A Re-Examination of the Axioms of Scientology 2010.
I have decided to re-write the article for a good friend of Anon who recently posted my 2004 article on Scientology so as to make it clearer and stand alone as a separate study that re-introduces my way of thinking to readers interested in criticisms of Scientology rather than require them to have previous extensive familiarity with my current of work regarding deconstruction and forms.
I will address each of the Axioms in turn.
A copy of the full axioms is available here: http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Append/01/page10.htm
Axiom #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.”
Inevitably – all human constructs upon which religion or schemata’s of life are built up – require a pre-existing anchor point most likely to be grounded on faith in an unknown element of a spiritual or occult nature.
The anchor used here is a ‘life static’ – which is essentially a word to denote the pre-conceptual supposition on which everything else is then built. If this element is not supposed – nothing else can be built – so it is first necessary for someone to introduce an abstract that can turn the whole summary of life achieved by someone else’s vision of what it is – into something that can be grasped intellectually and rationally as an idea, by giving it a name and a definition.
The axiom further defines a life static as ‘having no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or time. It has the ability to postulate and perceive.’
What is happening here? If you can be persuaded to accept the abstract of ‘life static’ you suppose the abstract for yourself as a starting point – and will then read on, adding or attaching further ideas and concepts onto this primary starting block.
In order to understand any abstract – you must create something else against which to compare it. The most common example I can give – is space vs. matter. If you suppose space, then in order to define space, you must provide a ‘tension’ or opposite concept against which the first concept can be compared. To explain space, you must also explain the absence of space. This creates a tension of two abstracts that ‘lean’ on each other and validate each other. In this way, they become ‘concrete’ solidified and for all intents and purposes, relied on as real. Whilst abstracts are arguably the only method humans can utilize to understand things – the method is wide open to abuse of every sort owing to the nature of language, how it is used, why it is used, and who uses it for what.
What is then happening here is that after persuading the reader to accept the first postulate of a ‘life static’ – further comparable definitions to define the abstract are loaded onto it. However, Mass, Motion, Wavelength, Space, Time and even ‘no and ‘a’ are also abstracts and unfortunately for all would-be religions, cults, and brainwashers abstracts are ingrained with a trail of hidden suppositions that can tell us exactly how the writer/author actually perceives such things as time and space – which can often be separate from the words written by authors to paint a deceptive picture. This trail can further illuminate the genuine intent of the author who often attempts to cloak that intention with flowery crap, romanticized clichés, ideology, or other types of form designed to persuade a reader to believe what is written is something other than what it really is.
My work involves the concept of forms which are created by the human habit of abstracting the world around them into objects, boundaries, divisions, planes, fields, spaces, and millions upon millions of names for everything and its combinations. I have written at length on several particular subjects in the rest of my work but the main themes that involve this scientology examination are that the English Language, as the carrier of knowledge, derived from Latin, and Latin was an attempt by the Church to homogenize (make as one) all world languages into one dialect. As a result of this hijacking of language, and because of the very grain of the mentality of the Church, language was distorted and injected with two major things representative of Church mentality; duality and morality.
Duality is basically the idea that things can be divided clearly into opposites. This is such a strong idea that only through comparing one abstract against another can we ever understand our abstractions. We can then treat both abstractions (both of which are illusory and usually just words for an object that summarize the object into very simple terms) as real, and build upon them. But human beings require two abstractions in all cases to understand anything – called a ‘tension’ – and this leads to an ingrained oversimplification of perception becoming habitual that is close-minded and believes if something is not ‘a’ it is therefore ‘b’. Duality is never happy to let ‘ab’ exist.
Morality – is a judgmental inclusion in language that makes us habitually add a value to our abstracts, in most cases either a simple polarity of ‘positive’ or ‘negative’, couched within neutral joiners – or at least, seemingly neutral joiners such as ‘the’, ‘a’ and so on. But these little joiners are anything but neutral. They, in tandem with other words, can actually tell us an enormous amount about how the writer perceives the world, the reader, himself, and various topics by unconsciously informing us how they perceive time and space, to what extent they place faith in various forms and concepts, and which concepts they have first supposed to build their case. Often – this information reveals many contradictory facts about the writer’s actual perception and the perception they write about and demonstrates a clear attempt to deceive the reader. This is the case with almost all style of writing from all walks of life.
If I might try to demonstrate further the strength of abstracts, can you explain what a wavelength is without using any words? Can you communicate it to someone else without speaking or writing it down using language? Generally not. Sign language is silent but still requires the use of language and thus its inbuilt duality and morality which control and manipulate certain suppositions into being. Drawing it requires that the person recognizes the symbolic postulate for it, and even if they understand your squiggly line as a ‘wavelength’ when you show it to them – to understand it they must accept the same notions language requires to be rationally understood. It is impossible to explain a wavelength without relying on others reliance on the solidity of abstraction.
I would at this point urge people to check out my essay ‘The Chrono-bet’ which tries to explain how something as simple as the word ‘is’ informs us a great deal about how a person perceives space by; supposing a singularity exists and therefore supposing ‘is not’; (duality); supposing separate or discrete objects or concepts separate from their being exists and therefore that space is at least 3 dimensions and has clear divisions between each object, and supposing a concrete dimension vs. a theoretical dimension or abstract vs. reality, tells us here is a brain that is using words cleverly but is still using exactly the same wire-frame we all use. Etc. This tends to trip up so-called enlightened beings and reveals the author’s ego at work, the status quo of perceptive faculties and beliefs being sustained, and nothing remotely transcendental.
One of the more noticeable powers (and dangers) of abstracts is in our automatic reaction when abstractions are presented to us to sift quickly through our mental catalogue (at the speed of light without stopping to question either supposition’s accuracy or the method of supposition at all) and find an opposite to compare it with the abstract presented. We therefore automatically accept that ‘abstraction’ is a valid system and support it by not questioning it. This allows many clever tricks of the writer to get through without being challenged. Note also that the concepts used are usually those with great emotional attachment and meaning in them so that the reader recognizes a word or concept and automatically starts abstracting out of habit.
In effect we are conditioned, and largely cannot escape, making a dualized and moral-based judgment in every single word and sentence we write.
This goes for the Axioms too; by persuading you to accept ‘life static’ as the grounding base – the writer can then attach further abstracts, explain it through the absence of it, add further definitions, meanings and so on – that appear to say just one thing but really say many things, some of which the writer cannot help but give away.
If someone cleverly uses the right abstracts, they can take us on a very carefully crafted mental journey that creates a certain view or geometry of forms in our heads – which we strengthen – because of the power of our catalogue of opposite abstractions which are there to validate abstractions.
Some people refer to this as brainwashing, manipulation, PR, or bullshit; but it is very clever, very powerful stuff that takes advantage of our gullibility, our trust, our senses, our method of perception, our habit of abstraction, and basically preys on many other things humans do all the time we are simply not aware of (for various reasons) that lead us to come to certain conclusions when presented with certain information.
It all begins, when you accept the first abstract ‘ life static’ and then agree to attach the subsequent abstractions of meaning and definition of life static and its associated attachments that the writer claims to be at the essence of things. Once you accept that is ‘true’ you accept a whole lot of stuff that goes with it whether you want it or not.
To start with, you are not only accepting the abstract ‘life static’ but you are accepting the meaning of ‘is’ which involves a specific orientation and understanding of linear chrono-spatial arrangement to take place for rational understanding, ‘basically’ which supposes degrees of understanding are possible and relies on you accepting that knowledge comes in degrees, as well as suggests that the author is possessed of a more complex explanation, accepts that we can Know at all, that human beings can make accurate and authentic assessments of things. Because this is a postulate, it brings with it many other associations and abstracts we may not have wanted – it suggests a great host of other suppositions about life and how it operates – just on these two words alone.
Then of course you must also accept ‘a’ if you want the sentence to make sense – which is again a suggestion that something can be separate or singular; in effect you are agreeing with the author that time and space is composed in such a manner that time and space exist, exist as a 3d (or 4d) matrix, that it is linear, that objects exist, that our perception of the world as made up of objects is correct – and so on. There is a lot of this that goes unnoticed, trained as we are to quickly assess things automatically and eventually unconsciously such as this in order to get on with day to day life easily and conveniently – especially when reading.
Scientology is certainly not alone in taking full advantage of the crippling secret powers of language to control us – since we generally don’t take notice of words like ‘a’ and ‘is’ but tend to focus on unusual terms like ‘life static’ – not the familiar carriers and joiners like ‘the’. But is in ‘the’ and ‘a’ and ‘of’ that the most information about spatial perception is obtained – not in the conscious stream of the ego that tries to convince us it is ‘beyond time’ or some other such thing. There is a lot to all words and a lot of processes to what we are actually doing when we read and accept them – and it is knowledge of this acceptance, that enables others to control and manipulate through clever propaganda by keeping space and time orthodox through the continued esoteric use of these carriers and joiners.
Axiom #2 “ The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.”
An interesting second step. ‘Considerations, Postulates and Opinions’ could quite easily be understood to be three ways of saying one identical thing; these groups of abstracts very often come in threes. There is potential reasoning behind this but perhaps it should be in another essay at another time. Writers often flesh out a weak point by stalling you from noticing that weakness usually because they are unsure (and cannot know) whether you have accepted the first postulate – life static’. The fact is, all the entire structure of subsequent abstracts, ideas, words, terms etc are necessary to give weight to the first abstract ‘life static’ – because when you really get down to it, without words, a writer has nothing and no objective proof of a ‘life static’ – so it is necessary to quickly provide struts or supports for the first flimsy idea by making a geometric prism (prison) of lots of abstracts.
Of course, only if you have first accepted their abstract ‘static’ can you then load further abstracts onto it. What happens when we posit anything is that we automatically have to posit their opposite, and without meaning to, our abstracts are suddenly heavily loaded with innumerable associations and attachments that come with that postulate. If we posit space, we have to have a whole host of other abstracts to explain it – to set off against it. This is precisely what is happening here in these first two axioms. After accepting these two – everything else will follow on by building on this foundation of abstracts weighted with abstracts until you have so many different attachments, meanings and definitions, you essentially build yourself a geometric form, kind of like a metaphorical wire-frame dodecahedron, which because it has so many lines and vertexes, resembles and enclosed shape; if so, we treat it as “real”. Every abstract in that shape is then supported by an equal abstract, until they are all supported by a house of abstracts. But everything else added to the first postulate is also an abstract – and we tend to forget that because of the way we naturally process information dualistically and morally, because that is the instituted way of doing things used by humans for thousands of years. While the way we talk about time and space may seem extremely varied, words tell a different story to what authors would have us believe, because words are imprisoned in a specific concept of time and space that cannot change unless their context is changed. What really only changes, is the outward form or papier mache that authors use to cover the very same wire-frame and ingrained perception of time and space that is common to us all. In some cases, it may simply be that an author cannot express the esoteric or occult because words and language as the only carrier are hopelessly trapped in dualism and moralism and can only be interpreted through such windows. This is precisely the single-minded monotheistic mentality of the Church ingrained in our very perception, our very tools of perception, at work.
The human brain is a very powerful machine, it has the power to make anything real; and out of sheer habit and expectation (and even because our society rewards that habit) that is precisely what it does. Cults merely take advantage of this dependency and the power of our reliance on abstracts built into us.
Axiom #3 “Space, energy, objects, form and time are the result of considerations made and/or agreed upon by the static and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.”
This is an interesting axiom too. Space, Energy, Form, Time etc are all abstracts. They are names we give to phenomena which we have enshrined as separate phenomena that we believe deserve separate names precisely because of how we view time and space. The strength of scientology rests not on the particular words and ideas presented; but on the ancient invisible art of postulating a time-honoured perception of space and time that supports and couches all the other concepts suggested without us ever questioning the system they are being couched in.
This entire sentence makes absolutely no sense unless we accept the shared consensus of time, space, form etc that the writer relies on us to postulate with him in order to weight the abstracts for ourselves. The same goes for me writing to you about it – if you don’t process ‘it’ ‘for’ and ‘to’ the same way and make the same unconscious prejudices about space and different divisions of moving through it, separate objects, and so on – you can’t read the sentence, so you invest those words with meaning for me.
But Axiom 3 actually contains no value, since it uses abstractions (which are empty postulates unless we fill them with meaning) and says they exist either by our agreement or without it (which is again an empty postulate unless WE fill it with meaning); what is the point of even saying it? This is a popular ‘Zen’ type algorithm used in thousands of texts that attempts to create a mystical contradiction or sense of married harmony (a hierogamos) by two opposites; but only in word. It is problematic of language that it leads unconsciously to dual type situations such as yes/no, in/out/ with/without to try and express the synergistic (one idea, compared with another, gives rise to a third). This contains no value except that which the reader decides to invest it with. Since, the author has however provided only a dual-derived solution, ‘it is with our agreement’ – or it is ‘without our agreement’ it is left to the reader to weight the abstract nonsense with their own decision and invest the sentence with meaning- but we will do it dualistically because that is the environment we are immersed in, either/or, yes/no. It is unfortunate, but only natural owing to our method of communication and perception, that very few people will think this hard about the very beginning of their processing of such information and the part they play in allowing it to manipulate them and they play, in manipulating themselves.
We can in this example, see some of the underlying duality in the writer’s brain surface here – in the two separate sentences, the writer uses sets of twos, cause and effect. That because something is ‘a’ it therefore leads to ‘b’. Whilst this seems a fairly innocent way of thinking – it hints at a fundamental core belief in many things, and a limited viewpoint comprised of dual-think that is behind all extremely dangerous forms and styles of communication. Given the geometry of hidden concepts that makes up this first trinity of axioms and the ideas and weight and postulates you are being persuaded to accept – the stage is set for increasingly subtle and controlling manipulation… Whilst the concepts here are gentle, you can be sure that as the author gains control by building up his shape within us (creating a literal spell) this dualistic thinking will be used with full stubborn force against his enemies or those who refuse to accept later ideas stubbornly hedged in dual-think. You would therefore not be ‘ab’ but require to be ‘a’ or ‘b’. Therefore you would be viewed either as an enemy or a friend of Scientology; and for many cults the ‘us and them’ distinction is a major element that leads to such furious argument when ‘ab’ cannot be accepted.
Whilst many readers may reject the concept of an actual ‘third eye’ you will probably have experienced a pleasurable glow or feeling of empowerment when reading something that you believe is profoundly expressive of the truth of things. Potentially my writing has given you this excitement that you are learning something new, some new way to look at things, some secret into the world behind forms – potentially not. If it has, then this ‘glow’ is another aspect behind writing that is used to take advantage of you. Great wisdom is to be found in the world, by an aeon of great writers and thinkers that have characterized fundamental basics in the way we think, approach thinking, and gain knowledge, and distill wisdom. What many texts written to elicit a certain reaction do – is tap into these truths, present them on an esoteric (unconscious level) because they give that glow, but package their own forms and messages into them. In this way, you are receiving the essential glow from wisdom that underlies the sublime height of understanding by various persons that surfaces again and again throughout time as a pattern or frequency – and thus you listen, it rings true and you take notice, open your eyes and ears and may even be persuaded to believe what is being said because it is a truth. But it is very easy for someone to take those esoteric truths and introduce their own messages within them, to twist those truths or the carrier method of those truths into their own shapes for their own ends. For instance, having relied on the shared consensus in place regarding time and space (which is in no dimension, basic) that pre-exists in language and the fact that we work with and accept abstracts automatically; it is easy to cite space, time and form for instance, and not have to ‘explain’ them. Because anyone who tries to explain them – simply cannot do any phenomena justice, unless – you – accept and imbue their answer with meaning from your own supply. And to explain it, they must use abstracts – and then you might ask them to explain those abstracts. Which they will require more abstracts to explain such as ‘which’, ‘they’ ‘will’, ‘require’ and so on. At a certain point it is you who will decide you have found the truth or essence of the thing, settle for a certain combination of words or geometric prism of concepts and that will be that. You will then base all your abstractions about what space is on the set of abstractions you liked most. But abstractions bring you no closer to understanding space, only allow you to distort it into simple manageable chunks in order to process it at your convenience.
Scientology is here treating Space, Time and Form as objective, as already existing concepts with clear definitions and meanings; which they do have; but those definitions and meanings are also abstractions and built on a mesh of abstractions; they can be convenient, but they tell us nothing about the phenomena.
Axiom #4 “Space is a viewpoint of dimension.”
In light of what has already been said you can see that, confident they have built a strong foundation of abstractions that support each other to make a base-plate – the author can now proceed to pull abstractions out of anywhere to further provide supports to what has already been supposed. You can see, that ‘space’ and ‘dimension’ are weighted against one another but both are merely abstracts, thus neither can be of the other except in further imaginary abstraction; – you can also see that suppositions have been made by referring to space IS; the concept of singularity is suggested by the author using ‘A’ and further prejudices regarding a belief in linear space and how objects are situated within it – by the authors use of the word ‘OF’. Again, I’d suggest checking out chrono-bet for some more details on how these words suggest a relationship to a perception of time and space and the ramifications or consequences these types of unconscious prejudice tell us about the authors real perceptions beneath his words. The use of these words in such a way is typical of a conformist view ruled by dualism and moralism. That tells us that he is therefore as trapped as the rest of us in the dual/moral dilemma that imprisons all people because of the way language works and what it suggests. His methods are archaic, as are most attempts to use perennial esoteric truths to couch one’s own egoistic bullshit of a lesser nature and purity;- and can be seen in almost every piece of writing you care to examine – including my own.
Axiom #5 “Energy consists of postulated particles in space.”
Here is an interesting twist. The author began by using the word postulates as a methodology for understanding, as a way that we conceptualize and thus shows he is in agreement with the common understanding of this term. He understands in postulates. But energy is not postulated particles in space, because everything is always a postulate, everything is an abstract. Energy does not somehow exist separate from us as discrete phenomena until we postulate it, it is already and eternally a postulate, as is space, the concept of particles and consisting. What is happening here, is that the idea of postulates as something we do, is being used to claim that there is a constant phenomena that exists when we use abstraction; or rather, that there is a process involved in creating energy that is somehow brought into being by postulating – but ‘postulating’ is itself an abstract.
The idea that we can project something outward to give rise to something else says a lot about how the author believes time and space operate (which is sadly a mundane and typical understanding with nothing new or remotely interesting to say). The something else is though, still an abstract, the projection is also an abstract, and the author is at least unconsciously suggesting without trying to, how they think space is formed, and where and what its boundaries are. Once again – the author’s ‘energy’ does not consist any more than postulation, particles or space consists – our words create the illusion that there are more than one object in space to be talked about, but there are really none, it is all empty abstraction which we have the choice to validate as real. This is where you decide whether you will be persuaded to believe what the author has crafted, or not.
Axiom 6 Objects consist of grouped particles.
Axiom7 Time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist.
Axiom8 The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.
Axiom9 Change is the primary manifestation of time.
Axiom10 The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.
All these axioms rely on abstracts built upon abstracts and for the reader to invest them with meaning, attach them to previous abstracts, and help the author build a geometric prism within the reader by passive acceptance. If you invest any of these words with meaning, then pending the meaning you invest it with, the resulting sentence you ‘understand’ from it will set up a unique condition which bounces abstract against abstract. What is really being said here though – is nothing. It’s just shapes we interpret as letters, letters combined into words, and words we have invested with meaning or allow others to invest with meaning for us; and that can mean emotional investments too. [See, An Analysis of Frequency: Part 1].
At its most reductive level, this is the formation of all texts. Propaganda based texts tell a crafted story that relies on the power of our brains to engage in traditional fantasies used by the human race and interact with its collective method of understanding text, processing it, and influencing how we treat it in such a way as to evoke a certain response from the reader by getting inside the readers head by using ideas familiar to the reader. These keys by which propaganda gain a foothold in the psyche (human mind) are often missed since few people stop to analyze the meaning of the carrier ; language as a whole; and focus mainly on the concepts being presented and their loaded reactions to certain words and concepts – not the system that delivers concepts itself. Thus, a great deal is said in the first few sentences of any cult material that says just about all you need to know about it; and luckily for esotericists and cynics like myself, language screams these secrets out in every word it uses and where it uses them. It can’t help it.
Knowing just these few methods the authors has employed in the axioms is enough to tear the remaining axioms apart piece by piece and note how abstractions have been heavily relied upon for this essential nonsense to make sense; since looking at the rest of the axioms, only by investing them with meaning (and they are all just empty abstracts using other abstracts to try and weight them down and give the impression of substance) do they mean anything. It is up to me to allow the author to persuade me these words have a meaning or that these concepts are not abstractions but somehow real and objective phenomena rather than merely subjective abstraction common to all propaganda. But since most people don’t go this far into what they are actually doing when they use language (for various reasons) it’s very easy to fall prey to a timeless tradition of other’s spinning bullshit at our expense.
Finally – I believe the author has some connection to the concepts of the perennial philosophy – i.e. that they do have some profound connection to nature and her miracles; but the connection appears to be unconscious (the author uses dualism and moralism and shows all the signs of being as mundane as the rest of us by the way they have used concepts and language to build an abstract ball of illusions) and distorted. There is no new esoteric clarity in the concepts presented which appear clumsy in conception. At no point does the author point out their own geometry in creating or presenting the axioms such as I have attempted to do – and like so many others, therefore expresses intent to rule others with forms, not release them by smashing those forms. This is because at no point does the author appear to understand his own “is-ness” nor share it with any clarity but instead relies on the pre-existing notions that characterize our species way of perception.
In esoteric terms or geo-spatial relations – the author uses the same concepts of 1, 2 and three that typify all human workings and hint at the nature of our psyche. An examination of the axioms will show the weighting of empty abstractions, the concepts of giving sets of three examples, dualism and moralism. This is not the province of Scientology but the province of all human language –most of us do not appear to be aware of it, however, and deal only in the currency of forms.