Category Archives: Logic

Subject Clearing Logic

January 15, 2024 – 2:05 PM

Please see The Book of Misconceptions

Processing is the application of a procedure to bring about an improvement in a person’s condition. In Subject Clearing, the processes have been obtained from the study of Vedic Hinduism, Buddhism, Psychoanalysis and Scientology.

In Subject Clearing, you can always go back to a previously applied process and run it again.

.

Process

This Subject Clearing process explores the subject of thought. 

PREREQUISITE: Subject Clearing Mind

Look up these words in this sequence per the definitions given below.

LOGIC, PRINCIPLE OF ONENESS, ANOMALY, OUT-POINT, IDEAL SCENE, FIXED IDEA, PERSONAL IDEAL, OPERATIONAL, FACT, OPINION, STATISTICS, EXISTING SCENE, OBSERVATION, SITUATION ANALYSIS, SITUATION, DATA, WHY, HANDLING.

As you look up a definition, ask yourself,

“What crosses my mind as I look up this definition?”

Notice the internal reaction. Apply The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness to that reaction. If there is a disagreement, or you sense some anomaly, then address it with Subject Clearing Viewpoint.

You may consult dictionaries, Wikipedia, Textbooks, etc., to sort out the disagreement or anomaly present. Contemplate on these words until you are fully satisfied with your understanding.

For more definitions, please refer to KHTK Glossary: Subject Clearing.

.

Definitions

LOGIC
Origin: “Of speech or reason.” The continuity, consistency and harmony in the dimension of thought provides the sense of logic. Logic is a study of associations. Associations are logical when they can be assimilated into a consistent whole. The mind naturally follows logic unless interfered with. Logic may be reduced to a system or principles of reasoning. The ideal scene of Logic is represented by the Principle of Oneness.

PRINCIPLE OF ONENESS
Oneness does not imply sameness. Oneness means that all that is known is continuous, consistent and harmonious. There are dimensions in Oneness, where continuity exists. There are realities in Oneness, where consistency exists. There are relations in Oneness, where harmony exists. This Principle of Oneness underlies the very concept of the universe. It also underlies the Scientific method. This principle gives us the ideal scene for logic, and its violation gives us anomalies.  

ANOMALY
An ANOMALY is any violation of the Principle of Oneness, such as, discontinuity (missing data), inconsistency (contradictory data), or disharmony (arbitrary data). An anomaly is always viewed from one’s viewpoint. Resolution of anomaly always expand’s the knowingness of one’s viewpoint.

OUT-POINT
An out-point is the Scientology version of an anomaly. It is defined as an illogical departure from the ideal scene. By comparing the existing scene with the ideal scene one easily sees the out-points. Hubbard categorizes these out-points as follows:

  1. Omit a fact.
  2. Change sequence of events.
  3. Drop out time.
  4. Add a falsehood.
  5. Alter importance. 

IDEAL SCENE
In Scientology, the entire concept of an ideal scene for any activity is really a clean statement of its purpose. From the viewpoint of Subject Clearing, that purpose must not violate the Principle of Oneness. From that purpose one then constructs an ideal organization to carry out the activity.

FIXED IDEA
A fixed idea is an idea held in the mind that influences perception in a certain way. Prejudiced people are suffering mainly from a fixed idea. A fixed idea is not examined by the person holding it. It blocks the existence of any contrary observation. Fixed ideas are held as personal ideals. An example of a fixed idea is, “Life is always like that.”

PERSONAL IDEAL
This is an ideal held by a person which is in violation of the Principle of Oneness. Departure from such an ideal is an error and not an out-point. 

OPERATIONAL
An activity to be operational must contain parts of its ideal scene. The fact that something is actually operating and solvent can outweigh the untested advantages of changing it.

FACT
A fact is something consistent with what is observable; but it is true only to the degree that it is free of anomalies.

OPINION
An opinion is a belief or judgment that may or may not be based on facts; but it is likely influenced by personal ideals. 

STATISTICS
A statistic is a numerical measure of the effect caused by an activity. It provides the most direct judgment of the activity as it bypasses the influence of varying opinions. The statistic is considered positive When the activity contributes positively to survival.

EXISTING SCENE
The existing scene is the broad general scene on which a body of current data exists. It is what is really there—the people or personnel, their current state, the lines, the hats, the buildings, equipment, and the state of them, the tech in use and current news.

OBSERVATION
Application of logic starts with the observation of the existing scene. The ability to observe things as they are requires the absence of fixed ideas, personal ideals and assumptions.

SITUATION ANALYSIS
We obtain an analysis of the situation by analyzing all the data we have and assigning the outpoint data to the areas or parts. The area having the most outpoints is the target for correction. A situation analysis only indicates the area that has to be closely inspected and handled. 

SITUATION
A situation is a major departure from the ideal scene.It is a not expected state of affairs. It is either very good or it is very bad.

DATA
Data are facts, graphs, statements, decisions, actions, descriptions which are supposedly true. These are observations leading to investigation. From this data one traces the string of out-points to finally get the WHY.

WHY
The why is the major out-point that explains all other out-points related to a situation. It explains how come the situation is such a departure from the ideal scene. The real why opens the door to handling. The why must permit a closer approach to the ideal scene.

HANDLING
Just as you proceed to the SITUATION—go big, when it comes to handling it usually occurs that reverse is true—go small! 

.

By vinaire | Also posted in Subject Clearing | Comments (5)

Gödel and Determinism

July 20, 2012 – 6:18 AM
Reference: Is there an absolute Will?

Isene provides the following logic in his article:

  1. For a system to be deterministic, its underlying rules must be consistent.
  2. For a system to be deterministic, its underlying rules must be complete.
  3. No system of rules can be both complete and consistent per Godels Incompleteness Theorems.
  4. Thus, no system can be deterministic.

This is how I see it.

Godel’s incompleteness theorem applies only to axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. I do not know if Godel’s argument can be extended to as complex a system as the universe.

.

Definitions:

de•ter•min•ism (noun)
1. the doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws.
2. the doctrine that all events, including human choices and decisions, have sufficient causes.

axiomatic system
In mathematics, an axiomatic system is any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction to logically derive theorems.

complete
A set of axioms is complete if, for any statement in the axioms’ language, either that statement or its negation is provable from the axioms.

consistent
A set of axioms is (simply) consistent if there is no statement such that both the statement and its negation are provable from the axioms.

e·nu·mer·ate verb (used with object)
1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis.
2. to ascertain the number of; count.

effectively generated
A formal theory is said to be effectively generated if there is a computer program that, in principle, could enumerate all the axioms of the theory without listing any statements that are not axioms. This is equivalent to the existence of a program that enumerates all the theorems of the theory without enumerating any statements that are not theorems.

.

Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory…

Gödel’s theorem shows that, in theories that include a small portion of number theory, a complete and consistent finite list of axioms can never be created, nor even an infinite list that can be enumerated by a computer program. Each time a new statement is added as an axiom, there are other true statements that still cannot be proved, even with the new axiom. If an axiom is ever added that makes the system complete, it does so at the cost of making the system inconsistent.

There are complete and consistent lists of axioms for arithmetic that cannot be enumerated by a computer program. For example, one might take all true statements about the natural numbers to be axioms (and no false statements), which gives the theory known as “true arithmetic”. The difficulty is that there is no mechanical way to decide, given a statement about the natural numbers, whether it is an axiom of this theory, and thus there is no effective way to verify a formal proof in this theory.

This may mean that if this universe (with both its physical and spiritual aspects) can be expressed through a consistent set of principles, then there is a truth about this universe that cannot be demonstrated using those set of principles. That truth may look at this universe (as a whole) exactly for what it is. Such a truth may not be derivable from the set of principles that supposedly describe the universe.

.

Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem states that:

For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.

The second incompleteness theorem does not rule out consistency proofs altogether, only consistency proofs that could be formalized in the theory that is proved consistent. The second incompleteness theorem is similar to the Liar’s paradox, “This sentence is false,” which contains an inherent contradiction about its truth value.

This may mean that this universe cannot contain the ultimate truth about itself. The ultimate truth is unknowable from the reference point of this universe.

.

If we go by the definition of determinism that all facts and events exemplify natural laws, we cannot say for certain if that is true or not. In other words, not everything may be predictable ahead of its occurrence.

Manifestations may be related to each other in strict logical sequence meaning that any manifestation may be shown to follow from another manifestation. However, it may be impossible to determine how a manifestation may come to be on its own. This is another version of saying, “Absolutes are unattainable.”

So a system may be deterministic only in a relative sense. It can neither be absolutely deterministic, nor can it be absolutely non-deterministic. 

.

By vinaire | Tagged | Comments (91)

Absolutism and Philosophy

July 14, 2012 – 5:44 AM

The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without. – Buddha.

.

Absolutism:  any theory holding that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable.

Philosophy:  the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

 .

My understanding is that

  1. Absolutes are unattainable. This means that nothing can be defined with absolute certainty. Any certainty that one holds is subject to re-examination in the face of inconsistency.

  2. Philosophy is an investigation of what is really there. It makes progress by thoroughly examining inconsistencies to the point of eliminating them.

.

Nothing that exists is so sacrosanct that it is beyond re-examination.

.

This stance may seem to be inconsistent with the principle of Confusion and Stable data promoted by L. Ron Hubbard, but it is not really so. According to Hubbard’s principle, mental confusions are held at bay by beliefs, and if those beliefs are destabilized then a person may be overwhelmed with confusion. This is apparently true.

However, it is always possible to replace a belief with a more consistent belief. But this may be regarded as addressing a conditioning with another conditioning. This seems to take place in the subject of Scientology.

An optimum course would be to remove the confusion altogether so a belief is no longer required. This seems to be the approach in Buddhism.

[NOTE: The above essay was inspired by an exchange with Geir Isene here: Comment-3712. The problem with Geir’s article ON WILL is its absolutist tendency to look at will and other things.]

.

References:

Is there an absolute Will?

Considerations and Free Will

.

By vinaire | Tagged | Comments (33)