Reality, Problem, and ARC

Page last updated: Dec 5, 2017 @ 11:40 am

Hubbard’s eventual understanding of Reality is best demonstrated in this extract:

(1955) The Creation of Human Ability

Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time. By this it is meant that an idea or opinion is, fundamentally, superior to space, energy, and time, or organizations of form, since it is conceived that space, energy, and time are themselves broadly agreed-upon considerations. That so many minds agree brings about Reality in the form of space, energy, and time. These mechanics, then, of space, energy, and time are the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life.

Man, therefore, has an inverted view, whereas, considerations such as those he daily makes are the actual source of space, energy, time and forms, Man is operating so as not to alter his basic considerations, he therefore invalidates himself by supposing another determinism of space, energy, time, and form. Although he is part of that which created these, he gives them such strength and validity that his own considerations thereafter must fall subordinate to space, energy, time, and form, and so he cannot alter the Universe in which he dwells.

Note the embedded invalidation of alternative thought within the thesis that Hubbard puts forward:

“Man, therefore, has an inverted view..”

“… he therefore invalidates himself by supposing another determinism of space, energy, time and form.”

So a commonly held view that the physical reality contains a factor of independent existence is invalidated and re-evaluated as a form of self-invalidation rather than a conclusion based on individual observations and experiences of the physical universe.

First of all, mutually held by what “life?” Are ants and birds in on it as well? Leaving this part of Hubbard’s assertion alone, it appears he claims that there is actually no independent existence that underlies reality, and that even what we perceive as physical or objective reality is a pure product of (collective) consciousness – a mental phenomenon so to speak. Where is an easily verifiable proof of this assertion?

Unless we are talking about a lucid dreaming experience, it can in fact be easily seen that considerations do not directly translate into observable reality in the physical realm, and no one has yet been able to demonstrate otherwise, including Hubbard himself.

Considerations, agreement on considerations, and the objects to which they can be applied are different “items” of observable reality. This is to say that one human being can look at another and through communication find out what considerations another human being holds toward something, then find out if these considerations are in any way connected to or stem from agreements or disagreements with other human beings, and then one can go and look at the actual object in question. Hence, looking at considerations, looking at agreements or disagreements, and looking at objective targets toward which considerations can be applied are dealing with three separate “units of reality” that can be perceived in their own ways.

Plus, considerations consist of concepts which are static in nature while any observable reality in the physical universe is dynamic in nature. Even matter is always changing and contains a lot of “motion” in it if only on a sub-atomic level. If the physical reality was a true product of considerations, then objects that we otherwise consider to be static would in fact remain unchanging through time. So unless we are talking about shared beliefs specifically as a perceivable unit of reality, the physical reality is NOT a product of “agreed upon considerations.” It has a factor of independent existence to it that can be perceived and experienced directly outside of any collective agreements.

Hubbard’s assertion that even objective or physical reality is a product of (agreed upon) considerations is a false conviction that served to in fact divorce many Scientology practitioners from contact with underlying existences to which considerations are (or can be) applied. Fixed beliefs which significantly depart from observable realities are commonly referred to as delusions and are in themselves perceivable realities with respect to the realities of mental phenomena.

Hubbard’s arbitrary and unfounded view of reality is then reinforced in Scientology Axioms. Here are the first eight:

1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

2. THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.

3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

4. SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION.

5. ENERGY CONSISTS OF POSTULATED PARTICLES IN SPACE.

6. OBJECTS CONSIST OF GROUPED PARTICLES AND SOLIDS.

7. TIME IS BASICALLY A POSTULATE THAT SPACE AND PARTICLES WILL PERSIST.

8. THE APPARENCY OF TIME IS THE CHANGE OF POSITION OF PARTICLES IN SPACE.

 

The first two have to do with with Hubbard’s definition of consciousness in terms of what it is not – which is not a good way to define something to begin with – and its abilities. The next six, collectively, are basically an assertion that reality is a complete product of consciousness and has no existence in itself. Not even space exists which in Hubbard’s view is just a viewpoint. How does that work? And number 5, if anything, should say “matter” not “energy.” Energy is associated with the action of particles, not particles themselves if we are to be exact with definitions.

ENERGY3: Physics The property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules). [Oxford Dictionary]

Hubbard reinforces this idea that there is no reality outside of one’s consciousness in other materials such as:

[2 JANUARY 1960] State of Man Congress: Why People Don’t Like You

The only effects you can experience are those which you yourself dream up to experience.

 

It is indeed easy to get pumped up on an idea that one can inherently be at cause over reality and completely miss the fact that what Hubbard actually did in Scientology was not just embrace a potential ability to be at cause over reality, but in fact negated the existence of reality altogether.

It should be noted, that there would be nothing to pervade or interiorize into or exteriorize from if there was no factor of existence to reality. All one would have to do is to change consideration in order to change reality, yet it can be easily observed, in the physical reality, that merely changing one’s considerations about something does not necessarily change the underlying existence to which these considerations can be applied. One’s determinism has to be powerful enough to override that of the existence in question.

To make this point even more clear:

You may agree that something exists, but something doesn’t exist just because you (or anyone else) agree that it exists. Things have existed such as gamma rays long before they were registered by humans. This is the very problem that underlies the argument here – realities can exist which we have no perception of. If we investigate and look into something more closely, including with the use of technologies, we may get to perceive (and then conceptualize what we perceive) new realities. But how did something get there BEFORE we could even perceive it? Even in a very well known “double-slit experiment” – an observer does not actually create a photon out of thin air or determine the exact shape of the resulting pattern (for example to have a smiley face appear as a resulting pattern instead of just lines). There may be all kinds of things we currently have no conception of. It doesn’t mean they do not exist – we just cannot perceive them and so it is not “real” to us.

Plus, our perceptions and concepts are not always accurate – that’s why they can change over time as more observations and evaluations are made. To think that our concepts of reality are themselves a source of reality is a path to delusion which is sadly where many Scientolgists end up – delusions about themselves, about other people, about what’s going on in the world or even in their own movement. This is a problem that can be traced (at least partially) to beliefs in Hubbard’s unfounded assertions about the nature of reality which allows for proliferation (and enforcement) of “considerations” that are false but which are treated as “reality” despite observations to the contrary.

 

To add insult to injury, the view of reality as a product of considerations, which appeared within the subject of Scientology in 1954, seems to be in complete contradiction to the view in Dianetics (and Scientology materials prior to 1954) in terms of the existence of reality outside of the mind (physical universe reality) which gets “recorded” by the mind with exactitude. That’s why a memory recording was eventually termed a FACSIMILE which literally means “an exact copy” – a perfect “recording” of an experience.

DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH
CHAPTER I
THE ANALYTICAL MIND
AND THE STANDARD MEMORY BANKS

. . .

Consider the analytical mind as a computing machine. This is analogy, because the analytical mind, while it behaves like a computing machine, is yet more fantastically capable than any computing machine ever constructed and infinitely more elaborate. It could be called the “computational mind” or the “egsusheyftef.” But for our purposes, the analytical mind, as a descriptive name, will do. This mind may live in the pre-frontal lobes – there is some hint of that – but this is a problem of structure, and nobody really knows about structure. So we shall call this computational part of the mind the „analytical mind“ because it analyzes data.

. . .

The analytical mind has its standard memory banks. Just where these are located structurally is again no concern of ours at this time. To operate, the analytical mind has to have percepts (data), memory (data), and imagination (data).

. . .

Every percept – sight, sound, smell, feeling, taste, organic sensation, pain, rhythm, kinesthesia (weight and muscular motion) and emotion – is each properly and neatly filed in the standard banks in full. It does not matter how many aberrations a physically intact person has or whether he thinks he can or cannot contain this data or recall it, the file is there and is complete.

. . .

Everything in this bank is correct in so far as the single action of perception is concerned. There may be organic errors in the organs of perception, such as blindness or deafness (when physical, not aberrational), which would leave blanks in the banks; and there may be organic impairment such as partial organic deafness which would leave partial blanks. But these things are not error in the standard memory banks; they are simply absence of data. Like the computer, the standard memory banks are perfect, recording faithfully and reliably.

. . .

Another interesting part of the standard memory banks is that they apparently file the original and hand forward exact copies to the analyzer. They will hand out as many exact copies as are demanded without diminishing the actual file original. And they hand out these copies each in kind with color-motion sight, tone-audio, etc.

. . .

Between the standard banks, which are perfect and reliable, and the computer, the analytical mind, which is perfect and reliable, there is no irrational concourse. The answer is always as right as it can be made to be in the light of data at hand, and that is all anyone can ask of a computing device or a recording device.

 

SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL
Communication and Reality

The overall subject of communication covers far more than the exchange of intelligence. Basically, communication could be called the science of perceptions. As general semantics is organized on the subject of words and ideas; so can be organized, and so has been organized in Dianetics, the entire subject of perception.

Everything which we know of the physical universe and, possibly, anything which we can know of theta universe, allowing that it exists, could be said to be embraced by perception, computation, and imagination.

By perception we mean the perceiving of entities or existences. We achieve what we know of reality by perceiving entities and existences in the physical universe, and possibly the theta universe, by combining these perceptions and computing or imagining results not in disagreement with the results obtained by others.

The channels of our perception of the physical universe are twenty-six in number. The most important of these are sonic, vision, tactile, olfactory, kinesthesia, thermal, joint position, body position, moisture, organic perceptions, and, adding one more discovered in Dianetics, perception of movement on the time track. It is with these that the auditor most vitally concerns himself, as it is through these that we learn the most of the physical universe.

With sonic we perceive, by mental mechanism, the sound waves of the physical universe, and by comparison and experience, both genetic and environmental, interpret them.

With visio we perceive light waves, which, as sight, are compared with experience and evaluated.

By tactile we perceive the shape and texture of surfaces and compounds.

With olfactory perception we perceive the minute particles of matter which register as smell.

By kinesthesia we perceive motion through space and time.

By thermal we perceive temperature, hotness and coldness, and so can evaluate further our current environment by comparing it to past environments.

By perceiving joint position we can measure space and the size of objects and know more about our physical situation.

By perceiving body position we sense our relationship with our immediate environment.

Moisture perception permits us to sense the dampness or dryness of the atmosphere and so judge further our environment.

Through organic perceptions we perceive the states of our own bodies, internally.

These and other sense messages combine to make up a body of experience. Just how much of this experience is genetic and how much of it is carried in the theta body, if that exists, we cannot at this time accurately measure. In our environment, however, by the various sense channels we gain experience and can act in the present-time environment or plan for the future.

It might be said that we have potentially a sensory reception mechanism for every type of sense message which can be radiated or delivered to us from the physical universe, and from the theta universe. Thus, we have hearing because there are sound waves which can be registered and interpreted; we have sight because light waves exist to be registered; and so forth.

A very interesting paper could be prepared upon the probable evolution of our senses. Theta, combining with MEST to make life, reaches out in its conquest of MEST, via the sense perceptions, to exist within and control the environment and to some degree regulate the future—and, particularly in man, to adjust the environment to the organism, the species, or the race.

. . .

 

HANDBOOK FOR PRECLEARS
THE HUMAN MIND

. . .

A mind, then, is not a brain. A brain and the nervous system are simply conduits for physical universe vibrations. The brain and nerve trunks are much like a switchboard system. And there is a point in the system where the vibrations change into records.

An organism is motivated by continuing, timeless, spaceless, motionless CAUSE. This cause mirrors or takes impressions of motion. These impressions we call “memories” or more accurately, facsimiles.

A facsimile, as you know, is a simple word meaning a picture of a thing, a copy of a thing, not the thing itself. Thus, to save confusion and keep this point before us in this new science, we say that the perceptions of the body are “stored” as facsimiles.

Sights, sounds, tastes, and all the other perceptions of the body store as facsimiles of the moment the impression was received. The actual energy of the impression is not stored. It is not stored if only because there is insufficient molecular structure in the body to store these energies as such. Physical universe energy is evidently too gross for such storage. Further, although the cells perish, the memories go on, existing, evidently, forever.

A facsimile of yesterday’s hurt toe can be brought back today with the full force of the impact. Everything which occurs around the body, whether it is asleep or awake, is recorded as a facsimile and is stored.

There are facsimiles of anything and everything the body has ever perceived — seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted, experienced — from the first moment of existence. There are pleasure facsimiles and bored facsimiles, facsimiles of sudden death and quick success, facsimiles of quiet decay and gradual struggle.

Memory usually means recalling data of recent times; thus we use the word facsimile, for while it is the whole of which memory is a part, the word memory does not embrace all that has been discovered.

One should have a very good idea of what a facsimile is. It is a recording of the motions and situations of the physical universe plus the conclusions of the mind based on earlier facsimiles.

. . .

As one goes through Life he records twenty-four hours a day, asleep and awake, in pain, under anesthetic, happy or sad. These facsimiles are usually recorded with all perceptics, which is to say, with every sense channel. In the person who has a missing sense channel such as deafness, that portion of the facsimile is missing.

A full facsimile is a sort of three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual.

We know a great deal about these facsimiles now—why they are not easily recovered by most people when they grow up, how they change, how the imagination can begin to re- manufacture them as in hallucination or dreaming.

Briefly, a person is as aberrated as he is unable to handle his facsimiles. He is as sane as he can handle his facsimiles. He is as ill as he is unable to handle his facsimiles. He is as well as he can handle them.

That portion of this new science which is devoted to the rehabilitation of the mind and body deals with the phenomena of handling these facsimiles.

A person ought to be able to pick up and inspect and lay aside at will any facsimile he has. It is not a goal of this new science to restore full recall perception, it is the goal to rehabilitate the ability of a person to handle his facsimiles.

When a person CANNOT handle his facsimiles, he can pull them into present time and discover himself unable to get rid of them again.

What is psychosomatic illness? Demonstrably, it is the pain contained in a past experience or the physical malfunction of a past experience. The facsimile of that experience gets into present time and stays with the person until a shock drops it out of sight again or until it is processed out by this new science. A shock or necessity, however, permits it to come back.

. . .

The human mind is capable of very complex combinations of facsimiles. Further, it can originate facsimiles on the basis of old facsimiles. Nothing goes wrong with the mind except its abilities to handle facsimiles. Occasionally a mind becomes incapable of using a facsimile as past experience and begins to use it in present time continually as an apology for failure. Then we have aberration and psychosomatic illness. A memory of pain contains pain and can become present time pain. A memory of emotion contains emotion and can become present time emotion.
. . .

 

SCIENTOLOGY: 8-80
CHAPTER TWO

Life is a static, according to the Axioms. A static has no motion. It has no wave length. The proofs and details of this are elsewhere in Scientology.

This static has the peculiarity of acting as a “mirror”. It records and holds the images of motion. It even can create motion and record and hold the image of that. It records also space and time in order to record motion which is, after all, only “change in space through time”. Played against motion as a kinetic, the static can produce live energy.

In a mind, any mind, the basic beingness is found to be a static on which motion can be recorded, and which, acting against motion, produces energy.

A memory is a recording of the physical universe. It contains—any memory—a time index (when it happened) and a pattern of motion. As a lake reflects the trees and moving clouds, so does a memory reflect the physical universe. Sight, sound, pain, emotion, effort, conclusions, and many other things are recorded in this static for any given instant of observation.

Such a memory we call a “facsimile”. The mind, examining a facsimile it has made, can see it, feel it, hear it, re-experience the pain in it, the effort, the emotion.

There are billions of facsimiles available to any mind. Billions of billions. These facsimiles can be brought into present time by the environment, and “unseen” or “unknown” by the awareness of awareness of the mind, can reimpress their pains, efforts, and aberrations upon the being, thus making one less liable to survive. All unknowingnesses, confusions, aberrations, psychosomatic ills are traceable to facsimiles.

. . .

 

The text from Scientology 8-80, published in 1952, references the axioms which were published in Advanced Procedure and Axiom in 1951. Here are some of those axioms:

[November 1951] Advanced Procedure and Axioms

AXIOM 1. THE SOURCE OF LIFE IS A STATIC OF PECULIAR AND PARTICULAR PROPERTIES.

AXIOM 2. AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE STATIC CALLED LIFE IS IMPINGED UPON THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

AXIOM 3. THAT PORTION OF THE STATIC OF LIFE WHICH IS IMPINGED UPON THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE HAS FOR ITS DYNAMIC GOAL, SURVIVAL AND ONLY SURVIVAL.

AXIOM 4. THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS REDUCIBLE TO MOTION OF ENERGY OPERATING IN SPACE THROUGH TIME.

AXIOM 5. THAT PORTION OF THE STATIC OF LIFE CONCERNED WITH THE LIFE ORGANISMS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS CONCERNED WHOLLY WITH MOTION.

AXIOM 6. THE LIFE STATIC HAS AS ONE OF ITS PROPERTIES THE ABILITY TO MOBILIZE AND ANIMATE MATTER INTO LIVING ORGANISMS.

AXIOM 7. THE LIFE STATIC IS ENGAGED IN A CONQUEST OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

AXIOM 8. THE LIFE STATIC CONQUERS THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BY LEARNING AND APPLYING THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
Symbol: The Symbol for the Life Static in use hereafter is the Greek letter Theta.

. . .

AXIOM 22. THETA AND THOUGHT ARE SIMILAR ORDERS OF STATIC.

AXIOM 23. ALL THOUGHT IS CONCERNED WITH MOTION.

AXIOM 24. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OPTIMUM MOTION IS A BASIC GOAL OF REASON.

AXIOM 25. THE BASIC PURPOSE OF REASON IS THE CALCULATION OR ESTIMATION OF EFFORT.

AXIOM 26. THOUGHT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THETA FACSIMILES OF PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, ENTITIES OR ACTIONS.

AXIOM 27. THETA IS SATISFIED ONLY WITH HARMONIOUS ACTION OR OPTIMUM MOTION AND REJECTS OR DESTROYS ACTION OR MOTION ABOVE OR BELOW ITS TOLERANCE BAND.

AXIOM 28. THE MIND IS CONCERNED WHOLLY WITH THE ESTIMATION OF EFFORT.
DEFINITION: MIND IS THE THETA COMMAND POST OF ANY ORGANISM OR ORGANISMS.

AXIOM 29. THE BASIC ERRORS OF REASON ARE FAILURES TO DIFFERENTIATE AMONGST MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME.

AXIOM 30. RIGHTNESS IS PROPER CALCULATION OF EFFORT.

AXIOM 31. WRONGNESS IS ALWAYS MISCALCULATION OF EFFORT.

AXIOM 32. THETA CAN EXERT ITSELF DIRECTLY OR EXTENSIONALLY.
Theta can direct physical application of the organism to the environment or through the mind, can first calculate the action or extend, as in language, ideas.

AXIOM 33. CONCLUSIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARD THE INHIBITION, MAINTENANCE OR ACCELERATIONS OF EFFORTS.

AXIOM 34. THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL LIFE ORGANISMS IS MOTION.

. . .

AXIOM 49. THE PURPOSE OF THE MIND IS TO POSE AND RESOLVE PROBLEMS RELATING TO SURVIVAL AND TO DIRECT THE EFFORT OF THE ORGANISM ACCORDING TO THESE SOLUTIONS.

AXIOM 50. ALL PROBLEMS ARE POSED AND RESOLVED THROUGH ESTIMATIONS OF EFFORT.

. . .

AXIOM 54. SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE OVERCOMING OF EFFORTS OPPOSING ITS SURVIVAL. (Note: Corollary for other dynamics.)
DEFINITION: DYNAMIC IS THE ABILITY TO TRANSLATE SOLUTIONS INTO ACTION.

. . .

AXIOM 64. THE MIND PERCEIVES AND STORES ALL DATA OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ALIGNS OR FAILS TO ALIGN THESE ACCORDING TO THE TIME THEY WERE PERCEIVED.
DEFINITION: A CONCLUSION IS THE THETA FACSIMILES OF A GROUP OF COMBINED DATA.
DEFINITION: A DATUM IS A THETA FACSIMILE OF PHYSICAL ACTION.

AXIOM 65. THE PROCESS OF THOUGHT IS THE PERCEPTION OF THE PRESENT AND THE COMPARISON OF IT TO THE PERCEPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE PAST IN ORDER TO DIRECT ACTION IN THE IMMEDIATE OR DISTANT FUTURE.
COROLLARY: THE ATTEMPT OF THOUGHT IS TO PERCEIVE REALITIES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT IN ORDER TO PREDICT OR POSTULATE REALITIES OF THE FUTURE.

. . .

AXIOM 67. THETA CONTAINS ITS OWN THETA UNIVERSE EFFORT WHICH TRANSLATES INTO MEST EFFORT.

. . .

AXIOM 69. PHYSICAL UNIVERSE PERCEPTIONS AND EFFORTS ARE RECEIVED BY AN ORGANISM AS FORCE WAVES, CONVERT BY FACSIMILE INTO THETA AND ARE THUS STORED.
DEFINITION: RANDOMITY IS THE MIS-ALIGNMENT THROUGH THE INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL EFFORTS BY OTHER FORMS OF LIFE OR THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE OF THE EFFORTS OF AN ORGANISM, AND IS IMPOSED ON THE PHYSICAL ORGANISM BY COUNTER-EFFORTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

. . .

AXIOM 77. THETA AFFECTS THE ORGANISM, OTHER ORGANISMS AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE BY TRANSLATING THETA FACSIMILES INTO PHYSICAL EFFORTS OR RANDOMITY OF EFFORTS.
DEFINITION: THE DEGREE OF RANDOMITY IS MEASURED BY THE RANDOMNESS OF EFFORT VECTORS WITHIN THE ORGANISM, AMONGST ORGANISMS, AMONGST RACES OR SPECIES OF ORGANISMS OR BETWEEN ORGANISMS AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

. . .

AXIOM 81. SANITY CONSISTS OF OPTIMUM RANDOMITY.

. . .

AXIOM 96. AN ENGRAM IS A THETA FACSIMILE OF ATOMS AND MOLECULES IN MISALIGNMENT.

. . .

AXIOM 99. THETA FACSIMILES CAN RECOMBINE INTO NEW SYMBOLS.

AXIOM 100. LANGUAGE IS THE SYMBOLIZATION OF EFFORT.

AXIOM 101. LANGUAGE DEPENDS FOR ITS FORCE UPON THE FORCE WHICH ACCOMPANIED ITS DEFINITION.
(Note: Counter-effort, not language, is aberrative.)

. . .

AXIOM 121. EVERY THOUGHT HAS BEEN PRECEDED BY PHYSICAL ACTION.

. . .

AXIOM 127. ALL PERCEPTIONS REACHING THE ORGANISM’S SENSE CHANNELS ARE RECORDED AND STORED BY THETA FACSIMILE.
DEFINITION: PERCEPTION IS THE PROCESS OF RECORDING DATA FROM THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AND STORING IT AS A THETA FACSIMILE.
DEFINITION: RECALL IS THE PROCESS OF REGAINING PERCEPTIONS.

. . .

AXIOM 136. THE MIND IS PLASTICALLY CAPABLE OF RECORDING ALL EFFORTS AND COUNTER-EFFORTS.

. . .

AXIOM 143. ALL LEARNING IS ACCOMPLISHED BY RANDOM EFFORT.

. . .

AXIOM 148. PHYSICAL LAWS ARE LEARNED BY LIFE ENERGY ONLY BY IMPINGEMENT OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE PRODUCING RANDOMITY, AND A WITHDRAWAL FROM THAT IMPINGEMENT.

. . .

AXIOM 171. DELUSION IS THE POSTULATION BY THE IMAGINATION OF OCCURRENCES IN AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY.

AXIOM 172. DREAMS ARE THE IMAGINATIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF AREAS OF RANDOMITY OR THE RE-SYMBOLIZATION OF THE EFFORTS OF THETA.

 

Notice how in Dianetic axioms above, the “physical universe” is said to consist of “motion” and is said to be the primary concern of the mind that records, as “facsimiles,” and then re-produces motions (efforts). Axiom 121 even goes so far as to state that:

AXIOM 121. EVERY THOUGHT HAS BEEN PRECEDED BY PHYSICAL ACTION.

How does this compare to the 1954 Scientology axiom?

AXIOM 3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

So does the “physical universe” objectively exist and is “recorded” (as facsimiles of perceptions) by theta or “static” (or the mind) in its ultimate goal of conquering it, or is the physical universe created by this “static” through “considerations” and then is perceived by it in line with further considerations?

The first assertion seems to present a view that the physical universe, made of motion, is all there is and the sole purpose of consciousness is to manage it – a sad view indeed. The second assertion seems to present quite an opposite view – that consciousness is all that exists and even the physical universe is simply a product of “considerations” made by consciousness. So which is it?

The view on this website is that, in actuality, neither is correct. The notion that even the physical universe is a pure product of consciousness, so far, could not have been demonstrated or proven by anyone including Hubbard himself. The idea of “mirroring” or recording “facsimiles” by the “static” (can be understood as “consciousness” in common terms) is likewise problematic since there is no consideration given to the formation or creation of perception in itself.

The term “facsimile” that became a dominant term in Dianetics can be clearly seen as a misnomer with a realization that there is no “copy” of reality since whatever we perceive reality to be does not objectively exist in the form that we perceive it. Our experience of reality is already in the form of a “perception construct” created by the mind.

For example, there is no “light” out there that is “recorded” – light as a sensation is created by the mind, we can assume, in translating some recognized bands of electromagnetic radiation which can be recognized and “perceived” in other ways (other than through sight). Plants do not have eyes and do not “see” “light,” yet they can perceive (what we understand to be) electromagnetic radiation in some other way.

MENTAL IMAGE PICTURE was a very good initial term – a “picture” created by the mind – and should have been retained in use instead of being updated to a “facsimile.”

The concept on this website, which is in line with common experience, is that:

Consciousness forms (or creates) perceptions of something, but it may not necessarily be creating or have created (at least not through just “considerations”) that which it forms perceptions of. See pages on CONSCIOUSNESS and REALITY for more information.

It should also be noted that if someone truly believed reality to be a product of considerations, then all they would be motivated to look at and address are CONSIDERATIONS – of their own and those of others. That is – there is no need to look at the actual realities of the surrounding world to assess and understand them since the source of (any) reality are CONSIDERATIONS connected to it rather than actual existences which provide consciousness with something to perceive in the first place. This brings us to another point – Scientology’s view of the basic nature of a problem.

 

PROBLEM

Perhaps no other single concept demonstrates the problem with Scientology as clearly as Hubbard’s definition and approach to dealing with a “problem” itself.

Following his eventual assertion that reality has no existence outside of one’s considerations, Hubbard defined a problem as:

Intention versus intention or postulate versus postulate.

Obviously, if someone assumes that reality itself is a product of considerations then it only logically follows that if something doesn’t go one’s way then there must be someone else interfering with a counter-consideration of some kind (or a counter-intention, counter-postulate). To make matters worse, Hubbard wrapped the definition in his usual thought-entrapment by stating that there is “no other definition” with implications that anyone that says otherwise should be looked at as being wrong and as nearly an “enemy” of Scientology and spiritual progress. Hubbard’s “progression” of delivery style from mild and permissive for the public (book) to “my way is the only way” for Scientology trainees (lecture) and then ultimately onto “my way or else!” in his organizational construct (policy) could be clearly seen through various publication relating to the “problem.” Let’s take a look:

Book for the Public

(1956) The Fundamentals of Thought / Chapter: The Conditions of Existence

Man or any life form in this universe seems to love problems. A problem is more important than freedom. Problems keep up interest. When a man has a problem very thoroughly and can’t solve it, he really has too few problems. He needs more.

The insanity among the idle is a matter of problem scarcity.

A problem is defined as two or more purposes in opposition. Or Intention versus Intention.

 

Lecture for Students

[14 OCTOBER 1965] 6510C14 SHSBC-431 Briefing of Review Auditors

And it’s just this: postulate-counter-postulate. Postulate versus postulate. That is the definition and the anatomy of a problem. And there is no other definition to a problem.

 

Policy for General Staff Members

HCO PL 18 JUNE 1968: ETHICS

Download (PDF, 362KB)

Hubbard’s provided example of policy application is quite mild, but combined with his Fair Game policies (meant for specialized staff members), it is really not that difficult to imagine how such a policy could be implemented if Scientology order took over a government with access to forceful means of “removing counter-intention from the environment.”

Movie EQUILIBRIUM provides a rough analogy of the kind of reality that society could come to if such elements of Hubbard’s philosophy prevailed around the world.

 

In the lecture quoted above Hubbard was speaking about a problem in relationship to PTS/SP technology. Here is a more complete section of that lecture that demonstrates Hubbard’s logic on this issue:

[14 OCTOBER 1965] 6510C14 SHSBC-431 Briefing of Review Auditors (selection 15:38 – 32:16 min) [Download]

All right, now, let’s take number two, and this is the main thing I want to talk to you about: A rolly coaster equals a suppressive person in that person’s vicinity. In other words, rolly coaster – PTS. If a person rolly coasters, it’s PTS. A PTS is a connection with a suppressive. I’ll give you the exact mechanics of it; I’ll let you sort them out on your own time.

And that’s postulat-counter-postulate is the anatomy of a problem. And this belongs in actual fact at Grade I. And it’s just this: postulate-counter-postulate. Postulate versus postulate. That is the definition and the anatomy of a problem. And there is no other definition to a problem. There can be several counter-postulates; there can be several going out like this, but that makes several problems. The central problem is always postulate-counter-postulate.

So the guy has had a purpose in life and somebody has suppressed it, or a guy has had a purpose over a twenty-four-hour period and somebody suppressed that purpose. In other words, his purpose was his postulate, the other person saying he couldn’t do it was the counter-postulate. Do you follow?

So that is simply the anatomy of a problem and it belongs at Grade I. And there is no other reason for rolly coaster. This is the “no other” data I’m giving you. There just is no other datum.

People don’t rolly coaster because they got into an engram. People don’t rolly coaster because the auditor misread the action. People don’t rolly coaster because his father was a Methodist and has been dead since birth. Do you understand? So don’t, as a Review Auditor, ever fall for two seconds for any other reason for a rolly coaster than postulate-counter-postulate. There isn’t any other reason.

Now, SP is a version of this. It’s a version of a problem and is a specialized kind of problem, and that is what causes the rolly coaster. The individual has run into a postulate-counter- postulate since his last improvement, which makes him a potential trouble source.

Potential trouble source means the case is going to go up and fall down. And he’s a trouble source because he’s going to get upset. He’s a trouble source because he’s going to make trouble. And he’s a trouble for the auditor and he’s trouble for us and he’s trouble for himself and so forth. And he really does make trouble. That’s very carefully named.

The SP isn’t making trouble. See? He’s just poisoning the whole universe, you know? But it isn’t – he isn’t making trouble; he’s just going squash! Do you see? Anybody says anything to him – squash! You see? It’s the PTS who makes the trouble. Do you see this?

Now, this is the whole backbone of ethics. And there isn’t anything more to ethics than the – this basic purpose of ethics is ethics exists to get tech in. If you ever see ethics being put in that throws tech out, then ethics is being used in a suppressive fashion. Now, the only way that you could use ethics suppressively is use it in such a way that it threw tech out. Because the purpose of ethics is to put tech in. If you’ve got ethics, you can get tech in. You carry on ethics long enough to get tech in, and that’s all the longer you carry it. But in the process of getting tech in you very often will run into a rolly coaster – and that is, a case worsens after it improves, as easily as that.

The case did all right in yesterday’s session; comes to this session, falls on his head. That’s a rolly coaster. And there’s no other cause for it, see, than postulate-counter-postulate.

You’ll see a process come out and an HCOB come out on a process that will be called “Search and Discovery.” And Search and Discovery is just to find the purposes – to find the suppressions the person has had in life. And one of the broad ways of finding it, unfortunately, will make a Problems Release in minutes. You say, “What has been your main purpose in life? Thank you very much. Who opposed it? Thank you very much.” And in a large percentage of cases, Problems Release! Do you understand? It’d be an interesting percentage on which this would occur.

Of course, the person doesn’t know about problems – they aren’t cleaned up about problems worth a nickel – but they’ll go release on the subject of problems, and they’ll stay released. And now you try to run problems on them and you’re going to get a high TA. Do you see? They’ve solved all their problems.

The way you solve a problem is to find the source of the counter-postulate. You find the source of the counter-postulate; that’s the way to solve a problem. Now, man gets solutions to problems. In other words, he leaves the counter-postulate and his own postulate in place, not knowing the definition of a problem, and then solves the resulting collision, as in dialectic materialism.

You want to read that some day; that’s very interesting. It’s the anatomy of a problem gone mad. “Any idea is the product of two forces” is the backbone of it. It’s quite interesting. It’s the – it’s a current philosophy. But in actual fact, that’s based on a problem. Two forces going together make a squash, so therefore, that’s it!

Now, if you want to really solve a problem and see it solve in the physical universe and have an awful lot of fun with it, then you had certainly better look over the whole perimeter of counter-postulates: What is the source of the problem?

And if you hit it right – if you’ve got a problem with Joe Jinks and he’s in Toronto, Canada – if you hit it right, don’t be surprised if you get a phone call from Joe Jinks telling you the problem is all solved. It happens, routinely and constantly. And I had to run down what process was it that was causing this phenomena, because we ran into the problem very often.

We’d run Problems of Comparable Magnitude on a pc in an HGC or an ACC or something like this, and the next thing you know their long-lost husband or something, that they’d had such awful problems with, is very sweetness and light. Do you follow? You see, the problem evaporated. But the funny part of it is, in the physical universe it’ll also evaporate for the other person sometimes. So that’s quite interesting. And that’s very interesting for you to know that in connection with ethics. Because when you see that the disconnection, or the handle or disconnect, causes an enormous problem for the person or for the other person from whom they are disconnecting, you have invariably found the wrong person.

Now, Ethics… The policy letter that moved them over to “Suppressives must be located by Review” – and that’s where you’re coming in and that’s why I’m talking to you. We’re not permitting Ethics, anymore, to locate suppressive persons. They’re going to be located by Review Auditors in regular session. Do you see that? Because Ethics just flubs it too often. They’re not equipped for auditing and so forth. They’re interested in justice and that sort of thing, and they don’t go ahead with it and do a good job of it. So therefore, anybody walking into Ethics who is PTS, who has rolly coastered and so forth, is sent to Review. And that is the route.

Actually, an HGC auditor should send directly to Review and then Review sends to Ethics. Ethics has to have some notation of this. That’s the only reason they go to Ethics after Review. Do you see? Because when they’re sent to… when somebody says, “Well, this person is PTS,” and so forth, you could send them directly, don’t you see, over to Ethics and then to Review in all cases. But I know very well that if one of your Examiners was to find a PTS, and know very well that that Examiner would inevitably and invariably send that person directly to Review, wouldn’t send them to Ethics. Why? Review is closer. Do you see?

So after the person has been found to rolly coaster and then Review cleans up the SP, why, they can go over to Ethics and get a statement of handle or declare, don’t you see? But it’s all cleaned up. They’re not any longer – they’re not even vaguely worried about it. Do you see?

Now, that’s the way it’s going to be handled, and that’s the change of route. So therefore I’m briefing you. And the reason why I’ve called you in is just to give you this datum and just tell you that although around you will hear occasionally that there are other reasons for rolly coaster, that’s for the birds! That’s not true. There are no other reasons for rolly coaster than PTS. And PTS is the manifestation of a postulate-counter-postulate.

Now, you notice that I haven’t said how long. You know, the person didn’t have to be a PTS for two and a half years before he became up to Review’s attention – I mean, up to the attention of Ethics. He might have only been PTS for twenty minutes. And it’s very interesting that you can overrun a person who is trying to tell you he’s already gone Release and the person becomes a PTS. Who’s the suppressive?

Audience: The auditor.

Isn’t that interesting? Of course, the suppressive – it’s merely a suppressive action. You don’t declare the auditor a suppressive person. Do you follow? You don’t have to then go through the endless action of “the Pc must separate from the auditor and disconnect and…” That’s a lot of balderdash, isn’t it? But still, the mechanics are there: rolly coaster – PTS. Well, just who? Where? How? What? And that’s your job in Review.

Now, you can use listing. You can list the person’s purposes: “What purpose of yours has been thwarted?” I mean, unfortunately, in handling this you’re going to have some Releases on your hands. But watch it! Get them declared when they occur; that’s a Grade I Release.

Now, don’t let somebody shake you off of this datum that a rolly coaster is a PTS. And the definition of PTS is: connected to a suppressive person or action. See? Person or action. A guy can inadvertently suppress something. You’re driving down the road and somebody steps out in front of your car – believe me, when you hit him, you suppressed him. You certainly didn’t intend to and that doesn’t make you a suppressive person. Do you follow?

So just looking at this from straight technical mechanics and so forth: a rolly coaster – PTS. Now, if that PTS is not handled the person does become, then, a trouble source. And “PTS” – very well named. You overrun somebody, oh boy, you’re going to have trouble. They’re going to make trouble. There’s going to be all kinds of trouble.

What’s your main consideration, then, in handling anybody sent to you from Ethics or from the HGC, in the review? Your main consideration is, promptly and immediately, this person has been up against a suppressive action or person. And don’t go nutty and try to do ARC breaks on him and sympathize with how badly they’ve been hit. Nothing like that. All you’ve got to do is find the suppressive person. Now, the person may only have been suppressive for five minutes. Or the person might have been suppressive for a lifetime. But you find the right one and instantly the good indicators will come in, and watch it, because you’re liable to make a Release right at that moment.

Now, also watch it that by getting off the SP you rehabilitate the state of Release which was being overrun. You see now, the person came in to you with a high TA, and all of a sudden you recognize the person is PTS, also. Do you follow? Person felt better, now feels worse. Well, your action is to locate the suppressive action or person, of course. But you might have the high TA because the person has had an overrun on a process. But it’s still a suppressive action. See, completely aside from rehabilitating the process, what have you got?

Now, a suppressive person is not somebody with horns; it’s a person who has had a counter-postulate to the PC you are handling. But a suppressive person who is routinely suppressive in life, invalidative of Scientology and trying to keep people from getting well and that sort of thing, is a social menace.

Now, he’s the problem of Ethics. Your problem in Review is to find him. And if it’s just a momentary suppression and so forth, you don’t go declaring somebody suppressive because he accidentally overran the PC, and the PC says, “I feel good now and I don’t want to answer any more auditing commands.”

“Well, you’d better answer this next auditing command.”

“Well, I don’t want to answer any more auditing commands.”

“Well, you’d better answer this next auditing command.”

The person will now behave to some degree on the basis of PTS. You not only have got an overrun release, or something of that sort is lurking around there, but you in addition to that have a PTS. Do you follow? So both of those actions would have to be handled. But please, please don’t let somebody shake this datum for you. Because when they can’t find the SP by any means, then they will drop the datum. Do you see? They drop the datum, huh? They say, “Well, all right. It was because he ate bananas last night.”

Well, I’m afraid that somebody in auditing wouldn’t rolly coaster if he just ate some bad bananas last night. He’s not roller coastering in auditing. So he doesn’t feel so well this morning; well, he knows damn well what did it. If he wanted to – if you wanted to be an absolute perfectionist on this, you could say, “Well, who insisted you eat the bananas?” Don’t you see? And probably at that moment, why, his tummyache would go [snaps fingers].

But that sort of thing is too minor. We’re talking about a real honest-to-God rolly coaster, see? The person was doing fine in the – audited in London, doing fine; appears here, doing badly. Oh boy, that’s a rolly coaster. He signs all over the wall, that’s rolly coaster. Don’t you see? Did all right last week; isn’t doing well this week. Well, that’s a rolly coaster. And always there is a suppressive action or person – invariably, inevitably. And Review’s job, then, when somebody sends to Review a PTS, is to find that.

Now, Review also, as I told you, might find also an overrun – may find two things while looking for one. And the only mistake you can make is, two things being present, find the wrong one and say the person is now okay, when the other one still has to be handled. See, you’d handle both of them. If two things are wrong, you’d handle both things – if the person has had an overrun and is also a PTS from some other course – or source.

PTS – potential trouble source; SP – suppressive person
Grade I – a level of Scientology processing that addresses Problems and is said to result in an “ability to recognize the source of problems and make them vanish.”
HGC – Hubbard Guidance Center – a department for auditing
ACC – Advanced Clinical Course – a series of courses Hubbard organized for auditors especially after releasing new discoveries.
Overrun – continuing to run some action such as an auditing process in Scientology beyond the point of a successful completion (in Scientology indicated by a “floating needle” on an e-meter and/or VGI’s – very good indicators – preclear happy and having cognitions). Overrun often results in a worsening condition.
High TA – a type of a read on an e-meter that indicates a certain state of preclear’s mind – in this case Hubbard says it indicates an overrun. TA stands for Tone Arm (on a dial of an e-meter).

Note: a part of this lecture was later turned into HCOB 14 Oct. 65 Potential Trouble Source, Mechanics Of

Listening to the lecture above, it is not that difficult to see how a Scientology practitioner could easily fall into a rigid mindset of: “Scientology works! It is the only way. And anyone who asserts otherwise is an enemy and an SP.” This is a direct result of Hubbard’s “delivery style” even if he does provide some effective methods that can yield good results.

The general mechanics of psychological entrapment in Scientology could be laid out as follows:

1) Hubbard enforces some “truth” which in some cases could be false, misleading or incomplete.

2) He then invalidates any potential attempt at an alternative explanation, and

3) He colors any criticism or deviation as an enemy action of some kind.

4) But he does provide processing that may deliver some beneficial results which may appear to validate the three above.

So with respect to a problem, Hubbard enforces an incomplete or a very narrow definition of a problem. He then provides a process that can in fact deliver miraculous results. Literally if you sat someone down and asked them: “What has been your main purpose in life? Thank you very much. Who opposed it? Thank you very much.” they could experience a tremendous sense of recovery and surge of life energy due to a newly recovered purpose, if it became suppressed in some way by another.

Despite this potential benefit on one side, Hubbard’s narrow definition of a problem, stemming from his view of reality as being a product of considerations, can actually lead to more problems (in the form of unwanted situations) and bad “solutions” down the road as practitioners are now forced to view any problem in life through a postulate-counter-postulate paradigm. It is not surprising then that Scientology groups and the organization at large are often plagued with “witch-hunts” and finger-pointing. Combined with authoritarian policy (such as the one cited above on ETHICS), this “problems resolution methodology” makes Scientologists prone to looking for someone to blame and attack as a source of “counter-intention” or “counter-postulate” that supposedly brings about an unwanted condition instead of simply looking at and handling a problematic existence directly (such as an outdated computer program that needs an upgrade, cultural limitations in an area of operation that need to be addressed, physical limitations of a human body and other realities that may get in the way of bringing about a desired outcome within a desired time frame).

In any given situation there could be many problematic existences that would need to be identified and addressed, not just some individuals’ counter-intentions.

In addition, stories of former Scientology staff members are abundant with accounts of management setting insane quotas and then attacking anyone for expressing potentially valid reasoning why such targets cannot be met and arguing for a more realistic approach. Instead of consulting people with lots of experience and insight who can come up with more realistic evaluation of the existing scene and solutions to it, such people can be framed as being a source of “counter-intention” and thrown out of the loop per Hubbard’s own recommendations.

 

A-R-C Triangle

Reality as “agreement” is then integrated into yet another basic principle in Scientology – the ARC Triangle – which underlies much of Scientology theory and practice. Below is a video from Scientology explaining what it is followed by quotes from different Dianetics & Scientology books reaffirming the ARC principle. Notice the limitations that Hubbard places on human relations.

 

[Capitalization was added for emphasis]

[June 1951] Science of Survival, Chapter 6 “The Basic LAWS of Theta”:

The triangle of affinity, reality, and communication could be called an interactive triangle in that NO point of it can be raised WITHOUT affecting the other two points and raising them, and NO point of it can be lowered WITHOUT affecting the other two points. The postulated reason for this is that affinity, reality, and communication are COMPONENT PARTS OF THETA, and thus affinity, reality, and communication are THREE MANIFESTATION OF THE SAME THING.

 

[November 1951] Advanced Procedure and Axioms

AXIOM 168. AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION CO-EXIST IN AN INEXTRICABLE RELATIONSHIP.
The co-existent relationship between affinity, reality and communication is such that none can be increased without increasing the other two and none can be decreased without decreasing the other two.

 

[December 1951] Handbook for Preclears, Chapter 8 “The Second Act”:

One CANNOT have affinity without agreement. One CANNOT have agreement without some form of communication. One CANNOT have communication without agreement. One CANNOT have agreement without affinity. One CANNOT have communication without affinity. This inevitable triangle may be at any level on the tone scale, high or low. If communication is destructive, the affinity drops to anger and agreement is violent disagreement.

 

[April 1955] Dianetics 55!: Chapter IV Accent On Ability

Affinity, Reality, and Communication form an interdependent triangle. It is easily discovered on some inspection that one cannot communicate in the absence of Reality and Affinity. Further, one cannot have a reality on something with which he cannot communicate and for which he feels no affinity. And similarly, one has no affinity for something on which he has no reality and with which he cannot communicate. Even more narrowly, one does not have affinity for those things on which he has no reality and on which he cannot communicate, and one has no reality on things which he has no affinity for and cannot communicate upon, and one cannot communicate upon things which have no reality to him and for which he has no affinity.

 

[September 1956] The Fundamentals of Thought, Chapter 5 “The A-R-C Triangle”:

The A-R-C triangle is the keystone of living associations. This triangle is the common denominator of ALL of life’s activities.

The inter-relationship of the triangle becomes apparent at once when one asks, “Have you ever tried to talk to an angry man?” Without a high degree of liking and without some basis of agreement there is no communication. Without communication and some basis of emotional response there can be no reality. Without some basis for agreement and communication there can be no affinity. Thus we call these three things a triangle. Unless we have two corners of a triangle, there cannot be a third corner. Desiring any corner of the triangle, one must include the other two.

 

Some good questions to ask yourself in analyzing the suggested ARC principle:

Do you have to agree with someone in order to communicate with them?

Do you have to like somebody in order to communicate to them?

If you do not agree with someone, do you also have to not like them?

Could you continue to like somebody even if you do not agree with them?

Do you have to agree with someone in order to like them?

Do you have to like someone in order to agree with them?

If you do not agree with someone and/or do not like them, do you also have to reduce or cut your communication with them?

If you maintain open communication with someone, do you also have to like them and agree with them?

And finally the most important question:

Do you have to LIKE or AGREE with something in order to be able to PERCEIVE it?

The entire logic of the ARC Triangle collapses when you realize that you do not have to like or agree with something in order to perceive it; and just because you perceive something, it does not mean that you will automatically like or agree with it.

 

Final Thought…

Hubbard does refer to perception and concepts in relationship to reality, but somehow the emphasis ends up being placed on AGREEMENT as the basis of reality which is then reaffirmed throughout Scientology practice.

The problem with defining reality in terms of “agreement” is that reality is a (conceptualized) perception of some form of existence, while an “agreement” is an attitude that one takes with respect to that perception. For example, “Earth is round” would be a formulated conception of some form of perceivable existence. Someone’s agreement that “Earth is round” would be an act of adoption of such a concept or a view. The term “agreement” cannot even be used to define a perception itself (to say nothing of some underlying existence to which it can apply) since agreement is simply a form of action or attitude that someone takes or assumes with respect to it. It would be analogous to defining a fish in terms of “catching.” One can catch a fish or not catch a fish and so one can agree or not agree with a certain perception or view of reality.

In terms of practice, if realty was a product of agreement then how would someone ever be able to break away from it and change it according to one’s own will without having to depend on explicit cooperation from other people? How can someone ever step out of a group mentality if that person believed that reality itself was a product of “collective illusion” of some sort? This means, if you truly believed it, that if you separated away from the collective that would lead to an end of reality. No wonder then that a group of people subscribing to such a philosophy could feel threatened by independent thinking and criticism since that could lead to overall disagreements which in turn could lead to a “collapse” of reality; therefore, individual expression and information at large has to be tightly controlled as a form of “reality protection” which is exactly what occurs in Scientology groups.

THE SOLUTION

The solution to this would be simply to refer to individual’s concepts and perceptions, one’s view on things when addressing someone’s “reality” on something as opposed to his or her “agreements.” Agreement or disagreement itself would fall under this – a perception that someone else does or doesn’t share the same views as you do.

 


 

The Concept of Reality in Different Dianetics & Scientology Publications

(May 1950) Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
Chapter 1 “The Analytical Mind and the Standard Memory Banks”

The analytical mind has its standard memory banks. Just where these are located structurally is again no concern of ours at this time. To operate, the analytical mind has to have percepts (data), memory (data), and imagination (data).

There are another data storage bank and another part of the human mind [the reactive mind] which contain aberrations and are the source of insanities. These will be fully covered later and should not be confused with either the analytical mind or the standard memory banks.

Whether or not the data contained in the standard memory banks is evaluated correctly or not, it is all there. The various senses receive information and this information files straight into the standard memory banks. It does not go through the analyzer first. It is filed and the analyzer then has it from the standard banks.

There are several of these standard banks and they may be duplicated in themselves so that there are several of each kind of bank. Nature seems generous in such things. There is a bank, or set of banks, for each perception. These can be considered racks of data filed in a cross-index system which would make an intelligence officer purple with envy. ANY SINGLE PERCEPT IS FILED AS A CONCEPT. The sight of a moving car, for instance, is filed in the visio-bank in color and motion, at the time seen, cross-indexed to the area in which seen, cross-indexed to all data about cars, cross-indexed to thoughts about cars, and so forth and so forth with the additional filing of conclusions (thought stream) of the moment and thought streams of the past with all their conclusions. The sound of that car is similarly filed from the ears, straight into the audio-bank, and cross-indexed multitudinously as before. The other sensations of that moment are also filed, in their own banks.

 

(June 1951) Science of Survival, Book I
Chapter 6 “The Basic Laws of Theta, Affinity – Reality – Communication”

This has a very high usefulness to the auditor. For instance, when his preclear has a very thorough sonic shutoff the auditor knows that he can regain some sonic either by increasing the present-time affinity of the preclear or by raising the level of reality of the preclear. Likewise, if the affinity of the preclear is markedly low, the auditor can raise that affinity by bettering the communication and REALITY CONCEPTS of the preclear. And finally, when the reality of the preclear is low, it can be raised by increasing affinity and communication.

It is very difficult to suppress the affinity of an individual, his capacity, that is, to receive or give love, without also suppressing his communication and reality factors. Likewise, one cannot suppress the communication factor without also suppressing the affinity and reality factor. And finally, one cannot suppress reality without suppressing affinity and communication. For instance, a mother telling a child that she does not love it is also forbidding the child to speak and is blunting the child’s reality, since the child normally expects to be loved. To tell the child to keep quiet is also to reject the child and is to offend the child’s CONCEPT of what the real world should contain. Contradicting one of the child’s statements or BELIEFS, which is to say his reality, is also to break affinity with him and suppress his communication. One cannot touch this triangle at any point without affecting the other two points; and yet each point is highly specific and has its own characteristics.

When we speak of affinity, reality, and communication we are talking about the three component parts of theta. These three quantities in combination playing upon MEST give us the manifestation we might call computation, or understanding. One has to have some affinity for an object, some communication with it, and some CONCEPT of its reality, before he can understand it. His ability to understand any thought or object depends upon his affinity, his communication, and his reality. All mathematics can be derived from affinity, communication, and reality playing upon MEST.

On the first dynamic, one has the affinity for self the CONCEPT of the reality of self and the ability to communicate with memory of self.

 

(June 1951) Science of Survival, Book I
Chapter 9 “Communication and Reality”

The overall subject of communication covers far more than the exchange of intelligence. Basically, communication could be called the science of perceptions. As general semantics is organized on the subject of words and ideas; so can be organized, and so has been organized in Dianetics, the entire subject of perception.

Everything which we know of the physical universe and, possibly, anything which we can know of theta universe, allowing that it exists, could be said to be embraced by perception, computation, and imagination.

By perception we mean the perceiving of entities or existences. We achieve what we know of reality by perceiving entities and existences in the physical universe, and possibly the theta universe, by combining these perceptions and computing or imagining results not in disagreement with the results obtained by others.

What we conceive to be REALITY IS ACTUALLY AGREED UPON PERCEPTION of the physical universe. There is an endless philosophic wrangle as to whether or not our perceptions perceive anything, or whether or not our perceptions are merely an illusion themselves. True enough, the physical universe can be reduced down to zero mathematically. Matter, energy, space and time could be said to be the result of certain motions. The moment we go off into the by-road of wondering whether the physical universe is real or not we come rapidly upon many philosophic imponderables. What we know as reality, however, is an AGREED-UPON CONCEPTION of the physical universe in which we live. You and I agree that a table exists in the center of the room; we can see it, and feel it, and when we rap it with our knuckles we can hear that something is there. You and I have agreed upon the reality of the table, mainly because each of us agrees that he perceives it via his senses. Should someone come up and say that not a table but a black cat stood there, you and I would consider the man mad. Indeed, by a sort of natural selection we remove such “madnesses” from our society. When someone is in disagreement with the majority as to the sense perceptions of the physical universe, the first reaction of the majority is to have this person pronounced mad and locked up. Locked up, he does not procreate and so breaks the genetic line. This happens often enough to select out of the human race those who do not agree on the nature of the physical universe via sense perceptions. Many amusing and entertaining postulates can be formed on the subject of reality.

Certain it is that by communication — by the group of sense PERCEPTIONS which make up communication — we know reality. Our affinity with that reality — our admission that we are a part of that reality, and our acceptance of our participation in it — is necessary to our communication with it, and thus we have the triangle of Dianetics: affinity, reality, and communication. One cannot stand without the other two. There cannot, for instance, be communication and affinity alone; these two things would result in an AGREEMENT of some sort, which AGREEMENT WOULD BE REALITY. If communication exists, some agreement can be reached, and as soon as an agreement is reached between two people or by a man with himself, there is some affinity. If affinity and reality exist, then a communication must ensue or must already exist in order to act as a channel of expression and recognition of the agreement. An auditor, knowing the trio — affinity, reality, and communication — can use any point of the triangle as a point of attack in order to enhance the other two corners of the triangle. The overall subject of communication, as we have seen, contains all avenues of sense perception: sonic, visio, tactile, olfactory, and the rest. It includes, as well, the perception of too strong a contact with the MEST universe — pain, which is itself less directly, a form of communication. The receipt of perceptions of the real universe and the purpose of theta come about as a computation. Computation creates ideas concerning reality, and this creation of ideas leads to the type of communication which is commonly and ordinarily classified as communication — conversation, messages, and other methods of exchange of ideas.

 

(June 1951) Science of Survival, Book I
Chapter 15 “COLUMN M Reality (Agreement)”

As has been said in earlier chapters of this book, THE QUALITY KNOWN AS REALITY EXISTS, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, MAINLY BECAUSE WE AGREE THAT IT EXISTS. The entire physical universe, according to the tenets of nuclear physics, is reducible to near-zero, if we think in terms of an actuality that can be sensed, measured, or experienced. Matter and energy exist in space and time; but matter is composed of energy; and energy seems, at best, to be a motion rather than a substance. For a motion to take place, one sees that space and time are necessary, but that space and time are themselves such strange entities, according to Einstein and others, that they are also reducible and expandable and are not sharply defined entities. Much could be said on this subject, all more or less of a confusing and indecisive nature. Philosophers for many centuries have been debating over the reality of reality, and each one has come to the final admission that man agrees that he perceives something with his various senses and that man has agreed to call this reality.

For our purposes, THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR OF REALITY COULD BE CALLED, THEN, AGREEMENT. If you and I both agree that we are gazing at an automobile, then that automobile has reality for us. If another person comes forward and says that it is not an automobile but a barrel of olives, then you and are apt to suppose him crazy. Majority opinion rules, where reality is concerned. Those who do not agree with the majority are commonly pronounced insane, or are exiled, and thus we have a sort of continuous natural selection which gives us a social order that has agreed upon certain definite realities. Anyone who seeks to alter those realities in any way is attacked, unless the strength and force of his reason are such that they carry into the minds of men a new reality on which those men can agree.

 

(November 1951) Advanced Procedure and Axioms: Axioms

AXIOM 110. THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THETA ARE AFFINITY, REALITY, AND COMMUNICATION.

AXIOM 111. SELF-DETERMINISM CONSISTS OF MAXIMAL AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION.

AXIOM 112. AFFINITY IS THE COHESION OF THETA.
Affinity manifests itself as the recognition of similarity of efforts and goals amongst organisms by those organisms.

AXIOM 113. REALITY IS THE AGREEMENT UPON PERCEPTIONS AND DATA IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
All that we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real. Agreement is the essence of reality.

AXIOM 114. COMMUNICATION IS THE INTERCHANGE OF PERCEPTION THROUGH THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BETWEEN ORGANISMS OR THE PERCEPTION OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BY SENSE CHANNELS.

AXIOM 115. SELF-DETERMINISM IS THE THETA CONTROL OF THE ORGANISM.

 

 

[09 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort”
Lecture: Statics and Motions and Axioms 1-14

It’s a very mysterious commodity, this ARC, in some respects. You’ve seen it derived – it’s been derived from several places. It’s based on the fact that the material universe is as it is because we agree it is. That’s a fact – we do, we agree it is and we actually find out this is quite workable – where you have agreement, you have reality. And where you don’t have any agreement, you don’t have a reality. Nothing gets constructed or comes into existence that is not agreed upon.

Thee and me agree that there’s a chair up there on the stage and somebody comes in and he says it’s a horse and we promptly look at him and have him locked up or something of the sort (we probably wouldn’t here, we’d probably process him) but that’s what would normally happen in the society. Here would be a level of disagreement, disagreement is unreality.

You can’t have a communication without an affinity, you can’t have any affinity without an agreement on something, and so it goes.

 

(December 1951) Handbook for Preclears: The Second Act

Reality itself could be considered that on which Man AGREES to be real. There is an old, moth-chewed philosophic concern about perception. Are things real only when we see them? Or are things real? In other words, is there any reality. Well, desks and chairs seem very real to me. And they seem very real to you. Thus we AGREE that there are desks and chairs and people and cars and a world and the stars. SANE MEN HAVE A VERY SOLID AGREEMENT ON REALITY. They agree that things are real. Insane people have hallucinations. Hallucinations are imagined realities with which nobody else agrees. When an individual does not agree with the rest of the race upon the reality of matter, energy, space and time, the rest of the race locks him up. Ideas are not matter, energy, space or time and so there can be disagreement on ideas and agreement upon the reality of matter, energy, space and time. This agreement upon MEST, then, is reality. Reality could be said to be agreement above 2.0 on the tone scale, agreement not so much with people but with MEST’s actuality. This is one corner of our triangle.

 

(December 1951) Handbook for Preclears: Glossary

ENVIRONMENT. The surroundings of the pre-clear from moment to moment in particular or in general, including people, pets, mechanical objects, weather, culture, clothing or the Supreme Being. Anything he perceives or believes he perceives. The objective environment is the environment everyone agrees is there. The subjective environment is the environment the individual himself believes is there. They may not agree.

 

 (April 1955) Dianetics 55!: Chapter IV Accent On Ability

1. COMMUNICATION is the interchange of ideas or particles between two points. More precisely, the definition of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention and Attention and a duplication at Effect of what emanates from Cause.

2. REALITY is the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved between Cause and Effect. That which is real is real simply because it is agreed upon, and for no other reason.

3. AFFINITY is the relative distance and similarity of the two ends of a communication line. Affinity has in it a mass connotation. The word itself implies that the greatest affinity there could be would be the occupation of the same space, and this, by experiment, has become demonstrated. Where things do not occupy the same space their affinity is delineated by the relative distance and the degree of duplication.

 

(April 1955) The Creation of Human Ability: A Summary of Scientology

Scientology concludes and demonstrates certain truths. These truths might be considered to be the highest common denominators of existence itself.

The following summary of these truths has the aspect of precision observations rather than philosophic hazardings. When treated as precision observations, many results occur. When regarded as philosophic opinions, only more philosophy results. Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time. By this it is meant that an idea or opinion is, fundamentally, superior to space, energy, and time, or organizations of form, since it is conceived that space, energy, and time are themselves broadly agreed-upon considerations. That so many minds agree brings about Reality in the form of space, energy, and time. These mechanics, then, of space, energy, and time are the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life.

The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual’s freedom to alter his considerations of spacer energy, time, and forms of life and his roles in it. If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe, and barriers of his own creation. Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself, or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual.

1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

2. THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.

3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.

11. THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD:

(a) As-is-ness IS THE CONDITION OF IMMEDIATE CREATION WITHOUT PERSISTENCE, AND IS THE CONDITION OF EXISTENCE WHICH EXISTS AT THE MOMENT OF CREATION AND THE MOMENT OF DESTRUCTION, AND IS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN SURVIVAL.

(b) Alter-is-ness IS THE CONSIDERATION WHICH INTRODUCES CHANGE, AND THEREFORE TIME AND PERSISTENCE INTO AN As-is-ness TO OBTAIN PERSISTENCY.

(c) Is-ness IS AN APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONTINUOUS ALTERATION OF AN As-is-ness. THIS IS CALLED, WHEN AGREED UPON, REALITY.

(d) Not-is-ness IS THE EFFORT TO HANDLE Is-ness BY REDUCING ITS CONDITION THROUGH THE USE OF FORCE. IT IS AN APPARENCY AND CANNOT ENTIRELY VANQUISH AN Is-ness.

26. REALITY IS THE AGREED-UPON APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE.

27. AN ACTUALITY CAN EXIST FOR ONE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT WHEN IT IS AGREED WITH BY OTHERS IT CAN THEN BE SAID TO BE A REALITY.

The anatomy of Reality is contained in Is-ness, which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. Is-ness is an apparency, it is not an Actuality. The Actuality is As-isness altered so as to obtain a persistency. Unreality is the consequence and apparency of the practice of Not-is-ness.

 

 (April 1955) The Creation of Human Ability: SOP 8-C: THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT

There is no question here of whether space, energy or objects are real. Things are as real as one is certain of their reality. Reality is, here on Earth, AGREEMENT as to what is. This does not prevent barriers, or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. For one makes, by a process of continuous automatic duplication, all that one perceives. So much for theory — in application this theory obtains results of considerable magnitude in changing beingness.

 

 Use of Agreement as Reality in the Practice of Dianetics and Scientology

[08 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort”
Lecture: Axiom and Effort Processing

There was an Axiom in the First Book. You couldn’t have called it an Axiom, it was an observation. It said a person couldn’t be aberrated unless he agreed to it. You remember that? Well, this self-determinism is his agreement with it; that’s all there is to it.

Now, your auditor will find in a preclear these counter-efforts. And the preclear is madly holding a counter-effort out there. He’s been holding it out there for years. He’s agreeing with it. Agreeing with it puts him a little bit out of valence. (You’ll know why at the end of the week.) If he agrees with it he goes a little bit out of valence because he can’t be himself and agree with it because it will kill him if he’s himself. He has to disagree with it to be himself; but it’s put him into Apathy, so he can’t be himself.

This is very easy for you to find in the preclear. Take a look at your preclear and find a physical deformity or a psychosomatic illness and you’ve got a counter-effort-right there, bing! Either the preclear is bulged out at the spot to resist this counter-effort or he’s caved in at the point of the counter-effort.

Anyway, here is this counter-effort on any kind of a shoulder tumor or something like that. All you do is take the fellow’s self-determined effort off of it. First his effort to agree, because he’s in Apathy about it, otherwise it wouldn’t make a blemish on him. And then knock out his agreement, and make him disagree with it; reality will turn on in the sequence, you get him to present time, that’s all there is to it. If he went down past it on the track afterwards, he wouldn’t hit it.

 

[09 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort”
Lecture: Effort Processing Summary

There is an unfortunateness in association with Homo sapiens today and I will give you the trouble with it, very simply: Here you are with A-R-C. Now, that’s determined motion, interplay of understandings based on your experiences and data. That’s you-ARC-traveling at a certain velocity. And here’s they.

You go into Affinity with anybody, you’re agreeing with them, you have to communicate  with them. You go into agreement with anybody, you have to feel some Affinity, willy-nilly, one way or the other, and some Reality, you have to agree, see? You also have to have Communication.

All right. If you go into Communication with anybody, even though it’s way down the Tone Scale, so it’s, you might say, “en-Affinity,” enturbulated Affinity – it’s way down the Tone Scale — you’re still going to have to establish an Affinity with this individual and in addition to that, you’re going to agree with him. You answer a life’s entheta communication line and you have established a level of agreement.

 

[10 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort” Lecture: Theory of Epicenters

And agreement is just being oneself, to a large degree, with oneself. One goes out of communication with oneself and one isn’t in agreement with oneself and one isn’t oneself, then one doesn’t have any reality on oneself.

 

[December 1951] Handbook for Preclears: The Second Act

Here, then, is the second act. First achieve an understanding of the factors in understanding — ARC — contained in this section. Then answer these questions.

List the persons in your present time environment who enforce affinity on you.
List the persons in your present time environment who enforce AGREEMENT upon you.
List the persons in your present time environment who demand that you communicate with them.
List the persons in your present time environment who refuse your affection.
List the persons in your present time environment who won’t let you communicate with them.
List the persons in your present time environment who refuse to let you AGREE with them.

List persons in the past who insisted they were your friends. This is a variety of enforced affection.
List persons in the past who insisted you AGREE with them.
List persons in the past who insisted you communicate with them.
List persons in the past who would not show you affection.
List persons in the past who refused to communicate with you.
List persons in the past who would not let you AGREE on things.

 

[December 1951] Handbook for Preclears: The Eighth Act

Now emotion is emotion whether it is yours or anothers. Live around a person who is continually angry and you will begin to emotionally react toward that anger, for the anger seeks to stop you whatever you do. Live around a person who is afraid and you will pick up their fear and try to counteract it with emotion of your own, usually seeking to stop their flight. Or you can get into the unhappy state of duplicating their counter-emotion with your emotion. You do this whenever you agree with somebody. (The chief hole in light books which seek to win friends and influence people. They also make people ill eventually because of agreement on emotion.) Agree with an angry man and you’ll get angry too. Agree with an afraid man and you’ll get afraid. Agree with a man in grief and you’ll feel your own grief. And so on as covered in ARC in an earlier act.

 

[December 1951] Handbook for Preclears: The Twelfth Act

AGREEMENT: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO AGREE BUT DIDN’T WANT TO. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED OTHERS TO AGREE. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM AGREEING. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED OTHERS FROM AGREEING. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE GLAD TO AGREE.

COMMUNICATION: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO COMMUNICATE. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM COMMUNICATING. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED OTHERS TO COMMUNICATE. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED OTHERS FROM COMMUNICATING. TIMES WHEN YOU WANTED TO COMMUNICATE.

AFFINITY: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO LIKE SOMEBODY. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM LIKING SOMEBODY. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED ANOTHER TO LIKE YOU. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED ANOTHER FROM LIKING YOU. TIMES WHEN YOU DECIDED YOU LIKED SOMEBODY.

 

[April 1955] Dianetics 55!: Chapter XV ARC Processing

Modern ARC processing processes communication as given earlier in this volume. ARC processing includes the following powerful processes: (1) „Tell me something you might communicate with.“ „Tell me something that would communicate with you.“ (2) „What might you agree with?“ „What might agree with you?“ (3) „Tell me something you could like.“ „Tell me something that might like you.“ These are present time, not past or future processes. They produce very strong reactions. They solve very rough cases. They are summed up in a simple process which does not dispense with them: „Tell me something (someone) you could understand.“ „Tell me something (someone) who could understand you.“

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *