Here are some comments on first three axioms of Scientology:
SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
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.
.
SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM 2: THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.
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.
.
SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM 3: SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.
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.
.
Comments
Static seems to congeal as individuality for Hubbard and Scientologists.
For them individuality (first dynamic) rules in more than one way.
.
I’m not sure what you mean by “rules in more than one way.”
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.
.
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:
AXIOM 1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
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.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
What is more important – making “I” more able, or leveling inconsistencies wherever found? Where should be the focus?
.
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?
.
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.
.
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.
.
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?
.
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?
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.
.
I plan to take a closer look at Freud’s concept of EGO and look for inconsistencies there.
.
You might find this article of interest when you do: http://www.trans4mind.com/mind-development/ego-autonomy.html
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.
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.
.
Yep. That sounds right to me.
Good catch. Maybe it’s the senior goal of Scientology.
LOL! You are bad! 😉
.
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!
.
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.
.
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.
Wonderful!
.
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.
.
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.
Very well said! Insightful, I must say.
.
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.
.
The smooth circularity of the tautology creates a kind of faux consistency without dissolving anything or actually leveling an inconsistency. Does this communicate?
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.
..
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.
.
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.
.
I equated “admiration” with “as-is-ness of fixation on self” at that time.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
One must point out an actual inconsistency clearly before there can be a discussion on that subject.
.
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.
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.
.
ah good tip.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
That is a good way of putting it.
Are basic services of Scientology there just to make a person able enough to afford higher services?
Wow! What a scheme.
.
I have been pitched by registrars in just those words.
It is like a scheme to make money… to make more money.
Has this been the real aim of Scientology?
.
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.
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.
.
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.
Hubbard seems to be quite callous toward those who are somehow disabled.
.
It is my belief that he was also handled in this way and learned it. One day it may be included in his bio.
Well, he was genius, no doubt. His dynamics were messed up.
.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
“. . . 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.
Scientology presents the best look into Hubbard’s egotism.
.
. . .but not Hubbard’s look at himself as savior.
It is such blind spots about ourselves that keep us aberrated.
.
Don’t I know it! For every little epiphany there are more blind spots.
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.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
I had not looked at reality as a product of egotism before. That has some traction for me.
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?
.
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.
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.