Comments on Scientology Axioms 1, 2 and 3

Here are some comments on first three axioms of Scientology:

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.

Static expresses itself as individuality, as explained by Hubbard. [See Scientology Axiom #1.] However, individuality is an aspect of existence same as matter, energy, space and time. It is not a source of existence as implied in Scientology Axiom 3 below.



The capabilities of considering, postulating and having opinions may be assigned to individuality, which is part of existence. Thus, these capabilities are manifested along with matter, energy, space and time, as aspects of existence.



Here Static is being expressed as an individuality. It is being considered to be the cause of existence. But cause and effect are also aspects of existence. [See Scientology Factor #1.]

Space, energy, objects, form, time, individuality and its capabilities are simply the aspects of existence.


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 8:32 PM

    Static seems to congeal as individuality for Hubbard and Scientologists.

    For them individuality (first dynamic) rules in more than one way.


    • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2012 at 10:26 PM

      I’m not sure what you mean by “rules in more than one way.”

    • vinaire  On November 7, 2012 at 10:30 PM

      Individuality is more than just first dynamic. It is the property of any manifestation, such as, a tree, a table, a worm, etc. It is the fundamental identity.


  • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 9:07 AM

    My understanding of Scientology Axiom 1 began as and continues as in agreement with your original premise of Brahma and of Unknowable. Regardless of the infinite misunderstandings of this definition, if we read it again using KHTK or other non-judgemental mindfulness, we should be able to do so without the additive of “individuality.” I’ll copy it here:

    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.

    I do not understand this definition to indicate a “number of individuals.” It reads “A” as in “A STATIC.” If I understand our previous conversations on this subject, we both view life as a “singularity,” by which is not intended to mean “an individual” but rather the more basic and all encompassing all of the singularity of life.

    In the way that I have expressed and tried to explain, Axiom 1 of Scientology remains consistent. Your original understanding remains correct.

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 11:39 AM

    But, one cannot identify unknowable as having certain abilities. The moment one makes that identification one has moved to the field of knowable. See Axioms 2 and 3.

    I see those abilities as part of manifestation, even when we look at them as potentials.


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 11:43 AM

    Static may be looked upon as SPACE with certain potentials that makes it a matrix. Look at the definition of matrix. It is very interesting.


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM

    The centerpiece of Scientology philosophy seems to be the recognition of “I AM” as the key focus. It is knowledge about SELF and handling of it.

    The OT Levels of Scientology are all about boosting the abilities of “I”. They are all about making the “I” feel important and powerful.

    It is right there in these beginning axioms of Scientology.


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

    What is more important – making “I” more able, or leveling inconsistencies wherever found? Where should be the focus?


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM

    Hubbard, was convinced that he was advancing very rapidly higher and higher toward total freedom. Freedom for him was becoming a very able and highly evolved individual. This he called as becoming OT. He considered himself as the first and the greatest OT.

    In his view, Buddha was merely a keyed out Clear.

    But then Hubbard also felt attacked. He felt that others, who were way below him, were jealous of him and were trying to bring him down.

    Hubbard had attention on protecting him from being attacked all his life, even to the very end.

    It seems that “A highly evolved individual must pay the price for being highly evolved.” Is there an inconsistency there?


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 3:58 PM

    A skill that served Hubbard all his life was that he could make any person feel very good and important within himself. That won him many loyal followers.

    Hubbard even made that approach the centerpiece of his philosophy. Just look at the axioms of Scientology above.


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 4:03 PM

    The OT levels of Scientology are all about boosting abilities of an individual.

    The current leader of the Church of Scientology considers himself to be a very able and unique individual. He is on the path to become a still greater individual… greater than anybody else.

    Of course, he can already prove that through his intelligence, his quickness of mind, and his actions.

    If you look at his pictures, he is very much “there”. He is in your face.


  • vinaire  On November 8, 2012 at 4:05 PM

    So, Scientology and “building ego” seem to go hand in hand.

    Let’s look at the subject of EGO. There are both likable and unlikable aspects to ego.

    But, do we need ego?


    • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2012 at 8:44 PM

      Well to start, we have ego.
      If we are to answer to a name and dress ourselves we are going to have ego.
      Need an ego? Knowing that it is bullshit to have a rule at work called “dress-down Friday” where we are “allowed” to wear jeans instead of dress slacks is one kind of ego. Knowing it doesn’t then remove us from that frame of reference. Making a stink of it at work is yet another kind of ego which may result of us being removed from that frame of reference.

      Ego is recursive and self similar. It is fractal. I harp on fractal and sound to myself like Vin harping on unknowable. Am I right? Does it matter to my ego?

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 4:29 AM

      My harping on unknowable has died down since I documented it as AXIOM ZERO. So, ego may be an effort to prove something to oneself. Once that is done, and the person is satisfied, maybe ego takes a back seat.


  • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 4:34 AM

    I plan to take a closer look at Freud’s concept of EGO and look for inconsistencies there.


    • Maria  On November 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM

      You might find this article of interest when you do:

      The author explains that the concept of ego as defined by Freud was actually a mis-translation from German to English, and what Freud’s German word originally was and what it meant. He has also compiled a comprehensive survey of works into the area of ego, etc.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 12:05 PM

    I think I have been wrong all along. EGO is the wrong term to use here. The correct term is EGOTISM.

    Egotism is the drive to maintain and enhance favorable views of oneself, and generally features an inflated opinion of one’s personal features and importance — intellectual, physical, social and other.

    It seems like Hubbard suffered from egotism.


  • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 3:26 PM

    I never looked at EGOTISM so closely before. I am certainly learning a lot here:

    The egotist has an overwhelming sense of the centrality of the ‘Me’: of their personal qualities. Egotism means placing oneself at the core of one’s world with no concern for others, including those loved or considered as “close,” in any other terms except those set by the egotist.

    Egotism is closely related to “loving one’s self” or narcissism – indeed some would say “by egotism we may envisage a kind of socialized narcissism”. Egotists have a strong tendency to talk about themselves in a self-promoting fashion, and they may well be arrogant and boastful with a grandiose sense of their own importance. Their inability to recognize the accomplishments of others leaves them profoundly self-promoting; while sensitivity to criticism may lead on the egotist’s part to narcissistic rage at a sense of insult.

    Looked at differently, the conceit of egotism describes a person who acts to gain values in an amount excessively greater than that which he or she gives to others. Egotism may be fulfilled by exploiting the sympathy, irrationality or ignorance of others, as well as utilizing coercive force and/or fraud.

    Egotism differs from both altruism – or acting to gain fewer values than are being given – and from egoism, the unremitting pursuit of one’s own self-interest. Various forms of “empirical egoism” can be consistent with egotism, but do not necessitate having an inflated sense of self.

    The Wikipedia article provides an interesting differentiation between egotism and egoism!


  • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 3:32 PM

    I believe that most Scientologists do tend to suffer from egotism if not all.

    The knowledge in Scientology is presented as superior to all other knowledge, including the knowledge from Buddhism. Scientology derides the concept of Nirvana (extinguishing of self) championed by Buddha.

    The Scientology Axioms seems to open the door for egotism by putting self above knowledge.

    Scientology uses words like “wogs”, “squirrels” and “raw meat” to characterize non-Scientologists.


    • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM

      Cult-life appeals to this egotism that we all possess. I know it does to me. Now my egotism has proceeded back onto course, the course it was on when I first walked into Scientology — the course toward a more consistent truth.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM

    It seems that Egotism generates jealousy in an egotist person toward people who are actually able.

    Hubbard put down educational institutions like M.I.T. (my Alma mater), and Buddhism (expansion of my religion of Hinduism).

    Elizabeth Hamree can like me and then dislike me in the next instant. Is there any sincerity there? Or, is there just a focus on herself?

    Here the subject of discussion is Egotism. Attention is on probable examples. and not on the participants. So, I don’t think that the Discussion Policy is being violated.


    • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2012 at 11:53 PM

      The more ego that I emote, the more the petty foibles of others bother me. I was raised with a father who belittled people. Where he learned it, I don’t know, but I learned it too. Many knew him as a sweet guy, and I try to remember him that way.

      I was thinking about Hubbard’s tautology of “stops are the result of failed purposes,” and I was thinking of the coffee shop psychology of “low self-esteem” and it occurs to me that egotism is vampire-like and needs the juice of puffed up ego to maintain its structure. When I attempt to practice egotism, which does seem to be a valid “-ism,” but fail to harvest a sufficient amount of flattery, then I suffer from low self-esteem. Then when that started looking to me like a tautology I stopped and looked at placebo once again.

      Then it occurred to me that much of the computations of the bank, that collection of overpopulated and fragmented bits of mental travail, present as tautology. Then it occurred to me that the solution to much of this mental travail present as placebo, and I experienced a leveling and a relief from the travail of the petty foibles of others.

      Yet, I can say with gusto that I surely do enjoy a smooth 2-way communication with a person possessing good manners and grace. That is a relief as well.

      • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM

        Very well said! Insightful, I must say.


      • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 6:59 AM

        Your use of tautology acting as placebo is very interesting and consistent with my looking. There may be some axiom, or at least a corollary here.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2012 at 6:14 PM

          The smooth circularity of the tautology creates a kind of faux consistency without dissolving anything or actually leveling an inconsistency. Does this communicate?

        • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 6:41 PM

          Yes, totally. A circular logic is like that. One has to get out of that circular logic or tautology, and find the right context, to look at it, otherwise, one cannot look at it in its totality.

          This universe is like that. From the reference point of this universe, you cannot look at this universe in its entirety. You have to look at that reference point too. For that, you have to separate yourself from that reference point.

          This is where KHTK AXIOM ZERO comes in handy.


        • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

          I can never forget how upset Geir got with me at the idea of Unknowable. He just made me wrong. He refused to discuss it with me. My insistence on discussion simply got me banned on his blog.

          That kind of reaction and resistance was incomprehensible to me.


      • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 7:15 AM

        And, somewhere here is the meaning of admiration being the most valuable particle in this universe.

        In response to

        FACTOR 14: Many dimension points combine into larger gases, fluids or solids. Thus there is matter. But the most valued point is admiration, and admiration is so strong its absence alone permits persistence.

        In December 2009, on The Scientology Forum, I had written:

        (1) Matter is made up of solid postulates and considerations in various combinations.

        (2) Loosely combined postulates and considerations appear as gases that can change in density as well as in form or shape.

        (3) More firmly combined postulates and considerations appear as fluids that are fixed in density but can still change in form or shape.

        (4) Firm combinations of postulates and considerations appear as solids that are fixed in density as well as in their form (structure) or shape.

        (5) Admiration of something comes about when it reflects one’s own dearly held consideration.

        (6) Total admiration will bring to view one’s own self in its purity.

        (7) Admiration helps one truly discover oneself and, therefore it is very much valued.

        (8 ) The ultimate in admiration would be the as-is-ness of the very self that one holds so dearly.

        (9) For me, this would amount to being established in nirvana, because I understand “nirvana” to mean from its roots, “absence of identification,” for self is identification with the prime consideration.

        (10) Thus, it is the absence of admiration that permits persistence.

        I have come a long way since then.


        • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 7:46 AM

          I equated “admiration” with “as-is-ness of fixation on self” at that time.


      • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 7:30 AM

        Sorry, Hubbard calls it a “point” and not a particle. But in TECHNICAL DICTIONARY he says:

        ADMIRATION, 1. is the very substance of a communication line, and it is that thing which is considered desirable in the game of the three universes. (COHA, p. 203) 2 . a particle which unites and resolves, like the universal solvent, all types of energy, particularly force. (PAB 8)

        I know that Geir uses a lot of admiration on his blog. But he also gets very upset with people like Alanzo and myself and places them on “vacation” from his blog.

        I am wondering how much sincerity is there underlying such “admiration”. Does it have some connection with Egotism somewhere.

        Please understand that I am looking at this as a phenomenon. Geir was the most gracious host to me and my family when we visited Norway in 2010.


      • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 7:32 AM

        Sorry, it gets to be sort of personal, when you bring up examples of Egotism. I apologize. I am sure I have display of egotism in me too, and I try to be fully aware of it.


  • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 8:53 AM

    I notice that the Discussion Policy curbs the display of egotism and keeps attention focused on the topic of discussion.

    In the absence of Discussion Policy there is unchecked display of egotism. That is fine if the purpose is having entertainment instead of focus on knowledge. That is what I see on blogs like those of Marty and Geir.


  • vinaire  On November 10, 2012 at 11:57 PM

    One must point out an actual inconsistency clearly before there can be a discussion on that subject.


    • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2012 at 12:39 AM

      I am practicing this and having some wins, at least with my own understandings of the questions. If I am able to use this knowledge to bring about a meeting of minds, than all the better.

    • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM

      I am observing your exchange with Marildi. What exactly are you discussing? What inconsistency in Scientology have you pointed out that is real to her within her own context? You are not trying to get her to change her mind about Scientology, are you?

      What inconsistencies, Marildi is looking at right now? There has to be some.


    • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM

      Chris your approach in Geir-24503 is a good one.

      Scientology has never been able to address the territory of PTSness, suppression and the insane in the asylums, either now under DM, or in the past under LRH. Many Scientologists have suffered because the insanity or autism of their children could not be handled by Scientology.

      The very categories of PTS and Suppressives were created because Scientology could not handle such phenomena. These phenomena may tell us something about the blind spots of Scientology itself. It is very likely that such phenomena is created by the very approach Scientology takes under certain circumstances. The Scientology field is filled with PTSs and Suppressives.

      That is a huge inconsistency. “Making able more able” is just an excuse.


      • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM

        As a young man with no money or means, I was introduced to Scn and soon to a Flag Tour that was selling the “L’s.” Completely flabbergasted at the prices they were asking, I angrily asked the person who invited me why they had bothered as obviously I could not afford this type of service. The person replied that Scientology is for the Able and if I wanted it, I had to become more able. This used to be a sour memory for me.

      • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 9:25 PM

        In other words, you have to become able using some technology other than Scientology, so that you can then afford Scientology services.

        That seems to be the inconsistency of “Making able more able.” Scientology seems to leave out a lot.


      • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM

        Are basic services of Scientology there just to make a person able enough to afford higher services?

        Wow! What a scheme.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2012 at 10:53 PM

          I have been pitched by registrars in just those words.

        • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 10:54 PM

          It is like a scheme to make money… to make more money.

          Has this been the real aim of Scientology?


        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2012 at 11:03 PM

          I have been thinking that L. Ron Hubbard is a true psychopathic personality. The giveaway for me is what I would term his deep and abiding insincerity . As far as I can understand, Hubbard always considered any type of public relations or promotion to be fair regardless of any intention to follow through on any social program. All programs to move Scientology ahead have had as their most rudimentary goal the advancement of Scientology rather than the goal of the social program that he was supposedly promoting.

        • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 10:59 PM

          Scientology then leaves out that strata of society,that can’t afford even the basic services of Scientology.

          Actually, those are the people who need a hand the most.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 7:19 AM

          The concept of “triage” was used to explain his attitude toward people “needing help.” which determined who should be helped. But again, equating financial integrity to spiritual integrity as the primary criteria for “offering” help, for me, is a huge and looming inconsistency. As a young man, I wanted Scientology for myself and so compromised my own integrity on several inconsistent points in order to participate. This was one of them.

        • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM

          Hubbard seems to be quite callous toward those who are somehow disabled.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 11, 2012 at 11:10 PM

          It is my belief that he was also handled in this way and learned it. One day it may be included in his bio.

        • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 11:15 PM

          Well, he was genius, no doubt. His dynamics were messed up.


  • vinaire  On November 11, 2012 at 11:11 PM

    Response to Chris in comment-5820

    I think that Hubbard was very intelligent. He just was in a great hurry to accomplish something. Though his motives seem to be selfish, he did accomplish a lot in terms of organizing existing data, so others could take it from there.

    I am not sure though if he meant that.


    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 7:25 AM

      David Mayo’s quote that LRH expressed an inexhaustible lust for money and power seems consistent to me and this comment weighs on my attitude toward LRH’s motives.

      Your comment about LRH’s genius is well taken. Again, I am not sure what I am looking at when I look at genius. LRH seemed to channel something which did not then translate into better living in his own life.

      • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 7:47 AM

        I believe that Hubbard was basically channeling EGOTISM. He was a genius but he was completely focused on himself. Scientology channels egotism starting from Axiom One.

        Any benefits that come to others from Scientology are secondary to the benefits that must come to Hubbard and his Church.

        It appears to me that benefits to others in Scientology are simply a side effect of an operation that is designed to benefit Hubbard’s interests.

        Hubbard was paranoid and he was worried about his survival all his life. No matter what resources he accumulated, he was never at peace.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM

          “. . . never at peace.”

          No, never at peace. I’ve remarked several times about Hubbard’s thinly veiled pretend-biographical sketches of himself as presented in the BATTLEFIELD EARTH and the MISSION EARTH series. It has always been my opinion that we can get a clear look into Hubbard’s ego by reading these entertaining works. He is of course the hero of those stories and presents himself in very shiny armor in MISSION EARTH. Alternately, he presents a much darker and lonely “dark knight” vision of himself in BATTLEFIELD EARTH and explains away the reasons for his darker moods and dimensions in that work.

        • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 9:26 AM

          Scientology presents the best look into Hubbard’s egotism.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 9:41 AM

          . . .but not Hubbard’s look at himself as savior.

        • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM

          It is such blind spots about ourselves that keep us aberrated.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 1:20 PM

          Don’t I know it! For every little epiphany there are more blind spots.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 7:36 AM

      Vinaire: I am not sure though that he meant that. .

      Chris: Hubbard’s attitudes and cleverness about dodging real social authority and law were so flippant and pervasive that he continually shrunk his own world until he was not only not master of the universe but not even master of the organization he invented. He no longer could even get a grip on his own personal anxiety — not much of a guru.

      The old Lutheran minister who taught me the Catechism was in greater control at the end of his own life than that.

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 7:37 AM

    Response to Chris in comment-5827:

    This is a very good point. The concept of ‘ability’ was narrowed down by Hubbard strictly to the ability to pay for Scientology services. To me this is very cold and calculating.

    To this day I have never seen the Church outlaying money for projects that may broadly help the society resulting in benefits on a long term basis. The Church is part of the society. Benefits to society would also mean benefits to the Church. But the policy in the Church for “immediate exchange” excludes any long-term broad social projects. It sets the Church separate from the society.

    The Church tries to benefit from the society before society is benefiting on an overall long-term basis.


  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 8:05 AM

    In reference to Geir-24534:

    The key inconsistency in the concept of ARC is that AGREEMENT leads to conditioning and not to understanding. You can find all kind of examples of agreement leading to conditioning.

    Agreement is more ego-oriented. It works on egotism. Agreement coddles the ego, which prepares the ego to be conditioned.

    Agreement enhances egotism and not necessarily understanding. On the other hand, understanding comes more from leveling of inconsistencies.

    This finally settles my unease about the concept of ARC since 1969.


    • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 8:18 AM

      As I look more closely, the whole concept of ARC is very ego-oriented. and increased focus on it generates egotism. An example that comes to mind is Elizabeth.


    • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 9:03 AM

      Hubbard says in Tech Dictionary:

      REALITY, 1. is, here on earth, agreement as to what is. This does not prevent barriers or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. (COHA, p. 249) 2 . that sequence which can, we say this person is suffering from reactive conduct. He has a reactive mind. In other words, his association has become too blatantly in error for him any longer to conceive differences and we get identification: A=A=A=A. (5702C28)

      If you look at this definition closely, The interpretation of reality as AGREEMENT is reactive.

      In actuality, reality is “what is’, and the recognition of ‘what is’ is what we may call TRUTH. Thus, the interpretation of reality as agreement is reactive. Truth is analytical view of reality.


      By focusing on agreement in using the ARC principle, one is focusing on reactivity.

      By focusing on truth (leveling of inconsistencies), one is focusing on the analytical.


      • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 9:39 AM

        I believe its consistency lies within the set of Scientology and has value for the reactive mentality until such a point as one can actually look for themself.

        Or it may be fractal in its construct and application.

      • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 9:59 AM

        Even within the framework of Scientology, looking at reality as agreement is inconsistent. One should be using the analytical definition of reality and not reactive.


    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM

      Understood. I am really following you here and think this is a brilliant look at ARC. My reason: In that post to Marildi, I am communicating to her from her own bubble of Scientology before going deeper. If I can get her to look at even one inconsistent datum of comparable magnitude within the scope of her own religion, then possibly she may be willing to take a further look. I must admit that I don’t seem able to communicate directly to her and must communicate through her filter instead and I cannot see that I am getting anywhere.

      Did you enjoy watching the first movie “Alien?” I especially like the creature that blasts out of the egg and through the astronaut’s face plate. The creature has him around the throat. Trying to remove the creature causes it to tighten its grip and depress the vital signs of the astronaut. This is my own metaphor for how I view the mechanic of the Hubbardian “Service Facsimile.” It is an ingenious mental device which seeks to preserve itself by making the PC “die” if he were to remove it. It is a diabolically beautiful contraption that prevents looking.

      • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 9:55 AM

        Elizabeth is really quite after the indication of “egotism”. She is not protesting loudly any more. Hopefully, she is looking at it, but it would be too early to confront her on that subject again..Let her look at it.

        Similarly, Marildi may be given the indication of the outright inconsistency in the principle of ARC as presented above. I expect her to scream loudly at first, but hopefully, she would then start looking at it.

        I do feel sad about taking this approach with Elizabeth, but I could see no other alternative if I had to continue communicating with her.

        It is your call with Marildi. You conversation with her really helped me look at the ARC principle more closely.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 1:17 PM

          I had not looked at reality as a product of egotism before. That has some traction for me.

        • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 1:53 PM

          Of course, an egotist looks at everything with a filter that seems to serve him or her.

          Can you imagine looking through such a filter. What does it look like?


        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM

          It doesn’t “look like” so much as it operates. It operates like a process or an application that is running. This brings up another question about the visual aspect of any experience. We routinely talk about what something “looks like” but I think sometimes that becomes metaphorical because visual is only one type of perception.

          The use of DMT is commonly done with “eyes closed” to obtain the greater effect undistracted by visual stimulus.

        • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM

          I use “looking” in the sense of perceiving. All the six senses are in play. The phrase “looks like” to me means, “consideration of general appearance or feel”. Yes, the filter does engage in processing. It processes the “what is” in a certain way for the person. I have no idea of the processing done by DMT.

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 9:11 AM

    I don’t think Hubbard really understood Buddhism. He rejected “Nirvana” which is the core of Buddhism, and promoted ‘individuallty’ (egotism), which is just the opposite. Please see:

    Identity versus Individuality

    So, in my opinion, Hubbard did not refine Buddhism. But he unwittingly refined an approach to philosophy.

    [I posted this on Marty’s Blog in response to someone. I seem to be engaging some posters on his blog.]


  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

    It seems that Marty is paying attention to my recent posts on his blog that are referencing certain essays on my blog on the subject of Scientology.

    His recent post Dimensions seems to be a preparation to counter my writings.

    This is just a feeling at the moment. I may be wrong.

    Many people from his blog are looking at my blog.


  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM

    Buddha says (Ref: INTRODUCTION TO KHTK):

    “Observe things as they really are, not just as they seem to be.”

    Basically, Buddha is saying that,


    Agreement seems to hide the truth.


    • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM

      Here is my post on Marty’s blog on the subject of AGREEMENT that we are discussing here:



    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 1:24 PM

      I could write that agreement is mutual alter-is, and yet we are agreeing…
      Like tuning a frequency, when you hit the channel you were looking for I feel harmony. How does this fit in?

      • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 2:00 PM

        Marty feels dissonance from me. 🙂


        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM

          hehe – what? That’s shocking!

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

          Agreement is sweet, and truth is bitter to the cool aide drinker.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

          Ah, now the poet emerges!

        • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM

          I think that I am getting on Marty’s nerves. He hasn’t figured out what to do with me.


        • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 10:04 PM

          My comments are no longer appearing on Marty’s blog… not even in the moderating queue. They are just vaporizing.

          That is quite a compliment to be considered a nuisance if not a threat.

          Does Vinaire has power to as-is the Independent Scientology?

          Nah! But somebody is not happy with Vinaire. Too bad! 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 11:16 PM

          I tol’ you! But you must have known that would happen. Two years ago I attempted to post 5 times and never got one through. I got the message.

  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM

    DUPLICATION is making an exact copy. In Scientology, “to duplicate” would be to make another copy of a consideration of ‘what is’. It is not the same thing as recognizing ‘what is’, which is to know the truth of what is there.

    AGREEMENT is sharing a consideration. It is the same consideration existing at two different locations.

    SELF is a set of considerations located in space. A self would be in agreement with another on a consideration that is common to both. However, that consideration may sit differently in two different set of considerations. Therefore, an agreement of consideration does not necessarily mean agreement of self.

    AGREEMENT OF SELF would mean the whole set of considerations is being shared at two different locations.

    AFFINITY would indicate the degree to which considerations are being shared between two sets of considerations (selves).

    COMMUNICATION would be the method between two sets of considerations to assess the considerations in either set and make them alike as much as possible. This is not the same as LOOKING.

    The purpose of LOOKING is to recognize ‘what is’. It is different from communication. One may look while communicating to determine the nature of considerations in either set. It is different from the purpose of sharing considerations.


    • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 8:38 PM

      ARC has nothing to do with TRUTH. TRUTH has to do with the recognition of exact nature of considerations. Whereas, ARC has to do with sharing of considerations. These are two different dimensions.


    • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 8:41 PM

      The purpose of ARC is then is to feel good together. It has nothing to do with the seeking of truth.


    • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 6:04 PM

      I need to wrap up this looking at ARC.

      Looking at Geir’s blog, I’ll say that there is definitely heightened ARC there as evident from how everyone is feeling good. But that is about it.

      I haven’t seen any major inconsistencies resolved on Geir’s blog, increasing our understanding. So, I would say,

      ARC = increased harmony (in terms of no disagreements)

      Mindfulness = KHTK Looking = increased understanding.

      I am disabused with the idea of ARC equating to understanding.


      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 7:26 PM

        Maybe so. I am finding no particular difference between relative harmony and relative understanding. And placebo enters in. Placebo seems to be harmony and understanding resulting from deliberately or not deliberately manifested harmony.

        So along with awareness, we have to also look at intention as in “deliberate.” Does attention, intention, and deliberateness, and so forth manifest from a machinery of considerations or Unknowable or neither or both?

        We like to make analogies to how God – as in Unknowable – manifests by channeling through us. So there is truly creative potential at work which is before considerations and bringing true randomness to the universe. What would point to this? It seems that to the degree that we are able, we have falsified there truly being an Unknowable and that anything we know points to a universe which is astronomically big and infinitesimally small and we have a far distance to go to explore that.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:45 AM

          What I mean by harmony here is “harmony in terms of no disagreements”. It is like a tautology which has no disagreements within itself.

          However, the whole tautology may be inconsistent when looked at in a broader context.

          ARC appears to me more and more like something that gets a group of people into a “tautological” state. The people within the COS are in perfect ARC with each other.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

          Possibly existence is a tautological state.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM

          We make a mistake in using “unknowable” as a Noun. The correct usage of “unknowable” will be as an Adjective, but the only problem is that there is nothing to qualify with this adjective.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

          I can diagram that sentence, then put the lowercased italicized i in back of it.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:55 AM

          There is no Unknowable (Noun) or God that channels through us. That would classify as speculation only.


        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM

          The idea of “potential” is also a speculation because we cannot come up with a better explanation.

          “Neti, neti.” 🙂


  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 9:00 PM

    (1) ‘What is” could very well be the fundamental filter one is looking through to comprehend the unknowable.

    (2) The next layer of filter many be generated in an attempt to comprehend the first layer of filter.

    (3) Thus, successive layers of filters may be generated in attempts to comprehend the previous layer of filter.

    (4) Thus, we have the make-up of self as an “onion” of filters.

    (5) The “Individuality” of self may come from a few outermost layers of this onion.

    (6) The purpose of Scientology seems to be to coddle and boost that “individuality,” which is almost insignificant in this model.


  • vinaire  On November 12, 2012 at 10:57 PM

    FACTOR 3: The first action of beingness is to assume a viewpoint.

    I am trying to understand this Factor.

    (1) Beingness is there due to the fact of manifestation.

    (2) A Viewpoint seems to be a point used as a reference for viewing other points.

    (3) So does the beingness gets somehow linked to a point, which is then started to be used as a reference?


    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2012 at 11:36 PM

      . . . And manifestation is there due to the fact of becoming. Tautology. Context Vinnie. This Factor becomes more consistent when compared to the earlier and following ones. There is a reasonable progression. Not verifying, just sharing my look.

      The earliest decision described as “to be” but this needn’t be in the anthropomorphic sense. It can also be in the fluid of space or the particle sense or wave sense. Or other earlier manifestation of Physics. There is a lot to choose from. Anthropomorphism has arrived just lately.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 6:38 AM

        Factor # 1 postulates a Cause before the beingness or manifestation.

        How consistent is that? Isn’t Cause itself a beingness or manifestation?


        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:39 AM

          Just saying manifestation and beingness is circular – same.

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 8:41 AM

          They are synonymous.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:49 AM

          The Factors have more consistency when considered within the bubble of Scientology than when done from outside that bubble. The Factors become more consistent when we have faith in L Ron Hubbard and don’t challenge his words.

          “Philosophy invites religion” in order to overcome its own inconsistency.

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 9:01 AM

          I like that “Philosophy invites religion” in order to overcome its own inconsistency.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM

          I hoped.

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 8:53 AM

          It is best to examine the beginning of any philosophical doctrine for inconsistency.


      • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 6:39 AM

        Hubbard missed this one:


        Cause is a consideration.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM

          This gets tough. We keep trying to get before “there is” and we can’t. Therefore this is a philosophical problem that points at no beginning, the most counterintuitive of all.

          What is unknown cannot “invite” anymore than it can “cause.” Right?

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 8:51 AM

          KHTK AXIOM ONE is the best conjecture we can come up with.

          What we actually observe is that thought just appears… or manifestations are just there.


  • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:51 AM

    Yes, Hubbard missed that cause is a consideration and before the consideration cannot be a consideration unless there is. In which case there may be no beginning point.

  • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:52 AM

    No Prime Mover unmoved.

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 8:57 AM

      Yes. “Prime Mover unmoved” is a justification for there being no beginning.

      If there is a beginning it is unknowable.


      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 1:58 PM

        Maybe we could turn the question around and ask, “Beyond a fractal iteration, is there a reason to believe there might be an ultimate beginning?”

        And a corollary question might be, “What in our experience points to an ultimate beginning point?”

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM

          The ultimate beginning point seem to be before we were created.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 5:24 PM

          The “obnosis drills” were fun and useful. Meaning to observe the obvious, they were synonymous with your looking. With that in mind and when you state, “The ultimate beginning point seem to be before we were created.” I have to retort that the ultimate beginning point seems to be out of sight to such a degree that it is not obvious if there is one.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 5:26 PM

          If I switch TOE’s and look at the basic mechanic of the universe to be discrete then each moment becomes the “ultimate beginning and ending point.”

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 8:40 AM

          What you seem to be saying is that the ultimate beginning point may be unknowable. I have no problem with that. 🙂

          And… one may consider whatever one wants. The point for me is NOT ‘what is’, but ‘what is inconsistent’ and what makes it consistent.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

          Unknowable is inconsistent and a dodge of knowing what is there to know. It implies the assumption that “what is” has been explored. It is easy to invent the consideration of Unknowable and push it forward to resolve the inconsistency of not knowing things, in fact mystery invites us to do just this. However, in light of its solid existence as a rank consideration, I propose there is nothing beyond “what is” and unknowable exists as a part of the whole lot of considerations. Consistency invites this conclusion.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

          Of course, “unknowable” is a consideration. But it is a consideration that points. You have to understand it in its totality. Please see



  • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 2:04 PM

    I am beginning to become comfortable with our logic. Then I remember “Flatland, the movie” and all my comfort dissolves.

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM

      I am looking more closely at what awareness is. I am still puzzled by it. Scientology Axiom #1 simply assumes it.


      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 5:20 PM

        Me too. I seem to know when I am aware but what this illusion that I perceive is is anyone’s guess. With individuality dissolved, it leaves me floating like flotsam on a sea of potential. Unhooked from the river banks of the complex plane, “I” float along in space, swished around by gravity, and whether what my senses reveal to me about the “real world” is a truth in context or a truth in fact is not clear to me.

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM

          Just now it hit me that as soon as one is being aware of something, one is being that thing in that moment.

          This is natural. It has to be that way.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 11:28 PM

          Does this now replace your earlier statement that you’ve never seen anyone be another?

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 11:28 PM

          Because this is what Elizabeth has been asserting along.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2012 at 8:06 PM

        And I am really frickin’ interested in what drugs like DMT are doing in our brains. Because of this, I am wondering at the definition of hallucination vs reality and wondering at the similarities and differences. If I take a drug, and it totally clears up my old age farsightedness, then what is my brain normally doing with the incorrectly focused information coming through my eyes?

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

          The only way to uncover that would be to develop KHTK AXIOMS by removing inconsistencies from the fundamentals we believe in.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:34 PM

          while taking a lot of drugs.

    • vinaire  On November 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM

      The two fundamental abilities seem to be VISUALIZATION and PERCEPTION. The mechanics of these two abilities need to be understood better.


  • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 9:58 AM

    This is a response to the following comment from Chris: comment-5924

    “Does this now replace your earlier statement that you’ve never seen anyone be another? Because this is what Elizabeth has been asserting along.”

    I am differentiating a consideration from SELF, which I see as a set of considerations.

    When one considers something, such as, “This is a table,” one becomes aware of that table. This is a consideration. One does not become that consideration of table. However, that consideration becomes part of the set of considerations, which define self.

    This is consistent with the following KHTK AXIOM:


    Definition: Beingness and awareness may be regarded as the spiritual aspects of this universe.

    Manifestation is basically something coming into existence. It means that “something is being.” This fact of being, existing, or manifesting, may be referred to by a new word BEINGNESS. The fact of manifestation also makes it immediately knowable. The fact that something is knowable may be referred to as AWARENESS.

    Thus, beingness and awareness are aspects of reality (what is). They are the essence (spirit) of existence.


  • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM

    Vinaire: “I am differentiating a consideration from SELF, which I see as a set of considerations. When one considers something, such as, “This is a table,” one becomes aware of that table. This is a consideration. One does not become that consideration of table. However, that consideration becomes part of the set of considerations, which define self.”

    Earlier Vinaire wrote: “Vinaire November 13, 2012 at 9:50 PM: Just now it hit me that as soon as one is being aware of something, one is being that thing in that moment. This is natural. It has to be that way.”

    Chris to Vin: Can you smooth this out?

    • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM

      Yes, what one is aware of seems to be part of self.



      • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 5:41 PM

        and another axiom might be something like “BECOMING IS THE RECOUNTING OF CONSECUTIVE AS-IS CREATES”

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 5:52 PM

          Becoming what?


        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM

          Well you said “becoming aware” like “gradual becoming.” It’s sort of like a running commentary. You can take away the filters but what’s left is still a monologue to oneself.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 7:58 AM

          At the bottom of awareness there seems to be a desire to know. With that desire comes considerations and knowing. And so the awareness grows. But this awareness is there only in terms of considerations of ‘what is’.

          There are two interesting observations here:

          (1) The desire to know persists. It results in creation and dissolution of considerations.

          (2) Nobody has discovered what the seed of this desire is. Not even the Hymn of Creation of the Vedas.

          But is it really necessary to know about that seed? Ha ha. Don’t we have a “tautology” of desire?


        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 8:32 AM

          Yes, we are on the same wave length this morning. I was dreaming of my father this morning to the background music of Midnight Oil’s “Bed’s Are Burning.” I guess I was working on the “seed iteration” and woke with the clear idea that both the answers and questions are defining each other. Another tautology?

          I was still thinking about your grammar lesson yesterday when you said to think of Unknowable as an adjective rather than a noun. Then it came to me this morning that was one half of a dichotomy that has what other half? No-thing is the other half so it hangs in its poorly stated form.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 8:45 AM

          Tautology is the word is the word.

          When you say “At the bottom of awareness there seems to be a desire to know. With that desire comes considerations and knowing. And so the awareness grows. But this awareness is there only in terms of considerations of ‘what is’.”

          Really, the “desire to know” is like a running process or application. It’s mechanical. It also can be turned on and off. Awareness of it being on or off undercuts it. Awareness can be turned on or off.

          Why do write there are only considerations of what is? As in this is the repetitive “as-is create?”

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM

          The answer lies in recognizing the tautologies for what they are.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM

          Exactly! Because when you know it, you’ll know it!

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 9:20 AM

          Ha! Ha! Ho! Ho!


        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 9:24 AM

          🙂 Have a smooth day buddy!

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 9:14 AM

          Is it knowing that produces the desire to know?

          Is that the apple, which the serpent offered?

          Ha! It is knowing that ‘there is something not known’, which produces the desire to know.


  • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 5:42 PM

    When I look at awareness, I get something like “AWARENESS IS THE RECOUNTING TO MYSELF OF WHAT I SEE.”

    • vinaire  On November 14, 2012 at 5:53 PM

      But what is looking at awareness?


      • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 6:56 PM

        There seems to be nothing “looking at awareness.” There only seems to be “awareness.”

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 12:42 PM

          That seems to be correct. There is no awareness of awareness. My apologies to Mr. Hubbard.

          Self seems to become aware of a consideration by absorbing it in itself. You are your awareness.

          If you are looking at a consideration then the consideration of that consideration is already a part of you, which makes you aware of that consideration.


        • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

          I got traction from this one time before and now that its come up again, its having a new consistency for me.

          Problem is fractal. Consistency becomes that way within a construct. Consistency does not seem to me to be inherently true. And it does not seem particularly to carry over to other frames of reference.

          But then I have to look at “true.” (again). Or in the immortal words of Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.” (true is as true does.) True seems to be as true as it is and no more. It is also as tautological as it is and no more and no less.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 6:34 PM

          There is nothing inherently true or false per KHTK AXIOM ZERO. Everything is relative. So, the best we can do is go for consistency. Maybe another iteration sometinme in furure will bring about more consistency. All we can do is remove the inconsistency that is obvious. It is fruitless to go searching for more inconsistencies in an area because it makes one disregard obvious consistencies that are staring at one.

          What gives the best results is the resolution of obvious inconsistencies one after another as the appear. That is how the mind wants to unravel itself. So, do not resist the mind. Let it unravel itself.

          It is what it is. No assumptions, justifications or speculations need be added.


  • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM

    “Becoming aware” is like a switch turning on. What would point to something else going on? My own answer: nothing.

    • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM

      I think that intuition is like a switch turning on. Awareness is simply there. It continues from already existing frame to frame. It is what the person is.

      But intuition is a shift in that awareness. It propagates through the whole beingness lifting it to a new level. It is electrifying.


      • Chris Thompson  On November 15, 2012 at 5:00 PM

        And from that I raise the question whether or not a “person” is truly aware frame to frame. This seems unlikely to me and when I publish an essay on “time” I will explain my idea more. However, as to your reference, I think that sensation that you feel from intuition may in fact be intuition “turning on” or otherwise, making its appearance.

        • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 6:37 PM

          As you look around by turning your head, aren’t things going in and out of awareness. That happens naturally and continuously.

          Same thing happens as one contemplates.


  • vinaire  On November 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM

    Here is something that I wrote this morning on the Progressive Scientology Group on Facbook:

    “You are doing fine Eugene. We may just be trying to explain the same thing.

    “My epiphany came when I realized that everything that I am aware of can be reduced to my considerations. That’s all. That happened back in 1984 while studying The Phoenix Lectures. My desire to know was defined to me at that point as the seeking of simplicity of knowing by seeking consistency in all my awareness. So that’s the direction I have taken since then.

    “I may say that what is beyond consideration is “unknowable” but that is just to reinforce that THE STARTING POINT IS CONSIDERATION. This tells me that “static”, “thetan”, “individuality”, “cause” etc., are all considerations. So, what is the next thing to do? How does one simplify this and rest of the knowledge in the world for oneself?

    “The solution is not to generate any more knowledge, but to simplify the existing knowledge. I finally realized that one does this by looking at inconsistencies, as they appear, and dissolving them by looking closer and closer. This is a very simple formula that I have been following. Logic plays the simple role of telling one where to look. But it is looking that dissolves inconsistencies and not logic. If one focuses on logic one gets bogged down right away.

    “So there you have it.”


  • anti  On September 11, 2013 at 11:20 AM

    when your own founder considers himself a fraud..when intelligent people look into the religion & find a rip off of freud..of psychology with added lunacy & the intelligent members of the religion itself are deaf to all of those clear & fundamental arguments- well I seriously think-.its time to think for yourself..-even the moonies founder believed in them..i can tell you now..scientologists..your captain..he wont go down with his ship..why?..even he knows its a fraud…but goddamn…he wont be skipping without your cash

    • vinaire  On September 11, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      I am not a scientologist, and if you can’t see that this blog provides adequate criticism of the technology of Scientology then I don’t know what to say about your power of observation.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: