SCN 8-8008: Logic

Reference: Subject: Logic
Reference: SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008

This paper presents Section 21 from the book SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008 by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1953).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the present understanding.  Feedback on these comments is appreciated.

The heading below is linked to the original materials.



Logic is a gradient scale of association of facts of greater or lesser similarity made to resolve some problem of the past, present or future, but mainly to resolve and predict the future. Logic is the combination of factors into an answer. The mission of the analytical mind when it thinks, is to observe and predict by the observation of results. Easily the best way to do this is to be the objects one is observing: thus, one can know their condition completely. However, if one is not sufficiently up the scale to be these objects it is necessary to assume what they are. This assumption of what they are, the postulating of a symbol to represent the objects and the combination of these symbols when evaluated against past experience or “known law,” bring about logic.

The purpose of logic is to resolve anomalies that violate the integrity of reality. It traces down an anomaly until the discontinuity, inconsistency or disharmony is resolved. This results in a complete understanding.

“To be the object one is observing” means to have no anomalies in one’s perception of that object. This requires a viewpoint way up on the Tone scale, and sees the object as it is. It is characterized by absence of anomalies. In the absence of exact knowledge, logic is used to postulate and project knowledge from past experience. This always leaves room for anomalies.

The genesis of logic may be said to be an interchange of two viewpoints, via other dimension points by which one of the viewpoints holds the attention (one of the most valuable commodities in the universe) of the other viewpoint by being “logical” about why that viewpoint should continue to look. The basis of logic is “it is bad over there” or “there is a hidden influence which you cannot estimate but which we will try to estimate,” “therefore, you should continue to look towards me.” At its best, logic is rationalism, for all logic is based upon the somewhat idiotic circumstance that a being that is immortal is trying to survive. Survival is a condition susceptible to non-survival. If one is “surviving,” one is at the same moment admitting that one can cease to survive, otherwise one would never strive to survive. An immortal being striving to survive presents immediately a paradox. An immortal being must be persuaded that he can not survive or that he is not or might become not, before he would pay any attention to logic. By logic, he can then estimate the future. Probably the only reason he would want to estimate the MEST universe, aside from amusement, is to keep alive in it, or to maintain something in a state of life in it.

Here Hubbard is postulating an immortal being striving to survive, and this has immediately led to an anomaly. That means Hubbard does not have complete understanding of reality, and he is using “logic” to estimate it. This confirms the definition of logic in the previous comment above.

Logic and survival are intimate, but it must be remembered that if one is worried about his own survival and is striving for his own survival, he is striving for the survival of an immortal being. Bodies are transient, but bodies are an illusion. One could bring himself up the tone-scale to a point where he could create an imperishable body with ease.

From direct observation there is a universe, and this universe is evolving and not just surviving. Humans are at the apex of this evolution of the universe. Individual human beings take birth, live to evolve as they can, and then die. The only eternal element is the universe. The actual concern is evolution and not the creation of an imperishable body. Hubbard did die eventually.

It is interesting that those people who are the most logical are those people who in processing have to know before they are. When they are sent somewhere, they want to know what is there before they get there. There would be no point in going there if they knew, and if everyone knew what was there before they went there. Yet they will attempt to predict what is going to happen there and what is there by knowing. This knowingness is in terms of data and should not be confused with knowingness in terms of actual beingness.

There is obviously unknowingness about the future. To ascertain the future, one only needs to become aware of the anomalies in the present and resolve them as best as resolve them as best as one can. This is the process of evolution.

Logic is the use of data to produce knowingness; as such it is very junior to knowing something by being it.

Hubbard never explains what it means to “be” something. It is actually perceiving something for what it is without assumptions. Logic involves postulation and projection, which is obviously junior.

If you were to double-terminal an individual who is customarily very logical, his body facing his body in terms of mock-up and each of the terminals being very logical, a surprising violence of interchange would take place. This is because logic is mainly aberration. The work which lies before you is a discussion of beingness and is the track of agreement which became evidently the MEST universe. Therefore this work appears to be logical but it appears also to be the central thread of logic.

Logic as postulation and projection is not necessarily an aberration. Logic becomes an aberration when the postulation and projection is based on fixed ideas, and not on observed facts.

Apparently, these conclusions were reached by logic; they were not, they were reached by observation and by induction. That when tested they proved themselves in terms of behaviour demonstrates not that they are logical, but that they are, at least to a large extent, a discussion of beingness. Scientific logic and mathematical logic have the frailty of trying to find out what is there before one goes there. One cannot ever be, if he has to know a datum about the beingness first. If one is afraid to be, one will become, of course, logical. This is no effort to be abusive upon the subject of logic or mathematics, it is only necessary at this point to indicate a certain difference between what lies before you and a logical arrangement of assumption.

Science uses postulates to come up with conclusions. This is the use of logic. But science also verifies its conclusions by actual observations before calling it a theory. If it finds any weakness in that theory it reexamines the theory and tweaks it up. This is use of logic along with actual observations. Hubbard is doing nothing different. He has, no doubt, used logic along with some observations to come up with his conclusions.



The sense of logic is natural. It comes from the desire to evolve. We evolve by postulating and making projections; and then verifying the conclusions for continuity, consistency and harmony. This is logic. The last part is important because if we do not verify for continuity, consistency and harmony, the logic can be flawed.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
%d bloggers like this: