SCN 8-8008: 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 inconsistency. One may combine various factors to narrow down to the area of greatest inconsistency. Logic then uses a gradient scale of consistency to find gaps in the area of greatest inconsistency. It then looks at the gaps more closely to discover the missing truth.

“To be the object one is observing” means to have no gaps in one’s observation. But this requires a viewpoint way up on the Tone scale where objectivity resides. A subjective viewpoint is low on the Tone scale. It is unaware of gaps. It usually fills the gaps with assumptions.

Logic then examines existing assumptions against past experience or “known laws” to discover and resolve inconsistencies.

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.

What captures attention most quickly is an inconsistency. The attention then goes down the path of narrowing down the inconsistency and looking at it more closely. Behind this attention is the natural drive to evolve. This is the structure of logic.

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.

Logic is intimate with evolution. Mere survival has an anxiety about it and it is not always logical.

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.

Logic proceeds from knowingness, and it follows a path of increasing knowingness guided by not-knowingness. Logic is averse to jumping headlong into not-knowingness with no consideration.

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 means to perceive something for what it is without assumptions.

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.

A logical person is one who is pursuing something that he does not understand by systematically narrowing down the target. Looked at this way logic is not an aberration. But a “logic” based on fixed ideas is definitely aberrated.

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.

Hubbard says, “One cannot ever be, if he has to know a datum about the beingness first.” But to him, “to be” something is to simply imagine it. Something is missing in Hubbard’s logic here because he could not be what he really wanted to be.

Scientific theories have lot of assumption. They apply mathematics based on those assumptions. Therefore, those theories are not perfect, but even then science has been responsible for a lot of progress. Greater progress comes about as those assumptions are resolved.



The sense of logic is natural. It comes from the desire to evolve by resolving what does not make sense.

The attention is naturally attracted by an inconsistency that needs to be resolved. As the area of inconsistency is observed more inconsistencies become visible. The attention then goes to the greatest inconsistency or to the area with most inconsistencies. As one looks more closely one becomes aware of the gaps in understanding that are often hidden under arbitrary assumptions. One then looks at the gaps more closely to discover the hidden truths.


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