THE DYNAMIC PRINCIPLE OF EXISTENCE IS REASON
It is not survival, as many things exist but don’t survive. But everything that exists has a cause and a reason why it is thus and not otherwise.
THE DYNAMIC PRINCIPLE OF EXISTENCE IS REASON
It is not survival, as many things exist but don’t survive. But everything that exists has a cause and a reason why it is thus and not otherwise.
The definition of clear is clear: A THETAN WHO CAN BE AT CAUSE KNOWINGLY AND AT WILL OVER MENTAL MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME.
What is less clear is how all this applies in the dreamworld. Dreaming is a mental activity, which can take place in more or less conscious modes. Mostly we don’t remember but when we do it’s obvious we had a whole world consisting of mental matter, energy, space and time in front of us.
But…
Were we at cause knowingly and at will creating the dream? If so we would have been engaged in what is known as ‘lucid dreaming’. This is the dream state where one wakes up in the dream and takes control of what’s going on.
How can one be Clear without being able to do lucid dreaming? Why was this never part of Scientology? Overlooked? What else is overlooked in Scientology?
Copyright © MGT International Foundation, 2021
Analytical mathematical reasoning (dianoia).
Discursive thinking, proceeding by reasoning or argument rather than intuition.
Consciousness and awareness are two different things; just as perception is not the same as consciousness. Consciousness is also often confused with sentience. Sentience is the capacity to be aware of feelings and sensations. Sentience and awareness we share with the animal world, consciousness is not available to animals as it requires sort of a ‘double take’, a ‘thought about thought’ modus and may even require language to develop and exchange concepts.
In Scientology consciousness is adequately described in the concepts of the thetan, the analytical mind and awareness of awareness unit. Awareness is mostly perceptual experience, it exists in many forms such as sense perceptions, the experience of art, in meditation and Buddhist mindfulness. Percepts depend on the concepts of space and time, as without those one cannot hear or see. Consciousness requires concepts and thought about concepts, even hierarchies of concepts, it’s meta-awareness. It’s also referred to as apperception, in more scientific or philosophical circles.
Hubbard in Scientology, often fails to distinguish between these two concepts and defines consciousness as awareness and awareness as perception:
CONSCIOUSNESS,
1. awareness of now. (DTOT, p.24)
2. consciousness is awareness. Awareness itself is perception. (2ACC-8B, 5311CM24)
AWARENESS
1. the ability to perceive the existence of (HCOB 4 January 1973)
2. awareness itself is perception (2ACC-8B 5311CM24)
ref. Dianetics and Scientology TECHNICAL DICTIONARY
THETA IS REASON
REASON IS MATHEMATICS
LIFE IS BASICALLY MATHEMATICS
That is basically what I am trying to say in my book ‘Critique of Pure Scientology’. Hubbard was so close but missed this final step in the puzzle which is that mathematics is underlying the considerations and postulates. Mathematics determines what is considerable.
ref. Phoenix Lectures
ARC-1: Affinity, Reality and Communication= Experience
ARC is what we have in common with animals, we can experience things love, agree and observe, we can communicate with things and thus experience them. ARC has to do with the phenomenal world.
ARC-2: Actuality plus Reasoning and Concepts = Understanding
Actuality, not ‘scientological reality’ is accessible through reason and leads to concepts which all together leads to understanding. Understanding goes deeper than surface reality, or appearances it goes into why things are what they are. ARC has to do with the noumenal world of ideas and theta (reason, mathematics) itself.
To understand something it is not enough to merely perceive it, although noting the existence of that something, ought to be part of it. Something can be an idea or an object, in other words mental or physical. Let’s consider the case of objects first.
To fully understand something you have to know what it is and also where, when, how and why it is. The latter amounts to grasping the reason for its existence. What it is, is a matter of identification and definition. It amounts to correct categorization. Where and when is a matter of locating it in spacetime.
One could see an object and practically immediately state with some certainty that this is a radio. You have perceived it and could place it in a category of things already understood to some degree. To some degree, is stated advisedly as one could categorize the object correctly without understanding how it actually works which would be part of full understanding. Thus we have degrees of understanding. Full understanding would embrace all the constituents listed in the second paragraph above.
Concepts and percepts
There are concepts and percepts (sense messages). We can’t have percepts without concepts, we can’t have percepts without communication, we can’t have communication without space. Something like ‘honesty’ is a concept, not a percept. You can try as much as you like but can’t really see ‘honesty’. If we could our world would have looked differently. Without the concept of space, there would be no percepts. Thus concepts are senior. Percepts have a mechanical communication aspect and concepts do not.
Concepts can exist independent of observation, whereas percepts are the direct result of observation. So we might say that there are two types of understanding, a priori understanding and a posteriori understanding.
Understanding ideas
In the case of ideas the matter is simple. The only requisite to understanding ideas is to be able to define them and relate them to other ideas. One might say as Hubbard did that the degree of understanding depends on how much relationship one can give it to other ideas. {EVALUATION OF DATA, a datum is as understood as it can be related to other data. (SOS Gloss)}
ARC and experience
Experience is defined (Merriam Webster) as the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality.
When you experience something you are at the effect end of a communication. You duplicate whatever was steered in your direction. Experiencing life and things involve ARC. Hubbard defined communication as the operation, the action by which one experiences emotion and by which one agrees. In another context he defined it as the interchange of perceptions through the material universe between organisms. Experience thus can be considered, the duplication of that which emanated from the source point, but it is more than that. The experience also implies that you have an attitude or a feeling about that what’s been duplicated. Also the fact that you may agree or disagree with it plays a role. So here we have it A+R+C=Experiential Understanding one could say. Not necessarily conceptual understanding, quod erat demonstrandum. ARC does not always equal understanding.
1. Before the beginning and forever there is nothing.
2. And the entire secret is that nothing did not, not exist.
3. Nothing existed.
4. And the nothing was called zero, an ontological zero.
5. It is immaterial and exists beyond space-time.
Thus had no beginning and no end, thus eternal
6. It was dimensionless (a mathematical point)
Just like Descartes said: mind has no extension
7. In other words the zero is the domain of the mind.
8. In the nothing are the numbers equating to zero.
(-∞ – 0) + (0 – ∞) = 0
9. All mathematical equations balance to zero.
10. Zero is the singularity as nothing existed before the Big Bang.
11. Zero is an existential plenitude of infinite potentials.
12. Implicit in the singularity zero is an infinity of zeroes.
There is no reason why there would not be an infinity of zeroes, if one zero already implies infinity, it follows that zero must contain an infinity of zeroes.
13. The physical universe stems from these mathematical points but have
® > 0. A mathematical point is a circle with radius ® zero, between zero and infinity we find the physical world.
14. The ground state or native state of the singularity is an infinite potential for knowledge.
15. And this goes for each of the zeroes which are all alive and sentient.
16. The zeroes evolve from sentience to intelligence and self-consciousness.
17. The evolution goes from full potential to full actualization.
18. The mind (zero domain) processes information (sinusoidal waves, or higher dimensional vortices) (numbers) to then experience that information as feelings, sensations, perceptions, adventures etc. in space-time.
“AXIOM 12.
THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF ANY UNIVERSE IS THAT TWO SPACES, ENERGIES, OR OBJECTS MUST NOT OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE. WHEN THIS CONDITION IS VIOLATED (PERFECT DUPLICATE) THE APPARENCY OF ANY UNIVERSE OR ANY PART THERE-OF IS NULLED.”
Not that I have any trucking with Daniel Dennett but he would label the foregoing statement as deepity*. Perfect duplication as defined above by L. Ron Hubbard is by definition impossible. A condition by definition is a requirement. The absence of perfect duplication is said to be a requirement for any universe. Perfect duplication is not allowed in a physical universe, thus two spaces, energies or object can never occupy the same space. It is the law (condition) of the physical universe.
This means it can never be violated. Then it is meaningless to say that the impossible act of perfect duplication results in the disappearance of that which cannot be perfectly duplicated.
The closest physics comes to anything like perfect duplication is in the area of bosons which can occupy the same quantum state. In that case however there is no disappearance.
Perfect duplication is without a doubt possible as a purely mathematical operation and is only perfect in mathematics. Duplication just means two times the same, such as 2 x 1. In that case there is no disappearance either. But when one takes 1 – 1 , now we have zero and an actual disappearance one could say. So Hubbard was close but not as exact as one would expect from a mathematician.
See also Critique of Pure Scientology, the book which will revolutionize scientology.
* A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial.
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.