Category Archives: Critique of Pure Scientology

Articles and additional material addressing the same subject as the book: Critique of Pure Scientology

CRITIQUE OF PURE SCIENTOLOGY

Posted on by

eBook and paperback (color+black&white) now available from Amazon!! https://tinyurl.com/y36s8jh7

The book ‘Critique of Pure Scientology’ has finally been published and is now available on Amazon. For the independent field this will perhaps be a shocker in that it reveals basic flaws in the philosophical structure of Hubbardian Scientology. On the positive side it also contains some new breakthrough material.

It’s a non-linear book analyzing and critiquing scientology philosophically, scientifically and logically. It is a serious and in-depth look at the subject, not a super-duper anti-Hubbard, anti-scientology tirade.

It examines in detail the psychological and metaphysical contents of the subject of scientology as presented in the original materials, not necessarily as presented by the Church of Scientology. It is different from the approach of certain new religion scholars, theologians and sociologists from different academia who tend to examine scientology as a social phenomenon.

It should be of interest to scientologists, ex-scientologists and those who have followed the media in the US and elsewhere, who now want to know more about the actual contents and beliefs. Scientology we believe was an attempt to create a sort of ‘theory of everything’.

We cover the scientology axioms, logics, and its theory of the mind, its origins, earlier and similar efforts and place it in a historical science and science fiction context. One of the things that showed up is that the subject actually contains a certain hitherto unrecognized mathematical substructure, related to zero and infinity.

The author has been personally involved with scientology and the book is his complete re-evaluation of the ethics, rationale, beliefs and mathematics of scientology. In fact it may be the first time an ex-scientologist has scrutinized the subject using scientology itself, its own logics and generally acknowledged philosophical views. The result will be most likely surprising–if not outright shocking–for scientologists and ex-scientologists alike.

Scientology Axiom 28

Posted on by

When I was first introduced into Scientology, in 1970, the lecturer told us what communication was: It was the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from a source point across a distance to a receipt point with the intention of creating at the receipt point a duplication of what emanated from the source point. Later I found out that this was a fundamental axiom of Scientology.

AXIOM 28. COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF COMPELLING 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.

and I learned it by heart. It lasted from 1954 till 1973. It made sense in view of the definition of understanding as given in AXIOM 21. UNDERSTANDING IS COMPOSED OF AFFINITY, REALITY, AND COMMUNICATION.

Thus one had a duplication and together with agreement and alignment to what one already knew plus the necessary affinity to provide the willingness to receive the impulse or particle it added up to understanding. Let’s say the particle was a letter and reading (duplicating) it one would consult agreed upon meanings of words (reality) and like or dislike the contents (affinity) and all three components in swing would result in understanding. We called it the ARC triangle and everything was fine.

Then there was a revision, as follows.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1973R
REVISED 24 SEPTEMBER 1980

Remimeo
HAS Course                                                                                                                    (Revision to include the full list of the component parts of Communication)

AXIOM 28 AMENDED

AXIOM 28.

COMMUNICATION 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 AND UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE-POINT.

The formula of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention, Attention and Duplication WITH UNDERSTANDING.

The component parts of the full Communication cycle are:
Observation, Confront, Consideration, Intention, Attention, Cause, Source-point, Particle or Impulse or Message, Distance, Estimation of Distance, Control (Start, Change, Stop), Direction, Time, and Timing, the Velocity of the impulse or particle or message, Volume, Clarity, Interest, Impingement, Effect, Receipt-point, Duplication, Answer, Acknowledgment, Understanding,  Nothingness or Somethingness.

A non-communication consists of Barriers. Barriers consist of Space, Interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast-moving particles), and Time. A communication by definition, does not need to be two-way.

When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source-point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt-point.

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

LRH:dr

It was an instant ARC Break in that I duplicated the communication from the bulletin but without understanding. There was no reason given for the change, no reality. And affinity lacking as I never had a problem with the axiom as given originally. Also there was no LRH lecture explaining it.

Note that this revision was given without any explanation or justification even though that would have been warranted due to the fact that the implication of this amended axiom was that any consistency of the axioms was thereby destroyed.

If communication by itself now results in understanding why bother with affinity and reality. In particular reality would play a role in creating understanding.

Another consequence of this amendment was that it threw the axiomatic definition of communication out of alignment with other definitions such as for example given in Scn 8-8008: “An interchange of energy from one beingness to another in the thetan and in Homo Sapiens, communication is known as perception. P21.

And perception does not equate to understanding.

Word Clearing Method One Outpoints & Half Truth

Posted on by

Method 1 Word Clearing was the first method developed in the early seventies. It has some basic assumptions which we will examine here. The method consists of assessing a list of subjects and asking for misunderstood words in these subjects. It was a further development of what was known in the sixties as Remedy B. But unlike these remedies–which were mere assist actions–word clearing was ritualized in 1972.

See also the article ‘Word Clearing  Rituals’ . Remedy B was an assist done where needed. Method 1 was a generalized procedure for everyone.

Assumptions

Regardless of whether these are valid or true we list the assumptions:

Method 1 assumes that everyone has misunderstoods and holes in their education.

Method 1 assumes that that a reading subject contains misunderstood words. One of the subjects listed is for example sex and who knows whether it reads on slang word, a withhold or a hidden desire.

Method 1 assumes that a misunderstood word on the list of subjects, is also a subject that contains misunderstood words.

Method 1 assumes there must be chains of words in a reading subject.

Outpoints

There is no check in Method 1 to be sure that the read on the subject is the same as the read on the misunderstood word.

Method 1 omits the essential step to achieve the proclaimed EP–recovery of one’s education–which would be to restudy the subject after the misunderstoods have been cleared.

It also violates the principle of ‘inspection before the fact’, as there may be someone who does not need their education recovered.

Outpoints are often what is omitted. The biggest omission is the role of false data contained in a subject. How can you clear an education or a subject without taking this aspect into account?

The standard procedure when getting a read on a subject would have been to ask about the subject to see what the read was on. Then if it concerned difficulties with the subject or confusions about it or anything pointing to the presence of misunderstood words one would be asking for a misunderstood word in the subject.

False attests

The proclamation that Method One Word Clearing leads to the recovery of one’s education is a half truth at best due to omitting the re-study requirement. To require the student to attest to: “Recovery of one’s education” without this, is setting the stage for dishonesty.  

Earlier Tech

The earlier remedies A & B did not suffer from these outpoints, see the 1964 bulletin on Definitions Processing. Despite these outpoints many people report great wins and results, but where it goes sour, the above may be the reasons.

References

HCO B 12 Nov. 1964  DEFINITION PROCESSES

HCOB 30 June 71RC I1 Rev. 3.3.89 Word Clearing Series 8RC STANDARD C/S FOR WORD CLEARING IN SESSION METHOD ONE

HCO PL OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1979RB Word Clearing Series 34
METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING