Reference: Course on Subject Clearing
The “I” of The Bhagavad Gita is the Static viewpoint from which any and all motion can be viewed without distortion. This Static viewpoint is beyond any knowledge. It is only from this viewpoint that the cyclic nature of the universe can be fully comprehended. The Static viewpoint remains unaffected by any cycle.
A STATIC viewpoint is a viewpoint that itself does not have any motion but has the potential to view all possible motion without any distortion.
Aristotle had a similar concept of the “unmoved mover” but the Static viewpoint is not moving anything. It is simply aware of all possible motion, which constitutes the universe. You can do so only from the reference point of absolute Emptiness.
There is a scale of motion from STATIC (no motion) to KINETIC (different degrees of motion). Usually these two words describe two points relative to each other on the scale of motion.
A pendulum stops at either end of the swing for a fraction of a second. That condition is considered STATIC. The pendulum is then moving during the rest of the swing reaching maximum velocity half way through the swing. This condition is considered KINETIC. The total energy of the system is constant per the Law of Conservation of Energy. That energy is considered completely potential when the pendulum is STATIC, and completely kinetic at the middle of the swing when the velocity is at maximum. At other points during the swing, the energy is converting either from potential to kinetic or from kinetic to potential.
The STATIC state is not only completely devoid of motion but it also represents the totality of energy in potential form. We may consider this to be the state of the universe just before the “Big Bang.” From that point on the universe is increasingly becoming kinetic. This may be looked upon as the expanding universe. But, like the pendulum, the universe may reach a maximum state of expansion and then start to contract from that point.
This is the cyclic universe of the Vedas. It goes from static to kinetic and back to static like a pendulum (see Universe: Static to Kinetic). But the Static viewpoint stands apart from the universe, completely detached. Any attachment to the universe may make the viewpoint “dynamic” to that degree.
The Static viewpoint is in a position to view the whole cycle of the universe from static to kinetic and then back to static. It is the most powerful viewpoint.
Also see:
Omnipresence & Static
.
Comments
“A STATIC viewpoint is a viewpoint that itself does not have any motion but has all the potential to view all possible motion without any distortion.” ~Vinaire
1. This is consistent with Hubbard’s 1st definition of static as “something without mass, without wavelength, without time, and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero.” (from taped lecture 5410CM06 given by Hubbard in 1954) This definition means that a STATIC is that certain something which is NOT ANYTHING at all. Possibly this was said after an intensive of running the “neti-neti process.
2. Then Hubbard goes on retract the 1st definition in his 2nd definition by saying, “. . . a static by definition is something that is in complete equilibrium. . . ”
Even though I agree with this definition, to reach equilibrium, as the goal or gradation of auditing, it is in complete contradiction to the 1st definition. Equilibrium is a state of forces being in balance or possibly harmony, but not disharmony, nor in single vector motion. This is a term from the energies at work in spacetime in this universe. It is not a term consistent with Hubbard’s 1st definition of static.
Definition 2. by describing equilibrium, makes itself consistent with the mind. It is a physical universe phenomenon.
LikeLike
“The Static viewpoint is in a position to view the whole cycle of the universe from static to kinetic and then back to static. It is the most powerful viewpoint.” ~Vinaire
This is an interesting world view. Regardless of any agreement I have with it, it suffers from mixed metaphors beginning with, “The Static viewpoint is in a position . . . ” We have already defined and established that the STATIC has no position, no wavelength, no mass, etc.,. Without energy and mobility power as in powerful becomes a moot point.
You make me feel that you are trying to nail down the unknowable.
The more you write about things which are neti-neti, the more my viewpoint shifts toward believing that we live in a great simulation rather than a real world. It is not uncommon for people to feel this way, however, it is not a particularly successful paradigm to adopt.
If I have red-herringed your article, I will listen and reconsider.
LikeLike
The above article has nothing to do with Hubbard’s Static. It is about a viewpoint. I am using “static” as an adjective in its regular dictionary definition.
static = showing little or no change: as in “a static concept,” “a static relationship”
ORIGIN OF STATIC
First recorded in 1560–70; from New Latin staticus, from Greek statikós, equivalent to sta- (stem of histánai “to make, stand” ) + -tikos adjective suffix; see stand, -tic
LikeLike
Well, you are writing about a viewpoint, a point, that has no location, no nothing. It is imaginary.
While I admit to each of us having our world view, I do not particularly agree with broad brush strokes that define an infinite, world-wide viewpoint.
That is all I am getting at and I do not want to wind you up. I want you to get my point of view about your point of view and discuss it. 🙂
LikeLike
I didn’t say static has no position or location. I am using the regular dictionary definition of static.
LikeLike
A viewpoint is not a physical thing. It is an abstract concept. A viewpoint has a position on the Know-to-Mystery Scale. The Static viewpoint shall be right at the top of that scale.
LikeLike
So I wrote a bunch of stuff and then erased.
For simplicity, would you like to say that a STATIC VIEWPOINT is full stop, or would you rather say that it is a point in equilibrium?
Or is the STATIC VIEWPOINT omnipresent? Therefore containing ALL motion?
LikeLike
Your question seems to be coming from the definition Hubbard gave for Static. So you need to clear up Hubbard’s definition of STATIC. Was Hubbard’s definition correct?
Here is what Hubbard says,
Scientology as it applies to life is seen as a study in statics and kinetics, which is to say a study of the interplay between no motion and all motion, or less motion and more motion.
In thought itself at its highest range, we discover the only true static known. In physics a static is represented as a body at rest but it is known in physics that a body at rest is yet an equilibrium of forces and is itself in motion if only on the level of molecular motion. A true static would contain no motion, no time, no space and no wavelength. To this static in Scientology is assigned the mathematical symbol theta. This designation means solely a theoretical static of distinct and precisely defined qualities with certain potentials.
So, by “Static” Hubbard means a level of thought which is static. But what is this thought that is static? Thought is energy. We have a whole spectrum of energy. Energy becomes motionless only by condensing into matter. This is where equilibrium of forces come into play. That is not what Hubbard is talking about. Going in other direction energy becomes freer and freer moving at great speeds.
If we look at the inherent impulse of energy, it gets more and more fixated as an identity as we move in the direction of condensation (matter). Again, this is not what Hubbard is talking about. Going in the other direction, thought becomes freer and freer (opposite of fixation). So where is Hubbard’s static on this scale?
Was Hubbard right in describing the STATIC as he did? What is the static level of thought?
LikeLike
Hubbard’s STATIC is very similar in its concept to Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”. How correct is Aristotle’s concept?
Do you see an anomaly? How can this anomaly be resolved?
LikeLike
We live in a world which can be known, even when it currently is not.
It is fine to conjecture and to speculate about Worlds Which Are Unknown.
I feel that is a mistake to make declarations about what we do not know. Is what Hubbard said true, (as you quoted) “In thought itself at its highest range, we discover the only true static known. In physics a static is represented as a body at rest but it is known in physics that a body at rest is yet an equilibrium of forces and is itself in motion if only on the level of molecular motion. A true static would contain no motion, no time, no space and no wavelength. To this static in Scientology is assigned the mathematical symbol theta. This designation means solely a theoretical static of distinct and precisely defined qualities with certain potentials.”
If we think about Hubbard’s quote for a moment we may ask:
1. Did Hubbard discover the only true static known?
2. His quote echoes my own declarations that a, “… body in physics at rest is yet an equilibrium of forces” This is a definition which can be tested and proved. Hubbard’s true static is what we could call nothing at all. One can declare and assert anything at all, but can one assert and declare that there is nothing at all? This is is the purview of religion – belief without evidence, and not in the faith sense, but in the dictionary sense. I do not see any reconciliation for this anomaly.
3. Hubbard goes on to define Theta as, “. . . soley a theoretical static of distinct and precisely defined qualities with certain potentials.” Back when I was a true believer, this statement and others like it used to make perfect sense to me. Today, I see it for the word salad that I think it is. The anomaly is:
A. How does one define something without physical characteristics using language which can only be defined using physical characteristics?
B. How does one ascertain the precisely defined qualities and certain potentials of something which has no physical attributes?
But right there is the rub of humans who rather make declarations about what they do not know and to have faith in what they say they know and to declare that faith to be proof of what they believe rather than to simply calmly not know things.
LikeLike
“I feel that is a mistake to make declarations about what we do not know.”
This statement makes all the prophets wrong.
LikeLike
A theory can be considered a declaration. There is nothing wrong with forming a theory and making declarations based on that theory.
Only requirement is that the theory should be open to examination and fair criticism. Any criticism should avoid personal bias and fixed ideas.
It is valid to point out any discontinuity, inconsistency and disharmony in a theory that can be objectively verified.
I believe that the metaphysical theories can be as scientific as physical theories. It is not as easy to verify metaphysical theories against observed phenomena as it is with physical theories. But a metaphysical theory may be verified for continuity, consistency and harmony within itself.
This is the case with mathematics, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Right now I am looking at Hubbard’s theory as expressed through his many books on Dianetics and Scientology. Hubbard had the right to come up with a theory in the field of “metaphysics”.
NOTE: Here I am looking at “metaphysics” as the broadest umbrella possible outside the field of physics as originally intended.
I believe that I have the right to critique Hubbard’s theory of Dianetics and Scientology and point out the flaws in it, and propose my own theory of KHTK (Knowing How To Know) based on the correction of those flaws.
LikeLike
“A. How does one define something without physical characteristics using language which can only be defined using physical characteristics?”
Language is designed to make the listener visualize what the speaker intends. It is easier to visualize things that are physical than concepts that are non-physical and abstract. It takes training to be able to visualize abstract ideas and concepts.
LikeLike
“But a metaphysical theory may be verified for continuity, consistency and harmony within itself. This is the case with mathematics, isn’t it?”
No, not really. Mathematics ≠ metaphysics. Mathematics is the language of physics. Using mathematics, every property pin is placed, every building is designed both creatively and structurally, every technology is mastered and communicated. It is a self-policing science that is self-illuminating. Metaphysics represents the dark arts – nontransparent maunderings with no verifications possible. I do not check metaphysical theories against themselves but rather against real world. This maundering about the beauty of abstractions does have its place but it seems to exploit only the unknown facets of human knowledge, giving way to science when appropriate discoveries are made and never ever taking back a single inch of landscape annexed by science.
LikeLike
According to the original definitions, mathematics is not physics, therefore it is metaphysics (broadest umbrella possible outside the field of physics as originally intended). The main point is that mathematics does not deal with material stuff as physics does. Mathematics is totally abstract. It may be used as a language for physics but it advances not because of physics, but in itself.
LikeLike
UNMOVED MOVER is one definition of engine or motor. To generate KW or HP, a motor, or as Hubbard would say, a person must hold their position in space to generate power.
I think it’s fine to speculate about more ethereal UNMOVED MOVERS, but there is little substance to this.
Exceptions to what I wrote are things like artistic creativity such as I imagined closing my garage to make a bedroom ensuite and then carried that idea through with planning and work to build it. It is done and it is there. But how that idea came into my head, I have no clue. Seriously. I do not know what or where my next thought is coming. I wrote a couple tunes on my guitar but no idea if they exist outside my space when I am playing them or if the idea came from somewhere or someone else… I don’t like to think about as there is no answer and takes from my enjoyment of playing!
LikeLike
There is only energy and its innate impulse.
LikeLike
“For simplicity, would you like to say that a STATIC VIEWPOINT is full stop, or would you rather say that it is a point in equilibrium?”
It is neither of those.
LikeLike
“Or is the STATIC VIEWPOINT omnipresent? Therefore containing ALL motion?”
A static viewpoint is a perspective that is free of any association with any aspect of motion, and so it can view the whole spectrum of motion from a detached perspective. In other words, the static viewpoint does not exist in the dimension of motion.
You may say that it is omnipresent with respect to the whole spectrum of motion because it is able to view it without being stuck to it. It does not contain any motion because it is detached from the very dimension of motion.
LikeLike
You and I believe what we must and to paraphrase Michael Shermer, . . . smart people have not smart ideas for not smart reasons and the smarter we are, the better we are at defending our not smart ideas.
LikeLike
I question everything.
LikeLike
“What is the static level of thought?”
I believe that the static level of thought may be 100% entropy, occurring before or after the life of an individual organism. That seems to me what we are — individual organisms that appear and disappear.
Yet not entirely, are we? What we think of as an individual human is an aggregate of functioning individual organisms that appear and disappear.
Dynamically, as we change scales, we continue to see entire species appear and disappear. So it goes with planets and stars.
If I must guess, I think everything is a part of everything and if there is an all encompassing static, for instance God, then possibly everything that we are and everything that happens is a part of that omnipresent static. The anomaly of that statement is how can an omnipresent-something be static?
LikeLike
What do you mean by “100% entropy”?
LikeLike
100% entropy is pre-birth and post-death. In between, you know, on the tombstone Born ____ – Died ____, that little dash between the dates is some type of perfect storm of organization which results in life. I do not know more than that.
But as we always acknowledge, there is no absolute beginning nor absolute ending and this may or may not be similar to life forms. Pre birth our atoms and molecules existed and post death they continue to exist, but not organized as during life. . .
LikeLike
There seems to be no between lives “life” other than atoms and monads waiting to be assembled.
LikeLike
“There seems to be no between lives “life” other than atoms and monads waiting to be assembled.”
Seems is a filtered word. Things seem different to each of us. It is a human trait to believe in our own pattern recognition and to think that ours is more correct than the next person’s. Remember, monads need love too!
LikeLike
I shall elaborate on it more when I am more certain.
LikeLike
“…static level of thought…”
In other words, static level of thought is no thought.
LikeLike
But aren’t you thinking about it as “no thought”?
LikeLike
“The anomaly of that statement is how can an omnipresent-something be static?”
Is there an omnipresent something?
LikeLike
“Is there an omnipresent something?”
Yes, spacetime is omnipresent. Spacetime is not static. Therefore, things which are omnipresent are not static.
If you discover a no-thing which is static, I will challenge you on the basis that a no-thing is undiscoverable, and if it were it to be discovered, it would then be a something. ~Neti-neti.
Do you seriously not understand me? Because I think you are taking the piss.
LikeLike
In my opinion “spacetime” is not something. It is an abstract concept that points to the characteristic of energy. Energy has extents (space), and duration (time). Space and time are related to each other through energy, and therefore, may be described together. Spacetime changes as energy condenses. Spacetime is a characteristic of energy that doesn’t exist in the absence of energy.
So, essentially, you may say that energy is omnipresent as it expresses itself as space, time, light and matter. I differ here from both Hubbard and Einstein. I see energy as the basic substance of the universe. It is motivated by an inherent impulse.
Thus, any fundamental concept that is universal is OMNIPRESENT.
That which is omnipresent has all motion inside it, while It is not attached to that motion.
Thus, the basic characteristic of omnipresence is the STATIC viewpoint.
LikeLike
Using placeholder names for things guessed at is a slippery slope and we must be on guard not to believe our own abstractions to the detriment of objective science.
There is a whole universe of things to know about that we can find out about before we resort to pretending to know the unknowable. Wouldn’t you agree?
Sometimes I think the Muslims are onto something when they prohibit the making of graven images of God. It is a certain way of keeping unknowable things in their own category of unknowable or at least not yet known knowledge.
LikeLike
When one is investigating the fundamentals it is all guessing. There is nothing wrong with guessing as long as one keeps investigating and keep revising one’s guesses until a consistent, continuous and harmonious structure starts to come into shape.
LikeLike
Hubbard’s definition of Static and Aristotle’s concept of “Unmoved Mover” needs improvement.
The Static Viewpoint offers that improvement. There is energy and its inherent impulse, which is the raw material of this universe. Then there is the Static Viewpoint that is completely detached from the universe of energy. This is what THE BHAGAVAD GITA talks about.
LikeLike
Hello. Fascinating discussion. Hubbard was on to something. Exactly what should be discussed on the front pages of existence. Nice to see you doing that in the back pages. I’m wondering what you might suppose is going on inside the heads of functioning autistic savants? Then there is the recent example of the guy who took a blow to the head and began playing the piano like he’d been at it his entire life. We have miracle powers locked away except to a few. 10,000 years of spiritual exploration and the world is still a piss pot. Do we have a birthright to these powers? Is this not a cause for rebellion?
LikeLike
The mind is a fascinating subject. There is a lot of knowledge about the mind already there, which most people have no inkling of. I like Buddha and Hubbard.
LikeLike
Welcome Walter!
LikeLike
Do we have a birthright to these powers?
Yes. Powers are there to be claimed. All that is required is SUBJECT CLEARING.
LikeLike
Is this not a cause for rebellion?
SUBJECT CLEARING is a rebellion against ignorance.
LikeLike
Then there is the recent example of the guy who took a blow to the head and began playing the piano like he’d been at it his entire life.
Whether there is blow to the head or not, the very ability to play piano fascinates me.
LikeLike
It is clear to me that the “miracle” brain functions – clairvoyance, precognition, intuition, are not inherently virtuous. They are tools that can be used for good or evil, but are sold to an unsuspecting public as only good. My experience tells me that “spirituality” has been weaponized and that “higher” states of consciousness can be as blind and aberrated as lower states.. At least with Dianetics, clearing means making the “spirit” sane. I know of no other spiritual practice that has as its aim, not only consciousness, but sanity as well. What is your take on this?
LikeLike
Nothing is inherently virtuous or non-virtuous. It is the anomalies, which the mind is unable to control, that result in aberrations, insanity and illnesses. An anomaly is any violation of the oneness of reality, such as, discontinuity (missing data), inconsistency (contradictory data), or disharmony (arbitrary data).
A normal mind is riddled with anomalies. A clear is a person who is free of anomalies. A Scientology or Dianetics “clear” has only handled a few of very obvious anomalies. He is still riddled with many anomalies. He is no where near achieving the full potential of the mind. “Spirituality being weaponized” is an anomaly. A spiritual state is only as high as it is free of anomaly.
LikeLike