Page last updated:
The one big problem with Scientology is that ultimately it is not rooted in reality but in the writings of its founder L. Ron Hubbard. While Hubbard used terminology that relate to observable realities, much of the reasoning in Scientology gets so thoroughly confused and divorced from actual experience that it overwhelms any workability that may be there.
Let’s take Hubbard’s view of reality for example. He asserted that even what we understand as physical reality (consisting of matter, energy, space and time) is “the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life” yet no two people in the world, including highly trained Scientologists, can sit down and have something materially manifest by agreeing to some shared considerations. What we can see is that the physical reality has existence of its own while our thoughts and perceptions are a product of what we understand to be our consciousness.
Consciousness forms or creates PERCEPTION of what we understand to be the physical reality, and that perception can be altered quite significantly to result in a different EXPERIENCE of reality which in turn can give someone an illusion that the perceived existences themselves are created by consciousness.
The confusion generated by Hubbard’s definitions and explanations is of course not just limited to the concept of “reality,” but is spread out across numerous other concepts and ideas. Below are some additional examples.
What is a LIE?
Most people know what a lie is, and the standard definition cannot be any simpler:
An intentionally false statement.
Hubbard redefined it to align with his confused notion of reality (as having no factual existence, being a product of postulates or considerations):
LIE, 1. a second postulate, statement or condition designed to mask a primary postulate which is permitted to remain. (PXL, p. 180) 2. a statement that a particle having moved did not move, or a statement that a particle not having moved, did move. (PXL, p. 180) 3. an alteration of time, place, event and form. (PXL, p. 187) 4. invention with a bad connotation. (PAB 49).
[Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary]
With definitions like this, some lack of clarity on the subject of lies is sure to follow.
Is It Really Thoughts That Control Actions?
As another example now under the subject of Dianetics there is a simple diagram in the book Handbook for Preclears that is supposed to demonstrate how the “neural circuitry” works within a human body as direct by “I” – the Control Center. In the book Hubbard writes:
Every mind may be considered to have a control center. This could be called the “awareness of awareness unit” of the mind, or it could be called simply “I.”
The control center is CAUSE. It directs, through emotional relay systems, the actions of the body and the environment. It is not a physical thing. Here is a diagram of the control center, “I,” in relation to the emotions and the body and environment.
The total function of “I” is the estimation of effort. It thinks and plans and resolves the problems of future effort.
When this logic is placed against reality, it can be easily seen as a false representation with the following simple questions:
– Do you think about moving your arm every time you want to move your arm or do you just move your arm?
– Do you have to generate some kind of an emotion every time you want to move a part of your body or do you just move it?
Neither thought nor emotion is required to move body parts. What is required is one’s PRESENCE in the body part that one wants to move and an INTENTION to do so. In fact, there are many instances where there is ACTION WITHOUT THOUGHT especially when it comes to learned and automated movements such as when driving a car, playing a piano, swinging a tennis rackets while playing tennis or simply walking down the street. There may be plenty of thought when those actions are first learned, but thereafter there is no thinking linked to the actions.
There is no need to engage in complex explanations to justify Hubbard’s model – it should just be discarded along with an idea that your “total function” (as “I”) is the estimation of effort. That’s reducing a human being to a level of some factory robot.
What is CONFUSION?
Here is another confusing piece from Hubbard on the subject of Confusion itself:
(1956) The Problems of Work: Handling The Confusions of the Work-a-day World
Confusion “in this Universe” could actually be understood as a MENTAL STATE characterized by the LACK OF ORDER that establishes PREDICTABILITY. “Order” is standardly defined as:
“The arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.” [Oxford Dictionary]
Selecting or clearly defining one thing as Hubbard suggests under his “Doctrine of the Stable Datum” could be seen as an introduction of some order, but really this is rather too simplistic of an approach to be practical in many real life situations. Even with respect to “traffic” someone would have to know many rules in order to be able to predict the motion of traffic and see it as an orderly pattern of motion – there is no selecting of one car or “stopping” anything required. PREDICTABILITY is a key factor in resolving confusion. Order makes things predictable. Hence, a messy room for an outsider can seem confusing while for the owner of the room, it can contain a hidden order mapped out in the person’s mind who knows where everything is. If the room was to get cleaned up and organized, the owner could feel initially confused until he established a new mental map according to a new form of arrangement.
Usually when addressing an area of “confusion,” one has to address and clear up many different factors involved and THEN arrive at seeing an overall “arrangement” (i.e. order). There is even a phrase for it in English language – “it all comes together.” So the emphasis should be on recognizing or establishing ORDER, not on fixating on or trying to hold on to some one thing as a “stable datum.” Trying to hold on to some one thing could actually lead to more confusion especially if it is not correct, yet Hubbard claims exactly the opposite by stating that “A stable datum does not have to be the correct one.”
PTS/SP Tech is effectively replaced by material in the following pages on CivilizationUpgrade.com:
The tech on Overts and Withholds is being replaced by:
Page initially published on CivilizationUpgrade.com: May 14th, 2015
Moved to ScientologyAnalysis.com: June 20, 2020