The Anomaly in Hubbard’s Thinking

Hubbard says on OT III,

“Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error.”

He then says on NOTs,

“It’s all on the basis of the misconception that “All is one” and they can’t tell whose picture is whose, or whose somatic is whose. You’re basically trying to untangle this mish-mash. And what’s amazing is that there are as many life beings as there are – there are lots of them.”

In his essay, Keeping Scientology Working, Hubbard says,

“And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax.”

In his essay, Identity versus Individuality, Hubbard says,

“One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the tone-scale. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe. When he goes up scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST) the MEST universe cut out all competition.”

So, Hubbard believed whole-heartedly in the supremacy of individuality. He didn’t think much of Nirvana because it amounted to losing individuality. This thinking then influences the upper levels of Scientology.

The facts are: SELF is made up of CONSCIOUSNESS and IDENTITY. Identity (which is characterized by individuality) is, of course, discrete (as strenuously emphasized by Hubbard). But the underlying consciousness is continuous, which we all share.

Hubbard tried to make consciousness individual and discrete also. That is the anomaly in his thinking. The truth is that we all share consciousness. Consciousness may be plotted on a scale that extends from mystery to knowingness. At its highest point, consciousness is the ability to see things as they are. Please see The Static Viewpoint.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2021 at 10:18 AM

    “But the underlying consciousness is continuous, which we all share.”

    This is your own abstraction. This is not everyone’s abstraction. When anomalies as you call them clear up, when a person has smoothed their mind, it is natural to believe that one has hit ‘pay dirt’ and to want to share this pay dirt and to call it a fact.

    I believe this is a mistake. For me, at the bottom of the rabbit hole is the raw base essence of basic individuality, and it is looking back at the looker. For me, this is the most basic reflection – the most basic abstraction. For me, individuality is not an abstraction, it is an objective fact that will align with the Laws of Thermodynamics. However, ones own awareness, consciousness of their personal individuality IS an abstraction.

    Draw a Bell Curve: Individuality seems to occupy a sweet spot in the decreasing entropy (increasing organization) beginning at conception, continuing to decrease throughout childhood and adolescence and reaching its peak decreasing point sometime in young adulthood. At some point in young adulthood, physical organization ceases to increase. Somewhat like the power factor of EMR, I liken physical development to electrical current (induction) and liken mental acuity somewhat to voltage (EMF). As one suffers the friction of life, mental acuity seems to me to lead physical organization which slows and to continue to organize as physical organization slows. The end game of this, for me, is dissolution of the self.

    To create yet one more metaphor, the individual can be likened to a bubble (body) of CO2 in a soft drink. When expanding out of solution it forms a bubble (individual) on the surface of the glass (placenta) and growing until it can no longer be held in place, it is released (birthed) from the glass and rises through the liquid (lives life) expanding throughout its journey to the surface of the liquid whereupon it reaches maximum entropy of being a bubble and bursts (dies). The bubble is no more but the CO2 continues on – still CO2.

    What you write may be true. It may not be true. For me, these are abstractions and they are true for oneself. Today, after thousands of hours of various sorts of reflection, I understand (tell myself what I know) a few things, and two things that are real for me are:
    1. That if one is alive, then one has and is organizing a world view.
    2. That I can be aware of my world view and seem able to contribute to its

    Hubbard wrote in THE FACTORS that “. . .Above these things is only conjecture and below these things is the playing of the game.” For me, this is one of the truer things (metaphors) that he wrote.

    I commend you (Vinay) on your diligent pursuit of knowledge (decreasing entropy) and wish you happy holidays this year and every year until our bubbles burst.


    • vinaire  On December 3, 2021 at 10:36 AM

      I guess I am more a Buddhist than a Scientologist. By the way, my bubble seems to be closer to bursting than yours. Happy holidays to you and your family.


    • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2021 at 11:02 AM

      I believe this is a mistake.
      . . . the part about calling an abstraction a fact. Fact is a particular word that I think we may be using differently from one another.

      Hubbard’s world view, his abstractions are his own. And just like that tautology seems consistent to me, Hubbard’s abstractions seemed smooth and reconciled to him. Yet it didn’t translate into better health or more happiness for him.

      His best work was organized in the 1950’s when his entropy was in the trough. The 60’s were not kind years for him as his entropy increased.


      • vinaire  On December 3, 2021 at 1:30 PM

        Counter examples to what you wrote:

        (1) Individuality is an abstract concept but it is a fact.
        (2) Consciousness is an abstract concept but it is a fact.

        Abstract to concrete is a scale. Any point of this scale can be a fact or an opinion. Just because something is abstract does not make it an opinion.


    • vinaire  On December 3, 2021 at 1:26 PM

      Broad concept: “not divisible.” Definition: “the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others; sole and personal nature.” Example: “a person of marked individuality.”

      The individuality is part of a person’s identity as it differentiates him from others of his kind. But consciousness is a more general characteristic that may differentiate humans from animals but not necessarily from one another.


  • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2021 at 11:04 AM

    OTIII is a nightmare from which Hubbard never awakened.


    • vinaire  On December 3, 2021 at 1:21 PM

      I hope to get around to subject clearing the OT Levels. But before that I have to subject clear Dianetics and all Grade Levels.


  • Chris Thompson  On December 3, 2021 at 11:08 AM

    Which concepts of Hubbard’s do you like best?


    • vinaire  On December 3, 2021 at 11:23 AM

      I have learned a lot from Hubbard. I like him, and that is why I am spending so much time studying him. He started with his theory of Dianetics which mirrors Buddha’s theory of Samskāra. Hubbard added lot of valuable details that helped me come up with the Matrix Model of the mind.

      I liked his Data Series very much. It helped me come up with the very precise definition of ANOMALY, which essentially defines logic for me.

      I liked his Study Tech very much. It helped me come up with the whole concept of Subject Clearing.

      But that doesn’t mean I trust Hubbard completely. He was a genius and I take from him what makes sense to me.


  • vinaire  On December 3, 2021 at 11:15 AM

    My definition of ANOMALY starts with the postulate that all reality is one.

    Broad concept: “irregular.” Definition: “an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.; an incongruity or inconsistency.” An anomaly is any violation of the oneness of reality, such as, discontinuity (missing data), inconsistency (contradictory data), or disharmony (arbitrary data).

    I believe that all logic starts with the postulate that reality is continuous, consistent and harmonious. Therefore, to think that consciousness can be discrete (has gaps in it) can destroy all logic. It will promote insanity in the form of “anything goes.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: