## KHTK Axiom #1 and Scientology

Here is another look at Scientology Axiom #1:

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.

This axiom is simply another version of ‘unmoved mover’. Is there such a thing as ‘unmoved mover’?

.

Static and kinetic are conditions that are relative to each other as covered by the Theory of Relativity and KHTK Axiom #1:

KHTK Axiom #1: Neither the state of rest, nor the state of motion can be determined to exist in an absolute sense.

DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

The ‘unmoved mover’ could itself be in motion with respect to something else per the principle of relativity. So, it isn’t really ‘unmoved’.

Thus, it is incorrect to say that a life static has no motion. If it has motion then it also has a wavelength. It will have location in space to the extent it has mass and inertia. It will have location in time to the extent it exists.

About the ‘life static’ having “the ability to postulate and to perceive,” it is a conjecture derived from the existence of motion relative to it.

Thus, the assertion that life is basically static, or a static, is questionable.

.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 7:50 AM

The awareness of static is relative only. There is no absolute static. Thus, static is not separate from the kinetic of MEST. It is the same thing viewed differently.

MEST is not produced by THETA as assumed in Scientology. The awareness of THETA and MEST is a phenomena of relativity. The same thing which is viewed as THETA may also be viewed as MEST and vice versa.

.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 7:52 AM

What is beyond THETA and MEST is unknowable.

.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 8:05 AM

It is interesting that many ex-Scientologists are very critical of Scientology, but they still adhere to Scientology Axiom #1. This is because this axiom is ingrained through Christianity. To use Scientology lingo Christianity is the ‘earlier-similar’ of Scientology.

To completely condemn Scientology would, to some extent, would also be a condemnation of Christianity.

On the other hand, improvement on Scientology would also mean improvement on Christianity. Any such improvement would carry forward what is good in Christianity and Scientology.

Science came from Christianity. Theory of Relativity came from science. One may say that the theory of relativity is at the forefront of Western thought.

The old religious views need to catch up to this forefront of thought..

.

• Chris Thompson  On November 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Vin: This is because this axiom is ingrained through Christianity. To use Scientology lingo Christianity is the ‘earlier-similar’ of Scientology.

Chris: Yes, I had not mentioned but noticed some time back that “The Factors” were the initial hook that made Scientology bridge between my Christian indoctrination and my scientific indoctrination. This was the confirmation bias needed apparently needed for me.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Reference to ‘confirmation bias’ made me realize the difficulty I have on Geir’s site. The people their don’t discuss, they blame.

For example, Valkov blamed me for confirmation bias. They just love to psychoanalyze you.

.

• Chris Thompson  On November 2, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Well, I do my own fair share of blaming or criticizing. But I hope that I am not only negative to be sour grapes but have some balance of constructive input. I am not immune to confirmation bias, I find it pleasing but it does not keep me from scouring for inconsistencies and I hope learning from associating them.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 7:54 PM

I find it very difficult to have any productive discussion when the Discussion Policy is in continual violation. I am more productive at my own blog.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM

I realized that in KHTK Axioms awareness starts with relative motion. However, in Scientology, awareness is assumed to be there before anything else. That is the case with Christian God also.

.

• Chris Thompson  On November 2, 2013 at 7:57 PM

I think it is humanly natural to hit the edge, the envelope of what one knows, to conjecture about what one does not know, and then to build constructs about that. For some reason, a human simply abhors not knowing things where they estimate there should be something to know about.

Religion in general is a slipshod mishmash of conjectures and innuendos.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 8:01 PM

I find mindfulness to be a wonderful approach to straighten out the human nature.

.

• Chris Thompson  On November 2, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Seems to work for us and the rest of The Unknowables!

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Does that make us devoid of humanity?

• Chris Thompson  On November 2, 2013 at 8:54 PM

It is good to bring up that ethical question. My answer: Not at all. Losing assumptions and fixed ideas and becoming flexible and nimble in our thinking is good for our humanity.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 8:56 PM

That’s a wonderful response.

• Chris Thompson  On November 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Thank you. There is a huge difference of attitudes between exploring together versus arguing over minutia for the momentary satisfaction of “feeling” right. Confirmation bias sustains an extremely short duration of truth, but truth nevertheless. Just as we recently became wary of certainty, now I think I am becoming wary of truths.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 9:58 PM

I know I am rough at the edges because I am just too passionate about knowledge. I am not really thinking about promoting my blog when I go to other blogs. I just want a good discussion with my friends.

It is just extremely frustrating when I can’t have a good discussion. There is such an incredible amount out there to explore.

But, little by little, it will all come to light.

• Chris Thompson  On November 3, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Man seems to have programming that he can alter and firmware that he cannot. If this is true then I am curious what is the difference. Or where the differences lie. This idea is not popular as our culture teaches we can be whatever we want. However I see no evidence to support that.

• vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 8:57 AM

But some programming cannot be changed either, such as, personal criticism on Geir’s blog.

Haha…

• MarkNR  On November 4, 2013 at 11:52 PM

To Vin:
The essay I sent you was a bit brief, so perhaps some of the principals were not fully explained. The fundamental error with Scn. Axiom #1 is ‘Life is a…….” These first words imply a somethingness. Logic would then dictate that it is a somethingness that is a nothingness. This is an added complexity meant to confuse the actuality. (Added intentionally). That “Life is not a thing but is the animator of things” is a better wording but still falls short.

Life is not within the physical universe, the physical universe is within Life. One’s location is solely determined by where his attention is directed. One’s inability to view a light particle or understand the construction and operation of a physical principal has been tricked, enforced and beaten into you until you agreed fully and now you “know” it as fact. I cannot be certain for you, but that is what happened to me.

None of the principal constructions of the phys. univ. are harmful or aberative as long as you know exactly what they are and what you are doing. A long term project with which I am currently engaged. Your ideas are assisting me in that quest.

Thanks, Mark

• vinaire  On November 5, 2013 at 6:16 AM

Mark,

Welcome to Vinaire’s blog. Those who frequent this blog tend to follow the policies below, otherwise they have a hard time. But I think you are a natural and you wouldn’t have any problem here.

https://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/

https://vinaire.me/2013/09/05/the-12-aspects-of-mindfulness-revised/

Vinaire
.

• vinaire  On November 5, 2013 at 6:28 AM

Mark: “Life is not a thing but is the animator of things”

.

Vin: I find that Scientology really influences one’s thinking by instilling Hubbard’s hypotheses that need to be examined closely. The regular definition of life is “the general or universal condition of human existence:” Is Hubbard using the traditional meaning of life, or is he introducing some other meaning? What does Hubbard really mean?

.

• MarkNR  On November 5, 2013 at 12:26 AM

Programming and firmware.
This is an area which I discovered a few years back and am still working to fully resolve. Fixed opinions, permanent ideas, ingrained purposes, permanent restimulation (Scn.) or “That’s just the way I am.” are all gradients. Some more than others. Each with it’s own difficulty level of resolution.
But there is one area of fixed thinking that is the most difficult of all to handle. The hardware, so to speak. These are the very early considerations that were assumed before anything was ‘wrong’. Before the mechanics of GPMs or the mind or energies were even invented. Especially the times one did well, in his estimation, and those skills that were developed after much effort, and were considered a great accomplishment. This was how you learned to “Play the game”. Since no one could actually be harmed, there was no problem. It was all in fun. These stuck considerations are very difficult to locate and can usually be found only after very numerous searches. Often only when suggested by others “what to look for’. This carries it’s own dangers, in that one can be lead.
I have found a few, as I will explain in my paper to be sent, but there are many others to be discovered. The quantity of knowledge to be discovered is vast.
Thanks for the ‘firmware’ analogy. That solidified a principal that I hadn’t fully worked out.
Mark

• vinaire  On November 5, 2013 at 6:45 AM

One thing that I found very useful from Scientology was to start studying a subject from its fundamentals, because the whole structure of that subject is built upon those fundamentals.

Combine that with mindfulness, and the understanding simply speeds up. So here we are looking at fundamentals of physics and metaphysics through various subjects, hypotheses and theories.

.