REALITY and ARC
Page last updated:
REALITY
Hubbard’s odd understanding of Reality is well demonstrated in this extract:
(1955) The Creation of Human Ability
Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time. By this it is meant that an idea or opinion is, fundamentally, superior to space, energy, and time, or organizations of form, since it is conceived that space, energy, and time are themselves broadly agreed-upon considerations. That so many minds agree brings about Reality in the form of space, energy, and time. These mechanics, then, of space, energy, and time are the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life.
The aspect of existence when viewed from the level of Man, however, is a reverse of the greater truth above, for Man works on the secondary opinion that mechanics are real, and that his own personal considerations are less important than space, energy, and time. This is an inversion. These mechanics of space, energy, and time, the forms, objects and combinations thereof, have taken such precedence in Man that they have become more important than considerations as such, and so his ability is overpowered and he is unable to act freely in the framework of mechanics.
Man, therefore, has an inverted view, whereas, considerations such as those he daily makes are the actual source of space, energy, time and forms, Man is operating so as not to alter his basic considerations, he therefore invalidates himself by supposing another determinism of space, energy, time, and form. Although he is part of that which created these, he gives them such strength and validity that his own considerations thereafter must fall subordinate to space, energy, time, and form, and so he cannot alter the Universe in which he dwells.
Note the embedded invalidation of alternative thought within the thesis that Hubbard puts forward:
“Man, therefore, has an inverted view..”
“… he therefore invalidates himself by supposing another determinism of space, energy, time and form.”
So a commonly held view that the physical reality contains a factor of independent, self-directed existence is invalidated and re-evaluated as a form of “self-invalidation” rather than a conclusion based on individual observations and experiences of the physical universe.
First of all, mutually held by what “life?” Are ants and birds in on it as well? Leaving this part of Hubbard’s assertion alone, it appears he claims that there is actually no independent existence that underlies reality, and that even what we perceive as physical or objective reality is a pure product of (collective) consciousness – a mental phenomenon so to speak. Where is an easily verifiable proof of this assertion?
Unless we are talking about a lucid dreaming experience, it can in fact be easily seen that considerations do not directly translate into observable reality in the physical realm, and no one has yet been able to demonstrate otherwise, including Hubbard himself.
Considerations, agreement on considerations, and the objects to which they can be applied are different “items” of observable realities. This is to say that one human being can look at another and through communication find out what considerations another human being holds toward something, then find out if these considerations are in any way connected to or stem from agreements or disagreements with other human beings, and then one can go and look at the actual object in question. Hence, looking at considerations, looking at agreements or disagreements, and looking at objective targets toward which considerations are (or can) be applied is dealing with three separate “units of reality” that can be perceived in their own ways.
Plus, considerations consist of concepts which are static in nature while any observable reality in the physical universe is dynamic in nature. Even matter is always changing and contains a lot of “motion” in it if only on a sub-atomic level. If the physical reality was a true product of considerations, then objects that we otherwise consider to be static would in fact remain unchanging through time. So unless we are talking about shared beliefs specifically as a perceivable unit of reality, the physical reality is NOT a product of “agreed upon considerations.” It has a factor of independent existence to it that can be perceived and experienced directly outside of any collective agreements.
Hubbard’s assertion that even objective or physical reality is a product of (agreed upon) considerations is a false conviction that serves to in fact divorce many Scientology practitioners from contact with underlying existences to which considerations are (or can be) applied. Fixed beliefs which significantly depart from observable realities are commonly referred to as delusions and are in themselves perceivable realities with respect to the realities of mental phenomena [perceivable realities of the human psyche].
Hubbard’s arbitrary and unfounded view of reality is then reinforced in Scientology Axioms. Here are the first eight:
1. 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.
2. THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.
3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.
4. SPACE IS A VIEWPOINT OF DIMENSION.
5. ENERGY CONSISTS OF POSTULATED PARTICLES IN SPACE.
6. OBJECTS CONSIST OF GROUPED PARTICLES AND SOLIDS.
7. TIME IS BASICALLY A POSTULATE THAT SPACE AND PARTICLES WILL PERSIST.
8. THE APPARENCY OF TIME IS THE CHANGE OF POSITION OF PARTICLES IN SPACE.
The first two have to do with Hubbard’s definition of consciousness in terms of what it is not – which is not a good way to define something to begin with – and its abilities. The next six, collectively, are basically an assertion that reality is a complete product of consciousness and has no existence in of itself. Not even space exists which in Hubbard’s view is just a viewpoint. How does that work? And number 5, if anything, should say “matter” not “energy.” Energy is associated with the action of particles, not particles themselves if we are to be exact with definitions.
ENERGY3: Physics The property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules). [Oxford Dictionary]
Hubbard reinforces this idea that there is no reality outside of one’s consciousness in other materials such as:
[2 JANUARY 1960] State of Man Congress: Why People Don’t Like You
The only effects you can experience are those which you yourself dream up to experience.
[December 1952] SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008
[1974 printing] Page: 34 (Terminals)
It could be said that the MEST universe is the average of agreement amongst viewpoints and that the laws of the MEST universe, no matter how physical, are the result of this agreement; and, indeed, this definition suffices for those conditions which are supposed to be “reality.” The MEST universe is very real, but any hypnotist can instruct a hypnotized subject into the construction of a universe which has tactile, sight, sound and any other manifestation possessed by the MEST universe, and who is to say then, that the hypnotized subject is not perceiving a universe?
But SENSATION is NOT a “manifestation possessed by the MEST universe” – sensation is an experience produced by the mind in translating basic signals from stimuli. Did Hubbard not understand the basic mechanism of perception?
[1974 printing] Page: 106 – 107 (Creative Processing)
In truth, all sensation which he believes to come from these masses of illusory energy known as the MEST universe, are first implanted through agreement upon what he is to perceive and then perceived again by himself, with the step hidden that he has extended his own sensation to be felt and perceived by himself. He is fully convinced that the MEST universe itself has sensation which it can deliver to him, whereas all the MEST universe has is an enforced agreement which though of no substance, yet by a gradient scale came to be an illusion which seems very masterful to a preclear. To prove the reality and solidity of the MEST universe, the preclear could pound his fist upon a desk and demonstrate that his fist had met something. He is making again the error of implanting sensation and not knowing he has implanted it, for the fist which he pounds on the desk is a MEST universe fist consisting of MEST universe energy, which is itself a MEST universe agreement, and it is meeting a desk which is MEST universe; he is only demonstrating that when the MEST universe is perceived to impact upon the MEST universe, one can then implant a realistic impact and perceive it for his own wonderful edification. Reality, then, is a delusion because it is one’s own illusion which has been disowned by one and is then received by one as being another thing.
Notice, Hubbard asserts that any SENSATION that someone can experience from contact with something in the environment is an IMPLANT. Any given individual is basically deluding oneself into perceiving something out there. Reality is a shared illusion, a shared hallucination. But if such was the case, what is it that is actually “contacted” which then activates a given “implant” to cause an experience of some given sensation? If reality is simply an illusion, how does it continue to be there? This book Scientology 8-8008 was released in 1952 – has any Scientology practitioner been able to demonstrate the supposed illusory nature of reality? – Like by walking through a wall or making a rock disappear, or something like that. That would indeed be miraculous, and it would effectively lead to a radical transformation of the world’s reality since individuals with such ability would be able to reshape objective reality with just thought alone. Such ability would be on an even higher level than Jean Grey in X-Men or Lucy in Lucy.
There’s also an an older movie on this subject called Dark City. There is a cool techno music track that tells the general story:
[1974 printing] Pages: 35 – 36 (Behaviour of Universes)
It could be said, then, that the difference between the microcosm (one’s own universe) and the macrocosm (the MEST universe) is the difference between commanding it and agreeing about it. One’s own universe is what he would construct for a universe without the opposition or the confusion of other viewpoints. The MEST universe is that upon which one agrees in order to continue in association with other viewpoints. This may very well be the sole difference between these two universes. . . .
When an individual’s ability to create his own universe is rehabilitated it will be found, strangely enough, that his ability to handle the MEST universe has been rehabilitated. In fact, this is the most secure route as represented in 8-8008 as a road.
By actual experiment it can be demonstrated that one’s ability to mock-up a universe of his own and the resulting improvement of his perceptions to that universe bring about an ability to perceive the MEST universe. Indeed, it might be inferred as something like a proof that the MEST universe in itself is an illusion based upon agreement in view of the fact that the rehabilitation of the ability to view illusion rehabilitates the ability to view the MEST universe.
Exercising an ability for VIVID IMAGINATION leads to better PERCEPTION ABILITY because perception – what the minds “sees” or experiences reality to be – is constructed by the mind; so obviously when someone’s ability to construct images of reality is improved, then actual perception is improved along with it. This simply has to do with increasing mental ability and does not serve as any kind of proof that there is no actual existence to what we perceive to be objective reality.
[1974 printing] Pages: 62 – 63 (Truth-Hallucination)
The highest one can attain to truth is to attain to his own illusions. The lowest one can descend from truth is a complete acceptance of MEST universe reality, for this below a certain level becomes scrambled and brings on the condition known as hallucination. Hallucination is not self-generated; it comes about only when a person is an effect to such an extent that he is almost dead.
What is commonly believed to be truth is agreement upon natural law. This would be the truth of the MEST universe which would be the lowest common denominator of agreement upon any one subject. . . .
In Scientology one is studying the lowest common denominators of agreement which bring about an acceptance of the MEST universe and prohibit the creation of one’s own universe, which latter ability alone makes possible perception of the MEST universe which is itself an agreed-upon illusion.
Truth in Scientology is the study of the lowest common denominator of agreement, plus the establishment of the true ability of the thetan. The true ability of the thetan is a truth much higher than the truth of the MEST universe itself and, if it has ever before been known, the difficulties of communicating it have been such as to inhibit its promulgation.
It can be seen there is truth above what passes for “truth” in the MEST universe. Scientific truths gained from deductive observations of behaviour of the MEST universe are themselves manifestations of agreements on the part of beings — thetans — who are capable of much wider creation and agreement than that represented in the MEST universe.
So if someone acknowledges the existence of objective reality, that’s “the lowest one can descend from truth” – seeing and acknowledging reality as it is, according to Hubbard, is “hallucination.” Whatever someone thinks to oneself is actuality, but whatever one sees out there as actual reality is hallucination. In other words, Hubbard is asserting that ACTUALITY (what actually exists as it can be perceived to exist) is hallucination and HALLUCINATION (self-generated perception of something that does not exist) is actuality. And he claims this to be the most fundamental truth. This is very interesting indeed.
It is quite easy to get pumped up on an idea that one can be at cause over (the nature of) reality and completely miss the fact that what Ron Hubbard actually did in Scientology was not just embrace a potential ability to be at cause over reality, but in fact negated the existence of reality altogether.
It should be noted, that there would be nothing to pervade or interiorize into or exteriorize from if there was no factor of existence to reality. All one would have to do is to change considerations in order to change reality, yet it can be easily observed, in the physical reality, that merely changing one’s considerations about something does not necessarily change the underlying existence to which these considerations are or can be applied. One’s determinism has to be powerful enough to somehow override the actual existence in question.
To make this point even more clear:
You may agree that something exists, but something doesn’t exist just because you (or anyone else) agree that it exists. Things have existed such as gamma rays long before they were registered by humans. This is the very problem that underlies the argument here – realities can exist which we have no perception of. If we investigate and look into something more closely, including with the use of technologies, we may get to perceive new realities – and this would include the development of new concepts in relation to some newly perceived realities. But how did something get there BEFORE we could even perceive it? Even in a very well known “double-slit experiment” – an observer does not actually create a photon out of thin air or determine the exact shape of the resulting pattern (for example to have a smiley face appear as a resulting pattern instead of just lines). There may be all kinds of things we currently have no perception or even conception of. It doesn’t mean they do not exist – we just cannot perceive them and so it is not “real” to us.
Plus, our perceptions and concepts are not always accurate – that’s why they can change over time as more observations and evaluations are performed. To think that our concepts of reality are themselves a source of reality is a path to delusion which is sadly where many Scientolgists end up – delusions about themselves, about other people, about what’s going on in the world or even in their own movement. This is a problem that can be traced (at least partially) to beliefs (convictions) in Hubbard’s unfounded assertions about the nature of reality which allows for proliferation (and enforcement) of “considerations” that are simply false or misleading but which are treated as “reality” even despite of evidence to the contrary.
To add insult to injury, the view of reality as a product of considerations seems to be in complete contradiction to the view in Dianetics in terms of existence of reality outside of the mind (the “physical universe reality”) which according to Hubbard himself was “recorded” by the mind in exact detail. That’s why a memory recording was eventually re-termed as a FACSIMILE which literally means “an exact copy” – a perfect “recording” of an experience. That is, if reality itself was just a product of considerations, what would be there to “record” to begin with?
DIANETICS: THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH
CHAPTER I
THE ANALYTICAL MIND
AND THE STANDARD MEMORY BANKS
. . .
Consider the analytical mind as a computing machine. This is analogy, because the analytical mind, while it behaves like a computing machine, is yet more fantastically capable than any computing machine ever constructed and infinitely more elaborate. It could be called the “computational mind” or the “egsusheyftef.” But for our purposes, the analytical mind, as a descriptive name, will do. This mind may live in the pre-frontal lobes – there is some hint of that – but this is a problem of structure, and nobody really knows about structure. So we shall call this computational part of the mind the „analytical mind“ because it analyzes data.
. . .
The analytical mind has its standard memory banks. Just where these are located structurally is again no concern of ours at this time. To operate, the analytical mind has to have percepts (data), memory (data), and imagination (data).
. . .
Every percept – sight, sound, smell, feeling, taste, organic sensation, pain, rhythm, kinesthesia (weight and muscular motion) and emotion – is each properly and neatly filed in the standard banks in full. It does not matter how many aberrations a physically intact person has or whether he thinks he can or cannot contain this data or recall it, the file is there and is complete.
. . .
Everything in this bank is correct in so far as the single action of perception is concerned. There may be organic errors in the organs of perception, such as blindness or deafness (when physical, not aberrational), which would leave blanks in the banks; and there may be organic impairment such as partial organic deafness which would leave partial blanks. But these things are not error in the standard memory banks; they are simply absence of data. Like the computer, the standard memory banks are perfect, recording faithfully and reliably.
. . .
Another interesting part of the standard memory banks is that they apparently file the original and hand forward exact copies to the analyzer. They will hand out as many exact copies as are demanded without diminishing the actual file original. And they hand out these copies each in kind with color-motion sight, tone-audio, etc.
. . .
Between the standard banks, which are perfect and reliable, and the computer, the analytical mind, which is perfect and reliable, there is no irrational concourse. The answer is always as right as it can be made to be in the light of data at hand, and that is all anyone can ask of a computing device or a recording device.
SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL
Communication and Reality
The overall subject of communication covers far more than the exchange of intelligence. Basically, communication could be called the science of perceptions. As general semantics is organized on the subject of words and ideas; so can be organized, and so has been organized in Dianetics, the entire subject of perception.
Everything which we know of the physical universe and, possibly, anything which we can know of theta universe, allowing that it exists, could be said to be embraced by perception, computation, and imagination.
By perception we mean the perceiving of entities or existences. We achieve what we know of reality by perceiving entities and existences in the physical universe, and possibly the theta universe, by combining these perceptions and computing or imagining results not in disagreement with the results obtained by others.
The channels of our perception of the physical universe are twenty-six in number. The most important of these are sonic, vision, tactile, olfactory, kinesthesia, thermal, joint position, body position, moisture, organic perceptions, and, adding one more discovered in Dianetics, perception of movement on the time track. It is with these that the auditor most vitally concerns himself, as it is through these that we learn the most of the physical universe.
With sonic we perceive, by mental mechanism, the sound waves of the physical universe, and by comparison and experience, both genetic and environmental, interpret them.
With visio we perceive light waves, which, as sight, are compared with experience and evaluated.
By tactile we perceive the shape and texture of surfaces and compounds.
With olfactory perception we perceive the minute particles of matter which register as smell.
By kinesthesia we perceive motion through space and time.
By thermal we perceive temperature, hotness and coldness, and so can evaluate further our current environment by comparing it to past environments.
By perceiving joint position we can measure space and the size of objects and know more about our physical situation.
By perceiving body position we sense our relationship with our immediate environment.
Moisture perception permits us to sense the dampness or dryness of the atmosphere and so judge further our environment.
Through organic perceptions we perceive the states of our own bodies, internally.
These and other sense messages combine to make up a body of experience. Just how much of this experience is genetic and how much of it is carried in the theta body, if that exists, we cannot at this time accurately measure. In our environment, however, by the various sense channels we gain experience and can act in the present-time environment or plan for the future.
It might be said that we have potentially a sensory reception mechanism for every type of sense message which can be radiated or delivered to us from the physical universe, and from the theta universe. Thus, we have hearing because there are sound waves which can be registered and interpreted; we have sight because light waves exist to be registered; and so forth.
A very interesting paper could be prepared upon the probable evolution of our senses. Theta, combining with MEST to make life, reaches out in its conquest of MEST, via the sense perceptions, to exist within and control the environment and to some degree regulate the future—and, particularly in man, to adjust the environment to the organism, the species, or the race.
. . .
HANDBOOK FOR PRECLEARS
THE HUMAN MIND
. . .
A mind, then, is not a brain. A brain and the nervous system are simply conduits for physical universe vibrations. The brain and nerve trunks are much like a switchboard system. And there is a point in the system where the vibrations change into records.
An organism is motivated by continuing, timeless, spaceless, motionless CAUSE. This cause mirrors or takes impressions of motion. These impressions we call “memories” or more accurately, facsimiles.
A facsimile, as you know, is a simple word meaning a picture of a thing, a copy of a thing, not the thing itself. Thus, to save confusion and keep this point before us in this new science, we say that the perceptions of the body are “stored” as facsimiles.
Sights, sounds, tastes, and all the other perceptions of the body store as facsimiles of the moment the impression was received. The actual energy of the impression is not stored. It is not stored if only because there is insufficient molecular structure in the body to store these energies as such. Physical universe energy is evidently too gross for such storage. Further, although the cells perish, the memories go on, existing, evidently, forever.
A facsimile of yesterday’s hurt toe can be brought back today with the full force of the impact. Everything which occurs around the body, whether it is asleep or awake, is recorded as a facsimile and is stored.
There are facsimiles of anything and everything the body has ever perceived — seen, heard, felt, smelled, tasted, experienced — from the first moment of existence. There are pleasure facsimiles and bored facsimiles, facsimiles of sudden death and quick success, facsimiles of quiet decay and gradual struggle.
Memory usually means recalling data of recent times; thus we use the word facsimile, for while it is the whole of which memory is a part, the word memory does not embrace all that has been discovered.
One should have a very good idea of what a facsimile is. It is a recording of the motions and situations of the physical universe plus the conclusions of the mind based on earlier facsimiles.
. . .
As one goes through Life he records twenty-four hours a day, asleep and awake, in pain, under anesthetic, happy or sad. These facsimiles are usually recorded with all perceptics, which is to say, with every sense channel. In the person who has a missing sense channel such as deafness, that portion of the facsimile is missing.
A full facsimile is a sort of three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual.
We know a great deal about these facsimiles now—why they are not easily recovered by most people when they grow up, how they change, how the imagination can begin to re- manufacture them as in hallucination or dreaming.
Briefly, a person is as aberrated as he is unable to handle his facsimiles. He is as sane as he can handle his facsimiles. He is as ill as he is unable to handle his facsimiles. He is as well as he can handle them.
That portion of this new science which is devoted to the rehabilitation of the mind and body deals with the phenomena of handling these facsimiles.
A person ought to be able to pick up and inspect and lay aside at will any facsimile he has. It is not a goal of this new science to restore full recall perception, it is the goal to rehabilitate the ability of a person to handle his facsimiles.
When a person CANNOT handle his facsimiles, he can pull them into present time and discover himself unable to get rid of them again.
What is psychosomatic illness? Demonstrably, it is the pain contained in a past experience or the physical malfunction of a past experience. The facsimile of that experience gets into present time and stays with the person until a shock drops it out of sight again or until it is processed out by this new science. A shock or necessity, however, permits it to come back.
. . .
The human mind is capable of very complex combinations of facsimiles. Further, it can originate facsimiles on the basis of old facsimiles. Nothing goes wrong with the mind except its abilities to handle facsimiles. Occasionally a mind becomes incapable of using a facsimile as past experience and begins to use it in present time continually as an apology for failure. Then we have aberration and psychosomatic illness. A memory of pain contains pain and can become present time pain. A memory of emotion contains emotion and can become present time emotion.
. . .
SCIENTOLOGY: 8-80
CHAPTER TWO
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.
A memory is a recording of the physical universe. It contains—any memory—a time index (when it happened) and a pattern of motion. As a lake reflects the trees and moving clouds, so does a memory reflect the physical universe. Sight, sound, pain, emotion, effort, conclusions, and many other things are recorded in this static for any given instant of observation.
Such a memory we call a “facsimile”. The mind, examining a facsimile it has made, can see it, feel it, hear it, re-experience the pain in it, the effort, the emotion.
There are billions of facsimiles available to any mind. Billions of billions. These facsimiles can be brought into present time by the environment, and “unseen” or “unknown” by the awareness of awareness of the mind, can reimpress their pains, efforts, and aberrations upon the being, thus making one less liable to survive. All unknowingnesses, confusions, aberrations, psychosomatic ills are traceable to facsimiles.
. . .
Even the text from Scientology 8-80, published in 1952, still references the axioms which were published in Advanced Procedure and Axiom in 1951. Here are some of those axioms:
[November 1951] Advanced Procedure and Axioms
AXIOM 1. THE SOURCE OF LIFE IS A STATIC OF PECULIAR AND PARTICULAR PROPERTIES.
AXIOM 2. AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE STATIC CALLED LIFE IS IMPINGED UPON THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
AXIOM 3. THAT PORTION OF THE STATIC OF LIFE WHICH IS IMPINGED UPON THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE HAS FOR ITS DYNAMIC GOAL, SURVIVAL AND ONLY SURVIVAL.
AXIOM 4. THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS REDUCIBLE TO MOTION OF ENERGY OPERATING IN SPACE THROUGH TIME.
AXIOM 5. THAT PORTION OF THE STATIC OF LIFE CONCERNED WITH THE LIFE ORGANISMS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS CONCERNED WHOLLY WITH MOTION.
AXIOM 6. THE LIFE STATIC HAS AS ONE OF ITS PROPERTIES THE ABILITY TO MOBILIZE AND ANIMATE MATTER INTO LIVING ORGANISMS.
AXIOM 7. THE LIFE STATIC IS ENGAGED IN A CONQUEST OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
AXIOM 8. THE LIFE STATIC CONQUERS THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BY LEARNING AND APPLYING THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
Symbol: The Symbol for the Life Static in use hereafter is the Greek letter Theta.
. . .
AXIOM 22. THETA AND THOUGHT ARE SIMILAR ORDERS OF STATIC.
AXIOM 23. ALL THOUGHT IS CONCERNED WITH MOTION.
AXIOM 24. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OPTIMUM MOTION IS A BASIC GOAL OF REASON.
AXIOM 25. THE BASIC PURPOSE OF REASON IS THE CALCULATION OR ESTIMATION OF EFFORT.
AXIOM 26. THOUGHT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THETA FACSIMILES OF PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, ENTITIES OR ACTIONS.
AXIOM 27. THETA IS SATISFIED ONLY WITH HARMONIOUS ACTION OR OPTIMUM MOTION AND REJECTS OR DESTROYS ACTION OR MOTION ABOVE OR BELOW ITS TOLERANCE BAND.
AXIOM 28. THE MIND IS CONCERNED WHOLLY WITH THE ESTIMATION OF EFFORT.
DEFINITION: MIND IS THE THETA COMMAND POST OF ANY ORGANISM OR ORGANISMS.
AXIOM 29. THE BASIC ERRORS OF REASON ARE FAILURES TO DIFFERENTIATE AMONGST MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME.
AXIOM 30. RIGHTNESS IS PROPER CALCULATION OF EFFORT.
AXIOM 31. WRONGNESS IS ALWAYS MISCALCULATION OF EFFORT.
AXIOM 32. THETA CAN EXERT ITSELF DIRECTLY OR EXTENSIONALLY.
Theta can direct physical application of the organism to the environment or through the mind, can first calculate the action or extend, as in language, ideas.
AXIOM 33. CONCLUSIONS ARE DIRECTED TOWARD THE INHIBITION, MAINTENANCE OR ACCELERATIONS OF EFFORTS.
AXIOM 34. THE COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL LIFE ORGANISMS IS MOTION.
. . .
AXIOM 49. THE PURPOSE OF THE MIND IS TO POSE AND RESOLVE PROBLEMS RELATING TO SURVIVAL AND TO DIRECT THE EFFORT OF THE ORGANISM ACCORDING TO THESE SOLUTIONS.
AXIOM 50. ALL PROBLEMS ARE POSED AND RESOLVED THROUGH ESTIMATIONS OF EFFORT.
. . .
AXIOM 54. SURVIVAL OF AN ORGANISM IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE OVERCOMING OF EFFORTS OPPOSING ITS SURVIVAL. (Note: Corollary for other dynamics.)
DEFINITION: DYNAMIC IS THE ABILITY TO TRANSLATE SOLUTIONS INTO ACTION.
. . .
AXIOM 64. THE MIND PERCEIVES AND STORES ALL DATA OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ALIGNS OR FAILS TO ALIGN THESE ACCORDING TO THE TIME THEY WERE PERCEIVED.
DEFINITION: A CONCLUSION IS THE THETA FACSIMILES OF A GROUP OF COMBINED DATA.
DEFINITION: A DATUM IS A THETA FACSIMILE OF PHYSICAL ACTION.
AXIOM 65. THE PROCESS OF THOUGHT IS THE PERCEPTION OF THE PRESENT AND THE COMPARISON OF IT TO THE PERCEPTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE PAST IN ORDER TO DIRECT ACTION IN THE IMMEDIATE OR DISTANT FUTURE.
COROLLARY: THE ATTEMPT OF THOUGHT IS TO PERCEIVE REALITIES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT IN ORDER TO PREDICT OR POSTULATE REALITIES OF THE FUTURE.
. . .
AXIOM 67. THETA CONTAINS ITS OWN THETA UNIVERSE EFFORT WHICH TRANSLATES INTO MEST EFFORT.
. . .
AXIOM 69. PHYSICAL UNIVERSE PERCEPTIONS AND EFFORTS ARE RECEIVED BY AN ORGANISM AS FORCE WAVES, CONVERT BY FACSIMILE INTO THETA AND ARE THUS STORED.
DEFINITION: RANDOMITY IS THE MIS-ALIGNMENT THROUGH THE INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL EFFORTS BY OTHER FORMS OF LIFE OR THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE OF THE EFFORTS OF AN ORGANISM, AND IS IMPOSED ON THE PHYSICAL ORGANISM BY COUNTER-EFFORTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT.
. . .
AXIOM 77. THETA AFFECTS THE ORGANISM, OTHER ORGANISMS AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE BY TRANSLATING THETA FACSIMILES INTO PHYSICAL EFFORTS OR RANDOMITY OF EFFORTS.
DEFINITION: THE DEGREE OF RANDOMITY IS MEASURED BY THE RANDOMNESS OF EFFORT VECTORS WITHIN THE ORGANISM, AMONGST ORGANISMS, AMONGST RACES OR SPECIES OF ORGANISMS OR BETWEEN ORGANISMS AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
. . .
AXIOM 81. SANITY CONSISTS OF OPTIMUM RANDOMITY.
. . .
AXIOM 96. AN ENGRAM IS A THETA FACSIMILE OF ATOMS AND MOLECULES IN MISALIGNMENT.
. . .
AXIOM 99. THETA FACSIMILES CAN RECOMBINE INTO NEW SYMBOLS.
AXIOM 100. LANGUAGE IS THE SYMBOLIZATION OF EFFORT.
AXIOM 101. LANGUAGE DEPENDS FOR ITS FORCE UPON THE FORCE WHICH ACCOMPANIED ITS DEFINITION.
(Note: Counter-effort, not language, is aberrative.)
. . .
AXIOM 121. EVERY THOUGHT HAS BEEN PRECEDED BY PHYSICAL ACTION.
. . .
AXIOM 127. ALL PERCEPTIONS REACHING THE ORGANISM’S SENSE CHANNELS ARE RECORDED AND STORED BY THETA FACSIMILE.
DEFINITION: PERCEPTION IS THE PROCESS OF RECORDING DATA FROM THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE AND STORING IT AS A THETA FACSIMILE.
DEFINITION: RECALL IS THE PROCESS OF REGAINING PERCEPTIONS.
. . .
AXIOM 136. THE MIND IS PLASTICALLY CAPABLE OF RECORDING ALL EFFORTS AND COUNTER-EFFORTS.
. . .
AXIOM 143. ALL LEARNING IS ACCOMPLISHED BY RANDOM EFFORT.
. . .
AXIOM 148. PHYSICAL LAWS ARE LEARNED BY LIFE ENERGY ONLY BY IMPINGEMENT OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE PRODUCING RANDOMITY, AND A WITHDRAWAL FROM THAT IMPINGEMENT.
. . .
AXIOM 171. DELUSION IS THE POSTULATION BY THE IMAGINATION OF OCCURRENCES IN AREAS OF PLUS OR MINUS RANDOMITY.
AXIOM 172. DREAMS ARE THE IMAGINATIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF AREAS OF RANDOMITY OR THE RE-SYMBOLIZATION OF THE EFFORTS OF THETA.
Notice how in Dianetic axioms above, the “physical universe” is said to consist of “motion” and is said to be the primary concern of the mind that records, as “facsimiles,” and then re-produces motions (efforts). Axiom 121 even goes so far as to state that:
AXIOM 121. EVERY THOUGHT HAS BEEN PRECEDED BY PHYSICAL ACTION.
How does this compare to the 1954 Scientology axiom?
AXIOM 3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.
So does the “physical universe” objectively exist and is “recorded” (as facsimiles of perceptions) by theta or “static” (or the mind) in its ultimate goal of “conquering” it, or is the physical universe created by this “static” through “considerations” and then is perceived by it in line with further considerations?
The first assertion seems to present a view that the physical universe, made of motion, is all there is and the sole purpose of consciousness is to manage it – a sad view indeed. The second assertion seems to present quite an opposite view – that consciousness is all that exists and even the physical universe is simply a product of “considerations” made by consciousness. So which is it?
The view in this project is that, in actuality, neither is correct. The notion that even the physical universe is a pure product of consciousness, has not been demonstrated or proven by anyone including Hubbard himself. The idea of “mirroring” or recording “facsimiles” by the “static” (can be understood as “consciousness” in common terms) is likewise problematic since there is no consideration given to the formation or creation of perception in itself – that is, the actual mechanics of how the mind translates signals from stimuli into something that is seen the mind. Does the mind capture and store the exact copies of signals from the physical universe? This is highly unlikely and Hubbard himself failed to provide actual proof for this assertion.
The term “facsimile” that became a dominant term in Dianetics can be clearly seen as a misnomer with a realization that there is no “copy” of reality since whatever we perceive reality to be does not objectively exist in the exact form that we perceive it. Our experience of reality is already in the form of a “perception construct” created by the mind. For example, there is no “light” out there that is “recorded” – light as a sensation is created by the mind, as far as we know, in translating some recognized bands of electromagnetic radiation which can also be recognized and perceived in ways other than through sight – seeing “light.” Plants do not have eyes and do not “see” “light,” yet they can perceive (what we understand to be) electromagnetic radiation in some other way.
MENTAL IMAGE PICTURE was a very good initial term – a “picture” created by the mind – and should have been retained in use instead of being updated to a “facsimile.”
The understanding in this project, which is in line with common experience and general scientific understanding, is that:
Consciousness forms (or creates) perceptions of what we conceive to be “reality,” but it may not necessarily be creating the actual objects (targets) of perception. See pages on CONSCIOUSNESS and REALITY for more information.
It should also be noted that if someone truly believed reality to be a product of considerations, then all they would be motivated to look at and address are CONSIDERATIONS – of their own and those of others. That is – there is no need to look at the actual realities of the surrounding world to assess and understand them since the (supposed) source of any given reality are considerations connected to it rather than the actual existences which provide consciousness with something to perceive in the first place. This brings us to another point – Scientology’s view of the basic nature of a “problem.” [The section covering the subject of a PROBLEM was separated into its own page: PROBLEM.]
Needed Theoretical Correction:
REALITY EXISTS AND CAN BE DIRECTLY PERCEIVED.
A-R-C Triangle
Reality as “agreement” is then integrated into yet another basic principle in Scientology – the ARC Triangle – which underlies much of Scientology theory and practice. Below is a video explanation from the Church of Scientology followed by quotes from different Dianetics & Scientology books reaffirming the ARC principle. Notice the limitations that Hubbard places on human relations.
[Capitalization was added for emphasis]
[June 1951] Science of Survival, Chapter 6 “The Basic LAWS of Theta”:
The triangle of affinity, reality, and communication could be called an interactive triangle in that NO point of it can be raised WITHOUT affecting the other two points and raising them, and NO point of it can be lowered WITHOUT affecting the other two points. The postulated reason for this is that affinity, reality, and communication are COMPONENT PARTS OF THETA, and thus affinity, reality, and communication are THREE MANIFESTATION OF THE SAME THING.
[November 1951] Advanced Procedure and Axioms
AXIOM 168. AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION CO-EXIST IN AN INEXTRICABLE RELATIONSHIP.
The co-existent relationship between affinity, reality and communication is such that none can be increased without increasing the other two and none can be decreased without decreasing the other two.
[December 1951] Handbook for Preclears, Chapter 8 “The Second Act”:
One CANNOT have affinity without agreement. One CANNOT have agreement without some form of communication. One CANNOT have communication without agreement. One CANNOT have agreement without affinity. One CANNOT have communication without affinity. This inevitable triangle may be at any level on the tone scale, high or low. If communication is destructive, the affinity drops to anger and agreement is violent disagreement.
[April 1955] Dianetics 55!: Chapter IV Accent On Ability
Affinity, Reality, and Communication form an interdependent triangle. It is easily discovered on some inspection that one cannot communicate in the absence of Reality and Affinity. Further, one cannot have a reality on something with which he cannot communicate and for which he feels no affinity. And similarly, one has no affinity for something on which he has no reality and with which he cannot communicate. Even more narrowly, one does not have affinity for those things on which he has no reality and on which he cannot communicate, and one has no reality on things which he has no affinity for and cannot communicate upon, and one cannot communicate upon things which have no reality to him and for which he has no affinity.
[September 1956] The Fundamentals of Thought, Chapter 5 “The A-R-C Triangle”:
The A-R-C triangle is the keystone of living associations. This triangle is the common denominator of ALL of life’s activities.
…
The inter-relationship of the triangle becomes apparent at once when one asks, “Have you ever tried to talk to an angry man?” Without a high degree of liking and without some basis of agreement there is no communication. Without communication and some basis of emotional response there can be no reality. Without some basis for agreement and communication there can be no affinity. Thus we call these three things a triangle. Unless we have two corners of a triangle, there cannot be a third corner. Desiring any corner of the triangle, one must include the other two.
Some good questions to ask yourself in analyzing the suggested ARC principle:
Do you have to agree with someone in order to communicate with them?
Do you have to like somebody in order to communicate with them?
If you do not agree with someone, do you also have to not like them?
Could you continue to like somebody even if you do not agree with them?
Do you have to agree with someone in order to like them?
Do you have to like someone in order to agree with them?
If you do not agree with someone and/or do not like them, do you also have to reduce or cut your communication with them? In other words, does not liking or fundamentally agreeing with someone, magically block your self-determined ability to direct communication at them? Can you continue to, for example, question somebody in an interview even if you do no like or agree with them – and do that with a professional and respectable demeanor unshaped by any personal dislikes or disagreements? In other words, if it is possible to direct and maintain communication regardless of any personal disagreements or dislikes, then the ARC principle is not true, objectively, but can become a kind of “subjective truth” that someone can subscribe to through a BELIEF.
If you maintain open communication with someone, do you also have to like them and agree with them?
And finally the most important question:
Do you have to LIKE or AGREE with something in order to be able to PERCEIVE it?
The entire logic of the ARC Triangle collapses when you realize that you do not have to actually like something or agree with it in order to perceive it; and just because you perceive something, it does not mean that you will automatically like it or agree with it.
The principle is NOT absolute. It is only marginally applicable in a sense that of course, when someone has a liking for something, then there will be more motivation and ease to direct one’s attention to it and incorporate information about it. And when one feels repulsed by something, then that repulsion can work to inhibit one’s motivation to pro-actively direct attention toward it. But all of this can be overwritten by the power of one’s CHOICE and SELF-DETERMINATION.
And that’s another good point – where does choice and self-determination fit in with respect to the principle of the ARC triangle?
It should also be noted, that people in Scientology are continuously audited through the principle of the ARC triangle. A Scientology auditor must check for an “ARC break” at the start of Scientology auditing as part of “rudiments.” This principle is obviously also constantly reinforced through its use in thinking and communication among Scientologists. This continuous REINFORCEMENT could and does lead to what I would call “objectification” of a subjective principle – formation of a persistent viewpoint that a given principle describes an actual objective truth, rather than being approximate and only marginally applicable to some observed phenomena (in this case, in relation to human psychology and behavior).
[concept { OBJECTIFICATION } – not to be confused with other meanings of the word “objectification.”]
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
Ron Hubbard does refer to perception and concepts in relationship to reality, but somehow the emphasis ends up being placed on AGREEMENT as the basis of reality which is then reaffirmed throughout Scientology practice.
The problem with defining reality in terms of “agreement” is that reality is something in existence that is perceived by the mind, while an “agreement” is an attitude that one takes with respect to such perception. The term “agreement” cannot even be used to define perception itself (to say nothing of some underlying existence to which it can apply) since agreement is simply a form of “action” or attitude that someone takes or assumes with respect to it. It would be analogous to defining a fish in terms of “catching.” One can catch a fish or not catch a fish and so one can agree or not agree with a certain perception, conception or view of a given reality.
In terms of practice, if realty was a product of agreement then how would someone ever be able to break away from its “established” form and change it according to one’s own will without having to depend on explicit cooperation from other people? How can someone ever step out of group mentality if that person believed that reality itself was a product of “collective illusion” of some sort? This means, if you truly believed it, that if you separated away from the collective that would literally lead to an end of reality. No wonder then that a group of people subscribing to such a philosophy could feel threatened by independent thinking and criticism since that could lead to overall disagreements which in turn could lead to a “collapse” of reality; therefore, individual expression and information at large has to be tightly controlled as a form of “reality protection” which is exactly what occurs in Scientology groups.
SOLUTION
The solution to this would be to establish a clear differentiation between the REALITY of something in terms of its existence (or occurrence) and the PERCEPTION of that existence as constructed by the mind. The concepts of “agreement” and “disagreement” would be understood in terms of their standard dictionary definitions unrelated to Ron Hubbard’s odd and unrealistic ideas about the nature of reality… unless of course we are talking about specific realities that actually do depend on agreement between people, such as reality of a given culture – the agreed upon societal principles on which a given culture is constructed.
The Concept of Reality in Different Dianetics & Scientology Publications
(May 1950) Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
Chapter 1 “The Analytical Mind and the Standard Memory Banks”
The analytical mind has its standard memory banks. Just where these are located structurally is again no concern of ours at this time. To operate, the analytical mind has to have percepts (data), memory (data), and imagination (data).
There are another data storage bank and another part of the human mind [the reactive mind] which contain aberrations and are the source of insanities. These will be fully covered later and should not be confused with either the analytical mind or the standard memory banks.
Whether or not the data contained in the standard memory banks is evaluated correctly or not, it is all there. The various senses receive information and this information files straight into the standard memory banks. It does not go through the analyzer first. It is filed and the analyzer then has it from the standard banks.
There are several of these standard banks and they may be duplicated in themselves so that there are several of each kind of bank. Nature seems generous in such things. There is a bank, or set of banks, for each perception. These can be considered racks of data filed in a cross-index system which would make an intelligence officer purple with envy. ANY SINGLE PERCEPT IS FILED AS A CONCEPT. The sight of a moving car, for instance, is filed in the visio-bank in color and motion, at the time seen, cross-indexed to the area in which seen, cross-indexed to all data about cars, cross-indexed to thoughts about cars, and so forth and so forth with the additional filing of conclusions (thought stream) of the moment and thought streams of the past with all their conclusions. The sound of that car is similarly filed from the ears, straight into the audio-bank, and cross-indexed multitudinously as before. The other sensations of that moment are also filed, in their own banks.
(June 1951) Science of Survival, Book I
Chapter 6 “The Basic Laws of Theta, Affinity – Reality – Communication”
This has a very high usefulness to the auditor. For instance, when his preclear has a very thorough sonic shutoff the auditor knows that he can regain some sonic either by increasing the present-time affinity of the preclear or by raising the level of reality of the preclear. Likewise, if the affinity of the preclear is markedly low, the auditor can raise that affinity by bettering the communication and REALITY CONCEPTS of the preclear. And finally, when the reality of the preclear is low, it can be raised by increasing affinity and communication.
…
It is very difficult to suppress the affinity of an individual, his capacity, that is, to receive or give love, without also suppressing his communication and reality factors. Likewise, one cannot suppress the communication factor without also suppressing the affinity and reality factor. And finally, one cannot suppress reality without suppressing affinity and communication. For instance, a mother telling a child that she does not love it is also forbidding the child to speak and is blunting the child’s reality, since the child normally expects to be loved. To tell the child to keep quiet is also to reject the child and is to offend the child’s CONCEPT of what the real world should contain. Contradicting one of the child’s statements or BELIEFS, which is to say his reality, is also to break affinity with him and suppress his communication. One cannot touch this triangle at any point without affecting the other two points; and yet each point is highly specific and has its own characteristics.
…
When we speak of affinity, reality, and communication we are talking about the three component parts of theta. These three quantities in combination playing upon MEST give us the manifestation we might call computation, or understanding. One has to have some affinity for an object, some communication with it, and some CONCEPT of its reality, before he can understand it. His ability to understand any thought or object depends upon his affinity, his communication, and his reality. All mathematics can be derived from affinity, communication, and reality playing upon MEST.
…
On the first dynamic, one has the affinity for self the CONCEPT of the reality of self and the ability to communicate with memory of self.
…
(June 1951) Science of Survival, Book I
Chapter 9 “Communication and Reality”
The overall subject of communication covers far more than the exchange of intelligence. Basically, communication could be called the science of perceptions. As general semantics is organized on the subject of words and ideas; so can be organized, and so has been organized in Dianetics, the entire subject of perception.
Everything which we know of the physical universe and, possibly, anything which we can know of theta universe, allowing that it exists, could be said to be embraced by perception, computation, and imagination.
By perception we mean the perceiving of entities or existences. We achieve what we know of reality by perceiving entities and existences in the physical universe, and possibly the theta universe, by combining these perceptions and computing or imagining results not in disagreement with the results obtained by others.
…
What we conceive to be REALITY IS ACTUALLY AGREED UPON PERCEPTION of the physical universe. There is an endless philosophic wrangle as to whether or not our perceptions perceive anything, or whether or not our perceptions are merely an illusion themselves. True enough, the physical universe can be reduced down to zero mathematically. Matter, energy, space and time could be said to be the result of certain motions. The moment we go off into the by-road of wondering whether the physical universe is real or not we come rapidly upon many philosophic imponderables. What we know as reality, however, is an AGREED-UPON CONCEPTION of the physical universe in which we live. You and I agree that a table exists in the center of the room; we can see it, and feel it, and when we rap it with our knuckles we can hear that something is there. You and I have agreed upon the reality of the table, mainly because each of us agrees that he perceives it via his senses. Should someone come up and say that not a table but a black cat stood there, you and I would consider the man mad. Indeed, by a sort of natural selection we remove such “madnesses” from our society. When someone is in disagreement with the majority as to the sense perceptions of the physical universe, the first reaction of the majority is to have this person pronounced mad and locked up. Locked up, he does not procreate and so breaks the genetic line. This happens often enough to select out of the human race those who do not agree on the nature of the physical universe via sense perceptions. Many amusing and entertaining postulates can be formed on the subject of reality.
Certain it is that by communication — by the group of sense PERCEPTIONS which make up communication — we know reality. Our affinity with that reality — our admission that we are a part of that reality, and our acceptance of our participation in it — is necessary to our communication with it, and thus we have the triangle of Dianetics: affinity, reality, and communication. One cannot stand without the other two. There cannot, for instance, be communication and affinity alone; these two things would result in an AGREEMENT of some sort, which AGREEMENT WOULD BE REALITY. If communication exists, some agreement can be reached, and as soon as an agreement is reached between two people or by a man with himself, there is some affinity. If affinity and reality exist, then a communication must ensue or must already exist in order to act as a channel of expression and recognition of the agreement. An auditor, knowing the trio — affinity, reality, and communication — can use any point of the triangle as a point of attack in order to enhance the other two corners of the triangle. The overall subject of communication, as we have seen, contains all avenues of sense perception: sonic, visio, tactile, olfactory, and the rest. It includes, as well, the perception of too strong a contact with the MEST universe — pain, which is itself less directly, a form of communication. The receipt of perceptions of the real universe and the purpose of theta come about as a computation. Computation creates ideas concerning reality, and this creation of ideas leads to the type of communication which is commonly and ordinarily classified as communication — conversation, messages, and other methods of exchange of ideas.
(June 1951) Science of Survival, Book I
Chapter 15 “COLUMN M Reality (Agreement)”
As has been said in earlier chapters of this book, THE QUALITY KNOWN AS REALITY EXISTS, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, MAINLY BECAUSE WE AGREE THAT IT EXISTS. The entire physical universe, according to the tenets of nuclear physics, is reducible to near-zero, if we think in terms of an actuality that can be sensed, measured, or experienced. Matter and energy exist in space and time; but matter is composed of energy; and energy seems, at best, to be a motion rather than a substance. For a motion to take place, one sees that space and time are necessary, but that space and time are themselves such strange entities, according to Einstein and others, that they are also reducible and expandable and are not sharply defined entities. Much could be said on this subject, all more or less of a confusing and indecisive nature. Philosophers for many centuries have been debating over the reality of reality, and each one has come to the final admission that man agrees that he perceives something with his various senses and that man has agreed to call this reality.
For our purposes, THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR OF REALITY COULD BE CALLED, THEN, AGREEMENT. If you and I both agree that we are gazing at an automobile, then that automobile has reality for us. If another person comes forward and says that it is not an automobile but a barrel of olives, then you and are apt to suppose him crazy. Majority opinion rules, where reality is concerned. Those who do not agree with the majority are commonly pronounced insane, or are exiled, and thus we have a sort of continuous natural selection which gives us a social order that has agreed upon certain definite realities. Anyone who seeks to alter those realities in any way is attacked, unless the strength and force of his reason are such that they carry into the minds of men a new reality on which those men can agree.
[No. The “lowest common denominator of reality” is actual EXISTENCE which can then be perceived.]
(November 1951) Advanced Procedure and Axioms: Axioms
AXIOM 110. THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THETA ARE AFFINITY, REALITY, AND COMMUNICATION.
AXIOM 111. SELF-DETERMINISM CONSISTS OF MAXIMAL AFFINITY, REALITY AND COMMUNICATION.
AXIOM 112. AFFINITY IS THE COHESION OF THETA.
Affinity manifests itself as the recognition of similarity of efforts and goals amongst organisms by those organisms.
AXIOM 113. REALITY IS THE AGREEMENT UPON PERCEPTIONS AND DATA IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
All that we can be sure is real is that on which we have agreed is real. Agreement is the essence of reality.
AXIOM 114. COMMUNICATION IS THE INTERCHANGE OF PERCEPTION THROUGH THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BETWEEN ORGANISMS OR THE PERCEPTION OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE BY SENSE CHANNELS.
AXIOM 115. SELF-DETERMINISM IS THE THETA CONTROL OF THE ORGANISM.
[09 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort”
Lecture: Statics and Motions and Axioms 1-14
It’s a very mysterious commodity, this ARC, in some respects. You’ve seen it derived – it’s been derived from several places. It’s based on the fact that the material universe is as it is because we agree it is. That’s a fact – we do, we agree it is and we actually find out this is quite workable – where you have agreement, you have reality. And where you don’t have any agreement, you don’t have a reality. Nothing gets constructed or comes into existence that is not agreed upon.
Thee and me agree that there’s a chair up there on the stage and somebody comes in and he says it’s a horse and we promptly look at him and have him locked up or something of the sort (we probably wouldn’t here, we’d probably process him) but that’s what would normally happen in the society. Here would be a level of disagreement, disagreement is unreality.
You can’t have a communication without an affinity, you can’t have any affinity without an agreement on something, and so it goes.
(December 1951) Handbook for Preclears: The Second Act
Reality itself could be considered that on which Man AGREES to be real. There is an old, moth-chewed philosophic concern about perception. Are things real only when we see them? Or are things real? In other words, is there any reality. Well, desks and chairs seem very real to me. And they seem very real to you. Thus we AGREE that there are desks and chairs and people and cars and a world and the stars. SANE MEN HAVE A VERY SOLID AGREEMENT ON REALITY. They agree that things are real. Insane people have hallucinations. Hallucinations are imagined realities with which nobody else agrees. When an individual does not agree with the rest of the race upon the reality of matter, energy, space and time, the rest of the race locks him up. Ideas are not matter, energy, space or time and so there can be disagreement on ideas and agreement upon the reality of matter, energy, space and time. This agreement upon MEST, then, is reality. Reality could be said to be agreement above 2.0 on the tone scale, agreement not so much with people but with MEST’s actuality. This is one corner of our triangle.
(December 1951) Handbook for Preclears: Glossary
ENVIRONMENT. The surroundings of the pre-clear from moment to moment in particular or in general, including people, pets, mechanical objects, weather, culture, clothing or the Supreme Being. Anything he perceives or believes he perceives. The objective environment is the environment everyone agrees is there. The subjective environment is the environment the individual himself believes is there. They may not agree.
(December 1952) Scientology 8-8008
[1974 printing] Pages: 27 – 28 (Universes)
A universe is defined as a “whole system of created things.” There could be, and are, many universes, and there could be many kinds of universes: we are for our purposes here interested in two particular universes. The first of these is the MEST universe, that agreed upon reality of matter, energy, space and time which we use as anchor points and through which we communicate. The other is our personal universe which is no less a matter of energy and space. These two universes are entirely distinct and it could be said that the principal confusion and aberration of the individual stems from his having confused one for the other. Where these two universes have crossed, in the mind of the individual, we find a confusion of control and ownership for the reason that the two universes do not behave alike.
Whereas each one of these universes was apparently founded on the same modus operandi as any other universe, which is to say, the creation of space by putting out anchor points, the formation of forms by combinations of dimension points, the MEST universe and one’s own universe do not behave similarly for him.
One’s own universe is amenable to instantaneous creation and destruction, by himself and without argument. He can create space and bring it into a “permanent status.” He can create and combine forms in that space and cause those forms to go into motion and he can make that motion continuously automatic or he can regulate it sporadically or he can regulate it totally, and all by postulate. One’s envisionment of one’s own universe is intensely clear. The reality of one’s own universe is sharper and brighter, if anything, than his reality on the MEST universe. We call one’s attitude towards his own universe “actuality,” and his attitude towards the MEST universe, since it is based upon agreement, “reality.”
[1974 printing] Page: 34 (Terminals)
It could be said that the MEST universe is the average of agreement amongst viewpoints and that the laws of the MEST universe, no matter how physical, are the result of this agreement; and, indeed, this definition suffices for those conditions which are supposed to be “reality.” The MEST universe is very real, but any hypnotist can instruct a hypnotized subject into the construction of a universe which has tactile, sight, sound and any other manifestation possessed by the MEST universe, and who is to say then, that the hypnotized subject is not perceiving a universe?
[1974 printing] Pages: 35 – 36 (Behaviour of Universes)
It could be said, then, that the difference between the microcosm (one’s own universe) and the macrocosm (the MEST universe) is the difference between commanding it and agreeing about it. One’s own universe is what he would construct for a universe without the opposition or the confusion of other viewpoints. The MEST universe is that upon which one agrees in order to continue in association with other viewpoints. This may very well be the sole difference between these two universes.
. . .
When an individual’s ability to create his own universe is rehabilitated it will be found, strangely enough, that his ability to handle the MEST universe has been rehabilitated. In fact, this is the most secure route as represented in 8-8008 as a road.
By actual experiment it can be demonstrated that one’s ability to mock-up a universe of his own and the resulting improvement of his perceptions to that universe bring about an ability to perceive the MEST universe. Indeed, it might be inferred as something like a proof that the MEST universe in itself is an illusion based upon agreement in view of the fact that the rehabilitation of the ability to view illusion rehabilitates the ability to view the MEST universe.
[1974 printing] Pages: 62 – 63 (Truth-Hallucination)
The highest one can attain to truth is to attain to his own illusions. The lowest one can descend from truth is a complete acceptance of MEST universe reality, for this below a certain level becomes scrambled and brings on the condition known as hallucination. Hallucination is not self-generated; it comes about only when a person is an effect to such an extent that he is almost dead.
What is commonly believed to be truth is agreement upon natural law. This would be the truth of the MEST universe which would be the lowest common denominator of agreement upon any one subject. Where the MEST universe is concerned, acceptance of such truths is dangerous.
In Scientology one is studying the lowest common denominators of agreement which bring, about an acceptance of the MEST universe and prohibit the creation of one’s own universe, which latter ability alone makes possible perception of the MEST universe which is itself an agreed-upon illusion.
Truth in Scientology is the study of the lowest common denominator of agreement, plus the establishment of the true ability of the thetan. The true ability of the thetan is a truth much higher than the truth of the MEST universe itself and, if it has ever before been known, the difficulties of communicating it have been such as to inhibit its promulgation.
It can be seen there is truth above what passes for “truth” in the MEST universe. Scientific truths gained from deductive observations of behaviour of the MEST universe are themselves manifestations of agreements on the part of beings — thetans — who are capable of much wider creation and agreement than that represented in the MEST universe.
We have answered in Scientology a good portion of “what is truth?”
[1974 printing] Page: 106 – 107 (Creative Processing)
In truth, all sensation which he believes to come from these masses of illusory energy known as the MEST universe, are first implanted through agreement upon what he is to perceive and then perceived again by himself, with the step hidden that he has extended his own sensation to be felt and perceived by himself. He is fully convinced that the MEST universe itself has sensation which it can deliver to him, whereas all the MEST universe has is an enforced agreement which though of no substance, yet by a gradient scale came to be an illusion which seems very masterful to a preclear. To prove the reality and solidity of the MEST universe, the preclear could pound his fist upon a desk and demonstrate that his fist had met something. He is making again the error of implanting sensation and not knowing he has implanted it, for the fist which he pounds on the desk is a MEST universe fist consisting of MEST universe energy, which is itself a MEST universe agreement, and it is meeting a desk which is MEST universe; he is only demonstrating that when the MEST universe is perceived to impact upon the MEST universe, one can then implant a realistic impact and perceive it for his own wonderful edification. Reality, then, is a delusion because it is one’s own illusion which has been disowned by one and is then received by one as being another thing.
(April 1955) Dianetics 55!: Chapter IV Accent On Ability
1. COMMUNICATION is the interchange of ideas or particles between two points. More precisely, the definition of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention and Attention and a duplication at Effect of what emanates from Cause.
2. REALITY is the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved between Cause and Effect. That which is real is real simply because it is agreed upon, and for no other reason.
3. AFFINITY is the relative distance and similarity of the two ends of a communication line. Affinity has in it a mass connotation. The word itself implies that the greatest affinity there could be would be the occupation of the same space, and this, by experiment, has become demonstrated. Where things do not occupy the same space their affinity is delineated by the relative distance and the degree of duplication.
(April 1955) The Creation of Human Ability: A Summary of Scientology
Scientology concludes and demonstrates certain truths. These truths might be considered to be the highest common denominators of existence itself.
The following summary of these truths has the aspect of precision observations rather than philosophic hazardings. When treated as precision observations, many results occur. When regarded as philosophic opinions, only more philosophy results. Considerations take rank over the mechanics of space, energy, and time. By this it is meant that an idea or opinion is, fundamentally, superior to space, energy, and time, or organizations of form, since it is conceived that space, energy, and time are themselves broadly agreed-upon considerations. That so many minds agree brings about Reality in the form of space, energy, and time. These mechanics, then, of space, energy, and time are the product of agreed-upon considerations mutually held by life.
…
The freedom of an individual depends upon that individual’s freedom to alter his considerations of spacer energy, time, and forms of life and his roles in it. If he cannot change his mind about these, he is then fixed and enslaved amidst barriers such as those of the physical universe, and barriers of his own creation. Man thus is seen to be enslaved by barriers of his own creation. He creates these barriers himself, or by agreeing with things which hold these barriers to be actual.
…
1. 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.
2. THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS.
3. SPACE, ENERGY, OBJECTS, FORM, AND TIME ARE THE RESULT OF CONSIDERATIONS MADE AND/OR AGREED UPON OR NOT BY THE STATIC, AND ARE PERCEIVED SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATIC CONSIDERS THAT IT CAN PERCEIVE THEM.
…
11. THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD:
(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.
(b) Alter-is-ness IS THE CONSIDERATION WHICH INTRODUCES CHANGE, AND THEREFORE TIME AND PERSISTENCE INTO AN As-is-ness TO OBTAIN PERSISTENCY.
(c) Is-ness IS AN APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONTINUOUS ALTERATION OF AN As-is-ness. THIS IS CALLED, WHEN AGREED UPON, REALITY.
(d) Not-is-ness IS THE EFFORT TO HANDLE Is-ness BY REDUCING ITS CONDITION THROUGH THE USE OF FORCE. IT IS AN APPARENCY AND CANNOT ENTIRELY VANQUISH AN Is-ness.
…
26. REALITY IS THE AGREED-UPON APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE.
27. AN ACTUALITY CAN EXIST FOR ONE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT WHEN IT IS AGREED WITH BY OTHERS IT CAN THEN BE SAID TO BE A REALITY.
The anatomy of Reality is contained in Is-ness, which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. Is-ness is an apparency, it is not an Actuality. The Actuality is As-isness altered so as to obtain a persistency. Unreality is the consequence and apparency of the practice of Not-is-ness.
(April 1955) The Creation of Human Ability: SOP 8-C: THE REHABILITATION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT
There is no question here of whether space, energy or objects are real. Things are as real as one is certain of their reality. Reality is, here on Earth, AGREEMENT as to what is. This does not prevent barriers, or time from being formidably real. It does not mean either that space, energy or time are illusions. It is as one knows it is. For one makes, by a process of continuous automatic duplication, all that one perceives. So much for theory — in application this theory obtains results of considerable magnitude in changing beingness.
Sample References to Agreement
[08 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort”
Lecture: Axiom and Effort Processing
There was an Axiom in the First Book. You couldn’t have called it an Axiom, it was an observation. It said a person couldn’t be aberrated unless he agreed to it. You remember that? Well, this self-determinism is his agreement with it; that’s all there is to it.
Now, your auditor will find in a preclear these counter-efforts. And the preclear is madly holding a counter-effort out there. He’s been holding it out there for years. He’s agreeing with it. Agreeing with it puts him a little bit out of valence. (You’ll know why at the end of the week.) If he agrees with it he goes a little bit out of valence because he can’t be himself and agree with it because it will kill him if he’s himself. He has to disagree with it to be himself; but it’s put him into Apathy, so he can’t be himself.
…
This is very easy for you to find in the preclear. Take a look at your preclear and find a physical deformity or a psychosomatic illness and you’ve got a counter-effort-right there, bing! Either the preclear is bulged out at the spot to resist this counter-effort or he’s caved in at the point of the counter-effort.
…
Anyway, here is this counter-effort on any kind of a shoulder tumor or something like that. All you do is take the fellow’s self-determined effort off of it. First his effort to agree, because he’s in Apathy about it, otherwise it wouldn’t make a blemish on him. And then knock out his agreement, and make him disagree with it; reality will turn on in the sequence, you get him to present time, that’s all there is to it. If he went down past it on the track afterwards, he wouldn’t hit it.
[09 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort”
Lecture: Effort Processing Summary
There is an unfortunateness in association with Homo sapiens today and I will give you the trouble with it, very simply: Here you are with A-R-C. Now, that’s determined motion, interplay of understandings based on your experiences and data. That’s you-ARC-traveling at a certain velocity. And here’s they.
You go into Affinity with anybody, you’re agreeing with them, you have to communicate with them. You go into agreement with anybody, you have to feel some Affinity, willy-nilly, one way or the other, and some Reality, you have to agree, see? You also have to have Communication.
All right. If you go into Communication with anybody, even though it’s way down the Tone Scale, so it’s, you might say, “en-Affinity,” enturbulated Affinity – it’s way down the Tone Scale — you’re still going to have to establish an Affinity with this individual and in addition to that, you’re going to agree with him. You answer a life’s entheta communication line and you have established a level of agreement.
[10 October 1951] “Thought, Emotion, and Effort” Lecture: Theory of Epicenters
And agreement is just being oneself, to a large degree, with oneself. One goes out of communication with oneself and one isn’t in agreement with oneself and one isn’t oneself, then one doesn’t have any reality on oneself.
[December 1951] Handbook for Preclears: The Second Act
Here, then, is the second act. First achieve an understanding of the factors in understanding — ARC — contained in this section. Then answer these questions.
List the persons in your present time environment who enforce affinity on you.
List the persons in your present time environment who enforce AGREEMENT upon you.
List the persons in your present time environment who demand that you communicate with them.
List the persons in your present time environment who refuse your affection.
List the persons in your present time environment who won’t let you communicate with them.
List the persons in your present time environment who refuse to let you AGREE with them.
…
List persons in the past who insisted they were your friends. This is a variety of enforced affection.
List persons in the past who insisted you AGREE with them.
List persons in the past who insisted you communicate with them.
List persons in the past who would not show you affection.
List persons in the past who refused to communicate with you.
List persons in the past who would not let you AGREE on things.
[December 1951] Handbook for Preclears: The Eighth Act
Now emotion is emotion whether it is yours or anothers. Live around a person who is continually angry and you will begin to emotionally react toward that anger, for the anger seeks to stop you whatever you do. Live around a person who is afraid and you will pick up their fear and try to counteract it with emotion of your own, usually seeking to stop their flight. Or you can get into the unhappy state of duplicating their counter-emotion with your emotion. You do this whenever you agree with somebody. (The chief hole in light books which seek to win friends and influence people. They also make people ill eventually because of agreement on emotion.) Agree with an angry man and you’ll get angry too. Agree with an afraid man and you’ll get afraid. Agree with a man in grief and you’ll feel your own grief. And so on as covered in ARC in an earlier act.
[December 1951] Handbook for Preclears: The Twelfth Act
AGREEMENT: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO AGREE BUT DIDN’T WANT TO. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED OTHERS TO AGREE. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM AGREEING. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED OTHERS FROM AGREEING. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE GLAD TO AGREE.
COMMUNICATION: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO COMMUNICATE. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM COMMUNICATING. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED OTHERS TO COMMUNICATE. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED OTHERS FROM COMMUNICATING. TIMES WHEN YOU WANTED TO COMMUNICATE.
AFFINITY: TIMES WHEN YOU WERE FORCED TO LIKE SOMEBODY. TIMES WHEN YOU WERE PREVENTED FROM LIKING SOMEBODY. TIMES WHEN YOU FORCED ANOTHER TO LIKE YOU. TIMES WHEN YOU PREVENTED ANOTHER FROM LIKING YOU. TIMES WHEN YOU DECIDED YOU LIKED SOMEBODY.
[April 1955] Dianetics 55!: Chapter XV ARC Processing
Modern ARC processing processes communication as given earlier in this volume. ARC processing includes the following powerful processes: (1) „Tell me something you might communicate with.“ „Tell me something that would communicate with you.“ (2) „What might you agree with?“ „What might agree with you?“ (3) „Tell me something you could like.“ „Tell me something that might like you.“ These are present time, not past or future processes. They produce very strong reactions. They solve very rough cases. They are summed up in a simple process which does not dispense with them: „Tell me something (someone) you could understand.“ „Tell me something (someone) who could understand you.“
CONTROLLED PSYCHOSIS
It looks like Ron Hubbard actually designed Scientology as a form of psychological manipulation to induce a state of controlled psychosis.
PSYCHOSIS: The word psychosis is used to describe conditions that affect the mind, where there has been some LOSS OF CONTACT WITH REALITY. When someone becomes ill in this way it is called a psychotic episode. During a period of psychosis, a person’s thoughts and perceptions are disturbed and the individual may have DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT IS NOT. Symptoms of psychosis include DELUSIONS (false beliefs) and HALLUCINATIONS (seeing or hearing things that others do not see or hear). Other symptoms include incoherent or nonsense speech, and behavior that is inappropriate for the situation. A person in a psychotic episode may also experience depression, anxiety, sleep problems, social withdrawal, lack of motivation, and difficulty functioning overall.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/raise/what-is-psychosis.shtml
He indoctrinated his followers into the idea presented as an “axiom” that there is no reality, that whatever one BELIEVES is real IS real – the “actuality” or one’s own “universe” – and that when others agree with it, it becomes “reality” as a form of shared “apparency of existence.”
When someone loses an ability to differentiate between one’s IMAGINATIONS ABOUT REALITY and the ACTUAL REALITY – that’s a condition of PSYCHOSIS. And when you have a group of people who end up in such psychological condition that they reinforce in each other, there is now a case of COLLECTIVE PSYCHOSIS.
And it is a form of “controlled” psychosis because Ron Hubbard dictated to his followers how and what they were supposed to think and what they were supposed to believe about the world, themselves and other people in it. It’s basically a typical case of abusive psychological manipulation that was elevated to a level of international movement masking itself as a “science” and a “religion.” That’s what Ron Hubbard claimed Scientology was, and while it contains elements of both, it is actually neither.
The actual technology of Scientology as a form of insidious psychological manipulation designed by Ron Hubbard can be summarized as following:
1) Convince people that reality does not actually exist.
2) Teach them that whatever they believe to be real IS real.
3) Then tell them WHAT to believe [through books, lectures and other forms of formalized teachings] and
4) Suppress any form of criticism, disagreement or alternative thought. [which is the evident purpose of Scientology ethics]
For historical record: Initial draft of this analysis was published on Oct 10, 2014 at 20:25 on CivilizationUpgrade.com as part of page “Reality, Problem and ARC.” When I transferred this material to ScientologyAnalysis.com, I added citations from Scientology 8-8808, and later added a section on “controlled psychosis.”
Page initially published on CivilizationUpgrade.com: October 10th, 2014
Moved to ScientologyAnalysis.com: June 20, 2020