DIRECTED MOTION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPT POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE- POINT.
Examples: Flying from Moscow to New York, sending an SMS to a friend.
Volume II of ‘Critique of Pure Scientology’ is in the making. It will complement and take up several subjects which have not been adequately covered in the first volume. It will also present an exciting alternative that does away with all the nonsense in Scientology and yet preserves what was valuable.
So far no Scientologist or ex-scientologist has been able to disapprove the main tenets of the Critique.
The Scientology Code of Honor is touted to be an ethical code rather than a moral code. Ethics in Scientology is supposed to be rationality. Morals are mere agreements to guarantee the survival of a group. We will analyze the rationality of this code here:
1. “Never desert a comrade in need, in danger or in trouble.”
Standing by one’s friends is generally considered the more honorable and sometimes heroic path. This rule serves to protect a group of two people who are bound by some agreement. The realities of life and living teach us that people can change and a comrade can turn into an enemy as in classic betrayal. The never is an absolute denying the very possibility of exceptions and could easily lead to irrational decisions. There may be situations where not deserting a comrade in danger, will lead to doubling the mortality. What if he went crazy? If the comrade is wounded and close to death and transport ain’t possible, to not desert the comrade maybe suicidal rather than rational.
2. “Never withdraw allegiance once granted.”
Allegiance historically meant the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord and came to mean the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government, as in I pledge allegiance to my country. More generally it means devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause. This rule’s intention is obviously to safeguard the integrity of a group, organization or project.
But what if you came to realize that the organization you have been a member of for years, was not what it appeared to be? People frequently join clubs, political parties, fraternities, and religions without fully knowing what they’re getting into. Oftentimes, these groups’ purposes and policies aren’t made available to new newbies. Change of leadership, takeovers and other developments may necessitate that one abandons such groups.
3. “Never desert a group to which you owe your support.”
One may indeed have solemnly promised to support a particular group forever, but groups change and at some point one may have to ask whether the group is still worthy of support. In the absence of such alertness and regular re-evaluation one can easily get trapped. So, the ‘never’ is contra survival. Besides why would you owe your support? Is it because you signed a contract 15 years ago? The reasonable thing to do is to support a group as long as it is worth supporting. I had signed a Sea Org contract in 1972 and found out much later that that group no longer lived up to its principles as I had understood them, so I quit.
4. “Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power.”
That makes sense. The rule is expressed in the negative, better still would be a positive rule, for example always try to increase your understanding, strength and power.
5. “Never need praise, approval or sympathy.”
This may not be very workable in case you try to get support from others, for a project or enterprise. Let’s say you are an actor like Tom Cruise, you would not be very successful without the ingredients of praise and approval. The same goes for politicians and leaders in general. Especially the ‘never’ makes this an unworkable rule. A better positive rule would be: Always do your projects, so well that they only deserve praise and approval.
6. “Never compromise with your own reality.”
There is no such thing as your ‘own’ reality, things are either real or don’t exist. This is a scientology corruption of the concept of reality. Scientology considers reality, like maya just apparency. See axiom 11.
What is meant here in Scientology is ‘never compromise with your own conception of reality’. This is not very workable either as your conception of reality may be false or incomplete and in need of correction.
7. “Never permit your affinity to be alloyed.”
This is often being violated by Scientologists who disconnect from their children, parents or other family members or friends. I have not heard a word from two of my daughters, over the last 20 years, who disconnected from me, for no other reason than me publicly demanding a reformation of Scientology.
As a rule, it does not work for the very simple reason that affinity (emotion) is for a major part an automatic reaction and is not always under one’s control, thus it is not a matter of permission. I simply cannot help that my affinity for two of my daughters was greatly reduced, when they refused to talk to me.
8. “Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it.”
If you are a member of a group or society you better stay in communication with the members of that group, if you wish to survive. Giving and receiving communication has nothing to do with your private desires or preferences. It is part of life; living is exchanging information. Communication is too important to make it dependent on personal desires.
“Children should be seen and not heard.” is the attempt by some parents to enforce this rule on children. If you are in business and a potential customer asks a difficult question you may not desire to answer that, but if you don’t, it is probably to your detriment. You may ignore the alarm bells going off as you do not desire to receive such communications.
When asked by the judge or official for an explanation or asked a question by a police officer you better ignore your desires and answer up. Your neighbor asks for help, you may not desire it but it is usually very pro-survival to extend a little help.
“It is not doing the thing we like to do, but liking the thing we have to do, that makes life blessed.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Such a rule may also be used as a justification to withhold certain data, to not be found out, or to commit any sort of overt of omission. People unable to confront or being emotionally disturbed by certain communications could easily use such a rule to withdraw from certain situations they ought to confront. In short, the rule as stated is unworkable.
9. “Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life.”
Many martyrs such as a Giordano Bruno have understood and heroically followed this principle.
A very literal interpretation though can lead to the following: there was a Jewish custom with regard to sandal straps. According to the Talmud, if the gentile authorities were to decree that Jews must change their practice and wear sandal straps like those worn by the gentiles, one would be obligated to give up his life rather than veer from the accepted custom.
10. “Your integrity to yourself is more important than your body.”
True! You and your body are two levels of existence, you in the spiritual and the body in the physical domain.
11. “Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today and you make your tomorrow.”
Yes! Life is always, now.
12. “Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.”
Medical doctors and surgeons should not fear to do their job and neither should anybody else if hurting someone is the reasonable thing to do or the consequence thereof.
13. “Don’t desire to be liked or admired.”
This has nothing to do with honor. See under #5.
14. “Be your own adviser, keep your own counsel and select your own decisions.”
Yes, be self-determined. This omits the fact that it might be very helpful to listen to others’ advice and viewpoints.
15. “Be true to your own goals.”
Sure, all within reason.
See also https://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientologys-code-of-honor/
The following is a tentative alternative. A code of honor based on theta=reason:
A Code of Honor – based on reason.
Honor: The state of being ethical, honest, noble, virtuous, and magnanimous; excellence of character; dignity.
Reason: ability to think and make judgments, reason implies self-determination, order and harmony. Rationality.
1.Know that everything happens for a reason.
2.Always try to find the actual reason, however difficult that may be.
3.Always ask why? how? what does it mean? and how do you know?
4.Don’t let your emotions overcome your reason, within reason.
5.Don’t under- or overestimate your own ability, strength or power.
6.Now is the only time you can change something.
7.Be autonomous and true to your own goals.
8.Always keep your information lines open.
9.Dare to state the truth regardless of consequences.
10.Support free speech and insist on the right to criticize unreason.
11.Integrate new information only after understanding.
12.Always aim for the highest level of truth.
13.Always be intolerant towards the intolerance of others.
14.Your self-determination and your honor are more important than your body.
15.Always aim for high quality in your life, achievements and performances.
There was a fatal omission in Hubbard’s organizational policy. What he did was brilliant to create a Department of Correction also known as Qualification. What he missed was establishing a devil’s advocate section. In name there was a product called org correction, but only in name. Missing was innovation and critical examination across the boards. Unlike Queen Elizabeth, Hubbard had no court jester, who could tell him the unsweetened truth and critique. The only one who seemed to have come closest to such a function was Geoffrey Filbert, in the sixties. No one was actively taking an all encompassing active, critical examination of the org, its policies, its tech and its possible corruption, dishonesty. The key word is criticism, criticism in general was frowned upon, being understood as a symptom of withholds and overts. The one missing function was constructive criticism.
If constructive criticism had been institutionalized a scientology dictator like Miscavige would not have been possible.
Perhaps we ought to use the word critique rather than criticism in the context of this essay.
Critique is a method of disciplined, systematic study of a written or oral discourse. Although critique is commonly understood as fault finding and negative judgment,[1] it can also involve merit recognition, and in the philosophical tradition it also means a methodical practice of doubt.[1] The contemporary sense of critique has been largely influenced by the Enlightenment critique of prejudice and authority, which championed the emancipation and autonomy from religious and political authorities.[1]
The term critique derives, via French, from Ancient Greek κριτική (kritikē), meaning “the faculty of judgment”, that is, discerning the value of persons or things.[2] – Wikipedia
Org correction and evaluations were based on existing policies and primary assumptions and would never bow to examine and systematically question basic beliefs. If we start from a basic such as THETA which is REASON then it would be quite reasonable to subject and scrutinize anything at all by the use of reason. Others have realized the importance of criticism:
Internal criticism
A threat rather than a resource: why voicing internal criticism is difficult in international organizations Ben ChristianJournal of International Relations and Development (2021)
“…internal criticism is ambivalent—it can be both a resource and a threat to IOs. Its suppression or avoidance may thus not only be dysfunctional for the organisation (impeding organisational learning processes) but also functional (protecting external reputation and preserving internal stability).
“One thing is clear: voicing internal criticism is demanding and challenging—and must therefore be organised. Brave ‘exceptional individuals’ (Autesserre 2014: 43) are undoubtedly important, but their influence remains limited so long as they are lone warriors. Thus, leadership, senior managers, and rank-and-file employees must work together to actively create conditions that encourage the expression of internal criticism—both in terms of the general criticism culture and with regard to innovative structures and formats.“
Link to article https://rdcu.be/cBodIhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41268-021-00244-w
Constructive criticism is like free speech a requirement for a healthy organization, society or group. Thus organizations should establish and add to the org boards, criticism and innovation sections in the correction department. The purpose of the criticism section is to assume the worst about the organization and to do everything, to expose corruption, incompetence and malpractice. But it should not even be limited to that, it should be free to question and doubt anything in particular basic assumptions. In HCOB of 9 June 1960 THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENTOLOGY VERSUS OVERTS LRH freely criticizes some of the basic assumptions of physics, Freudian psychology and psychiatry and shows pride in the fact that scientology at least has inspected its own assumption points.
To understand how the artist felt, however, is not criticism; criticism is an investigation of what the work is good for. … Criticism … is a serious and public function; it shows the race assimilating the individual, dividing the immortal from the mortal part of a soul. [George Santayana, “The Life of Reason,” 1906]
One of the reasons this type of criticism was never encouraged or further developed in scientology is that disagreements and pointing out contradictions in Hubbard’s writings, policies or thoughts were frowned upon and generally considered symptoms of misunderstanding or even misunderstood words.
Dialectics
Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ; related to dialogue; German: Dialektik), also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation.
Dialectics and critique are related in the sense that both are exposing different if not opposite viewpoints on a subject. My ‘Critique of Pure Scientology’ provides many a dialectical response to several of Hubbard’s pronunciamentos, assumptions and axioms.
Hubbard states that ‘man is basically good’ as the antithesis to Freud’s view of man as innately evil (Homo Homini Lupus (man is a wolf to man)). A synthesis would be that man is innately neither good nor evil but intent on increasing hers power which can be done in good or evil ways.
Hubbard proudly announces his 1970 breakthrough in logic:
“I have found a way now to unlock this subject [logic]. This is a breakthrough which is no small win. If by it a formidable and almost impossible subject can be reduced to simplicity, then correct answers to situations can be far more frequent and an organization or a civilization far more effective.
“The breakthrough is a simple one.
“BY ESTABLISHING THE WAYS IN WHICH THINGS BECOME ILLOGICAL, ONE CAN THEN ESTABLISH WHAT IS LOGIC.
“In other words, if one has a grasp of what makes things illogical or irrational (or crazy, if you please) it is then possible to conceive of what makes things logical.”
What he must have overlooked though is the fact that to establish the ways in which things become illogical, one must have established already what is logical.
“The ability to perceive the world around one and the ability to draw accurate conclusions about it are, to all intents, the same thing.
“Glasses are a symptom of the decline of consciousness.” Hubbard, NSOL, 75/76
This is empiricism pure and invalidates the very essence of consciousness which is to be self aware and being self aware one has meta-perception and can think things over and evaluate. Evaluation is not part of perception. Drawing conclusions are processes of logic and reason, not perception.
Same with glasses they have nothing to do with consciousness. All these professors with glasses do not in the least suffer from lack of consciousness. Hubbard confuses awareness or sentience with consciousness as has been pointed out already.
“The soul through all her being is immortal, for that which is ever in motion is immortal; but that which moves another and is moved by another, in ceasing to move ceases also to live.
Only the self-moving, never leaving self, never ceases to move, and is the fountain and beginning of motion to all that moves besides. Now, the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; but the beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of something, then the begotten would not come from a beginning. But if unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything out of a beginning; and all things must have a beginning.
And therefore the self-moving is the beginning of motion; and this can neither be destroyed nor begotten, else the whole heavens and all creation would collapse and stand still, and never again have motion or birth. But if the self-moving is proved to be immortal, he who affirms that self-motion is the very idea and essence of the soul will not be put to confusion. For the body which is moved from without is soulless; but that which is moved from within has a soul, for such is the nature of the soul. But if this be true, must not the soul be the self-moving, and therefore of necessity unbegotten and immortal?”
Plato – Phaedrus
Life is energy, is motion and is also in-formation. Life is mind and soul and always in motion. The motion is expressed by thought in the mental sphere. All this occurs both in and outside of spacetime. Everything is in motion whether in the physical world or in the mental world.
Theta in Scientology is defined as life energy, thought, spirit, soul even divine energy and it is also surprisingly defined as ‘static’. The latter was perhaps Hubbard’s biggest goof, as thought, everyone who has ever tried to do TR 0 knows, is all but static.
Hubbard believed that everything not in spacetime must be devoid of motion. If Hubbard were right and life were static, how could it ever communicate with MEST which is all motion?
Zero is not merely a static. What’s static is the boundary. Zero is the static boundary containing a dynamic infinity, all potential that can eventually be de-fined.
To say, like Hubbard does, that life is a static is falsely equating life with the zero boundary condition. In fact life consists of an infinite variety of motion. The motion of thought is basic but is transformed into physical motion through spacetime.
Zero is the ground state of the universe, it is not non-existence which would not have any properties at all, so nothing could be said about it. Zero is the container of infinity and infinity contains all frequencies and if you add them together all the plus and the minus, the real and imaginary numbers you get zero. Σ (x1+x2+…xn )=0 where xn is any and all existents.
A zero dimensional, infinite energy unit, capable of producing subjective spacetime and contributing some of its internal energy to the physical universe, also known as a monad, or singularity.
Earlier this term was defined as a static, denying its internal energy or motion. It was also limited to space production and omitted time. The corrected definition incorporates theta as life energy which is not physical and not produced by the thetan but is an intrinsic part of its mathematical zero/infinity constitution. That life energy can then be transformed into physical energy which is a collective product of all thetans. It also modernizes the definition to include the Einsteinian concept of spacetime.