LMT Literati Challenge, Year 2000

From: Bob Minton <bobminton@lisatrust.net>
Subject: LMT Literati Contest Entry - by Roger Gonnet
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:16:03 -0500
Organization: Lisa McPherson Trust, 33 N. Fort Harrison Ave., Clearwater, FL 33755 Tel: (727) 467-9335
Message-ID: <hnkt3ts9op1olrri0msn5d5r18an88qn7f@4ax.com>

The formatting on this message results from it having been submitted as a word document as opposed to the text requirement of the LMT Literati Contest.

HUBBARD AXIOMS:
Mechanisms used in his most basic texts to control, de-responsabilize , and limit freedom of scientologists & other people

Copyright © 2000 by Roger Gonnet

Introduction


The idea behind this essay is as follows.

We know that Hubbard, scientology founder, wrote some really fundamental texts for his dianetics and scientology creations, generally under very concise forms, such as Axioms, Logics and Pre-logics, or Codes; They shall be linked sometimes to other dianetics or scientology fundamentals concisely formulated, like dianetics or scientology symbols, or very basic laws expressed in short sentences or rules.

Could we find in those mostly theoretical texts some of the thoughts that he expressed more completely elsewhere, some seeds of a system to develop, inside his followers, either a better self-control, better responsability and better freedom, or, reversely, to increase his own responsability, control and freedom against theirs?

It's more than probable that the observations about those works will sometimes be as "sickening" as those texts can be to swallow. Please, Dear Reader, excuse this particularity, as well as my dullness to write a fine english. Those having for the first time to read some of the most complex "axioms" he wrote could have some hard time with them. Hoping the critics added could help to make it easier… Scientology "study tech" leads to an overuse of dictionaries, and to quibble about each word: here, more than ever, we'll have sometimes to quibble on words and words use, which is certainly a painful task for readers (or authors!); but as Hubbard asked it to be done, it looks correct to do it while discussing his own issues, since it's part of his methodology. I've nevertheless worked to avoid most of the too-much scientologese-speak axioms, but one.

Another basic idea for the theory exposed here is that there are strong and unbreakable links between freedom and control: if one controls something or somebody, that person or thing is less free. Another similar link exists - at least, from what Hubbard himself established - between responsability and freedom. Though we could say that responsability is a positive thing when applied on oneself, applying one's responsability to others can be taken as an evidence of an attempted control over them, and could be therefore assessed as something negative - unless applied only positively, or toward people linked by family or hierarchy ties (like in the relationship parents-kids), if no abuse of authority is committed. Reversely, having "too much freedom" - or giving too much freedom to specific people one agrees with - could lead to a decrease of freedom for others.

Everyone's freedom ceases where everyone else's freedom starts.

Note:

Beware nevertheless: the whole topic is subject to potential scrutiny; the author can't guarantee that all the theories elaborated here can't have other explanations, since no single "truth" can be absolute. Most philosophies contain some truths, and this text is mostly a philosophical and nearly esoteric discussion against an other philosophical viewpoint. Keeping in mind what it intends to demonstrate (how Hubbard used his own "logic" to destroy other's logics, so as to gain power) should probably alleviate a bit the somewhat tortuous ways used in the demonstration itself.

The essay won't use each axiom or Logics ever written by Hubbard: a large book would'nt suffice to criticize them.

The first axioms.

From Advanced Procedures and Axioms (published in 1951, reprint edition 1965), we learn that the "Source of life is a static of particular and peculiar properties." Despite the fact that this reprint was done after Hubbard had enforced his study techniques, we'll not find a definition for what he means by "static" in the booklet. We'll find nevertheless into his Scientology Axioms some definition of a static: that's in scientology axiom

#1 (1954):

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.

We could therefore deduce from that first unexplained - undefined formulation, that to some extent, Hubbard did not want this to be really understood; the "axiom" characterization adding some force to this probability, since it presents the formula as an indisputable truth . Let's go to the signification of those axioms #1s. They are merely a rewriting of the well known St John's Gospel first sentence: "In the beginning was the Verb, and the Verb was besides God, and the Verb was God... Every things were done by him, and without him, nothing would have been made"

Something having no mass, no motion etc. can only be a (or the) Verb, stricto sensu. Nevertheless, Hubbard added something here: he characterized this as "Life", instead of "Source of Life, or God etc." - true enough, that does not make much difference. He gives specific abilities to that static: postulating and perceiving. He could have said "creating" and "being able to perceive" what it had created. (though it would have been unuseful, because the creation act can't be done without some perception of one's creation... at least, it would have been simpler.)

We find here the first mechanism through which Hubbard took some control over his followers: some mystery, or hardly understandable thing added, by the use of his own words/neologisms to describe events or facts - or inventions. Making something unclear has been used since millenia as a process of domination: denying knowledge leads to control over ignorant people.

Reversely, one could argue that he tried at the same time to teach something to people; but if he did, why to do it by acting as obscurely as he could, by adding mysteries? Mysteries are opposite to teaching; teaching eradicates mystery. Incidentally, the most mysterious or unsolved questions (religious or philosophic ones) can lead to the worse effects (wars) in case of disagreement.

We'll find more in Scientology Axiom #2: here, he explains again that the static has the ability to think, postulate and to have opinions. In Dn axioms, we'll have to wait Axiom #22 to find out something more or less similar: "Theta and thought are similar orders of static". Is there really any difference between axiom #1 Scn and #2 Scn, or #22 in Dn? It does not seem so; those three "activities" of thinking postulating and having opinions - in Scn axiom 2 are directly related to Thought, as in Dn Axiom #22. ("I think, therefore I am" could have been shorter - but scientology is a syncretism, right?).

The axiom #3 develops just a bit more what could be easily deduced from #1.

The Scn axioms #4, #5, #6, #7 8 and 9 are mainly definitions, such as #4 "Space is a viewpoint of dimension" .

Lets make a detour

From the Logic #17 - that comes before the Axioms in the Booklet, we'll read:

" LOGIC 17. THOSE FIELDS WHICH MOST DEPEND UPON AUTHORITATIVE OPINION FOR THEIR DATA LEAST CONTAIN KNOWN NATURAL LAW." That looks okay as far as we are concerned. But as soon as we come back to Dn Axioms, we'll discover this on #7: "The life static is engaged into a conquest of the physical universe". He does not offer any evidence that this could be true, therefore, it's an authoritative opinion, and applying his logic leads to : scientology and dianetics contain the least known natural law. One could as well declare that the Life static is aeternal (something he said himself under another form in Dianetics, where he explains that time is a continuum (- thus created by Theta); so, once the static creates time, he's considering himself to be part or source of that continuum.

Lots of other examples exist anywhere in Hubbard's works, leading to the unescapable conclusion that Dn and Scn are authoritative and do not contain much natural laws, and forces us to conclude that he used such works or allegations to take some control over his troops. We could read another formulation serving the same purpose (and leading to the same flaw) in LOGIC #14 :FACTORS INTRODUCED INTO A PROBLEM OR SOLUTION WHICH DO NOT DERIVE FROM NATURAL LAW BUT ONLY AUTHORITARIAN COMMAND ABERRATE THAT PROBLEM OR SOLUTION, leading this time to the aberrative characteristics of Dianetics and Scientology.

Later we, have : LOGIC 23. THE HUMAN MIND IS A SERVOMECHANISM TO ANY MATHEMATICS EVOLVED OR EMPLOYED BY THE HUMAN MIND.

POSTULATE -- THE HUMAN MIND AND INVENTIONS OF THE HUMAN MIND ARE CAPABLE OF RESOLVING ANY AND ALL PROBLEMS WHICH CAN BE SENSED, MEASURED OR EXPERIENCED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

COROLLARY -- THE HUMAN MIND IS CAPABLE OF RESOLVING THE PROBLEM OF THE HUMAN MIND. The borderline of solution of this science lies between WHY life is surviving and HOW life is surviving. It is possible to resolve HOW life is surviving without resolving WHY life is surviving."

Besides of declaring axiomatic that mind could be a "servomechanism", a term only applicable to material objects, in contradiction with other definitions he gave of the mind (he says principally that mind is composed of mental image pictures, though he asserts too " mind is a natively self-determined computer.../...It is natively cause. It seeks to be minimally an effect (HFP, p.33)", Hubbard mixes here the mind and its inventions, and the why and how of life itself, also contradicting in part his axiom Dn #3, which says that the static has for its dynamic goal survival and only survival, as this could be taken as the why life is surviving. Moreover, this axiom is self-revolving or biting its own end: it's like saying that computers are servomechanisms using mathematics to solve computers problems: that does lead nowhere. From these simple examples, we could deduce that he used an extension of the method above (ideas being uncleared, or confusing) all along those concise summaries of his works, so as to control and de-responsabilize people through a relative ignorance. Mixing formulas, adding definitions without correspondance to other definitions of the exact same things, adding authoritative opinions in lieu and place of known natural laws, all this can be used to confuse the people already under some "spell" or charism, and having deliberately (!) decided to be there to "learn" .

Since he declared himself being their teacher, giving them somewhat an inferior rank - which they accepted or which they could not contest without being expelled or deprived of those "teachings" (remember: they had paid them in advance), he was also using the carrot and stick approach. But if one orders a known thing, like a car, one is supposed to get that car, not a faked one or anything else one did'nt choose).

We shall discover that the hammering of this inferiority position is further viciously crushed in his followers heads through Logic #24.

It says:

LOGIC 24. THE RESOLUTION OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL, SCIENTIFIC AND HUMAN STUDIES (such as economics, politics, sociology, medicine, criminology, etc.) DEPENDS PRIMARILY UPON THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE HUMAN MIND.

* The human mind by definition includes the awareness unit of the living organism, the observer, the computer of data, the spirit, the memory storage, the life force and the individual motivator of the living organisms . It is used as distinct from the brain, which can be considered to be motivated by the mind.

NOTE: The primary step in resolving the broad activities of the man could be considered to be the resolving of the activities of the mind itself. Hence, the logics carry to this point and then proceed as axioms concerning the human mind, such axioms being substantiated as relative truths by much newly discovered phenomena. The ensuing axioms, from Logic 24, apply no less to the various 'ologies' than they do to de-aberrating or improving the operation of the mind. It should not be thought that the following axioms are devoted to the construction of anything as limited as a therapy, which is only incidental to the resolution of human aberration and such things as psychomatic illnesses. These axioms are capable of such solutions, as has been demonstrated, but such a narrow application would indicate a very narrow scope of view."

Perhaps was he right to allegate that the resolution of human problems depends primarily of the resolution of problems of human mind, though we could as well declare that it depends of God, or of the Static, or something else being yet unknown. But that's not the point to make here. Indeed, in small letters, he adds here a lot of parts supposedly composing the human mind, e.g., the awareness unit of the organism, the spirit itself, the life force [same as theta for him, since he declared the same year, in Science of Survival, that theta is thought, life force, élan vital etc.]. But here, a mind is everything including theta.

We discover here that this confusion can't be a simple error, as Hubbard writes into LOGIC 5: A DEFINITION OF TERMS IS NECESSARY TO THE ALIGNMENT, STATEMENT AND RESOLUTION OF SUPPOSITIONS, OBSERVATIONS, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS AND THEIR COMMUNICATION. Knowing that, redefining human mind like he did above, so as to confuse people a bit more about it, can't be attributed to some distraction. Another basic exemple of these confusing basic definitions is to be discovered in his many definitions of Clear - including later the dianetic's or the natural clears - so much confusing that if one compares those definitions with the qualities of those having attested being Clear, one could find that none of the clears fit to every definition. Perhaps none fits to any of his definitions either.

In fact, he is drowning a fish - the main purpose of this "axiom 24" is quite visible: he wanted to make indirectly known that Dianetics, being his modern science of mind, was the solution to human problems. He went further, since the whole content of his explanation note above claims that not only the therapies [his own, it's evident] are useful - though incidental - but that therapy is a "very narrow scope of view" - leading the readers to supposed superior developments he could have made, or studied. Such an addition is rather obviously misdirecting - apart of being abusive and wrong - since it follows so "naturally" all the "axioms" before.

Apart from the false claims reasserted, from the new misleading definition used for "human mind", from the authoritative opinions already observed, he adds a new tool to his control of his spectators: mixing his self advertizing into theories supposed to teach life basics. It's certainly not a hazard, as he used the same process in all his works, whether lengthy or concise ones. Later, he'll even make a rule out of this system (in Public Relations series : filling the void with scientology data - not the exact quote). Scientology data are those he authored, after having eradicated other data one could have had, unless they were fit to his. Filling voids created by his own definitions or redefinitions of terms, principles, etc.

And this had a secondary positive effect for him: it leads to believe that what he says is his own creation, even (as Jeff Jacobsen observed in "The Hubbard is bare" Ars literati contest last year), if he stole or borrowed it to others.

The big stumble block - the seducing one: ARC triangle - Understanding As soon as 1951, Hubbard found one of the strongest stumbling blocks ever invented to make his group a "unamovible" one. That's the ARC triangle . It has started in Dn axioms #113 by the really devious definition he called an axiom.

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.

Or : axiom 26. REALITY IS THE AGREED-UPON APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE

That's wrong. What is wrong here? The word "we", instead of "an individual". Had he put in his axiom "an individual's reality is what he agrees upon" , it would have made it probably true. But he wrote "we"; he wrote that reality was something agreed upon - and worse, that it was an apparency; so as to destabilize realities in his followers, could we say, because that could lead them to doubt of their reality if not shared with the environment. This ARC triangle has been overused in Scientology to mean that Reality, the R point of the ARC triangle, was Agreement - "we" - meaning together, or as a whole, etc. Reality was twisted into a group topic.

His triangle should in fact be called the AAC triangle, Affinity, Agreement, Communication. But deviating this significance to make believe that Reality was "what everyone was agreeing upon" led directly to "agreements" between his own "believers", his own troops. Every time he got somebody agreeing that he was right, that he was the source of valid data etc. , he was indeed getting people agreeing to his own rules, theories, hypothesis, whatever bad or wrong or good or positive. That theory was indeed very impressive and attractive.

It was between the very first one to impinge upon his future "students": generally, people look after agreements on what they decide, what they think, what they do, what they are. Therefore, agreement represents one of the largest buttons - sensitive areas - for human people; they could die to get agreements on some important issues (scientology purposes look very important... a war without criminality, without demence and war. Making "understanding" a composite containing agreement as one of its parts was really capital. Moreover, reality - in its common sense, [called "factuality" instead by Hubbard], was touching a more important button in everybody, since the feeling of factual or real things, events etc, is at the root of everyone's sanity.

Indeed, touching the sense of what people call and feel as Reality is touching their own perceptions, their own sanity. If everybody around you was calling white what you have always known to be black, you could doubt of your sanity. And that's where Hubbard was waiting his students: once some of them had agreed upon parts of its "discoveries", others could'nt avoid to follow, without more or less risking their sanity. Those who dared to disagree left, or became less sane, indeed. Reading some of the incredible success letters of OTs, clears or anybody "having done a big win" would be enough to see some evidences of this.

Obviously, that was a very clever trap: the third button touched by his devious ARC invention was Understanding, another of those things sane people consider as very desirable and very important in life. Since there was to be an agreement, something mutual by definition, for any understanding to happen, it served a double purpose: maintaining group's agreement [a thing he nevertheless despised in Keeping Scientology Working # 1!], and severing the group from outside influences.

Those at odds with the group - therefore with him - could no longer be understood, and worse, they became "those who do not understand" [the Wogs, the "people who do'nt even try" or the "SPs", basically: those opposed to understanding], - with the correlative lack of affinity and communication between scientologists and non-scientologists, or against any critic. Besides of the previous elements of possible control and overtaking responsability, while decreasing others freedoms (elements already observed above), we find here an almost invisible perversion of an existing "life rule" so as to dominate a bit more. Such "rule" is life evidence: the more we try to find agreements with others, the more we'll get agreement and understanding between individuals or groups. Linking this agreement to communication or affinitity to get a better understanding was probably not the main point in Hubbard's idea, despite of his insistance on communication betterment through drills etc. He did never care at all to break couples inside scientology, to break family ties or communications, to break friendships or contracts (contracts=agreements), as long as the agreement cement of his group was uniting it against others. He never cared to stop communications either, or to silence people inside or outside , or to inhibit his organizations to expose inside rules, events, and techniques. Moreover, he used this same agreement argumentation to designate group's enemies, either inside or outside of the community, increasing his seizure of its components. Therefore, he used a supposed "understanding betterment" to worsen inside and outside understanding, so as to get only one form of "positive" agreement: agreeing with him.

This became more and more visible when, instead of "professors" for scientology classes, he invented later the study technique, where everything outside his own "technical" formulations was to be labeled as "squirreling, out-tech, verbal tech = high crime", leading to the worse witch huntings ... (now many "good auditors" are using scientology outside the group, in the Free Zone.) He went so far into this system that he added his own dictionaries containing lots of non-scientology words he had redefined, calling them then "technicalities".

Why this? Because he ignored deliberately one basic element present into people: if they want understanding, they want to be understood as well as to understand. Scientologists who were agreeing with parts of his tech were suddenly discovering that he was trying at the same time to break their other two "points" of the triangle: affinity and communication - whether with their friends or families or whoever else, and they could no longer support this duality.

Eventually, his insane - or dishonest - attempt to reduce understanding almost to that one single agreement part costed him - and to scientology - much more than the price to pay if he had given to his friends, or to others, more freedom, responsability and control over their own communications, lives, and affinities.

We could extend this chapter on ARC/AAC triangle to try to discover his profound motivations to do so; though it's not part of the subject here, one hypothesis could be of interest: he knew some of his own intentions were'nt "that clear" - so, he had a continued Missed Withhold, something hidden he was ashamed of -, something outside of his own declared agreements with his group: perhaps he tried to insist on agreement because of that one element aws the most missing to him. (Controlling people and getting money could have been missing agreements.)

We should'nt forget either that we can understand many things or persons with which we don't agree.

Symbolically, this first triangle has been placed in the inferior part of the Scientology double triangle main symbol. What is the second triangle, placed over in that essential symbol with the double triangle of scientology? ANOTHER TRIANGLE, another trick

1952: soon after the ARC triangle appeared another one. That was the KRC triangle, for "Knowledge, responsability, Control". It is the superior triangle, not surprisingly. Interesting enough, this one has only one thing missing: the resulting combination of those three elements. Hubbard did not give it. That missing part is nevertheless quite evident: it's POWER. How was he applying it himself so as to get power on people, or to get his lieutenants applying it to their juniors, adn those juniors applying it in turn to the lowest echelons in his organizations, every effort being redirected upwards ?

First, he was using everything he knew from their declarations or auditing sessions etc. He'll complete later by Ethics confessionals, Sec Checks and delations (knowledge reports). The more everyone knew and filed upwards, or denounced upwards, the more power he could apply from above. Secondly, he took most of their responsability through rules, very "precise" techniques and administration's systems. His people were mostly responsible (and punished) for breaking his techniques, or anything similar, but looking more attentively into such "breaks" could lead to observe that lots of such "breaks" were done without any punishment, as long as no problem were created for his profits.

This is perfectly aligned to Dn axioms #9 and #10: AXIOM 9. A FUNDAMENTAL OPERATION OF THETA IN SURVIVING IS BRINGING ORDER INTO THE CHAOS OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.

AXIOM 10. THETA BRINGS ORDER INTO CHAOS BY CONQUERING WHATEVER IN MEST MAY BE PRO-SURVIVAL AND DESTROYING WHATEVER IN MEST MAY BE CONTRA-SURVIVAL, AT LEAST THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF LIFE ORGANISMS.

Replacing here Theta by "Hubbard" and MEST by "others" [since he considered non-scientologists as raw meats or bodies, which are MEST] gives us a probable key: he's in search of his own pro-survival, he considers the remaining as chaos, and brings order to that chaos by conquering (dominating, overtaking) whatever leads to [his] survival, and destroying whatever may be supposed to be contra-survival [for him]. In both possibilities, the path is the same: it is control and depriving other's of their freedom and responsability, since they are deemed to be "chaotic" (aberrated, non-clear, etc).

Further evidences can be found in AXIOM 11. A LIFE ORGANISM IS COMPOSED OF MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND TIME, ANIMATED BY THETA, and in two logics: LOGIC 10. THE VALUE OF A DATUM IS ESTABLISHED BY THE AMOUNT OF ALIGNMENT (RELATIONSHIP) IT IMPARTS TO OTHER DATA. and into: LOGIC 11. THE VALUE OF A DATUM OR FIELD OF DATA CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY ITS DEGREE OF ASSISTANCE IN SURVIVAL OR ITS INHIBITION TO SURVIVAL.

Everything here demonstrates that survival is the final purpose, that data are to be used "in alignment", that the only positive value is survival (that's success), and in other parts of logics, we'll read that (Logic #7): COROLLARY -- TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTS, EXPERIENCE AND TRUTH, this last datum illustrating the relativity [to himself] of every postulates, axioms, or anything he wrote. We could say that he gave all the tools to decrypt his own mindset!

Perhaps would it be revealing to decipher in which order he has placed these three factors, Environment, Experience, and Truth. Truth coming last does not matter much, but Experience comes secondary to Environment: it can be deciphered if one knows how Hubbard was doing his search: mainly through practice (environment) and deductions (experience). Truth itself was of few avail. Hubbard was a pragmatic man, mainly axed on one purpose: success (=survival) - I'd bet he forgot love and life, did'nt he?

Yes he did, or at least, he forgot it in a strange way. Lets take his Love definition in COHA (Creation of Human Ability, 1954) . "Love has too many meanings, and so we use an old word , affinity.../... 2. The human manifestation of admiration". But in his "Code of Honor", he says Do not desire to be loved or admired, while in COHA again, he wrote: admiration... is that thing which is considered desirable in the game of the three universes . Should we understand that looking for love/admiration is'nt honorable, or that love isn't survival, or that his use of affinity (proximity!) is better than using love ? Whatever the explanation we could find, it's certainly not positive toward love.

Besides this partial eradication of love as an important factor, his insistance on power as a desirable potential leads to a similar conclusion. Power is the use, or potential use, of force or efforts.

In Dn axioms: AXIOM 13. THETA OPERATING THROUGH LAMBDA CONVERTS THE FORCES OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE INTO FORCES TO CONQUER THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. Besides that once again, there is something turning around self, [since theta, source of the physical universe, converts the forces - a part of its MEST creation (energy) to conquer... its own MEST creation, ] this usage of force is called a conquest, supposed to be a survival-success by Hubbard .

We can now determine exactly why this KRC triangle was the SUPERIOR one in scientology, and why it is partially masked behind the ARC triangle... ARC serves as a veil for what Hubbard thought a superior aim: Power.

The possibly sickening part

Scientology axioms 11 and 12 could be the worse to understand. Those who did not study them before should'nt take painful steps, the explanations just below the quote should clarify a bit. These axioms say:

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.

12. THE PRIMARY CONDITION OF ANY UNIVERSE IS THAT TWO SPACES, ENERGIES, OR OBJECTS MUST NOT OCCUPY THE SAME SPACE. WHEN THIS CONDITION IS VIOLATED (PERFECT DUPLICATE) THE APPARENCY OF ANY UNIVERSE OR ANY PART THEREOF IS NULLED.

[summarized, the scientology and dianetics main application of these axioms: if a person goes back to a past experience "with her mind", she creates a duplicate of that past experience "in the same time and location" as it was created, and the past would be therefore erased or cancelled, because "no two same things can occupy the same place at the same time": that's what Hubbard says above]

The (a) - as-is-ness - condition is an impossibility, from a logical viewpoint. It supposes indeed that creation could be done outside of time, or without time (survival needs the existence of time, that's evident from another of his "axioms", the #3, which explains AXIOM 3. THAT PORTION OF THE STATIC OF LIFE WHICH IS IMPINGE UPON THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE HAS FOR ITS DYNAMIC GOAL, SURVIVAL AND ONLY SURVIVAL; from this, we can't get survival for the static without time - without MEST) This is further expressed into Scn axiom 13. THE CYCLE OF ACTION OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS: CREATE, SURVIVE (PERSIST), DESTROY.

Therefore, if creation could be done the way exposed in this as-is-ness, it would'nt exist, because time exists. Now, remember that this "as-is-ness" is supposed to exist in auditing; but it does not, as a matter of fact, when auditing is done:

Lets examine if there was an as-is-ness during the first - the real, the "MEST" - experience itself: for that "experience" (engram or whatever experience) to happen, it must have happened during a period of time, therefore, no "immediate creation without persistence" there: that experience happened in the physical universe, the MEST, with some force - mental or physical - used, so, no as-is-ness here. We don't have to find out or to discuss if realities are "imagined" "apparent" moments of life or not, since they are perceived as realities, and are defined as realities according to non-scientology dictionaries or according to what we have perceived. Such complications would lead nowhere.

Then, lets examine the auditing sessions later, when the patient/preclear is supposed to "go back" (as a thetan, a spirit) to the moment where he experienced something like an engram etc.

But during that auditing session, the preclear is factually in the present time, even if he feels some somatics or perceptions of the past while being in the present , or even if he "calls" his memories back. Therefore, he is not in the past himself, instead, he calls memories and gets them, but even these memories come in the present time. Hubbard has therefore added an artifice there, since it's impossible to "drop" the present to really go into the past, which would need to create the past again and be really entirely outside of the present - sci-fi authors call this fantasy the travel in time. The auditor is in the present too, when ordering the preclear to "go" to the past, and the preclear knows and is aware of this. Subsequently, even if a lessening of the awareness of the present times happens (anaten etc.) during auditing, the patient can't be in the past, and no real as-is-ness can happen anyway.

Everyone having been audited has be able to observe that the memory of past experiences audited remain more or less, some vividly, some less; if a real as-is-ness would happen, no such memory would remain, according to the axioms above.

True, Hubbard explained in Dianetics, modern Science of mental Health, that the unconscious memories became conscious when audited and were relocated into another part of the mind, but this is also in contradiction with those axioms above, since it needs TIME to have memories: memories depend entirely of time by definition... and he says it indeed in (b): alter-is-ness. Alter-is-ness is also introduced through auditing. Even admitting the as-is-ness possibility, the auditing session would add some alteration of the original experience, introducing thus an alter-is-ness, this inhibiting a complete as-is-ness (since no real destruction happens in the mind). Any preclear knows that he has never had a total memory of everything from a past incident; so, there was an alteration of that memory, whether conscious or not. And no preclears would be able to get every detail from an experience (like saying exactly what were the precise reasons for which one was acting or hurt, or who one was exactly then, or who were the exact names and dates etc; even if some vivid details can come back, lots of others are completely and definitely missing).

If, even those persons having the best conscious memory, are unable to remember everything they have lived consciously while awake, the whole Hubbard's story of a total eidetic memory of an unconscious time track can't be held as true, neither his as-is-ness invention.

Now about the (C above), the is-ness, the "what is". "What is" does not need anything more that being, existing, to exist. Why would it be necessary to look after a continual alteration to get a reality to exist? It does exist, and does not need any alteration to be as it is. Reality is certainly apparent - or not apparent - but it is not an apparency - even if we perceive different apparencies of a reality; and people don't certainly need any witness to perceive what they perceive; they don't need other's agreement to know what exists.

The most amazing is that taking the (d), the not-is-ness in his axiom could lead to the same conclusion: asserting "with force" that something real does not exist won't make it disappear. Even if men can destroy some buildings with bombs, that does not make disappear any of the parts of the buildings: only the apparency changes; same for nuclear power: matter becomes energy, but nothing disappears, only the form changes. That's what happens by instance when scientologists attack, attack, attack and never defend: that does not make scientology innocent. Making an enemy guilty does not make one innocent. Or it happens when scientologists try to fill the vacuum they have created: the data they fill in don't become eventually more real. Or it happens when they make tremendous efforts to handle past experiences in auditing: those do not disappear, and won't certainly disappear. Believing has never the same reality as... factual reality, unless one is losing one's sanity. If one's beliefs become more real than facts, one loses parts of one's perceptions of realities, and one could take wrong decisions ... failing then to succeed - survive.

Incidentally, Hubbard admits it differently: axiom Dn 29 says: THE BASIC ERRORS OF REASON ARE FAILURES TO DIFFERENTIATE AMONGST MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE AND TIME. What does auditing and this acception of 'as-is-ness' provoke? A thetans failure to differentiate amongst ...time, (as well as for matter, energy and space, since no eidetic memory exist). Therefore, auditing could be said to provoke basic errors of reason.

Once again, we have evidences that Hubbard used faked principles to control others lives; that he used irrealities so as to divert attention from his own purposes of control and domination, that he used a lot of self-revolving thoughts so as to confuse people and overtake their freedom to think by themselves. Furthermore, this was done deliberately to give apparently credible and complex bases to his theories of engrams etc. He'll use these dubious methods all the way up to OT and NOT levels, drowning his audience into unsignificant details like "Body Thetans Insects" or "Body Thetans Birds ", or "past universes" for which he did not gave any more proofs than in these "axioms" - or proofs of the Incident II reality.

Tolerance band

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. Comparing this to axiom #1... theta is the source of everything including its own considerations. Therefore attributing it optima, or harmony, does not fit to Theta's definition, moreover so if theta, motion's creator, is afflicted with attributes of "tolerance" leading it to destroy its own creation - or self. Further, action demands force. Thus, as defined in Dn axiom 35: DEFINITION: FORCE IS RANDOM EFFORT. -- DEFINITION: EFFORT IS DIRECTED FORCE -- we should deduce that Theta applies only random force (or efforts - see note below), leading to a random harmony? Possibly so, but it would be surprising then to make some parallel with some of the basic laws governing the physical universe - Theta's creation -, laws - other theta's creations - where hazard seems mostly absent, since we - theta beings - can predict a lot of facts or potential facts from their study. The only thing that seems or appears to be generated by some hazard looks to be the future [basically, something that is'nt yet, that has no gained existence at the moment], and that is mainly because we cannot predict every action from other live beings, neither predict some of the physical universe own activities, like vulcanic eruptions.

Does Theta destroy motion above its tolerance band? Even admitting a tolerance band, we can't observe any motion "destroyed"; some motions can certainly be stopped, but only after some of it has existed first; but any motion implicates the existence of time and space (inextricably linked together). A motion is something running through a certain space during a certain time. Therefore, unless Theta destroys some space and time, no motion can be destroyed once it has happened.

What could be the purpose of asserting "tolerance band" to Theta? I suppose that someone else could answer; here, I'm reduced to suppose that he was only writing this to write more axioms, like he did when calling axioms the simplest definitions like: AXIOM 11. A LIFE ORGANISM IS COMPOSED OF MATTER AND ENERGY IN SPACE AND TIME, ANIMATED BY THETA. (life animates MEST organisms - another statement of the obvious - calling life Theta does not change that obvious). Perhaps did he want only to hammer once again the "theta" word to insist on scientology survival purposes and wordings? Or did he hope to make sure his believers would be convinced that scientology was the pro-survival thing, so as to keep them in? These last hypotheses would better fit to his state of mind and purpose, again: controlling and making-believe so as to keep control. Since he and his scientology creation were considered "Theta" by his followers, some sort of induced reasoning could have led them to attribute him more power to determine optimum motion, harmony, - judgement - decreasing thus their own critical or observation abilities.

Many other similar parallels exist indeed in his works. Scientology is always paralleled to theta, anti-scientology always paralleled to entheta, counter-survival. Some subliminal message? No, that's not subliminal at all, it's reiterated everywhere, and became the definition of Ethics : the greatest good for the largest number of dynamics. - implied: as long as scientology, "only source of really ethic rules and techniques", is obeyed, that is, as long as its individual components do what has been established by Hubbard. No more freedom there.

How to control

AXIOM 102. THE ENVIRONMENT CAN OCCLUDE THE CENTRAL CONTROL OF ANY ORGANISM AND ASSUME CONTROL OF THE MOTOR CONTROLS OF THAT ORGANISM. (ENGRAM, RESTIMULATION, LOCKS, HYPNOTISM.)

Is any explanation really needed here? Perhaps a question: for a scientologist, what is "the environment"? He's asked to be inside most of his time, and more yet if he's a staff, and still more if he's a Sea-Org member enrolled for a billion years.

Scientology and dianetics are knowingly using lots of quasi-hypnotic methods, like reverie in auditing, TR 0, chinese school, repetition of orders for hours upon hours, (such as in Opening Procedure By Duplication ) or any repetitive drills or processes. A summary of those would ask an entire volume.

The Auditor's Code - 1st version in COHA adds to this obligation of control exerted upon scientology clients: (9) : Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision. That shall become worse later, since the auditor will have to complete any process started. Despite the fact that some "repair lists" exist for most processes, any error of the auditor - they are lots of potential errors - can give an almost unending session. Since even those auditors errors and auditing hours are paid by the preclear, it adds to the "responsabilization" of the preclear, but in the bad direction: paying for Hubbard's or scientologists errors under any circumstances. The auditor "guiltness" is not forgotten, since he'll have to pay also for his errors (if the Case Supervisor perceives them). The auditor shall have to go to the Cramming section, or retraining section, perhaps to Ethics section, or to the RPF-gulag. Therefore, Scientology as a group always profits, while his clients or staffs always lose.

How to de-responsabilize

Suprisingly, Hubbard did a 180 ° turn between his first book Dianetics and the next theories, regarding his clients responsability. While he says in Dianetics (p. 381): The auditor is not interested in what the patient does. Or in what the patient has done. Dianetics treats of what has been done to the person exclusively in therapy. What has been done by a patient is of no concern. The auditor who would make it any concern is practicing something other than dianetics. But in Scientology 8-80 (1952), he wrote: The overt act has for its basic phenomena: "The pain you render another is mirrored in yourself". Any pain a person clings to can be traced to the pain he is wearing in penance. Slap a child, and you'll have neuralgia: injure someone's eyes and you'll wear glasses; control someone, and you impose on yourself his liabilities, etc..

What? "control someone, and you impose on yourself his liabilities"? Ironic, isn't it?

Apart of this ironic remark, apart of the complete contradiction between both quotes - originated by the same Hubbard in a two years span - the second quote is putting an evident guilt on his clients. But again, it was also allowing them a "responsability" in the bad direction: through guiltness, a negative judgement. Not surprisingly, he adds in Advanced Procedures and Axioms (p 26): Complete negation of responsibility is complete admission of being under the complete control of the environment. Scientologists may find themselves under total control of scientology data, rules, drills and writings despite Public Relation texts such as the Personal Integrity . Above the study and word clearing techniques have already been exposed as one of those tools used to the furtherance of aims of de-responsabilization, since they cannot be avoided by any student or preclear. This study tool can be summarized: "If you don't agree with written or lectures scientology data, you have a misunderstood word (or many)". This is again putting the fault on the client, and diverting his attention from understanding to word clearing, dictionaries etc, so as to get the real idea, or to be able to criticize it. Understanding what a person says with her own words and wordings or word definition does not mean that you could agree with what she said. It means only that you have -or believe you have- understood what she meant to explain. Anybody could understand a wrong opinion once expressed clearly; that does not mean that the opinion is right or wrong, or that it is agreed upon.

This could help to dig out another method used by Hubbard to divert his listeners attention. Observing the order in which he wrote or numbered his "axioms" and other summaries of his methods could illustrate this point. As it would be necessary to quote large parts of his Dn axioms, it can't be done with many examples. We'll take only few of them [do not try yto understand them entirely, it's not essential here]

AXIOM 141. A CONTROL CENTER EFFORT IS ALIGNED TOWARD A GOAL THROUGH DEFINITE SPACE AS A RECOGNIZED INCIDENT IN TIME. AXIOM 142. AN ORGANISM IS AS HEALTHY AND SANE AS IT IS SELF-DETERMINED. -- AXIOM 143. ALL LEARNING IS ACCOMPLISHED BY RANDOM EFFORT. None of those has much (if any) close relationship to the following or preceding others, while other similar axioms are placed here and there in the same series. Though it could be the result of a disorganized mind (or work), it would have been so easy to reorganize it after having completed it, that the disorder explanation does not seem valid. More probably, that disorder pursued a purpose (confusion, or/and rewriting of similarities under another form?). Those having done much word clearing and Course supervision in scientology can recall the number of times some people having difficulties have been sorted out of those difficulties through study techniques, without being though more in agreement with what was basically said. Such Hubbard allegations as "By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology" (from KSW series #1, the most studied text of L. Ron Hubbard). Besides the fact that twenty to 100,000 can correctly be understood both ways (20 to 100000 or 20,000 to 100,000 - more evidently so when translated in some foreign languages), most people having read that datum could'nt figure out how or why it could be true - or untrue; but most accepted it as true nevertheless, even after much word clearing applied to the "000's" or "thousands'" elision. Word clearing served as a way to divert attention from the real topic: how and why could it be true. And how could that be right, since the people studying this were rather well-disposed toward Hubbard and his data, and had perhaps never met people unagreeing with him, this "evidence" leading them to a false path of reasoning?

How to take Freedom or freedoms

Self-determinism is that state of being wherein the individual can or cannot be controlled by his environment according to his own choice.../... He reasons but does not need to react. Most people will certainly agree with this Hubbard's quote to be found in "An analysis of self-determinism" chapter of COHA.

Observing what happens for the clients of psychotherapists or psychoanalysts could more or less fit to what these clients receive as a process to regain their self-determinism, their freedom, as the communication between clients and therapist is quite free, but for some very simple and little restraining rules.

Going to a scientology course or a scientology auditing session is far from being freed of barriers. Every preclear or student is forced to react, unless he's a very strong character, or extremely upset by some actions he meets while on course or during auditing. Though Hubbard did not write any direct "code of the preclear" (as far as I remember), he has nevertheless made sure that any preclear would be refused (even to the point of being expelled from scientology) if he did not follow a large number of very constraining rules. The first rules were physical. Lots of people could'nt be audited because they had not "eaten enough", not "slept enough", "had taken aspirins or drugs" and similar ones.

Other rules deemed to their state of mind regarding scientology: preclears who "were PTSes", "had not their ethics in", "had threatened scientology or L. Ron Hubbard", "were journalists", "wanted to see if scientology was efficient" or anything similar, could be disbarred or at least much delayed. Similarly, accounts from people having been forced to buy more auditing before starting a service they had in fact already paid far in advance, adds to such rules or barriers.

For a "self"-help method allegating to crack every case, that is, to give back these "cases" their freedom, a lot of rules are enforced with severity and even brutality against the persons wanting to get this possible result. It can't be the effect of a hazard.

Not surprisingly, Hubbard wrote an indirect subtle answer in COHA: The mystic for millenia has been talking about faith. He never built a bridge to it. He made a fundamental error in converting faith into have faith. When he said have faith he invited understanding, then confusion of understanding, because one does not understand faith. Hubbard response was to "build a bridge to faith", calling faith "knowledge" instead. That's an artifice of language, much evidently contradicted when scientology tried to call itself ... a religion!

But as we've seen before, he never gave knowledge, but overwhelmed his followers knowledge with his own twisted versions of it, pulling them in void areas, to the point of admitting that behind the veils, there was nothing to be found (as far as I can remember, this was said in a level I Academy tape). "They are kept together by a volition to know the Mystery" (PAB 66).

Conclusion

If from the very basic texts summarizing the very first steps of Dianetics and Scientology, we can find so many possible approaches demonstrating the unilateral volition of Scientology founder, his evident biases mostly directed toward controlling, de-responsabilizing and suppressing freedoms to his own followers, we can't hope to find a really different - or yet less, a reversed image - when digging in his more complete works, books, processes or lectures.

Anyway, the facts - the actions, the activities - the "realities" of the group - speak for themselves.

Why would any valuable faithful system supposed to better freedom, responsability and control, be needing such coercive methods as Hard Sales, "Ethics" handlings, repetitive Security Checkings, "Knowledge Reports", "debriefings of missionaries", written confessions, OSA "B 1" data collections, INCOMM secret system, secret levels, secret codings, weapons, guards, hidden Operations, infiltrations, blackmailing judges and politicians, inticement to suicide, justice suits by the ton, justifications of committed crimes, attacks, attacks, attacks?

I hope that the answer to this question is easier to get now.

Roger Gonnet, October 22d, 2000