Category Archives: Scientology

ACTUAL GPMs

Posted on by
3

There is no such thing. The idea of an actual GPM line plot is based on the belief that a goal always leads to its opposition. There ain’t such a thing as ‘earlier goals being dramatized’, there is only one particular goal being pursued in the present time. Earlier goals may exist as memory, but not as actualization. There may be opposition but not necessarily from the same being. There are actual goals and the possible resistance to those from other beings with goals. There are three scenarios: goals supporting other goals, goals countering other goals and goals not affecting other goals.

The subject of goals is in fact the same subject as the ‘dynamic principle of existence’ or the basic motivation of a being. The basic motivation of a being was precisely identified by Nietzsche, it is the Will to Power [refer ethics conditions] and this may be the one goal that all beings have in common, regardless of the individualized versions of this basic goal.

G. FILBERT’S IDEOSYNCRACY

Posted on by
Reply

I think Filbert was the first scientologist to double the number of dynamics up to 16 dynamics way beyond the eighth dynamic of infinity. These so called upper dynamics are simply variations or parts of the seventh or spiritual dynamic. As LRH said anything spiritual with or without identity would come under the heading of the seventh dynamic. The highest dynamic in Scientology is a boundary called infinity which nothing can surpass. Higher dynamics are mentioned en passant and jocularly as in the ninth dynamic: the buck; these were never part of the Scientology system of dynamics.

Thus what Filbert calls dynamics 9 -16 – aestetics, ethics, decency, truth, awareness, individuality, coexistence and theta that is not being – all belong to the seventh dynamic.

His idea was that the upper dynamics rule and produce the junior dynamics. ‘Theta that is not being’ as the highest dynamic would imply that the universe has arisen out of non-existence, now renamed theta, which is impossible.

THE Q REVISITED

Posted on by
Reply

“Survival is our past Q. we were operating from “life is survival”: goal of life is to survive. to survive employs space and time. and that word survival, by the way, evaluates this life, it evaluates most things. but it doesn’t evaluate everything. the thing it doesn’t evolve is all universes, because you don’t have to base a universe on the tenet survival. you can have an instantaneous universe which has no time in it. hence the word survival was betrayed.

“Now, what is this other Q? we’ve had two or three, by the way: there was this survival and then there was the higher level of self-determinism as beingness. and now we have the Q of self-determinism defined.

“Q simply means the most common datum that sums all other data and the point from which we are operating. It does not say there is no higher point. It does not say that point does not exist.”

LRH, Introduction: The Q List and Beginning of Logics.

The new and higher Q [2022]:

The highest common denominator of all of existence is: existential mathematics, the mathematics of thought underlying all mind and matter.

“There is the mathematical reality of this platonic world which gives reality to these notions, so if you like, mathematical facts like there is no largest prime number is eh.. it’s something independent of ourselves it’s always been true it doesn’t, didn’t somehow become true as soon as someone seems to prove it, it’s always been true…”

In the philosophical discussion about whether mathematics is human invention or whether it is discovered, Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose is on the side of discovery.

Sir Roger Penrose https://youtu.be/ujvS2K06dg4

THE REAL TOP LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE

Posted on by
Reply

“The first is what we’re going to call the Q list. There’s nothing in mathematics even vaguely approaching this: “Q” MEANS THE TOP LEVEL FROM WHICH WE ARE NOW WORKING – THE TOP LEVEL FROM WHICH WE’RE NOW WORKING; THE HIGHEST ECHELON FROM WHICH ALL OTHER THINGS ARE DERIVED. KNOWLEDGE IS A PYRAMID, AND KNOWLEDGE AS A PYRAMID GETS ITSELF A COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH EVALUATES ALL OTHER DATA BELOW IT.

“And the Q from which we’re operating now evaluates all the data in the material universe. “Q1. THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL LIFE IMPULSES IS SELF-DETERMINISM. “ LRH, INTRODUCTION: THE Q LIST AND BEGINNING OF LOGICS,10 November 1952.

The problem with all this is that life and self-determinism do not apply to the physical material universe. The other problem is that not all life is self-determining, plants and animals are run by instinct rather than self determination, which requires a self and self-consciousness.

New Q

The top Q, the actual common denominator of all existence, which evaluates all data, is mathematics.

TIME

Posted on by
Reply

Is time needed to have motion or change? Not according to axiom 11 as the moment of creation coincides with the moment of destruction, which involves a drastic change from creation to destruction but outside of space and time.

(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.

WHY ARC DOES NOT EQUATE TO UNDERSTANDING

Posted on by
Reply

“Understand: To have a clear and true idea or conception, or full and exact knowledge, of something. In general it may be said that understand refers to the result of a mental process or processes (a clear and exact idea or notion, or full knowledge).”

HCO BULLETIN OF 7 SEPTEMBER 1974 SUPERLITERACY AND THE CLEARED WORD

First of all note that the definition of ARC or Communication does not include any thought process.

ARC (loosely defined) is a transfer of an impulse or particle – with some attendant affinity and reality (agreement) – from one point in space to another which produces whatever experience corresponds to that impact.

It will always be a particular experience. In order to become an understanding it would have to be generalized or given a position in a larger more universal context or it will never add up to understanding. Concepts which are key to understanding, imply universals and thought processes.

In other words understanding will need reason, logic and thought (mathematics) to manifest.

The above gives rise to two different triads:

Affinity+Reality (agreement)+Communication = EXPERIENCE

Reason+Logic+Thought (Mathematics) = UNDERSTANDING

This must be corrected in scientology, if it is to last at all. Hubbard was too much married to empiricism which is shown by the above. One can also see that in his writing on ‘Logics’ as was pointed out about a year ago in the book ‘Critique of Pure Scientology’.

MATHEMATICS, EITHER OR

Posted on by
Reply

If mathematics is a creation of the mind or of the thetan, it could be changed by the thetan. However never has a thetan changed any mathematics. On the contrary we thetans discover mathematics. This means that mathematics precedes the thetan or is the thetan. Take your pick…

I choose the latter, for if mathematics preceded the thetan, then mathematics would have produced thetans. If thetans exist outside of spacetime and are eternal and necessary then mathematics exists in them or is native to them. Thus know thyself, would eventually reveal mathematics.

LRH was close to understanding this, he said in a lecture on ARC and the Tonescale: “There is no difference between mathematics and thinking. Mathematics is merely another term for precise thinking.”  He also identified Theta as the arche, the fundamental substance of the universe. Theta is reason and it speaks the language of mathematics.

LRH 2.0 IRRATIONALITY

Posted on by
Reply

Lafayette states that a static is an energy production and conversion unit capable of manifesting electromagnetic phenomena without physical characteristics.

He is obviously ignoring the fact that a static is defined as having no motion, no energy, no wavelength. There are however no electromagnetic phenomena without wavelength. This is doubly contradictory.

He could save the day by using the term ‘theta motor’ instead of static as I have suggested earlier. https://xscn.mgtconcepts.com/?p=667  If it wasn’t for the crappy formulation there might even be some truth in what he is saying.