ARC – Affinity, Reality and Communication


References: Affinity / Reality The Theistic Viewpoint of God

ARC stands for affinity, reality and communication.  ARC forms the core concepts in Scientology. These concepts sound so very simple, deep and meaningful that they attract a lot of people. However, there are hidden curves thrown into these concepts that trap people in the nightmare called the Church of Scientology.

People who believe in the pseudo-scientific definitions of affinity, reality and communication provided by Hubbard continue to be trapped in a mental quagmire even after leaving the Church of Scientology. It is not easy to get back to normal while still believing in Scientology concepts. One must thoroughly examine the concepts learned in Scientology to be free of the “Scientology trap.”

Hubbard defines affinity in terms of reaching. One reaches for something in order to have it close to one. Lack of affinity would be expressed in withdrawal. “Affinity is a phenomenon of space in that it expresses the willingness to occupy the same place as the thing which is loved or liked. The reverse of it would be antipathy (. . .) which would be the unwillingness to occupy the same space as or the unwillingness to approach something or someone.”

Reality is not looked at as “objective” by Hubbard. It is certainly observable, yet not necessarily objective. Each observer takes his own viewpoint… In any case, when we talk about reality, we talk about agreement. “Reality is the agreement upon perceptions and data in the physical universe. All we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real. Agreement is the essence of reality.”

The definition of Communication that is hammered by Hubbard is as follows. “Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source point”


There are human beings, but a being is not a point like “energy production source” as defined in Scientology, and which is the theistic viewpoint of God. There is beingness, and that beingness consists of the desire to know, awareness and filters.

The filters are composed of agreements that take the form of beliefs, biases, prejudices, fixed ideas, speculations, etc. They filter the reality the same way that colored glass filters light.

At the core of beingness is the desire to know. This desire triggers awareness. This awareness seems to flow like a current through the circuits of the mind. These circuits are composed of filters. The filters may be compared to the components in an electrical circuit that provide resistance to the flow of current.

Perception changes as awareness passes through the filters in the circuits of the mind. This perception may be tapped like “voltage” at any point in the circuit, and it would provide the “reality” at that point.

As “resistance” offered by filters in the circuit decreases, the “current” in terms of the flow of awareness increases. This increase in “current” may be viewed as increase in the capability to communicate.

The decrease in filters also reduces the alteration induced in perception. As a result the reality also improves.

The decrease in filters also removes the restrictions placed on awareness. The awareness becomes more inclusive and it encompasses a lot more. This may be looked upon as improvement in affinity.

It is only when the filters are reduced that affinity, reality and communication improve.

The ARC does not increase simply by increasing the “flow of communication,” as believed in Scientology. Increase in the flow of communication just gives you more of the same.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On May 15, 2014 at 1:09 PM

    ARC increases only when auditing manages to reduce the influence of filters. It is not the communication with the auditor that brings it about. What brings it about is the mindfulness of the preclear.

    Auditor is not really needed. Auditor may serve to facilitate but that is about it.

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM

    People buy Scientology stuff because they already believe in “God” as a point like “energy production source.” This is the theistic view that Scientology takes advantage of.

    The viewpoint of God can definitely be improved from the primitive theistic view. Similarly, the understanding of ARC can definitely be improved from the deceptive view imparted by Scientology.

  • MarkNR  On May 15, 2014 at 7:23 PM

    It is my opinion and limited observation that the only broadly workable way of reducing life’s filters is through a structured methodical method. Most individuals cannot or will not expend the effort to pursue this on their own. It does in fact require assistance, at least at first, until one reaches a responsibility level (the ability and willingness to be cause, or the source point of action) and clarity adequate to succeed at one’s own determinism.

    This was L. Ron Hubbard’s primary effort, with which he had some success.

    • vinaire  On May 15, 2014 at 7:56 PM

      The earliest such method has been the use of natural drugs and meditation. That was popular with the Vedic people. It was then followed by the minfulness discovered by Buddha.

      The Socratic method was also quite workable. Similar methods were used by Gurus in India with their disciples.

      Hubbard added new dimensions to ‘looking’ by adding the processing approach with hundreds of different questions. However it gets low hanging fruits only, and it does not work with everybody.

      Hubbard’s approach mistakenly highlights communication between the auditor and the pc to be responsible for the improvements, but the actual improvements, as always, comes from the pc looking mindfully at his case. Improvement have nothing to do with pc giving his personal information to the auditor.

    • vinaire  On May 15, 2014 at 9:05 PM

      Assistance from another person is not always required. A life changing event can put a person on the path of mindfulness which helps reduce filters.

      Basically, a desire to improve is necessary, and this can be brought about by circumstances in life. Beyond that familiarity with workable a method is required that a person can apply.

      People out there are motivated enough to apply all kinds of methods. I know for sure that many people are applying methods available on this blog.

  • vinaire  On May 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM

    The communication occurs within the larger beingness of existence. The origin and receipt points are within this larger beingness. These points choose to have their separate identity. This identity is a filter in its own right.

    The idea of thetan is part of this identity.

  • vinaire  On May 16, 2014 at 9:11 PM

    Beingness is composed of desire to know, filters and awareness
    (1) Desire to know triggers awareness
    (2) Awareness flows through the circuit composed of filters
    (3) The flow of awareness determines communication
    (4) How encompassing that awareness is determines affinity
    (5) Perception changes as awareness passes through the filters
    (6) Perception tapped at any point is the reality
    (7) As filters decrease the flow of awareness increases
    (8) This is increase in communication
    (9) There is improvement in reality
    (10) There is enlarging of affinity
    (11) ARC increase with decrease in filters and not by some vague ‘intention’

  • vinaire  On May 16, 2014 at 9:12 PM

    Existence is beingness.
    (1) The communication occurs within the larger beingness of existence.
    (2) The origin and receipt points are within this larger beingness.
    (3) These points choose to have their separate identity.
    (4) The idea of thetan is part of this identity.
    (5) This identity is a filter in its own right.

  • vinaire  On May 16, 2014 at 9:28 PM

    Our basic beingness is not separate from this existence
    (1) But we mistakenly consider it to be separate
    (2) We are both the origin and the receipt points
    (3) We are also the filter of existence in between
    (4) We view ourselves through this filter
    (5) But think of it as a different identity
    (6) This illusion is wonderful

    • Chris Thompson  On May 17, 2014 at 4:07 PM

      I know these layers of self are hard to describe. The way I see it, the self is a filter and the filter is a self and when the final filter dissolves, the self dissolves as well leaving all the processes that were processing, yet processing as they were. We’re writing and writing about this and trying to make it like something such as calling it a filter. That’s ok, so long as we remember that these analogies are analogies and not the things themselves. I admire your willingness to break this down and down and down. I hope it is satisfying for you. I especially like your description of the self as the center of a mass of considerations.

      • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 4:10 PM

        Thanks. Meditation is looking at a phenomenon from all different angles.

        Yes, It is very satisfying for me.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 17, 2014 at 4:32 PM

          I believe this is a very good thing. 🙂

        • Chris Thompson  On May 17, 2014 at 4:36 PM

          The self comes together so frailly and so briefly, like flowers blooming – iterations upon iterations. Amazing. We are learning. This is good.

  • vinaire  On May 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM

    There is no beingness without this existence
    (1) There are no origin and receipt points without this existence
    (2) There is no communication without this existence
    (3) There are no filters without this existence
    (4) Even we are not there without this existence
    (5) We can’t tell what is there without this existence
    (6) Probably not even nothing!

    • Chris Thompson  On May 17, 2014 at 4:11 PM

      “There is no beingness without this existence . . . ”

      You seem to have eaten your Wheaties as you are nailing this one — very good observations. It is a tautology but I do not find that abominable. Rather more like coming to grips with the relevance, conditioning, and impermanence. The sensation for me is not an apathy but rather a great calm and I feel like I have my fingertips on all the parts. This is of course an impermanent state, just as all beingness is an impermanent state.

      • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 4:13 PM

        LOL! Yes Wheaties are good for you. 🙂

  • vinaire  On May 16, 2014 at 9:54 PM

    The difference between you and me
    Are the filters in between.
    Take away the filters
    And the You becomes Me
    But there are no filters
    To keep even the Me there.

  • vinaire  On May 16, 2014 at 9:59 PM

    What are these filters?
    These filters are matter, energy, space and time
    These filters are also the communication
    These filters are also the origin and receipt points
    These filters are existence.
    These filters are the beingness
    You and Me are filters.

  • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 5:25 PM

    Duplication in communication
    Is making an exact copy at receipt point
    Of what emanated from the origin point
    But such a communication particle
    Would be wrapped up in the filters
    That exist at the origin point
    Any duplication of communication shall then require
    The duplication of all those filters
    At the receipt point.

    How many of us knowingly do that?

    • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 5:29 PM

      Try duplicating Elizabeth Hamre’s filters knowingly.
      Many resonate with her posts
      Because they are duplicating her filters unknowingly.
      Since they have similar filters of their own.

    • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 5:32 PM

      So Hubbard’s communication formula requires that receipt point must have filters similar to those existing at the origin point.

      To duplicate LRH materials one must not think independently. One must develop the same filters as those of LRH. Scientology vocabulary helps you accomplish that.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 17, 2014 at 6:47 PM

        This a way of breaking down “what is a frame of reference” into a model. This helps understand relevance. I suspect mathematically this is also a way of seeing the constructs around us as sets. Filters, considerations, etc., may describe sets – possibly. Again, using my filters and attempting to follow you, I am trying to duplicate your filters and see how they are relevant to my own.

        • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 7:09 PM

          The model of an electrical circuit is fitting perfectly. So, you should be able to see more into it.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2014 at 11:41 PM

          “The model of an electrical circuit is fitting perfectly. So, you should be able to see more into it.”

          No, this one went over my head! Fill me in please.

        • vinaire  On May 23, 2014 at 6:21 AM

          The circuit is the universe.
          The battery is the desire to know.
          The current flowing in the circuit is awareness.
          The amount of current flowing is affinity.
          The resistance in the circuit are the filters.
          The voltage at any point in the circuit provides the reality at that point.
          The voltage drop between any two points in the circuit provides a measure of filters.
          Any two points in the circuit may act as the “terminals” in communication.
          They are different in voltage (reality) because of the filters between them.
          They “become one” when the filters between them are removed.
          The two terminals of the battery are the ultimate terminals in communication.
          One terminal is perceiving the other terminal through the filters of the circuit.
          As resistance (filters) reduce, the current (affinity) increases and the reality improves.
          Ultimately, a short circuit takes place as the filters vanish.
          The desire to know is satisfied as the two terminals become one.
          There is no awareness, no affinity, no reality, no communication.
          As these things are no longer needed.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 23, 2014 at 12:32 PM


          How did you come up with that ?

        • vinaire  On May 23, 2014 at 4:47 PM

          The realization start to come together when I was trying to understand the mechanics of communication from what L. Kin wrote on Communication in his book. It is application of SUBJECT CLEARING.

        • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 7:22 PM

          The nice outcome of this is that this way inconsistencies may be spotted, discussed and resolved. But that can be done only under the discipline required by the discussion policy.

          Filters cannot be spotted directly. They can spotted only by how they are influencing the subject being discussed.

  • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 9:07 PM

    L Kin says: “Understanding means: (a) comparing the data received with data already known so that they make sense. That’s the reality part. (See Logics 8-12) (b) Developing an emotional attitude; liking or disliking the message or its sender. That’s the affinity-part.”

    More simply, to me, understanding is recognizing any inconsistencies and resolving them completely.

    • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 9:14 PM

      I think that the affinity part is not so much liking or disliking, but the all-inclusiveness resulting from the resolution of inconsistencies.

  • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 9:25 PM

    INTENTION seems to be the general propensisty of the enrgy mass of which “I” is the “center of awareness”.

    • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 9:29 PM

      This is also the WILL associated with that energy mass. WILL is just a property of the energy mass, and it is not infinite.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 18, 2014 at 2:52 PM

        Yes, that seems plain enough. What is not clear to me is how the will is manipulated to bring about a visualized result. I am understanding that we do not understand this.

        • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 8:25 AM

          Is there a single variable at the bottommost layer of the SELF that controls the whole self? I get a picture of big mass of muscle contracting by itself.

          If there is one then it may be identified as “the desire to know”. It has no further identity beyond that.

          At the most it may be extended to “the desire to know oneself”. It is sort of a loop. One is creating oneself to know oneself.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 9:33 AM


          “Desire” puts me in mind of electromagnetic, static, etc., attractiveness. But so does “affinity.” For me, these seem to be qualities of space-time.

        • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 10:21 AM

          I see space-time as aspects of motion How is affinity associated with motion?

          I see affinity as the degree of inclusiveness.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 8:37 PM

          I see desire as attractiveness and this quality can be found physically outside what would qualify as human emotion. Yet if human emotion mirrors physics in some ways, then in what ways does it not mirror physics? Any at all?

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2014 at 7:31 AM

          I see desire as a feeling of something lacking. It is an incomplete cycle of action wanting to be completed.  It could simply be a postualtion of an incomplete cycle of action. It then takes over.

          Maybe SELF is just that at its core – a postulated incomplete cycle of action. Hubbard talks about human emotion in terms of flows, dispersals and ridges in Scn 8-8008. Take a look at it. Search “dispersal” here:


        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 8:40 PM

          “I see affinity as the degree of inclusiveness.”

          As do I. Does this apply to accretion? And is this property one of “particles” or of space itself? I would enjoy it if you would see what I am trying to write. Is accretion not an expression and a physical example of affinity?

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2014 at 7:34 AM

          Maybe something is acceted as filters are depleted. It could be a negative gain.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 8:49 PM

          “I see space-time as aspects of motion How is affinity associated with motion?”

          Yes, or conversely, motion is the aspect of time. There does not seem to be more than a momentary static equilibrium which is unstable even if only momentarily if that. Motion is time and vice versa. Possibly space cannot be separated quantumly from time and vice versa. Affinity is a quality of space and therefore a quality of time and therefore a quality of motion? You will have to tag along with me for a bit on this one rather than explain what is wrong with my ideas. Of course if there is inconsistency we would want to notice that. We are exploring what could be possible not from an “anything goes” point of view but rather from a “The associations of space-time, motion, mass, gravity, etc., can be forcefully measured but not well understood and we are thinking outside the box to attempt to exploit some inconsistency. . . ” point of view.

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2014 at 7:53 AM

          No, I do not see motion as an aspect of time. Motion contains space and time. Motion seems to be the overall all-inclusive concept. I think that the observation of motion came first and the concepts of time and space came about to explain the phenomenon of motion. Space and time do not seem to exist in isolation. Quantum seems to be a later manifestation as wave-packets and particles come about. Quantum seems to be the side-affect of condensation of motion.

          Affinity may reflect the scope of motion as it covers a wider area including everything in it.

          If I make a concept tree per SUBJECT CLEARING I shall put motion before space and time. Condensation of motion shall result in momentum, mass, particle, gravity, etc.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 8:44 PM

          “No, I do not see motion as an aspect of time.”

          I do not conceive of motion in the absence of time. It seems to me that the definition of time is “relative motion.” Is there another kind of time?

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2014 at 9:02 PM

          Of course, time would be there only if motion is there because time is an aspect of motion.
          (1) If time is not there then it means that motion is not there either.
          (2) Sense of motion comes about only when it is relative, otherwise, there may be just persistence.
          (3) So, persistence may be equated with non-relative or “frozen” motion.

          The last one is just a speculation because I don’t know if there can be persistence without motion.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 10:37 PM

          There would be another angle of attack if we think of motion only as relative position.

        • vinaire  On May 21, 2014 at 7:21 AM

          A reference position may be looked upon as absolute, but actually it is not. Any position in a matrix of positions may be picked up as a reference position. Reference or not, all positions are relative.

          A position may be looked upon as a quantization of space. Space is an aspect of motion. No motion means no space. When there is no space then there is no motion either. We do not find space without time, or time without space either. So this is the same phenomenon being perceived in different ways.

          When we say motion, we also mean space and time. Condensation of this motion first appears as energy and then as mass particles.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 10:40 PM

          “The last one is just a speculation because I don’t know if there can be persistence without motion.”

          I rather consider persistence as the “abstraction of no-motion.” I am pretty sure there is no such thing as no motion.

        • vinaire  On May 21, 2014 at 7:34 AM

          When something is persisting, such as, a star, a planet or an atom, then it is accompanied by motion.

          When an idea is persisting, then it is doing so because there is an alter-is underlying it, which is not being viewed. Is there some motion present? There may be because an idea is a condensation of thought in a partcular configuration, just like a mass particle is a condensation of electromagnetic waves in a particular configuration.

          The idea is moved around just like a mass particle is moved around.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 21, 2014 at 4:14 PM

          “. . . there is an alter-is underlying it, which is not being viewed.”

          I’m not sure what you mean by alter-is.”

        • vinaire  On May 21, 2014 at 4:16 PM


        • Chris Thompson  On May 21, 2014 at 7:58 PM


          What physically do you see the filter is?

        • vinaire  On May 21, 2014 at 9:03 PM

          Mental filters are made up of considerations.

        • MarkNR  On May 22, 2014 at 12:01 AM

          I commend your herculean efforts to sift through the endless possibilities of the nature of current existence. The quantity of possible directions one can take in this quest are mind boggling. With all our frailties, aberrations, fixed and implanted thoughts, and pre-installed thinking, we have still been able to make progress. A testament to our basic strength.

          My observations and conclusions do not exactly match yours, but then the final actuality will not match my thoughts either. The work continues. The work has value for you and I and all. Thank you.

          Perhaps I lean toward greater simplicity and use phrases such as ‘Ockham’s Razor’ in an effort to avoid confronting the installed complexities which make up this matrix we find ourselves within.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2014 at 6:05 AM

          “Perhaps I lean toward greater simplicity and use phrases such as ‘Ockham’s Razor’ in an effort to avoid confronting the installed complexities which make up this matrix we find ourselves within.”

          If you do, you will have to challenge your memories as facts and possibly reorganize the categories of your data: Belief, fact, abstraction waiting for verification, etc.,.

        • MarkNR  On May 23, 2014 at 3:42 PM

          For objective results of my work, read my comment to The Oracle on Marty’s blog from today.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 24, 2014 at 5:06 PM

          comment number? link?

        • MarkNR  On May 24, 2014 at 6:42 PM

          From Marty’s blog, related to a letter I sent to the Oracle some time ago. It was concerning an area of case related to ‘authority’ whic I had touched on but had difficulty resolving. The beginnings of this were early in the games universe era, not long after the dimensional conflicts. I found that it actually started much sooner, but was held in place by the many related incidents that have followed since:

          Hello there Miss Oracle.
          So good to hear from you and speak to you. You have a strength and directness that I find refreshing. Are you enjoying life and spreading your wings after your ‘Ls’? Any related experiences to relate? I’d love to hear them.

          I have enjoyed your banter with Vin. It is bringing out a variety of ideas. With every retort I find useful information which helps me in my work. Whether positive or negative. There have been several times that I saw an odd or inconsistent thought or fixed opinion that I also recognized in my self. I did a search and found the source.

          Oh, by the way, I did a thorough investigation of that ‘authority’ thing that I asked you about last year. Since there was no pre set path or written procedure to follow, I went at it unstructured and just looked and looked. I noticed that i was ‘concerned’ about this area of case in myself. This was a stop in itself. I released the concern and replaced it with curiosity and adventure. A few thousand incidents later (some scanned, some studied in detail) I found there were a large group of purposes, considerations, postulates, and opinions, all loosely woven together. It was a bit time consuming but so much clarity and, well, lets call it breathing room, was released.

          Many of the ideas that were stuck in my thinking were instructed or suggested to me by those I admired. (Thanks Erzsebet) There were at least 75 to 100 very old computations and little side thoughts along with thousands of confirmations and confusions which locked in and distorted my thinking and ‘feelings’. There was no one or two original considerations which these areas depended upon. Like I said, it was more like a web than a column resting on a single base. This surprised me. My definition of respect for others has completely, totally changed. It now more closely resembles love and curiosity, if that makes sense.

          I made another important tech discovery that some others may have already found. There were several groups of incidents that had to be looked at in their entirety, instead of grinding on one at a time. This was necessary to see how the series of decisions had grouped together to form an unconscious thought process. (Thanks, Vin.) Most aberrations do hinge around key incidents, but many groups of incidents congeal to form their own single entity. I consider this another bit of data of magnitude.

          There was something that I lost in the process, which was a great relief. I no longer have other’s opinions, statements or instructions/orders as a stable point to hold on to, operate from. I was using that as a means of avoiding doing the work myself. I was also using authority figures as a means of establishing ARC with those around me who were following the leaders. I am now much more free to investigate, observe, and think and decide for myself,….or not. It’s really wonderful.
          Those around me are starting to look upon me as an authority figure, asking for assistance, guidance. I always work WITH THEM as a partner to handle life’s foibles and make decisions. It’s really enjoyable.

          There are too many other insights and realizations to list. Thank you for your help this last year. You are quite a gal.
          Love, Mark

        • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 6:07 AM

          To me, it is simply the application of SUBJECT CLEARING. We all have our upbringing that makes a difference. My upbringing happens to be through Hinduism (mindfulness) first and then through science. Your upbringing is different from mine. But upbringing is just a variable and one can take it into account.

          It is good to have different cultures.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 8:46 PM

          “Affinity may reflect the scope of motion as it covers a wider area including everything in it.”

          Affinity seems to be the gathering together of space such as in “The earth has affinity for the moon.” Looking at this, it seems I’m using affinity synonymously with gravity and other forms of attraction.

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2014 at 9:10 PM

          I see affinity as inclusiveness rather than attraction. I may feel repulsed by something, but may still be inclusive of it, have a good idea (reality) of it and be willing to communicate with it.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 10:41 PM

          “I see affinity as inclusiveness rather than attraction.”

          Help me understand how you see these as different.

        • vinaire  On May 21, 2014 at 7:35 AM

          One can be inclusive of both attraction and repulsion.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 21, 2014 at 4:16 PM

          “One can be inclusive of both attraction and repulsion.”

          I see how “one can be” but I do not know how you mean affinity is. For me, affinity has vector and obeys usual Newtonian physics – my opinion.

        • vinaire  On May 21, 2014 at 4:26 PM

          I don’t see affinity as a vector. I see it as the degree of non-filter-ness.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 21, 2014 at 8:01 PM

          Ok, I think I see which direction you are taking this. Now if filters are considerations and the self is a conglomeration of considerations, then my question would be what is the difference? Or is there any?

        • vinaire  On May 21, 2014 at 9:06 PM

          Considerations are considerations just as material is material. There are so many variations in materials (both elements and compounds). Similarly, there are tremendous number of variations in considerations.

          There are all kind of houses made up of various materials. Similarly there are all kind of SELVES made up of various considerations.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 18, 2014 at 2:50 PM

      For sure, intention would be described by vector and force. I am curious how with so many dynamics at work how an intention becomes focused and directed and forced and reinforced. I only know that I do it but not how.

      • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 7:48 AM

        It seems the energy mass called SELF is made up of many layers. The more fundamental is the layer, the more fundamentally it influences SELF. The SELF, of course, has its “center of awareness” called “I”.

        So, INTENTION seems to be the influence exerted on “I” by more fundamental layers of SELF. This is similar to the more fundamental concepts in a subject having much wider influence on that subject.

        So, when one is looking at intention, one is looking at the more fundamental, or core, properties, or makeup, of SELF.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 7:57 AM

          Yes, I believe I said that. We don’t want to say it aloud because it is unresolvable: determinism or free will? Because this seeming dichotomy doesn’t resolve, I am going to call it a poorly stated paradox needing a fresh look at as you say, “self.”

        • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 8:06 AM

          Determinism or free will is how the SELF is constructed at its more basic layers. It is just an energy phenomenon. Just having a will speaks of a strucure. There is no infinite or totally free will.

          The more deeply one descends into the structure of SELF, the lesser in number but more powerful in their influence are the variables. This is where the power to choose come from. So, this is where the will or determinism lies.

          But even this will or determinism has a structure that may be manipulated.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 9:29 AM

          “But even this will or determinism has a structure that may be manipulated.”

          We base this assumption on human engineering, art, etc., however, both engineering and art exist in the plant and animal kingdoms. This seems deeply embedded. Manipulated is a broad term. Our assumptions about the root of manipulation need to be looked at.

          How deeply embedded is self-reflection?

        • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM

          Scientology is a good example of a system that is able to manipulate SELF at the deep level of will.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 8:35 PM

          “Scientology is a good example of a system that is able to manipulate SELF at the deep level of will.”

          How do you mean?

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2014 at 7:06 AM

          I see ideas interacting with ideas just like chemicals do with each other. Scientology ideas interact with ideas at a deep level of self whether one wants it or not. It is just the nature of ideas and considerations that they interact with each other. 


      • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 7:58 AM

        Hubbard intention seems to be very self-centered. His survival of his self was uppermost to him. He was no doubt brilliant, but all that brilliance was directed toward solving “his problems”. Others were recognized as resources to support his self. Others were to benefit only to the degree that it benefit his self. To him his self was the universe. Anybody that did not support his self was to be simply discarded. Any threat to his self was to be subdued at all cost.

        In other words, Hubbard was selfish to an extreme degree.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 8:02 AM

          Yes, this now goes without saying. And violations of the discussion policy aren’t moving us there. Don’t make me have to warn you again! LOL

        • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 8:15 AM

          This is intended as a comment on the subject of INTENTION. I thought that this new way of looking at intention may provide an interesting look at Hubbard who is not a participant in this discussion.

        • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 8:30 AM

          The discussion policy doesn’t say not to comment on any SELF, because SELF can be the subject. The discussion policy simply prohibits to stray from the subject and start focusing on the participants in that discussion.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 9:36 AM

          Discussion policy should include acknowledging the violation and resuming the discussion without a lot of conversation about why or why not a deviation occurred. As soon as it becomes heavy, then discussion itself becomes a tool to derail the discussion.

        • vinaire  On May 19, 2014 at 10:39 AM

          The discussion policy simply highlights the circumstances under which the discussion gets derailed. It leaves it up to the reader to determine their own action. What is your suggestion intended to accomplish?

          There is nothing wrong with the discussion policy itself becoming a subject of discussion if people need to understand it better.

          There are many people out there who are not interested in discussions. They are only interested in pushing their viewpoint and entertaining themselves from the reaction they get. There is nothing you can do but to ignore such people until they say something relevant.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2014 at 8:56 PM

          Yes, there is that. Manners teaches us that by being vulnerable, we increase our social credibility and trustworthiness. Plus, vulnerable manners ( rather than “good” manners) cost nothing and reap friendly rewards. Being vulnerable costs nothing and behaving invulnerably does not make our discussion points better understood. If anything, being invulnerable hardens the targets of our communication through reduced affinity making these less receptive. This is for me quantifiable physics at work. I say quantifiable which is not just puffery but I sense proportional, don’t you think?

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2014 at 9:04 AM

          I think that part of the confusion comes from “Why can’t people see what I see?” and that may cut across affinity. I am a stickler for scientific accuracy. I seem to understand that is not easy for others when I am attempting to insert that idea of accuracy in the field of metaphysics. But you are right that I need to take into account the gradient in my explanations. Hardening from others will occur to the degree their gradient is violated. It does not matter how logical my explanations are.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 9:56 AM

          🙂 Till the soil with manners to help people want to be receptive to the seeds you wish to plant. The other edge of this sword is that by being vulnerable one becomes more empathetic and ready to learn and not only teach. You know that I love your ideas and would celebrate your enjoying some acknowledgement for them. This in turn would only encourage you to continue. You have a lot to offer.

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2014 at 10:00 AM

          I know you are trying to help me, and I appreciate that very much. 🙂


        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM

          “I know you are trying to help me, and I appreciate that very much. :)”

          I like you a lot and enjoy your blog and count you as a friend. I know that your heart is good and that you have good ideas and intentions and show it as you did when you were generously tutoring my maths for free by Skype. Talking about things like manners almost cannot be done without sounding condescending and so for any part of this, if at any point I sounded condescending, I apologize. It was something I am willing to risk as I want your KHTK, Mindful Subject Clearing, etc., to succeed. I hope we will always be friends, it is a real value in my life.

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2014 at 8:18 PM

          Of course, we’ll always be friends. It can’t be any other way.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 8:19 PM

          Good 🙂

  • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 9:34 PM

    CAUSE and EFFECT of the communication formula are simply the two portions of a single event. They are dependent on each other. They are not two separate entities or events.

    It is the same current running through the circuit…just two different voltages.

  • vinaire  On May 17, 2014 at 9:50 PM

    During auditing the pc is communicating with his engram and receiving the impulses from it.

    But what is happening is that that the energy mass, which is the preclear, is being allowed to recover from its distortion. It may seem that some “picture is vanishing”, but what is happening is that the energy mass is recovering (the distortion is vanishing).

    There is no bank of pictures. There is only distortion. Pictures are symbolisms of this distortion.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 18, 2014 at 2:55 PM

      “Pictures are symbolisms of this distortion.”

      Yes, metaphors . . . ” and so it goes with god.”

  • vinaire  On May 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM

    Unconsciousness seems to occur when there ie excessive “resistance” in the circuit due to filters. The flow of awareness almost stops, and we get robotism.

    This is different from physical unconsciousness, which is momentary and due to physical overload.

  • MarkNR  On May 20, 2014 at 8:30 AM

    The Builders and large common universes

    Take a closer look at the games universes era. An explosion of creativity and diversity lasting for, well, almost forever. Interaction and activity galore. Every kind of existence you and the rest of us could imagine. An interactive carnival of varying systems of existence the likes of which make the large common universes of late seem mundane in the extreme.

    But like an oppressive teacher in a 19th century British classroom, a few decided that what was needed, what was correct, was a completely controlled, extremely ordered, nice and quiet environment. The thought that anyone or any group could build their own universe with whatever rules they wished, and invite friends or even passersby to come and play or even add to the creativity, just wouldn’t do. We can’t have that.

    So they built ever larger and more orderly spaces with ever stricter rules. They told us it was more “fair” for everyone. No more confusion. No more having to learn new rules as you went from one space to the next. Made sense at the time. And you were coerced and tricked, and eventually punished into believing that this was the way to go, the right thing to do. Armed with a knowledge of considerations, opinions, desires, fears that most of us had built up and forgotten during our past, they carefully guided us into these traps, convinced this was the best way to go.

    The large common universes, like this one.

    But that wasn’t their only intent, to make life better for us all. They “knew” they were smarter and superior to the rest of us and it was up to them to decide how things were going to be. And they should be in charge. The average guy wasn’t worthy. Only they had the wisdom and ability to control everything. And as a bonus, they would be respected, revered, feared and looked upon as, dare we say it, Gods. The Masters of the Universe. Total communism on a scale difficult to even comprehend.

    Not only that, we were carefully and cleverly dumbed down to a point where this all seemed acceptable to us. We would squabble and argue over the nature of a photon while they would laugh and pass judgment over our activities, for our own (and especially their own) good.

    And to really clinch the inescapable nature of this prison, we have all played the role of Master. Want to get ahead, become more than you are, become the boss, be a king yourself? “Yes, that’s right, I’ll be in charge. I’ll fix everyone.” That is the strongest door in the entire prison. (Auditing on 3 or 4 flows was a stroke of pure genius by Ron or one of his assistants)

    No, I have no intention of limiting myself to any one system of existence. The possibilities are infinite. I learned the limitation of light entering eyeballs, years ago while doing OT-TR-0. That was just a tiny taste of what is to come. “The universe is my playground” is just barely the beginning.

    All I gotta do now is get my foot unstuck from this mud hole. It is so thick and sticky, I can barely wiggle my toes. OK, I can wiggle my ankle just a little bit this way, then that way. Now up a millimeter or two. Oh well, I’ll work on it. I might need a hand in a little while. Got any rope? A stick? I’m open to suggestion.
    ARCL, Mark

    • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM

      “All I gotta do now is get my foot unstuck from this mud hole. It is so thick and sticky, I can barely wiggle my toes.”

      Good post Mark. Why do you imagine your foot is still stuck?

      • MarkNR  On May 20, 2014 at 1:09 PM

        Why is my foot still stuck in the mud?
        It’s a matter of quantity. I am currently unable, unwilling to look at ALL of the opinions I have gathered, understand them, and change my mind. Operate fully in present time, with full use of all the data I have ever gathered, with no fixed opinions. To be able to freely make a decision, with that decision becoming part of my knowledge, yet not sticking to me and controlling my future decisions.

        Imagine a computer with no RAM. Every bit of data going into the hard drive while none of it sitting in the processor. Every single operation scans the entire hard drive for all applicable data. Every single operation is saved to the hard drive and is available for future processes. The entire hard drive is instantly available for every operation between any two Planck Seconds, with no overwhelm.

        If I discover a method of freeing myself from my own decisions in one fell swoop, I will publish it instantly. Ron was continually searching for methods of erasing, resolving case in large sections. Gaining understanding of entire subjects, without the need to look at vast numbers of occurrences. This, for me, I have found, produces a temporary state of release.

        When one looks down a particular chain of similar events and gains a new understanding of how it is affecting him, he can release his grip on the associated mass, opinions, consideration. But he is prone, likely, perhaps destined to mock up this mass again as new experiences are gathered. Full Dianetic erasure is but a deeper form of release. That is why I always scan up the track after the standard definition of erasure has been achieved. A full understanding of how it affected you after you made the original decision is, I believe, necessary. That is why I always search for an underlying, more basic consideration which put me in a condition, position to make that postulate, consideration, have that original confusion, in the first place.

        The mud is deeper and stickier than anyone realized. That is why the realization I gained while doing TR-0 is so vitally important. I came to a point where I felt I could do it forever with no feeling of wasted time or effort. Time and effort are unlimited, will never run dry, is not something to be considered dear. A moment, a day, a millennium. No problem. Auditing errors, by-passed charge, wasted session time? No worries. The entire adventure is nothing but fun.

        Hope this helps in understanding my work.

        PS: Positive processing, in whatever form, is absolutely necessary, vital, in preventing one from drowning and solidifying into the past. This phenomenon has been mentioned, experienced, and recorded by many, to the point where some consider examining the past as a danger, dead end, a destroyer of minds even. Once this pitfall is overcome for each individual, a wonderful adventure awaits, with tons of baggage to be removed. Like an athlete who wears leg weights and then takes them off for the actual race. If you wear these for years, you even forget how strong you really are.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 8:15 PM

          Thank you, yes that helps.

        • vinaire  On May 23, 2014 at 6:55 AM

          Ron was enmeshed in a self-centric filter.

        • MarkNR  On May 23, 2014 at 3:36 PM

          Yet he spent a large portion of his life in an effort to help others. And developing a real means to do so. A lot like yourself.

        • vinaire  On May 23, 2014 at 5:34 PM

          I got helped by Hubbard’s work.

        • MarkNR  On May 24, 2014 at 9:34 PM

          You are doing your due diligence. You are producing valuable results. I am recording my work. Ron worked and produced many valuable products. Siddhartha produced a valuable body of work. Lao Tzu, etc. Others have, through hard work and insight, produced and disseminated knowledge which has benefited us all.

          Above all I respect and admire honest effort.

          Thank you, continue. It’s worth it.

        • vinaire  On May 25, 2014 at 5:49 AM

          To me, it is just wrestling with inconsistencies that I come across.

    • vinaire  On May 23, 2014 at 6:34 AM

      The ultimate filter seems to be a self-centric view. That makes the universe seem very complicated.

      • MarkNR  On May 23, 2014 at 3:38 PM

        There are exact reasons and intent why the universe is so complicated.

  • MarkNR  On May 20, 2014 at 8:35 AM

    Definition of Time

    During a conversation I had with a friend:
    You quoted Ken Ogger:
    “Of the four basic components of this universe, namely Matter, Energy, Space, and Time, only Space can be conceived of without reference to any of the other factors. Therefore, the first creation must be Space rather than Matter, Energy, or Time.”

    This is one of the few things that I disagree with him on. The first thought I can recall is the intention to exist, to continue, to persist. The next thoughts, intentions followed that and so on and so on. That was the origin of time, the first of the parts of MEST.

    If space was the first construct, then there was no time, so there was no ‘first’.
    Some say that time is dependent on motion, on change or movement of MEST. This may be one’s perception of time, and will orient one to the agreed upon time rate in the space one is looking at, but is far from the primary basis of time.
    Time is one event, thought, action, intention, consideration,etc. existing while some other event, etc. does not exist. Once another event, etc. comes into existence, it follows the former and adds to it. Time is non stop addition, with no subtraction.

    I’m not saying that Ron or Ken were wrong, they just fell short of the whole picture. I’m not saying that I’m smarter that those before me. It’s just that they showed me the first ten miles of the trail, and I’m continuing to walk.
    ARCL, Mark

    PS: The rules and properties of MEST as stated by those who came before me are basically correct and MUST BE UNDERSTOOD WELL in order to handle the related foibles. But once you get to the considerations underlying and primary to MEST universes and MEST bank, the rules dissolve.

    The definitions of “Time is an agreed upon rate of change”, and “Time is one thought, event adding to those already in existence” are BOTH completely true, only under different circumstances. This will become apparent as one begins to look at one’s most primary considerations.
    My observation, opinion.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 9:48 AM

      “That was the origin of time, the first of the parts of MEST.”

      For me, time is the clock of iteration. But that comes from a sense that the universe is at its quanta, discrete. I have no concept of how space-time can be separated.

      • MarkNR  On May 20, 2014 at 12:13 PM

        Imagine if you will.
        You are ‘sitting’ in no space. You have no mass or energy. you have no motion. There is no space. There is no such thing as space. You are alone, yet there is no loneliness. There is no concept of others. There is only you, with your newfound ability to think, consider, ponder, create, whatever word fits.

        One thought, idea, imagining, ect., since your awakening, follows the previous, adding to it. There is no mass, energy, space or motion involved in these thoughts. That concept has not yet been invented.

        That is ‘T’, without the ‘MES’.

        Awakening refers to the instant you decided to exist, to persist, to be and to continue to be. The instant you went from Theta to Thetan. Everything else followed.

        Before that instant, all past, present, and future was simultaneous, since there were no events to separate. Total knowingness, since there was no datum to be known.

        Hope you enjoyed this little story.

        Separation? Well, that’s another story.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 20, 2014 at 8:36 PM

          Good story! Can’t imagine it as my imagination is a part of things.

        • vinaire  On May 23, 2014 at 7:37 AM

          The idea of “you” is a postulate. Anything that one can be aware of starts out as a postulate.

          Postulates are spiritual atoms. Considerations are spiritual molecules.

          At spiritual level, one has matter, energy, space and time of uncondensed type.

        • MarkNR  On May 23, 2014 at 1:17 PM

          Hope you found the story entertaining, and perhaps a little bit thought provoking. Tune in next week for another episode.

    • vinaire  On May 23, 2014 at 7:32 AM

      It is error to separate space from time, spiritual from physical, and thetan from body.

      When two things are aspects of the same phenomenon, they are not actually separate even when you separate them in abstraction.

      Affinity, Reality and Communication are not separate from each other. The eight dynamics are not separate from each other.

      If we study one aspect at a time. It does not make it some independent enity. Just because we have different concepts, it does not make the actualities connected with them separate.

      See things as they are.

  • vinaire  On May 21, 2014 at 4:38 PM

    ARC increases as filters are reduced.
    Affinity is the state achieved as filters are reduced. (HAVE).
    Communication is the process by which the filters are recognized. (DO).
    Reality is more like the degree of appreciation of what is there. (BE).

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 5:34 AM

      Reality is the IS-NESS. It is the BE, and affinity is the outcome of communication (HAVE).

      I think Hubbard regards affinity as BE and reality as HAVE. So, I seem to be looking very differently from Hubbard.

  • vinaire  On May 21, 2014 at 9:17 PM

    A postulate is like an assumption. It is a starting consideration.
    Other considerations are then based on postulates.

    Postulates are like elements, whereas, considerations are like compounds.
    There can be mixtures of considerations.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 21, 2014 at 10:41 PM

      I get it. But that is a lot to get around. What’s prompted you to take on ARC and to go to all this work to make it fit?

      • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 5:30 AM

        I decided to read L. Kin again, which is a very nice summary of Scientology.

        Click to access vol1-the-principles-unveiled.pdf

      • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 5:48 AM

        Hubbard’s philosophy is self-centered. He looks at AFFINITY as BE and REALITY as HAVE.

        I am looking at from the angle of Hindu / Buddhist philosophy, which is reality-centered. It looks at REALITY as BE and AFFINITY as HAVE.

        This is very similar to what I realized in Physics recently. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is MATTER-CENTRIC, whereas, the Disturbance Theory looks at it from a viewpoint that is ETHER-CENTRIC.

        In both cases it is a reversal of viewpoint at a vey fundamental level. I have arrived at these conclusions through the application of SUBJECT CLEARING.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2014 at 6:34 AM

          “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is MATTER-CENTRIC, whereas, the Disturbance Theory looks at it from a viewpoint that is ETHER-CENTRIC.”

          Interesting take!

      • vinaire  On May 22, 2014 at 5:50 AM

        To me this shift in viewpoint make things much more consistent.

%d bloggers like this: