The whole track is a concatenation of unreason or entheta, which you imagine you have to confront again. You lived through it all. Why bother going through it all again? Why confront what was already confronted?
Why not study reason instead? Reason is pure theta and is not contaminated with entheta. The study of reason is mathematics, so get in your basic numeracy, then become super-numerate.
ref. See also https://xscn.mgtconcepts.com/?p=481
In Scientology we are completely aware of chains of incidents which always have their basics. This stands out with complete certainty. So why wouldn’t there also be chains of ideas and wouldn’t these also have their basics.
The question for Scientology then becomes: “What is the basic of some complex of ideas?” and “ What is the basic basic of all ideas?”
Such questions have not been asked at all and they should be. Hubbard went so far as to end the discussion with the following words – in the Phoenix Lectures:
“If anyone is confused on the subject it is because consideration is consideration and all things are a consideration of the consideration so that if you consider something which is considerable, why — you have considered it.”
So he just considered consideration to be the basic basic of everything contingent, without ever asking what is the basic consideration.
The ancient Greeks were fascinated with the concept of the arche. The arche was the most basic substance which would be the foundation of everything else. Thus Thales came up with water, and Anaximander with infinity and Heraclitus with fire. For the atomists it was atoms and so forth.
Scientology says the arche is thought and that is how deep you go and that is where it ends. But does it?
No, thought can be very complex and multifaceted and we can therefore still ask the question what is the basic thought? Complexity and chains of thought always contain a number of elements. A very legitimate question is: what is the most elementary thought? In the sentence preceding the last one lies the answer. If most thoughts are made up of a number of more elementary thoughts, then the thought or concept of number must already exist. C.G. Jung surmised that number is an important archetype. We go one step further and say number is THE ARCHETYPE or in our terms the basic consideration. Thus we can state the following:
The basic basic consideration is that of ‘number’, followed by a number of considerations.
That is why scientologists would be advised to spend at least as many hours studying mathematics as they are spending examining the whole track, if number is indeed the most basic of all basic considerations.
Motor: Late Latin motor, literally ‘mover’ or ‘that which produces motion’.
We will develop this concept starting from Hubbard’s philosophy, which is different and somewhat ambiguous as we shall see.
AXIOM 01. 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. [Scn 0-8]
“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.” [Scn 8-80]
Life is what inspires biological organisms, plants, animals and man. Life itself is not part of the physical universe, the bodies or organisms are. Hubbard defines the static in negative as well as positive terms; negatively it is not part of the physical universe. The static on the positive side is or has a potential or ability which is twofold to postulate and to perceive.
Postulates are predictions or calculations of possible futures coupled with the intention to make those predictions come about in reality. They are future directed based on evaluation of the past and/or present data. They may change a pattern of the past or set a pattern for the future. A postulate is such a thought as a kid may have, “I will become a pilot.” Postulates are dynamic and are active or rather pro-active.
Ignoring prophets who claim otherwise, perceptions are limited to past and present and are relatively passive.
Postulates are the product of meta-thinking. Postulates demand consciousness, in order to postulate or calculate a future we have to be able to think about sensations, feelings, intuitions and thoughts. We may therefore conclude that postulates require consciousness which perceptions don’t. Simple and direct awareness suffices in order to perceive.
Conundrum
If animals and plants are alive and the source of life is a static as Hubbard postulates, then we would have to attribute full consciousness to any life form. We have learnt however that animals and plants generally do not consciously plan their futures as postulating would demand. This does not mean that they do not organize for the future or that the animal or plant-mind, does not have organizational ability. It certainly does as we see in beehives, beaver dams and generally in the patterns and arrangements of nature.
The other problem is the no motion part of the concept of static. Hubbard’s statements are ambiguous in this respect. The no motion static yet holds images of motion. This is a cryptic way of saying the static after all contains motion. It may not be motion but it holds or contains motion.
The final part of the conundrum is how static can create motion. How can no motion, create motion and why would it? Or how can a static play against a kinetic? This is of the same character as the creation of something out of nothing, which was utterly forbidden in the ancient Greece philosophy.
In any case even if the static can produce motion, then it is or has energy. Energy is the potential or capability to do work in other words produce motion. This clearly contradicts the definition of static.
Resolution
If we call the life source a ‘motor’, in the sense of mover we might be closer to the truth. A motor is that which imparts motion. We could say that life is the motor or what sets the organism into motion.
In the mind however, there is no doubt that thoughts are moving all the time. What imparts the motion?
What if there is no one to impart the motion, but that the mind consists of motion? What if the mind is made of mental motion or motion of thoughts and desires and so forth? This has been called stream of consciousness and it makes the mind a sort of perpetuum mobile. Perhaps Hubbard after all had some inkling when he wrote:
“If Life—or theta, as it is called in Scientology (ϴ)—is a mirror and a creator of motion which can be mirrored, it follows then that mirror-wise, the whole of the laws of motion, magnetism, energy, matter, space and time can be found in thought, and behavior and even thinking partake of the physical universe laws regarding matter, energy, space and time. Thus even the laws of Newton can be found operative in thought. [Scn 8-80]
Let’s take the first law of motion, which states that a body remains at rest or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force. If we assume that thought is and has always been in motion, it would continue forever and that motion would not require any input of energy from an external source.
So we can after all state now with some certainty that life is basically a motor. The simple electric motor concept can be reduced to two components a stator and a rotor. Thus we have resolved the conundrum by having life as a motor with a static and a dynamic aspect. In other words the container is static and the content motion.
Thus LIFE IS BASICALLY A MOTOR.
Hubbard said Reality is agreed upon Isness. Isness is an apparency, not actual. [Actual means: Existing in reality and not potential, possible, simulated, or false.] In the East such isness is called Maya.
Vinaire says Reality = IS-NESS. Reality (is-ness, maya) improves as alter-isness is removed. That is the whole idea of handling anomalies. Resolving anomalies amounts to removing alter-is-ness. If one removes all alter-is-ness from reality one gets as-is-ness and reality disappears. ref. Axiom 11.
Hegel said “The rational is real, and the real is rational”. If that is so then Reality=Reason=Theta.
Who is right?
Scientology has been promoted as the road to total freedom. Total freedom is even theoretically an impossibility.
Freedom can only be defined against a frame of constraints. You are not free to change your own nature, not to be who you are, you are not free to un-will, what you will.
Absolute freedom is freely suspended in pure ethereal air, it is an idea, not even mathematically possible. Even infinity needs a zero container. There are only degrees of freedom. It’s like the absolute vacuum, not attainable. Even scientology’s own logic forbids it.
ref. Logic 6: Absolutes are unobtainable.
AXIOM 31. GOODNESS AND BADNESS, BEAUTIFULNESS AND UGLINESS, ARE ALIKE CONSIDERATIONS AND HAVE NO OTHER BASIS THAN OPINION.
Corollary: ‘MAN IS BASICALLY GOOD’ is merely an opinion and has no other basis.
Understanding is composed of identification, differentiation, integration and association, which are mathematical functions.
Corollary: From mathematics ARC can be derived.
“One could say, then, that life is a game and that the ability to play a game consists of tolerance for freedom and barriers and an insight into purposes, with the power of choice over participation.” LRH, PAB 84, 15 May 1956, THE REASON WHY
Hubbard states that one of the conditions of games is power of choice over participation. This may very well be true of a lot of games, but not the game of life – you cannot step out of life. There will always be a next life.
Who is right? Hubbard or Nietzsche? In Scientology the dynamic principle of existence is ‘survive’. In Nietzschean philosophy the dynamic principle of existence is the ‘will to power’.
There is a definite ambiguity in Scientology on this subject. The ethics conditions describe survival as ‘normal operation’ whereas the actual aim is the condition of power, which is the equivalent of Nietzsche’s position. Who is right?
Let’s take up the first and the second:
1. Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the cause was the creation of effect.
2. In the beginning and forever is the decision and the decision is TO BE.
From this we can see that the first effect that was created, was the beginning. We also see that a Cause existed to effect this beginning. The second factor provides a non sequitur. ‘TO BE’ means to exist but existence was already in existence at the time of the creation of the first effect. Furthermore it was a decision, which implies that the decision might have turned out NOT TO BE.
If there is a decision, a decision maker must exist. This anonymous decision maker, theoretically could have decided NOT TO BE as the creation of an effect according to Factor 1. This would have to be the case in order for it to then change its mind and decide TO BE. The problem with this explanation is however that the decision TO BE is forever.
Exercise for scientologists: Find the author’s misunderstood!