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.