration = . . . a reflection of what is.
Chris: or should we write it vice versa? This inconsistency should point to some erring quality of a “quality of consideration.”
It seems that we consider to explain something. Initial considerations may appear to explain the unknowable.
.
Okay, going back to Axiom I:
An axiom of the reason is discerned by the inability of the mind to conceive of the opposite; the notorious movement of the threshold of consciousness is not found to be actual, but apparent.
AXIOM: A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident as first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; as, “The whole is greater than a part;” “A thing can not, at the same time, be and not be.”
REASON: Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty.
******************************
This first paragraph describes how an axiom is discerned and differentiated from all other species of thought.
When you hit a point where the mind is simply unable to find something opposing it, then you have hit a self-evident and necessary truth. You can`t strip it down any further and-or it is plain and obvious. It may in fact be an inability of the mind, but that`s what you have to work with so it ends there until further ability is developed or discovered or recovered or whatever.
********************************
THRESHOLD: The place or point of entering or beginning, entrance; outset; as, the threshold of life.
CONSCIOUSNESS: 1. The state of being conscious; knowledge of one’s own existence, condition, sensations, mental operations, acts, etc. — consciousness is thus, on the one hand, the recognition by the mind or “ego” of its acts and affections; — in other words, the self-affirmation that certain modifications are known by me, and that these modifications are mine. Sir W. Hamilton. 2. Immediate knowledge or perception of the presence of any object, state, or sensation. See the Note under Attention. Annihilate the consciousness of the object, you annihilate the consciousness of the operation.
Sir W. Hamilton. — And, when the steam Which overflowed the soul had passed away, A consciousness remained that it had left. . . . images and precious thoughts That shall not die, and can not be destroyed. Wordsworth.
The consciousness of wrong brought with it the consciousness of weakness.– Froude. 3. Feeling, persuasion, or expectation; esp., inward sense of guilt or innocence. [R.] An honest mind is not in the power of a dishonest: to break its peace there must be some guilt or consciousness. –Pope.
****************************
the notorious movement of the threshold of consciousness is not found to be actual, but apparent.
the well known movement (shifting) of the first beginning, outset, etc. of consciousness (it shifts) isn`t an actuality. i.e. the consciousness shifts, what is, is no matter the shifts in consciousness.
***********************
Taking it all together:
When you hit a point where the mind is simply unable to find something opposing it, then you have hit a self-evident and necessary truth. You can`t strip it down any further and-or it is plain and obvious. (It may in fact be an inability of the mind, but that`s what you have to work with so it ends there until further ability is developed or discovered or recovered or changed.)
The well known movement (shifting) of the first beginning, outset, etc. of consciousness (it shifts) isn`t an actuality. i.e. the consciousness shifts, what is, is no matter the shifts in consciousness.
The original statement:
An axiom of the reason is discerned by the inability of the mind to conceive of the opposite; the notorious movement of the threshold of consciousness is not found to be actual, but apparent.
Good show! Let me summarize it for myself:
(1) An axiom seems to be the result of pure looking. One is simply looking at what is. There is no consideration of the opposite. There is simply no other consideration.
(2) An axiom is a fundamental starting consideration.
(3) A consideration is conscious of itself. That seems to be the basic consciousness.
(4) Shifting of consciousness does not change the fundamental starting consideration. It may just add to it.
.
This is fun!
Axiom I: The inquiry is into the truth.
I`m good with that now.
Axiom II: I. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
I see that Axiom II above got cut off in the email I sent to you Vinaire. Here`s the entire section, including the missing part:
II. By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
The spirit of truth is the meaning, the significance of truth. That which is, that which is so – in contra-distinction to that which is not so — such is the common, inevitable meaning ascribed to the word truth.
Not what may be so, not what seems so, but what is so in the final analysis; not what is so relatively, but what is so absolutely; for as Spencer affirms, “unless a real absolute be postulated the relative becomes absolute, and so brings the argument to contradiction.” (First Principles, Sec. 26.)
What the reason must admit or abandon its nature; what is so by virtue of the reason’s being just what it is; what is axiomatic in the constitution of the reason; not only what the reason does believe in, but also what it cannot help believing in; that to which the reason can conceive no opposite; that which we cannot doubt, but do and must have faith in; that which we are forced to believe from the inability of the mind to think otherwise; such is axiomatic truth in the reason or faith.
The three forms of expression and demonstration are (a) affirmation, which is the mental, verbal, and muscular admission, confession, and reception of axiomatic truth; executive acknowledgment; (b) denial, which is the mental, verbal and muscular rejection, refusal, repudiation of that which is not, of the false, of the error, of the illusion, of whatever the pure reason cannot believe in, of whatever the awakened and illumined consciousness finds unthinkable; (c) identification of affirmation and denial, which are not opposites, but as the striking of a light is the expulsion of the darkness, as the perception of the rope is the annihilation of the imagined snake, so denial and affirmation are the very same.
I just realized that these are axioms to describe REASON, and not to describe whole of existence. OK, so lets look at it from a fresh viewpoint.
AXIOM OF REASON #1 – The inquiry is into the truth.
AXIOM OF REASON #2 – By truth is meant what is; such is the perception of spirit.
So, REASON is the inquiry into the spirit of what is. This is perfectly fine. I call it LOOKING.
Now, let’s look at the definition of REASON.
.
Maria provided the following definition for REASON:
REASON: The faculty or capacity of the human mind by which it is distinguished from the intelligence of the inferior animals; the higher as distinguished from the lower cognitive faculties, sense, imagination, and memory, and in contrast to the feelings and desires. Reason comprises conception, judgment, reasoning, and the intuitional faculty. Specifically, it is the intuitional faculty, or the faculty of first truths, as distinguished from the understanding, which is called the discursive or ratiocinative faculty.
(1) Reason is fully expressed at the level of humans, and not at the earlier levels of evolution of life.
(2) The word REASON has the root meaning of ratio (comparing, judging) meaning “putting two and two together.”
(3) Humans seems to put two and two together to a much higher degree than animals.
(4) Reason is NOT feelings and desires.
(5) The primary characteristic of REASON seems to be intuition – a sort of effortless realization of what is there. I call this looking.
(6) Then there is the scientific method of conjecturing, theorizing and experimentally verifying. I call this looking supported by visualization.
(7) And then there is the the discursive or ratiocinative approach of figuring it out. I call this logic that depends primarily on association.
(8) Primarily, reason consists of LOOKING and LOGIC.
(9) It is an iteration of using logic to determine where to look, and then looking.
(10) This is like narrowing the target. Intuition comes when the target can be narrowed rapidly.
.
And there is no absolute consistency.
Because there is only relative truth and relative consistency, possibly we should be asking another; a different question. Maybe we aren’t seeking the right thing.
Then again, since I can’t seem to ask the right question, possibly the right question doesn’t reside in the reality where “I” resides.
Consistency is relative to the SELF, or relative to the VIEWPOINT, which is a subset of self.
Right question may come with patience.
.
These are axioms of Reason. They are not in the same category as the axioms of Scientology. They are more like in the category of LOGICS of Scientology.
Just for the fun of it:
LOGIC 1: Knowledge is a whole group or subdivision of a group of data or speculations or conclusions on data or methods of gaining data.
(1) We have groups of data as in Astronomy, Physics, Biology, Religions, etc.
(2) In each of these groups we have subgroups of data. For example, under Biology there is data about, human bodies, marine animals, plants, insects, etc.
(3) Theories abound in each of these subjects. They start as observations, continue as speculations and further observations, and end up as peer reviewed and experimentally validated theories.
(4) Data is anything of which one may become aware. Anything manifested may be termed as a piece of data.
(5) Postulates, considerations, opinions, anything mentioned here, etc. are all data.
(6) All the above is knowledge. Knowledge is entirely concerned with grouping of data, association among data, building upon data, accessing data, etc.
.
So, when one is inquiring into truth, one is inquiring into what exists (data). One is looking at what exists to see if it can be summed up more succinctly.
.
The second para of axiom #1 states:
“The identity of reason and faith is perceived by understanding that consciousness must be an authority as a test of truth; the value of reason is seen in the demonstration of the Socratic axiom that humanity errs only from its mistaken judgments; the power of reason is evident from the fact that the goddess has but to show herself to take sovereignty.”
(1) Consciousness is awareness. Reason is Inquiry into ‘what is’. Faith is the reference point of looking.
(2) Reason is needed to penetrate the errors of judgment.
(3) No further inquiry is needed after one sees ‘what is’.
.