In February of 1959, L. Ron Hubbard wrote an article in the Ability magazine called “How to study Scientology”. It’s one of my all time favorites from LRH. In this article he says:
“You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis—a very critical basis.“
I feel it is time to review some Scientology basics and see if they really do hold true. And to do this properly, we would use the method of falsification – if we could find situations where a principle is untrue, we would know that the principle is not a universal truth.
So, how about the very basics of basics in Scientology, the ARC triangle? Is it always true that Affinity, Reality and Communication is interdependent? Is it always true that raising or lowering one of the corners would result in a raising or lowering of the other two? Could we find actual examples that falsify this? Or could we at least formulate instances that could be used to test the ARC triangle to see if it could be falsified. And if we cannot falsify it despite putting the principle to test, we would in fact have strengthened the theory.
Ready for the challenge? Then read the links first and post your comment.
Update (2011-08-20): The task is simply to find situations where a person could have a skewed combination of Affinity, Reality, Communication and Understanding. Could we find a situation where a person was in total agreement but without any significant affinity or communication. Or could there be a situation where the person had great affinity for something he did not understand or completely disagreed with? Or any other combination that would falsify this statement:
“Every point on the ARC triangle is dependent on the other two, and every two are dependent on one. One can’t cut down one without cutting down the other two, and one can’t rehabilitate one without rehabilitating the other two. On the positive side, one can rehabilitate any point on the triangle by rehabilitating any other point on it.“
Geir Isene - uncut 
I do not believe ARC to be a universal truth, since Scientologists have been unable to apply it broadly per my observation.
More to come.
.
That something is not applied does not invalidate the theory.
OK. But what validates this theory?
.
You need to come up with actual examples of the linking between the components or lack of such linking. That many scientologists are low on ARC (all elements) actually validates the theory. Can you see that?
Please define your terms:
What is ultimate in affinity?
What is ultimate in reality?
What is ultimate in communication?
What is ultimate in understanding?
Is there some ultimate meaning to ARC, or is it merely a relative relationship within a narrow band?
I think ARC works for those people who believe in it. I do not remember anytime using the principles of ARC consciously toward any benefit. But I have used Data Series and study technology to benefit.
.
They are not my terms. You will find the LRH definitions under the links I provided.
OK, I have provided the examples in my recent post. High ARC may translate as hypnotism, and that is not a good thing.
.
The point is not whether ARC high or low is a Good Thing. It is whether it can be tested (and falsified) whether there is an actual dependency between the three factors and whether they do in fact equate exclusively to understanding.
I find that the more I get into communication with the subject that Scientology addresses (Knowing how to know) the less affinity I feel about the data in Scientology that is supposed to be followed without squirreling.
I find that the idea of “not squirreling” makes one robotic.
One learns about a subject by applying it, and then researching it further to come up with better understanding and better applications.
.
Vinaire, what about if you use this definition of affinity – the feeling of affection or the lack of it. Sounds like you did have an increase – in the lack of affection.
Don’t forget though, as with anybody regarding any subject, the only true test of ARC applied to Scn data would be if you actually did get in communication with that very data and not what you may have thought was the data. And obviously, the things that can get in the way of the actual data would be MUs or previous false data, whether analytically or reactively received, Just sayin’ 😉
I don’t think that Scientology data has any monopoly on truth. I have written about many inconsistencies in Scientology data, such as, in Axiom 1, and Factor 1.
Scientologists may have “ARC” among themselves because they share the same misunderstoods, or they believe in the same false data.
I have a question here. Can two people rise to the highest of affinity by totally agreeing on the same false data?
.
Good example of positive and negative value being attached to the corners. “An increase in the lack of” is a decrease. Simple. Very good.
Thus an “increase” on one corner produces an “increase of” in the others. This increase routinely will be in a negative direction but my preclusion states that it will always be “in a direction” and never unaffected.
Did you follow the preclusion that I wrote? It is the preclusion that was needed and I am ready for it to be falsified but no one has addressed it.
Chris, is this the one you mean? “My own preclusion is that ‘if you alter any value of any corner of the ARC=U equation then you cause a commensurate alteration of value in each of the other corners as well as U.’”
My understanding of preclusion would be something that precludes or makes impossible (in this thread, the ARC triangle theory), i.e. falsifies it. If I understood the above it seems like that is a restatement of the theory, rather than a falsification or preclusion of it. Let me know.
Wow, couldn’t you have found a little more scholarly article than this Popper one? (joke!)
Anyway, I think I got the general idea and thought of a possible test. It would be to do an experiment with something like TR 0 bull bait being done on a number of subjects. In the drill you obviously do have reality, the solids around them. And communication too, via their senses. Then, to test for changes in affinity, we could have them all on an e-meter, which would detect any reads showing emotional response = affinity.
It would seem that just due to the mechanics of the mind and restim, it would be no problem getting reads on anybody with one (a mind) no matter how much they were “being there” with those reactions in the mind. And this, you might say, would just be further “confirmation” that A-R-C always exist together. However, as for their being a triangle, we could devise a gradient variety of changes in the reality and communication around them as they’re being bull baited, and then analyze and compare the corresponding increases or decreases in affinity – amount and length of reads.
Well, call this a rough draft for an experiment, but I think it could be refined into a reliable test.
I was thinking that at times when people have disagreement, it leads to a profuse amount of communication which can cause both to evolve to a better level if they had just appeased or at least ostensibly agreed. But in this communication is increased drastically and affinity therefore, if eventually but at better than otherwise level. I have to say that my best friends are ones that I had out-reality with and have thus caused more communication or thought, and have then evolved into something new and better than before. ARC is a good concept but, is it actually intended as an absolute?
I just want to focus on one sentence. “Is it always true that raising or lowering one of the corners would result in a raising or lowering of the other two?” I question the very concept of “raising” and “lowering.” What does it mean to raise or lower one of these things? It’s not a water level in a bucket.
What exactly does “raising reality” entail? How much is it raised? What is the unit and method of measuring? Since i think that you’re asking if something entirely subjective to individual perspective is the subject is always true, I think you have shown that indeed it’s only true for people who agree about the nature of these things and the ability to quantify it.
So I think that about answers it. It may be true and valuable for some people who choose that world view and use it constructively in their lives, but it falls far short of a universal truth.
Of course I’m interested in you thoughts on that.
This is grady from facebook BTW
I think raising affinity is the product of “distance and tone level.”
Raising reality might be different for MEST vs Theta. “More reality” makes MEST more solid and of longer duration. But Theta means to assume a more similar viewpoint and so like a circle comes back around to affinity meaning “closer proximity.”
Does this seem practical to you?
The more communication I produced on ESMB, the more hostility I got, and could not establish any reality because I ended up getting banned there. the same thing had happened earlier with Alanzo.
One may say that the mechanics of exchanging words doesn’t really mean communication. But LRH insists on sending more and more mail out to get people into Scientology. Statistics of mail sent out is counted without any attention to the quality of communication.
How does one really define communication for this experiment?
Is the whole world out of communication looking at the turbulent history of the world? Is Scientology out of communication with the society around it to be catching so much flack?
Is there an absolute understanding that must be communicated as Scientology seems to feel? Should there be give and take in communication to establish agreement? What does it take to really establish communication?
.
If we take LRH’s definition of communication, would it be possible to have communication without also creating reality and affinity?
“Axiom 28 Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source-point.
The formula of communication is: cause, distance, effect, with intention, attention, and duplication with understanding.
The component parts of communication are consideration, intention, attention, cause, source-point, distance, effect, receipt-point, duplication, understanding, the velocity of the impulse or particle, nothingness or somethingness.
A noncommunication consists of barriers. Barriers consist of space, interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast-moving particles) and time. A communication, by definition, does not need to be two-way. When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source-point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt-point. ”
With this definition – did you really communicate over at ESMB?
Well, this looks like an invitation for looking at Axiom 28 closely. OK. I accept it and I shall be presenting my analysis of Axiom 28.
But more than the principle of ARC, I find the principle of LOOKING to be more useful. ARC deals with some kind of gain in understanding. LOOKING deals with getting rid of inconsistencies.
One can definitely look at the inconsistencies in one’s own thinking and behavior and get rid of them. This is a wonderful thing. One may then encourage others to do the same and that would be a wonderful thing too. This is likely to bring about a lot of harmony without much communication. This is what Buddhism practices.
This harmony may be termed affinity, but one doesn’t reach it through sharing a lot of reality through a lot of communication (duplication of that reality). One achieves it by removing inconsistencies within oneself. This approach allows one also to maintain one’s independence of thought.
Now ARC seems to be a different animal. Here one shares one’s reality through communication, and try to achieve better agreement. The independence of thought seems to get sacrificed. The problem here is that not much attention gets put on developing “ARC” with oneself, by which I mean, “Being in complete harmony within oneself.” That is left to something called auditing.
ARC seems to put the attention on others, and not so much on attaining the harmony within oneself.
.
While this is not meant as an opportunity to sell alternative ideologies or to vent one’s frustrations with various parts of Scientology, I am LOOKING forward to your analysis of Axiom 28 and would be thrilled if you could find a factual test for LRH’s proposed dependency between Affinity, Reality and Communication and that these, and these alone equates to Understanding. Or even better – if you can present a proof that falsify this theory.
Well comparing ARC with itself is not going to get you anywhere. If you are not going to allow ARC to be compared with a datum of comparable magnitude by calling it “selling alternate technologies” then I am afraid I am going to question your logic.
Which part of what I said in my last post you are labeling as “frustration”?
Please be clear and precise. I don’t get offended easily.
.
It’s meant as a general disclaimer.
I am looking for tests and proof as presented in the link on falsification.
Well, you know what I mean. 🙂
I would leave it at that.
~Vinaire
Axiom 28 omits a vital part… the nature of the impulse or particle being impelled.
This nature of the impulse of particle is very much affected by aberrations identified in KHTK as fixed identities, fixed viewpoints, fixed ideas, ideologies (doctrines), beliefs, etc.
A mechanical duplication of the particle does not make one aware of the aberration at the source point that has produced that impulse or particle, specially if similar aberration exists also at the receipt point.
This is the beginning of my promised analysis.
.
Two Computer Terminals With Established Protocols.
Affinity is constant. It will not rise or fall – the software protocols to “Like” each other are fixed.
Reality can be improved with better routers and other systems enhancements.
Communication occurs between both terminals using the affinity caused by protocols. The com can be faster or slower depending on reality.
But affinity stays constant.
So Reality can be improved in this system, Communication can be improved in this system, but Affinity stay’s constant.
Interesting. So affinity is a non-physical component and the ARC triangle applies to life, not cold matter?
Actually, I don’t think my example works. The ARC triangle is about “Understanding.” Computers currently don’t “Understand” (Unless you count Watson, the Jeopardy Champion.)
Right – as computers would not be communicating either if one uses Axiom 28 as the definition for communication.
Bunkai – use affinity interchangeably with “proximity” as in “nearness” and it works better as in less “emotionally.”
Now that we’ve established affinity as a physical attribute having to do with space then we must also deduce that it is relative to space-time since they are inextricably joined.
We went that far, now improve the communication of the computer with something like BAUD rate or clock speed or optic vs copper and we see that affinity is not constant in this example either. By increasing transmission speed and thus improving communication, the terminals are brought “closer” together.
An interesting discussion has been going on at http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?24336-Why-I-admire-L-Ron-Hubbard. (Warning: Some critics there take higher level of confrontation of a scientologist)
Bring relevant arguments over here.
What a ‘can of worms’!
I suspect that most people who have been in Scientology for any time have often found the ARCU thing — workable. Whether applied consciously or not, looking back at the incidents that come readily to mind, one can often say, “By golly, that’s just what happened! Wow. I should have done this or that or the other thing.”
I’ve not been an active Scientologist for decades but have, nearly daily, used many of the basic principles; my understanding of the interrelationship of A, R, and C has been helpful innumerable times.
But none of this anecdotal stuff is particularly pertinent to ‘scientific’ inquiry.
It’s obvious that not all increases in C lead to increased A or R. Words slung at another with intent to wound just rarely increase Affinity. (Though, perhaps, we could say — ‘well, it increased ‘negative’ affinity!)
We know that even words sent with a benign intent, perceived wrongly, can initiate an immediate plunge in Affinity. So here alone we have both positive vs negative communication and also ‘quality’ of the communication — whether what was sent, was received as intended.
Then, even beyond that, the sheer velocity of communication, while still ‘understandable’, may be uncomfortable to the recipient and create, in the recipient, an urge to withdraw. I suspect ‘velocity’ might be considered as another aspect of ‘quality’.
Consider ‘Reality.’ Agreements right? The extent to which we share perceptions or considerations about what ‘is’. And we know that we can increase A by _restricting_ our communication about known or suspected areas of disagreement and concentrating, instead, on those things about which we readily agree. Curious, rather; implicitly we agree that not all ‘positive’ communication is good communication. Indeed, it’s only the right communication at the right time that truly leads to increased affinity.
Consider also that, while we generally feel that more ARC is better than less, that one can deliberately increase ARC for what some would consider evil purposes: domination for instance. Heh! Ever encounter a Reg who had marvelous affinity with you, wonderful communication, and who’s primary purpose was to ‘handle’ your counter-intention? Lovingly, of course. We generally prefer to remember those times when we walked away from that encounter with some money remaining in our bank accounts.
But lovers do this to one another as well. It seems possible that many marriages survive because the partners, overtly or implicitly, ‘agree to disagree’ about those things that might, if directly confronted, seriously diminish affinity.
So Affinity.
The degree to which we want to be ‘close’ to another person. Closeness is usually rendered in examples as closeness in space — rather like an ultimate hug. “Becoming one.”
But, I’ve had a minor problem with this, pretty much from the start. With increased affinity, we often want to spend more time with the person as well — not just get closer in space. And, rather contrary to ‘becoming one,’ we often cherish another and value being with them not for their similarities but _because_ of their differences — even very significant differences. I readily grant that ‘too’ different can present a difficulty; but still.
For me, ARCU is a rough and ready ‘rule of thumb.’ Most of the time, it provides a useful intellectual handle to better grasp and resolve real-life situations. I’m pretty sure it’s imprecise, I doubt that it is complete as a ‘theory’, and I surely welcome a better understanding.
G.
With LRH’s definition of communication (Axiom 28), would you see the ARC triangle more than a rule of thumb?
Yeah, I think so Geir. And rules of thumb often line up with the Golden Ratio.
80% of the time a change in one of the three will affect the other two as expected.
20% of the time either no change or an unexpected change happens.
The reason it works is because if you keep doing it, the odds are that the results will eventually land in the 80% zone.
If it is just a “rule of thumb”, then with science one could determine what the “rule” is – is it 80%, or 92% or 64,3%?
LRH presents Scientology both as a religion and a science – hence I think it is only fair to use scientific standards and methodology to determine the validity of the theories therein.
It is fair and right to do so. But establishing the protocols for testing seems very difficult.
Good post, Gary.
ARC focuses on getting agreement. It does not concern itself with deep understanding. It is more likely to be used to convince others of one’s viewpoint as in the example of the Registrar, which you provided.
This is more in the line of hypnosis, where one tries to get a little agreement, then a little bit more agreement, and a bit more, and so on. Convincing others of one’s viewpoint is a step toward hypnotizing the other person. Of course, this makes the other person feel good to be in agreement, because, generally, he is not in good agreement with oneself.
Communication talks about duplication. But duplication of what? There is something missing about communication that it can be used to hypnotize the other person instead of freeing the other person.
.
Having to ‘convince’ one of a viewpoint to me would fall under an ARC X(break) as in an Enforced reality.
I disagree with your statement “ARC focuses on getting agreement”.
Axiom 28 talks about ‘duplication’ … this does not necessarily mean ‘agreement’.
HI Dennis,
Yes, in Axiom 28 def of communication, there is a duplication at effect point of that which emanated from source point. They match, they’re duplicates of each other.
And elsewhere, LRH says “Reality is the degree of agreement reached by people. It also includes the solid objects, the real things of life.” (That’s from the site that Geir posted in the OP.)
So the question seems to be this – is it a matter of “Got what you said” or “I agree with what you said.”
If there was a hard link between the three points in the triangle of ARCU (it is not), then you would have agreement when you get Understanding in Axiom 28.
Oh, that’s right – a duplication AND understanding of that which emanated.
It seems that once you have the mechanical duplication, then the factor of Understanding comes into the picture. Understanding=life=theta=ARC.
Hmmm. I’m still working on this one…
But wait, I might be onto something. Definition: “Reality is a quality which depends upon duplication and in the action of duplication expertly or poorly done we find agreement and disagreement.” I’m looking at the word “quality.”
In the thread on Quality vs Quantity, we pretty much concluded that quality went beyond the quantities of the physical universe because it is essentially a value or meaning or significance that is attached to the quantites. So maybe that’s why R follows after the mechanics (=quantities) of duplication – i.e. life attaches the meaning of agreement or disagreement to that which was duplicated.
Trying to understand…
But first things first; An increase in Reality is an increased agreement. A decrease in Reality is a more disagreement.
I duplicate and agree with that (since I’m now clear on the tone level connection). But I don’t follow what you’re looking at there, or trying to understand.
Trying to understand the depth of your comment 😉
Me too. 🙂
Hi Marildi,
This looks like it’s going to be another interesting thread … we may break 1000 again! 🙂
Your last question ‘Got what you said’ or ‘I agree with what you said’ is a great one.
Do we actually need agreement in order to have reality or an understanding of it with another? If I duplicate where another is coming from but look at things differently, does it necessarily mean no ARC, I dislike them, can’t communicate to them, don’t want to be close to them? Can I still admire that person for their reality?
A quick example: I find eccentric individuals or savants fascinating … I have very high ARC for them – high communication, affinity, and yes, reality.
Is their reality my reality? No. Would I like to agree and have their reality … not likely, although savants have some amazing abilities – they play Chopin Nocturnes sight unseen, I struggle thru Chopsticks 🙂
I think each of us can think of individuals we have run into that are fascinating – their beingness, their lives or what have you. Was there ARC there? Did you duplicate where they were coming from? Did the lack of reality, in that you would NOT operate that way, drop your ARC with that person?
I think this also has a bit, or a whole lot to do with ‘granting of beingness’. Ahh yes, here we go again haha 🙂 Popcorn’s on!
In Vinaire’s post above, he mentions
“ARC focuses on getting agreement. It does not concern itself with deep understanding. It is more likely to be used to convince others of one’s viewpoint as in the example of the Registrar, which you provided. ”
It appears that Vinaire equates or likens Scientology’s ARC with hypnotism and forcing or convincing another ‘to agree’. This seems totally opposite to what I understand as ARC. To me, this would fall under ‘enforced reality’, ‘Inhibited reality’, etc., or in simple terms; ‘Your viewpoint is wrong and you will believe my (the Reg) reality’. While I agree that this quite often occurs within the current ‘church’, it is fraud/coercion disguised as ARC.
I see no duplication there at all other than an enforced one. The person being Regged says something and the REG simply does not or refuses to duplicate. Has anyone here been in one of those reg cycles? Hahahah 🙂
I think ARC sometimes gets mixed up with ‘love’ – . Degree of closeness. Or in Gary’s example above – husband & wife ‘agreeing to disagree’. Do we all agree or do exactly as our spouses do in order that our ARC remains high? I doubt it … man, that would be weird – even scary hahaha – reminds me of couples that walk down – same sweaters, pants, colours – it’s a Bobsey Twins remake 🙂
Well, I need to read the rest of this thread … I have only read this far … sheesh, this will take some time 🙂
A basic one is: Can you understand and have excellent reality on something that you do not agree with?
Oh Lord, here I go …
I was thinking (yes, I know – it’s bad for my health) …
Did LRH mean Reality in that it is simply a reality? Or did he mean a reality ‘common’ to both individuals within a comm cycle?
I’ll put forth that DUPLICATION is a real key – no duplication (of what emanated from Cause) = no understanding. More communication may be needed to get conceptual understanding.
A refusal to duplicate? a big serfac/a misunderstood word/etc all leading to an ARCx
Okay Dennis and Geir, I’ll take Geir’s basic one first: “Can you understand and have excellent reality on something that you do not agree with?”
A real-life one immediately springs to mind – our Honorary Scientologist, Katageek, understands and has reality on cults – and profoundly disagrees with them.
So increased reality does not then equate to increased agreement. Does it equate to increased understanding… always?
Dennis, you ask, “Did LRH mean Reality in that it is simply a reality? Or did he mean a reality ‘common’ to both individuals within a comm cycle?”
Well, Dennis, I think it’s only fair to answer your question, since YOU were the one who got me looking at it and days later – Eureka! The first question is the one that gets a yes: “Did LRH mean Reality in that it is simply a Reality”.
For example, let’s say you have established A with Joe, which was increased by previous C. With that raised A you approach him (the essence of high A) and you get into a new C with him (new triangle). You duplicate his C to you – which does not match your own personal R, but you have now raised your R on whatever he had to say. In other words, a simple Reality on what was communicated.
“So increased reality does not then equate to increased agreement.”
Not true. And therein lies the rub! Increased R does equate to increased agreement, as follows.
When you duplicate a C you raise your R=agreement since you have duplicated=matched (in your mind)=are (for the moment) in agreement with – that which was communicated. It’s a momentary rise in tone level too (an acute one – thanks for that ;-)) in respect to the duplication itself.
“Does it equate to increased understanding… always?” Of course, your raised ARC = U.
I can understand a communication and still disagree with it.
I can have increased reality and increased disagreement simultaneously.
Anyone else who can do this also?
“I can have increased reality and increased disagreement simultaneously.”
Did you see my comment just above that last one? It ended with, “You duplicate his [Joe’s] C to you – which does not match your own personal R, but you have now raised your R on whatever he had to say. In other words, a simple Reality on what was communicated.”
You can have R on different things. In the example above, there are two R’s, on two different things. But LRH said it better in Dn 55:
“Now there’s a factor which is very important. This is the factor of Duplication. We could express this as “reality” or we could express it as “agreement.” The degree of agreement reached between A and B, in this communication cycle, becomes THEIR [my caps] reality. And this is accomplished, mechanically, by Duplication. In other words, the degree of reality reached in this communication cycle depends upon the amount of Duplication.”
“Their Reality” – the one between Dennis and “Joe” – isn’t necessarily the same R as
Dennis’ Reality.
Even there I can have one go up and the other down – between me and Joe.
“Even there I can have one go up and the other down – between me and Joe.”
True. But the point is – the ARC triangle as regards a particular instance (the one we’re discussing) of an increase of C between you and Joe and the related R/agreement, per LRH himself in the above quote, “is accomplished, mechanically, by Duplication. In other words, the degree of reality reached IN THIS COMMUNICATION CYCE [my caps] depends upon the amount of Duplication.”
So that particular R (the one relevant to that particular ARC triangle) goes up IF there is duplication (one and the same). Some other R between you and Joe might indeed go down, including the possibility that you have a viewpoint (R) that disagrees with what he has just asserted. Nevertheless your R (duplication) within that comm cycle did increase if you duplicated.
But can the R on THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE go up while the agreement goes down?
“But can the R on THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE go up while the agreement goes down?”
No. The R on THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE = the agreement reached with duplication.
From that same Dn 55 quote: “The degree of agreement reached between A and B, in this communication cycle, becomes their reality.”
(I think I’m up there at Games – this is fun!)
It appears to me that one may gain reality on another’s communication or viewpoint, but not agree with that reality.
By understanding another’s ‘reality’, does it necessarily mean ‘agreement’?
At this time I don’t think so.
I can be very satisfied with increased ARC for that person because I DUPLICATE where he/she is coming from – but, that is within ME … I don’t see the agreement there. The other guy is just looking at his reality.
Now, if we take a scenario where Joe likes hunting and I like hunting. There is general agreement that hunting is fun, great, or whatever. ARC should go up because of agreement, or like realities.
On the otherhand, if I didn’t like hunting but could understand & duplicate Joe’s thrill at hunting, does this necessarily mean my ARC for Joe would go down.
I expect it would with some anti hunting individual, BUT, if I look at being middle ground – being able to have or not have, I think I would maintain my ARC for Joe despite his choice.
Gier:
“I can understand a communication and still disagree with it.
I can have increased reality and increased disagreement simultaneously.
Anyone else who can do this also?”
I can also do this … it is like I am an observer to a communication. I can evaluate it and decide whether I agree with it of not.
I can still have great ARC with that person, but there may be little or no agreement on his expressed viewpoint.
Duplicating his viewpoint to me is fascinating, especially if it is a foreign viewpoint to my own. It does raise ARC for me.
The only exception I could see is if the person asserts or insists that his viewpoint is ‘right’.
I love a good exchange of ideas where we can freely express our viewpoints without inval or eval, but when a serfac enters in, my ARC does go down.
If someone looks and dresses like us, speaks with the same accent etc., we tend to assume they will hold similar beliefs. In fact they may hold radically different beliefs that become obvious when we communicate, leading to a drop of affinity. This example would seem to disprove the theory of ARC.
A Scientologist may claim that enough continued communication would raise the reality and affinity, and so the theory would hold as long as there are no limits. Of course, that also makes it impossible to prove, and therefore unscientific.
I am not sure that either of those paragraphs hold.
Firstly; The example you give does not show actual agreement, but superficial agreement. The example does not use the definition of Reality given in the links.
Secondly, I believe even without limits, the theory could still be disproven if you can in fact show that there would be a situation where increased communication would lead to gradually decreasing Affinity and/or Reality. Extrapolation of Communication could then not be used to show the theory to be valid.
That’s right. You agree with the way he is dressed, or as it’s more commonly expressed, “The way he dresses agrees with me”, etc.
At that point you know nothing else about him, if it is your first time seeing him.
Without limits, if you communicated long enough with him and he with you, perhaps you would arrive at Total ARC with each other, both of you at Native State and recognizing knowing it as such.
Then you might go your separate ways again, perhaps agreeing to have a reunion at some definite time and place, or just “see ya down the road sometime….”
My question about this thread is, Did LRH ever say ARC was a “theory”?
Obviously it is a theory to Geir, but what was it to LRH?
What else is it?
From the link “Science as falsification”:
“I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still “un-analyzed” and crying aloud for treatment.”
This is a characteristic that seems to apply to Scientology.
More to follow…
.
According to Popper:
“A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
That makes sense. A person whose viewpoint has been taken over by that theory, will always find something in every event, which verifies that theory to him.
Now hypnotism will be an instance of extremely high ARC. A hypnotized person will see an amazing amount of understanding with the hypnotist. This justifies the theory of ARC to him. However, a person who is not hypnotized would see it otherwise. He would see that the hypnotized person is not thinking for himself.
Therefore, in my opinion, the theory of ARC seem to work, but it takes the toll on self-determinism. That is the inconsistency that I see there.
.
May it be that hypnotism is a possible falsification of ARC. Here: The person is in total agreement, total affinity – but with enforced communication and very little understanding.
How about?
Well, how about?
.
Do you think the example indicates that the theory of ARC is falsified?
How about other readers?
I feel Popper’s criterion could be presented a bit better as in
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD & HUMANITIES
If a theory cannot be falsified then the problem, which is being looked at, is not formulated precisely enough. A better formulation of the problem is desirable.
The principle of ARC may be helpful for some. It hasn’t been helpful for me. I have always focused on observation and on what I find inconsistent in that observation. Observation may be looked upon as a form of communication. Removal of inconsistencies may be looked upon as an effort to improve reality. Harmony within oneself may be looked upon as a measure of affinity. But I haven’t found such a formulation of affinity-reality-communiction necessary.
I simply try to be as honest as possible in my observations, and make a decided effort to clarify any inconsistencies that I find. Many a times I find the inconsistency to be in the ideas that I have taken for granted and have not examined closely.
Popper’s criterion seems to apply more to physical sciences in the form that it is stated. Physical sciences present a very narrow band of knowledge. Metaphysics seems to present a much broader band of knowledge.
.
Hypnotism would not be a falsification of ARC. For the person being hypnotiized, all these components of communication would be missing: consideration, intention, attention, cause, source-point, duplication, and understanding,
Yes – but what about agreement – no communication but with full agreement. How could that be?
I can’t see that the person actually is in agreement, it’s only apparent. A sort of stimulus response of the mechanisms in the mind, isn’t it?
But with the universe, you have to be in agreement to create what others also see…
It an agreement that the person is oblivious of. 🙂
.
LRH said that “hypnotism is an address to the reactive mind.” This seems to square with what Marildi posted above.
It seems that a non-scientific theory, which appears to be verifiable at every step, is actually a theory that infiltrates and takes over the viewpoint of a person.
A person who does not let one’s viewpoint to be taken over by the theory, can look at that theory more objectively, and can find inconsistencies in that theory.
Einstein’s theory of relativity is very difficult to understand. Therefore, it is hard for that theory to take over anybody’s viewpoint. So, when an instance appears to verify that theory, it comes as a surprise.
.
I would modify my previous statement here. Einstein’s mathematics has taken over the viewpoint of String Theorists. 🙂
.
I looked up the definition of brainstorming just now and it said, “a group technique for solving problems, generating ideas. etc, by unrestrained spontaneous participation in discussion” – which is pretty much what we’re trying to do, in order to “formulate instances
that could be used to test the ARC triangle to see if it could be falsified” (opening post)
So here’s my latest contribution. The more I think about it the more I see that there would first have to be a way of measuring all three – A, R & C – or how would you ever determine any increase or decrease in any of them?
Now, the only objective measuring device I can think of that might be useful would be the e-meter, The meter measures havingness – which is determined by the sensitivity setting – and one definition of havingness is “ARC with the environment.” So right here is a link between ARC and a meter measurement.
Then, maybe the use of the meter this way (using relative sensitivity) could be combined with subjective opinions about whether an increase or decrease of any of the corners of the triangle had occurred – in some particular situation, mocked up or otherwise.
That’s as far as I got and I’m hoping some others will come up with ideas for the “situations” to use or to set up ahead, in order to get those subjective opinions from people about increases or decreases – which could then be compared to their meter sensitivity settings, in order to get some general statistics.
Well, there are other, simpler methods.
If someone here can present a factual situation (ar a plausible fictional one) where a person would have high A and low R and C, or high C and R but low A or where he would have high ARC but low U, then the theory would have been falsified.
Simple.
But does such a situation exist?
That seemed to help (got me out of a particular rut of thought!).
Does such a situation exist, you ask. And I say no.
I started thinking about the example of a very young child, who has a high affinity, although not high communication or reality – but according to whom? Someone might say that his limited language ability keeps him from being at a high level of communication and his knowledge about the world (his “reality”) is very limited too. Yet, in his own “world” or universe he feels himself to be in comm with the whole world and it is very real to him. I think it would actually be the same for anybody. It’s a matter of whose standard these things are measured by. And how could it be anything else but the individual’s own standard? It seems to be a matter of consideration and completely relative to the person involved. This makes sense in light of the fact that A, R, and C wouldn’t even exist without “the person involved.”
I don’t think we’re going to find any examples where the principle doesn’t apply because A, R, and C are actually functions of each other in the same way as are matter, energy and time. You can’t change any of them without a corresponding change in the others. And the reason is that – they’re defined against each other. In fact, the ARC triangle principle is probably nothing more (or less!) than a way of breaking down the concept of Understanding, so it can be seen clearly in its component parts.
That is a good defence of the theory. Now how would you explain the case of hypnotism (full agreement, no or high affinity depending on the commands, no or high communication based on the commands and no real understanding)?
That would be a distortion of the meanings of A-R-C, which is life, aliveness. It’s actually talking about things that aren’t alive, just mechanisims in the mind (MEST) that are being manipulated.
But doesn’t it show that it is possible to be in full agreement without understanding. Like; We are in full agreement with others (evidence: The physical universe – the ultimate agreement) without much understanding at all.
In the case of hypnotism I don’t think there’s any actual agreement as it’s not a truly aware and knowing one.
And now that you mention it, it’s probably the same exact way with our “agreement” with the physical universe. Wow!
When you say, “The physical universe – the ultimate agreement) without much understanding at all,” I’m not sure what you mean by “understanding.” Understanding of what exactly?
Well, I would suggest we really do not have understanding of how this game is composed. Or, even better – go back to the stone age, then we didn’t have much of a clue of how the physical universe worked on almost any level.
Do you mean that if we didn’t know how the physical universe is composed, we wouldn’t be able to recreate those perceptions? If so, then I’m still thinking that it’s being done as an automaticity without any awareness of doing so – just like hypnotism or any other “implanted” response. And it still seems to me that the meanings of A-R-C are applicable to life and awareness. Agreements, for example, need to be happening on an awareness level, with a live decision being made on them.
The original reality must have been a conscious one – at list for a split second. Then with the self-imposed Not-Know, it became automatic. But that still does not make it any less of an agreement, does it?
A better way to put it is this: We are all aware of – and agree upon – our perceptions of the physical universe. But we’re not aware of our own involvement in creating those perceptions (i.e. creating that which is perceived). And thus, as regards this below-awareness creation there obviously would be no agreement or understanding (or communication with it or affinity either).
I would say that automaticities were at one time agreements, with their corresponding A, C and U at the time – but no longer. The whole concept of “agreement” implies conscious awareness. And with an automaticity that’s now gone.
Agreement has to be a knowing thing or it loses its actual meaning. Wiithout knowingingness what once was an agreement becomes no more than a mechanical duplication. And that’s why there’s no understanding.
That sounds good. But what then about intuition, is that not counted towards reality, then?
Yes, seems like an intuition should be counted towards reality. But I think I’m missing your point.
Intuition is rather unknowing, don’t you think – at least below full consciousness. The same with automaticities. So if automaticities does not count to bring ARC up – actually it seems to bring it down, why would intuition not do the same?
Oh, I got it. You’re talking about intuition as a “doingness”, not AN intuition (the result of). But I’m not sure what you mean about it being below full consciousness.
I think of it as being at the level of Know, Knowingness, direct Communication with actuality or Reality and the result is Understanding at a high level. And the Affinity is – “in its truest definition, which is coincidence of location and beingness; that is the ultimate in Affinity.”
You could say intuition is a matter of “being” whatever, and that’s the way you get a conscious Reality on it…
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. Let me rephrase that to a “hunch” instead of “intuition”.
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. Let me rephrase that to a “hunch” instead of “intuition”.
Oh, okay. Would you agree with this definition of theta perceptics: “communication with the theta universe. Such perceptics may include hunches, predictions, ESP…” I’m considering theta universe to include the contents of one’s own as well as others’ minds.
But any such below the level of consciousness would still be below the level of reality – just as automaticities.
I guess the “method” of getting a hunch is below the level of consciousness but the hunch itself would not be or it would not be a hunch, obviously. So it’s still an aware and knowing Reality. Am I still missing something?
But the resulting hunch is surely not fully conscious or it would be more than a hunch – it would be certainty or knowingness.
And one could be equally aware of an automaticity. Why then would a hunch contribute to high R while an automaticity (which is a sort of agreement) be conter-productive?
“But the resulting hunch is surely not fully conscious or it would be more than a hunch –it would be certainty or knowingness.”
I don’t see a hunch as significantly different from other considerations that are realities for us, but not necessarily high R in either case.
Other realities that we’re aware of may not be certainties either, and we may not know exactly how they came about. Nevertheless, we are aware of them.
As for instances of being aware of an automaticity, we probably aren’t in agreement with it. And if we are, then that agreement is most likely based on other non-automatic realities, ones we’re aware of.
Can we truly be in disagreement with anything we create?
My idea is that there’s no meaning (by definition) to assigning agreement or disagreement to something that one isn’t conscious of, including one’s own creations.
Even those automaticities that we are conscious of do not have any reality on their own, just what may be assigned to them (as per my last comment). And anything not having actual reality in itself would not have any bearing on A, C or U. The assigned reality, however, would
Off the top of my head and for fun.
1.A family member in an psychiatric ward… a family member can love them but not have a clue what their reality is and therefor not talk with them.
2, two mothers on the PTA…
3. One friend trying to help another out of a situation, and after telling their friend what they need to do, not understand why the friend hasn’t done such when it is so obvious.
I shall vote for
“2, two mothers on the PTA…”
.
Popper says,
“It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.”
Yes, that is called a biased approach. A person who is throughly “convinced” about a theory is like that. He doesn’t even know that he is biased. This seems to apply to Scientologists.
Actually it seems to apply to ex-Scientologists on ESMB as well. They are throughly convinced that Scientology is evil. Thus, they see evil in every bit of Scientology.
Hubbard detested an “open mind” about Scientology (check out his IQ Test). He wanted a person to be throughly “convinced” about Scientology. He misused “study tech” in the form of cramming to overcome any disagreement. If he could not overcome disagreement (talk about ARC), he declared them suppressive to get them out of Scientology. This is not frustration. This is a cold hard look at what Hubbard did, supported by many actual observations.
A balanced person would be able to see the limitations of a theory. He would not be biased. He would be able to tell where a theory applies and where it doesn’t.
.
Sheesh … this paragraph had my jaw dropping
“Hubbard detested an “open mind” about Scientology (check out his IQ Test). He wanted a person to be throughly “convinced” about Scientology. He misused “study tech” in the form of cramming to overcome any disagreement. If he could not overcome disagreement (talk about ARC), he declared them suppressive to get them out of Scientology. This is not frustration. This is a cold hard look at what Hubbard did, supported by many actual observations.”
1) I believe (an this is MY opinion), that LRH when referring to an ‘open mind’ was in relation to a person who dabbled and couldn’t make up his mind, or simply put, make a decision.
2) Study Tech & Cramming are two different things. Within a courseroom (Academy), the end result with a student is conceptual understanding and an ability to apply what he has learned in life. LRH encouraged one to ask questions – MUCH DIFFERENT from the last few decades where one has to toe the line.
Years ago we had discussions like we do on this blog – they were great and encouraged. As a Wordclearer, Sup and Dof T, my purpose was to see the student able to apply what he had learned in life. Where a student went downhill in his studies (his graph would plummet, or indicators were not good), I would inevitably find something he didn’t understand – a concept, a word, context, a joke … whatever. You can liken it to a student who is ‘streamed’ thru school (never having to re-do a grade) while missing various bits of data – the result is one having greater & greater difficulty as he/she goes up the grades.
3) Your second last & last sentences are simply big generalities.
Good post.
It is funny how justification works. Let’s look at the common meaning of “open mind” as given in the dictionary and get away from any speculation and justification..
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Open+mind
open mind
A mind receptive to different opinions and ideas, as in Her open mind could see merit in the new method . This phrase is often put as keep an open mind , as in The judge cautioned the jury to keep an open mind while hearing the evidence . [First half of 1800s]
.
This is also possibly an interesting example of being hypnotized not to see inconsistency.
“Dictionary should be used in word clearing, but should be ignored when justifying.”
Very interesting.
Vinaire, you keep talking about Hubbard and “Scientolgists” (a generality). 😦
Reminding you again, aren’t we supposed to be talking about knowledge in itself?
I am providing examples for a datum being discussed. If the example doesn’t apply then lets discuss it.
.
Popper says,
“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.”
This is an odd one. I don’t quite get it. Popper seems to be introducing an opinion here.
Popper considers Einstein Theory of Relativity as scientific because it shook people out of being “convinced” in a certain way about the physical phenomenon.
Hubbard is correct in his observation that the MEST universe hypnotizes one. Most people are convinced about the MEST reality. They perceive the MEST phenomenon in a certain way, and expect it to always be that way.
Einstein’s Relativity does not change anything in the physical phenomenon; It rather enhances the perception of it. The same we can say about the Quantum Theory. It enhances our perception of the physical phenomenon.
A scientific theory then penetrates through one’s existing convictions and provides a new viewpoint which expands upon the older viewpoint. The casualty may be some conclusions based on the earlier limited perception.
.
Now, did Scientology provide enhanced perception into mental and spiritual phenomenon? If it did then I would call it a scientific advancement.
I would say that it did provide enhanced perception in some ways and not in other ways.
As far as ARC goes, that formulation did not provide enhanced perception to me. But it seems that it may have provided enhanced perception to many others. But this is a matter of education and not of a basic scientific advancement.
Most of Hubbard’s work seem to be repackaging of older knowledge and presenting it in a way that it could be more appealing. I definitely see an advancement in the field of presentation of knowledge, but not in the advancement of knowledge itself.
In fact, Hubbard introduced many curves in his presentation of knowledge because of his own fixed ideas. The key curve, that I have pointed out many times before, is his fixation on “self”, which Buddha had shown earlier to be not something permanent.
.
Popper says,
“Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.”
The only thing that I see a “good” scientific theory to be prohibiting is false conclusions based on limited perception.
A “good” scientific theory increases perception on the scale of humanity. It educates the whole human kind. After Einstein, the whole human kind knows that matter is simply a more condensed form of energy, and that matter can be de-condensed to produce an enormous amount of energy.
If a person is falsely convinced otherwise, then this enhanced perception can be demonstrated in a way to blow away that false conviction, which that person carries.
So, a “good” scientific theory provides means to demonstrate itself in a way that cannot be easily refuted, but the theory has the capacity to refute enormous number of conclusions based on limited perception.
I do not understand what Popper means by “The more a theory forbids, the better it is.” That doesn’t appear to me to be a good criterion. It assumes that there is an infinite amount of false perception prior to the theory.
Isn’t the theory going to remove that earlier false perception? Once everybody perceives per Einstein’s Relativity, there won’t be much false perception left to be forbidden per the theory of relativity. Now one may need a still better theory.
.
Popper’s point is that the more risky the theory is (the more it forbids), the easier it is to falsify. If it then stands every attempt to be falsified, if it passes every test, then it is thoroughly strengthened in the process.
Good! Then what does the theory of ARC forbid?
(1) It forbids that you cannot have high affinity in the absence of communication.
Well. I have seen very high affinity among two very quiet people. I am sure that those mesmerized by the ARC theory would assume telepathic communication. 🙂
.
An interesting question would then be whether their affinity would increase further by communicating more.
What does your experience tell you?
From my experience, when two people are in harmony within themselves, and with each other, then do not need too much communication. They just operate in harmony.
It is totally different paradigm. Trying to fit it in the ARC paradigm may require a bit of stretch.
.
Anyone here wants to explain or refute the example given by Vin here. Has he in fact falsified the theory of ARC?
Again ARC stresses on agreement.
I like stressing the removal of inconsistencies within oneself and in one’s observations. This leads to increased harmony within oneself. As harmony within oneself increases then harmony in relationship with others also increases automatically without having to force it. This requires total honesty with oneself and in one’s observations.
It is hard to squeeze this paradigm in the ARC theory that stresses on agreement.
.
The fact that they “operate in harmony” tells me they actually are in communication, maybe not with words.
I am having more fun looking at what Popper has to say about falsification, rather than falsification of the ARC theory.
.
Two very quiet people who are happy with each other have a very high degree of Agreement. Communication includes all perception, it doesn’t just mean lots of verbal jabber. For example, two people sitting quietly doing TR0 are Communicating.
There is no absence of Communication there. No consideration of telepathy is necessary.
The way I understand the concept of Falsification, is explained here:
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD & HUMANITIES
If a theory cannot be falsified then one should go back to the drawing board in defining the problem, or the situation, more thoroughly. There is amble scope there to make the theory more precise.
.
“Treat all dharmas as dreams” – Lojong Proverb
Falsifying ARC with a mind experiment is doable IMHO when one examines love.
EXAMPLE: Two people are friends for years. The male has a “Poker Night” he goes to with a group she knows nothing about.
One day they start to date and have good sex. The girl discovers his closet has a false back and finds compelling evidence that he is a Master Level D&D player! GenCon Badges from 8 yerars align the walls.
Dun-da-DUNNNN!
She wigs out totally and throws the 9th level magic user to the curb!
“Poker night?”, she says “The lying slob! HE IS SO BUSTED!”
He increases communication with love letters – she gets miffed.
He increases reality by fixing things for her and helping her friends and she sees right through it. He acts like he doesn’t love her. He BURNS his D&D materials from decades of use to improve reality and she retreats even more -cuz now she knows he’s desperate! He even says he’s happy “just being friends!”
He even watches the same CHICK FLICKS to increase reality and communication.
Eventually, he communicates and changes reality SO much to increase her affinity but discovers that the “dwindling spiral” becomes a … restraining order!
In love, ARC doesn’t always work as described.
He was last seen sobbing into his super sized coke at GenCon.
“(SOB) What do all these experience points mean … WITHOUT HER?”
He looks up.
“It means I can play as much as I want – WOOT!”
And he lived happily ever after and even found a gamer girl.
Anyway, the big fail I see is that people can CHOOSE to set values on the ARC triangle and then work to keep the value when someone else is opting to change the other two.
This choice forever eliminates any sense of absolute value as stated in the defn above.
Choice. It just plain screws up everything – just like zero.
I would say that choice itself is based on ARC. The question is – ARC related to what, or whom? A larger or smaller sphere of ARC might be in play, or multiple ones.
Communication is not just talking at a person endlessly, or sending a lot of love letters.
In the case of two people, it either becomes Two-way Comm or it does not. If the Two-way Comm is restored between the lovers, they might live happily ever after.
For Two-way Comm to occur, both must be able to Reach and Withdraw. If he can’t shut up and wait for a response, or stop sending letters to see if she sends back one of her own, he is Overreaching. It would be a stuck flow that prevent as Two-way Comm from happening.
It is just like any martial art.
Popper says,
“A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.”
An identification, such as A = A is irrefutable. You may insert any value for A and the relationship would be valid.
Circular logic is also irrefutable. One may enter that circular logic at any point and find nothing to refute as one goes around the circle. This is how the MEST logic is. We present it in the form of “axioms.”
An irrefutable theory simply means that one is “boxed in” in a theory. There is nothing else left in that “box” to be known. One has hit the level of identity or circular logic.
Now one needs to look outside that box of that theory.
.
Popper says,
“Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.”
That is correct. But what does degree of testability means? String theory is regarded to be not very testable. What does that mean?
It simply means that testability reduces to zero as one hits the level of identity or circular logic. It is now time to think outside the box. That is where the risk is.
String theories originated from the mathematical approach taken by Einstein. Einstein broke new grounds. String theories seem to be treading on the same ground that Einstein established. They haven’t broken any new grounds.
So, as long as a theory is falsifiable, there is improvement possible at the current level of thinking. When a theory approaches non-falsifiability, then improvement is possible only by raising thinking to a completely new level not visualized before.
.
Nicely explained.
Popper says,
“Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)”
What does “a genuine test of the theory” mean? I think it means an honest attempt to look at the theory from a radically different viewpoint.
Thus, an honest attempt to test a theory may make one think outside the box. It would not just be a test of the theory but also a test of that radically new approach to test the theory. If the theory still stands then it would certainly strengthen the theory.
.
As I said elsewhere, I am having more fun looking at Popper’s theory rather than the ARC theory. Here is the last point that Popper makes.
“Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)”
I am still fascinated by Newtonian Mechanics even when it is superseded by Einstein’s theories. This is because I find to very consistent even when in a relatively narrow band. It is just as magnificent a work as Einstein’s. I have not added some auxiliary assumption or have reinterpreted the theory. I am simply aware of its limitations, and its simple workability within a certain range.
.
My current viewpoint is that if theories in Scientology can be falsified then they can definitely be improved within their scope.
And if they cannot be falsified then we should be thinking outside the box to come up with a brand new approach that addresses the mental and spiritual phenomenon in a lot more effective manner.
.
Agreed.
Popper says,
“The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx’s analysis of the character of the “coming social revolution”) their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified.[2] Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable. They thus gave a “conventionalist twist” to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.”
The “conventionalist twist” that Popper is talking about seems to be the introduction of circular logic in a theory.
.
Per Pilot, from SUper Scio:
“It is possible that the ARC triangle itself is an interlocking condition that stems from the
reality wars rather than being a basic mechanic. Why should you go into agreement or
get sucked into somebody else’s reality just from talking to them? That would seem to
be an aberration.
They might, for example, have shown you that it was basically unfair to agree with a
creation that you liked if you were unwilling to talk to its creator, and so you had to
raise your communication if affinity and reality were increased.
This strange idea of interlocked A, R, and C then leads to the implication that you could
have your reality contaminated by talking to someone else (because reality and
agreement will increase with communication). That’s deadly because you then start
cutting communications to protect yourself, and once you’ve blocked communications,
then you really can get in trouble.
If Hitler had painted a beautiful painting, wouldn’t true sanity include the ability to
admire the painting while continuing to hate the man?
This is all slightly speculative because I still have a great deal of charge in this area
and may be twisting things around or getting the details wrong. But the implications are
immense and it would be unfair of me to keep this to myself.”
* Reality Wars is an very early wholetrack period.
____________
“This strange idea of interlocked A, R, and C then leads to the implication that you could have your reality contaminated by talking to someone else (because reality and agreement will increase with communication).”
I think the key there is “your reality.” There are many different spheres of ARC or reality for any particular individual. Talking to someone should increase your reality on that person or on whatever he’s talking about – two different things (spheres of ARC) right there. If he’s just explaining something to you, your reality on that particular subject might increase. If he’s talking about a personal viewpoint of his, you could get a greater reality about the guy himself. Either of those two spheres of ARC might change your own “overall reality”, or it might not. It might change your “overall reality” about the guy, or not. In other words to be fair to the theory, the question has to be asked, reality on what?
Good points.
Here is an important point that Popper makes.
“I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or “metaphysical” (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or “meaningless,” or “nonsensical.” But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the “result of observation.””
I feel that there are great many observation in Scientology that are significant but I don’t know of any that can claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense, except for LOOKING.
Looking is that component of Scientology that was originally introduced in Buddhism. I feel that it can be a good contender for being backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense.
PS. I am not trying to sell anything here. I am only being a researcher. All KHTK stuff is free for anyone to play with. Geir, this is my general disclaimer. Hope you are fine with it.
.
Here is another interesting point made by Popper.
“(There were a great many other theories of this pre-scientific or pseudo-scientific character, some of them, unfortunately, as influential as the Marxist interpretation of history; for example, the racialist interpretation of history — another of those impressive and all-explanatory theories which act upon weak minds like revelations.)”
The differentiation between scientific and non-scientific is a difficult one. Popper is trying to provide a criterion to make such differentiation easy. But what is it that makes such a differentiation very difficult for people to make?
I think that difficulty comes from the failure to look at things as they are. People add their own expectations to what they are looking at, and that influences what they perceive. Thus, the assessment of the sensory input gets compromised by one’s expectations. Yes, that is adding one’s own visualization to what is there. This is dub-in at a very elementary level.
So, what is it that Popper is referring to as “weak minds”? It is the compulsive projection that people make when looking at things, and then perceiving their own projections back simply in the context of what is there.
This kind of a dub-in is very, very common. KHTK is all about recognizing such dub-in.
PS: Here again I am not selling KHTK. KHTK simply contains my research. You are welcome to criticize it. Actually, I would welcome all attempts to falsify KHTK.
.
I think I am done with Sir Karl Popper now. Thanks for listening. 🙂
.
I apologize for my delay in responding.
Geir, I don’t think consideration of Axiom 28 significantly alters my ‘rule of thumb’ remark. I should mention that I didn’t mean it at all dismissively. After reading the various comments prior to this, I noticed that none of them have mentioned something that might be very important, particularly if ARC(U) is to be treated Scientifically: Math.
What’s the math?
Well, perhaps A = xR * yC (where x and y are presently unknown constants say.) Looks kinda good. Seems likely that Affinity might be related that way to Reality and Communication.
But, with some standard mathematical manipulation, that would yield
1 = (xR * yC)/A . That seems rather less intuitive. Ditto if we change the R * C to R + C. And, of course, this is before we address Marildi’s issue and actually try to find some way to quantify A, R, C, (and U) in practice.
(Of course, I’ve taken Ohm’s law as an example formulation and, in fairness, given Ron’s triangle analogy, some mathematical expression of that geometrical relationship might be possible; but, sadly, that’s currently beyond my skill level. Vinaire? Anyone?)
Seems to me that the lack of precise mathematical formulation of the relationship may, ipso facto, put it in the realm of ‘rule of thumb.’
G.
Mathematical formulation is simply that the ratios A:R, R:C and C:A are always constant, but how does one assign numerical values to A, R and C such that remain consistent with each other and with experience.
If one takes the mathematical approach, the ARC theory will be dismissed right away as just a hunch and not at all worked out seriously.
.
To be more specific than in my initial post, I contend that not all increases in C, increase A or R.
Example:
We’ve got those two non-talkative people engaged in putative non-verbal comm and presumably having high affinity for one another. Ok.
Now let’s put in some good ol’ fashion verbal communication. They just can’t believe how wonderful it is that they feel so comfortable and splendid with one another. They’re so surprised by their seeming compatibility that, by mutual agreement (woe), they begin to search for those (surely) minor areas where they disagree. 😦 Does any Scientologist (or ex) truly believe that will end well? That their Affinity and/or shared Reality will increase? At all? Fun while it lasted? Kinda?
Increasing C does not, IMHO, always increase A or R. I agree that the _right_ communication, done well, about the _right_ subjects can and perhaps _always_ does increase A and R. (Which, may have been Geir’s point re Axiom 28 — at least as regards ‘right’ communication. Not sure.) Of course, put exactly that way, the statement (ala Popper) is non-falsifiable. If X communication, delivered by Y to Z somehow, gosh, _failed_ to raise A or R, then, clearly, X wasn’t quite right, or the subject chosen was wrong.
G.
Good points.
A, R, and C are defined in such a vague and non-mathematical manner that these concepts can easily be manipulated to support the ARC theory in all cases. Marildi’s passionate arguments show that.
Popper will take one look at the ARC theory and dismiss it as unscientific.
.
Yup.
I beg to differ with both of you, gentlemen. 🙂
Gary, that couple discussing their disagreements (communicating) would indeed increase their affinity – which is most broadly, technically, and scientifically defined as “emotional response; the feeling of affection or the lack of it, of emotion or misemotion connected with life.”
.
And Vinaire, what you call my “passionate arguments” are the result of “looking” at what is there and those are the statements of what I see. What could be more scientific?
Besides, its yet another example of the ARC triangle in action – I communicated newly with the theory of the ARC triangle, increased my reality on it, and ended up with more affinity for it (which could be belittled as “passion.” ;-))
Marildi, your response is exactly per Popper:
“I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still “un-analyzed” and crying aloud for treatment.”
Popper also said about such people that they “made their interpretations and prophesies sufficiently vague” or that they “re-interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable.”
I don’t think I’ve done either of those things.
According to my observations, the above comments by Popper apply to Scientology as a subject very closely.
The comments you are referring to were made by Popper in the specific context of Astrology and Marxism respectively. Those were not made as general comments.
.
1. “According to my observations, the above comments by Popper apply to Scientology as a subject very closely.”
The above comments by Popper weren’t about any subject, only about people who were defending those subjects.
.
2. “The comments you are referring to were made by Popper in the specific context of Astrology and Marxism respectively. Those were not made as general comments.”
Yes, that’s what I get too. And on the two psycho-analytic theories, he said they were “simply non-testable, irrefutable. There was no conceivable human behavior which could contradict them. This does not mean that Freud and Adler were not seeing certain things correctly… ”
It’s interesting that he says their irrefutability due to no conceivable contradiction
“does not mean Freud and Adler were not seeing certain things correctly.”
My point is that Popper is simply trying to present an argument for what makes a theory scientific and to work out the standard for that. Be that as it may, even if some of Scientology’s theories aren’t in that category it doesn’t mean they aren’t correct – according to Popper himself. 🙂
Gary, perhaps it just a matter of continuing the process of communicating until it’s flat? (Cognition and VGIs)
There is some truth to LRH’s principles on ARC, but they are not always true: I have a friend who is still in the CO$. When we talk on the phone, we avoid the subject of the org or the “ethics” handlings this person has had because we know if we communicate about them, we will argue and disagree, then stop communicating. We’ve been through that time and time again.
That seems to validate the theory…
I think this brings up a good point. Why would certain type of communication decrease affinity? There are known points of disagreement. Why would communicating about them create a break? Here is something that the ARC theory just generalizes over and does not go deep enough.
Can disagreements always be sorted out through communication? Are there situations where they can’t be sorted out? What are those situations?
I shall now be looking at Axiom 28 more closely.
Quote: “I shall now be looking at Axiom 28 more closely.”
Popcorn popping … butter in the microwave 🙂
We’re never gonna let Vin live down the good ol’ popcorn days. No matter what he “becomes” – it’s still a hilarious line!
Starting to argue and disagree may actually be a rise in Tone and a rise in ARC. As I posted above to Gary, perhaps all that’s needed is to continue the process to VGIs. It is correct to stop talking sometimes, as a Reach/Withdraw.
I was waiting for a long time to this post:) Right now I am not so eager to look back at Scientology to remember all I collected in this subject in my mind:) But let’s try to sum up.
To exaggerate a bit: this formula dies right with the formula. Because if the above (with ARC) is done naturally, than it is OK. But when you make a formula like this, you come out of the context of naturality. This you can observe in broad in Scientology. TRs makes robots for example. Even in the early Scientology interview with Ron. You can see the guy not blinking.
Than it is said with the formula, that if you are in ARC with someone, you want to be close to that person. If not, you want to be far away. As if this would be a linear or some sort of scale… But one can clearly see this is not linear at all. You can’t measure it in centimeters, meters or in miles.
An example where ARC triangle does not work. You come along a subject to deal with. Let say it is a book. You read the book you raise the triangle at communication but you see that this book, this subject is not for you. Yo do not read more books in that subject. Your communication went up, your reality went up by communicating with the subject but your affinity did not went up. You do not want to get more close to this subject either. This can happen with people although if you are on a spiritual path, with people should not happen this way. And this can happen with the subject of Scientology as well as it happened in my case.
This example could be translated to another; Ask a scientologist active in the Church of Scientology if they have a high or low Affinity for psychiatry. Ask then if they have a high or low Reality on what psychiatry is about. Ask if they understand the subject and ask if they are able to communicate about the subjects and with psychiatrists. See if the various elements are on roughly the same level.
This is an example of unknowingness or unawareness involved with apparent but not actual “ARC.” You’re talking about Scientologists who have merely assumed a “Reality,” one which predisposes low Affinity. And because this so-called Reality is not the actual Reality, there’s no true Understanding and no ability to Communicate about or with the actual subject.
So this example would not refute the ARC triangle theory.
It seems to strengthen it. Interesting take, marildi.
Scientologists shouldn’t and can’t communicate with anything labeled “untheta” and obviously they are not able to use their own formulas.
And how far it is from what Ron said at the beginning that “To know life you’ve got to be part of life, you must get down there and look, you must get into the nooks and crannies of existence, and you must rub elbows with all kinds and types of men before you can finally establish what man is.”
gOD (interesting pseudonym, btw),
You’re right about SO-CALLED Scientologists. They aren’t actually practicing Scientology. Not sure what you meant, though, by “they are not able to use their own formulas.”
Couple of years ago, I had commented on Axiom 28 on Geir’s Scientology Forum as follows:
AXIOM 28: COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPTPOINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE RECEIPTPOINT A DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCEPOINT.
The formula of communication is: cause, distance, effect, with intention, attention and duplication with understanding. The component parts of communication are consideration, intention, attention, cause, sourcepoint, distance, effect, receiptpoint, duplication, understanding, the velocity of the impulse or particle, nothingness or somethingness. A noncommunication consists of barriers. Barriers consist of space, interpositions (such as walls and screens of fastmoving particles) and time. A communication, by definition, does not need to be twoway. When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receiptpoint now becoming a sourcepoint and the former sourcepoint now becoming a receiptpoint.
(1) Communication takes place across a distance.
(2) Communication cannot take place in absence of space.
(3) The highest level of communication is LOOK TO KNOW. This is direct perception.
(4) THETA perception proceeds from LOOK TO KNOW to knowingness.
(5) Communication requires placing of attention.
(6) Communication requires differentiation of what is being communicated from surrounding noise.
(7) Communication requires creation of that, which is to be communicated.
(8) Space, Time, interpositions, and interceptions may act as barriers to communication.
.
It is interesting to see that this analysis had anticipated what later became KHTK, specially points (3) and (6).
.
Theta perception in (4) may only be expressed as a consideration.
.
COMMUNICATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE-POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO RECEIPTPOINT…
I now see both SOURCE-POINT and RECEIPT-POINT to be considerations too.
Self is a consideration. What else could it be?
.
In my view, the following are the requisites for thinking outside the box:
(1) That anything one knows boils down, ultimately, to one’s consideration.
(2) That no consideration is so sacrosanct as to be considered non-dissolvable or permanent.
(3) What may come closest to being sacrosanct is the consistency among considerations.
(4) One should be able to modify a consideration, or simply discard it, for the sake of consistency among all considerations.
(5) One should be able to create a new consideration that enhances the consistency among all considerations.
(6) By consistency is meant the logical consistency, which is inherent to the system of considerations.
(7) When the logical consistency simply reduces to being an identity, or becomes circular, then the whole system of considerations may be discarded.
(8) A new system of consideration may be created at any time with an inherent sense of consistency.
I am tending toward believing that logic itself is not a basic. The foundation for any rule is creation or decision – we could decide on a very different scheme than the logic we know as consistency.
Well, logic is what binds a system of consideration together. Outside that system there is no logic. Logic can be different from system to system.
You seem to be proposing just a different system with its own logic.
.
No.
What is behind logic?
Go ahead. Tell me.
.
“… logic itself is not a basic.”
I’m wondering where you’re going with that.
Seems that the basic logical rule: (A or ~A) but never (A & ~A) in the same place, at the same time, for some given version of A. (NOTE: that the ‘for some given version of A’ is important.)
And it seems to me that we’re not considering ‘consistency’ to be simply ‘remaining constant (or unchanging) over a unit of time’ but, rather, ‘a collection of statements/postulates/considerations which support one another.’ As in, “Euclidean Geometry is consistent.”
I strongly suspect that the statement, “An inconsistent universe cannot persist” is true. It may even be the case that a “universe” _is_ a collection of consistent postulates/agreements.”
I have to ‘agree’ with Vin, here: R is the most fundamental portion of AR&C. We have to have ‘agreement’ to even allow another to ‘appear’ in a shared reality. You can’t readily communicate with or have affinity for something (or someone) you won’t even allow to exist in your ‘space’.
Or so it seems to me.
Curious.
G.
Below rules there would be deciding on rules and below that would be decision.
As far as inconsistent universes, any universe must at least either be inconsistent or incomplete in its set of rules.
Aren’t you using some kind of logic here? 🙂
What is your definition of LOGIC?
.
Same as yours, I believe. But there must be something below Logic – some decision that defines logic. And below that there must be potential for logic.
That is called speculation… a projection backwards.
It is a form of generated consideration that tries to be consistent with other considerations in the system. So there is that logical consistency.
It gets tricky.
.
Marildi said:
”I would say that automaticities were at one time agreements, with their corresponding A, C and U at the time – but no longer. The whole concept of “agreement” implies conscious awareness. And with an automaticity that’s now gone.
“Agreement has to be a knowing thing or it loses its actual meaning. Wiithout knowingingness what once was an agreement becomes no more than a mechanical duplication. And that’s why there’s no understanding.”
According to LRH, Automaticity is “anything that goes on running outside the control of the individual, which ought to be under the control of the individual.” He doesn’t say that automaticities were agreements at one time. If an individual is agreeing with some automaticity, then it is part of the agreement.
According to LRH, Agreement is, “two or more people making the same postulates stick.” It doesn’t exclude postulate about automaticities.
I think Marildi is squirreling. 🙂 If Marildi wants to protect Scientology then she should provide proper references from Scientology. Otherwise, she is just trying to protect her own ideas.
.
That last paragraph is a low blow.
You may see it that way, but I don’t. I see it as Sir Karl Popper in your reference said:
“I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still “un-analyzed” and crying aloud for treatment.”
That you don’t see that as a low blow is actually surprising and telling.
What is wrong with it?
Is there some inconsistency here?
.
I let you figure that out yourself.
It is just the difference in your reality and mine.
.
ARCU is simply defined in terms of each other, just like MEST is defined in terms of each other.
ARC Theory s just circular logic. It is completely non-scientific.
.
Could you please explain that without being so general. Show how A, R, C and U becomes circular logic. And please be precise.
AFFINITY, 1. the feeling of love or liking for something or someone. Affinity is a phenomena of space in that it expresses the willingness to occupy the same place as the thing which is loved or liked. The reverse of it would be antipathy, “dislike” or rejection which would be the unwillingness to occupy the same space as or the unwillingness to approach something or someone. It came from the French, affinite, affinity, kindred, alliance, nearness and also from the Latin, affnis, meaning near, bordering upon. (LRH Def. Notes)
REALITY, 1. 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. (COHA, p. 249)
COMMUNICATION, 1 . the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source point across a distance to receipt point with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source point. (HCOB 5 Apr 73)
The better the duplication, the better is communication, the better is affinity, the better is reality PER DEFINITION.
This is point Marildi is making when rejecting hypnotism as a possible falsification of the ARC Theory.
.
You just made it clear to me that my real point (mentioned in one of my comments) is that the ARC triangle probably isn’t a theory at all. It’s simply a way of analyzing the nature of Understanding. Or a way to break it down so as to see what leads to it, how it comes about. And if these are the component parts then of course they would interact with and be defined by each other – they’re all aspects of the same phenomenon.
Any debate about it should probably be on whether or not it’s true that these are the components of understanding, rather than on how the components relate to each other. In other words, a discussion about whether ARC does equate to U, not on the ARC triangle itself.
That is indeed a sensible suggestion.
.
Hubbard presented ARC as a Theory, and not just a breakdown of Understanding, in the book “Problems of Work”. I find the application of ARC as a theory quite limited. I don’t remember ever applying it consciously or naturally.
We have all known PR personalities who curry favor. We fall for them. Later when we find out about their true intentions and how they took advantage of our gullibility, the affinity towards them simply drops.
the above may be explained using a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem” as Popper puts it, but what is the obvious is that affinity drops towards the person using a deception when he is discovered (better understood) to be deceiving us.
.
On what basis do you conclude that “Hubbard presented ARC as a theory.” And the rest of that first paragraph is generality too.
As for the PR personality example, please see my reply to MImsey on a similar example.
It is mathematical identity that “negative increase” is the same as “decrease”. So you are doing a fine job of a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem” as Popper puts it.
.
“Conventionalist twist”? Not at all. I just know the definitions of affinity, one of which I quoted ealier. Here’s another quote: “The word affinity is here used to mean ‘love,liking or any other emotional attitude.’ Affinity is conceived in Scientology to be something of many facets. Affinity is a variable quality. Affinity is here used as a word with the context ‘degree of liking.'”
Marildi, would you like to study the milestones on basic maths that I have put together?
.
Why? You don’t think I understand that a negative increase is the same as a decrease? That’s pretty basic math.
Hey, I found a great reference in SOS and posted it in a reply to Seth. It might clear up some things for you too. (You’ll like it, it’s mathematical, even geometrical.)
Well, thanks, Vinaire.
But it throws me when you say something good about a comment of mine. One of us must be ill. 😀
This was in reply to your “That is indeed a sensible suggestion.”
Why are women so unnecessarily emotional!
.
That is a question ending in an exclamation mark. Seems unnecessarily emotional, Vin 😉
Maybe Marildi and Vinaire are in love. (???)
.
OMG
Actually it was a simple musing about, “Is lover’s quarrel a falsification of ARC?” Don’t read too much into it.
.
+1 🙂
Now, that was funny Vin 🙂
I’m not enough a mathematician to judge whether Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies or not. However, “incomplete in its set of rules,” is fine by me — so long as consistency holds. “Incomplete,” perhaps, just means we ain’t all done yet. 🙂
G.
I can’t remember a time I ever consciously tried to use the ARC triangle as a tool in social intercourse. It worked in all of my early auditing though as a method for clearing up charge with ruds, it worked to approach charge as an issue in sessions. And addressing it bought about positive change.
I think it has it’s reverse vector too. Sometimes the more real a person becomes to you the less ARC you have for them. Yes, that has been true for me. I have also loved people that I had zero reality with. Communication can make things worse, not better sometimes. Just look at some forums and how people use words to stir up other people’s cases and invalidate and degrade people.
Like all methods of living it moves both ways for me.
I have found the further up the bridge I go, my ruds differ from those three basic arc matters, that mattered so long ago. Knowledge, from the KRC triangle, seems to be the hottest rudiment for me. I think that is why it is annoying when people put out something as “knowledge” when it is not. Do you ever think about how the ethics conditions effect knowledge? Can someone in confusion forward knowledge? Or even think with knowledge? Do you ever think about the fact that people who are involved with others learning to how to know, interject lies or “false knowledge” ? And why would someone “knowing how to know” even forward flimsy truth?
A lot of what Hubbard wrote was to help and assist people early on with their livingness to get them up through clear. Scientology seems to work for everyone on an elementary level and as people come up and become more independent they have to rely on themselves not established principals that have been habitual.
I often see people use Hubbard’s theories to improve themselves and gain social ground and forget they ever needed a helping hand and start in invalidate everything they once needed. It is sort of a bridge burning activity which may be very healthy, as long you don’t have to burn the bridge for other people. The people who do that actually didn’t “make it” in any real regard . When I think of the real glue that hold the Scientology together it the knowledge. What we can know. And that is true for any group of people concerned with a particular body of knowledge. But all knowledge is relative. The problem is people who think they “know” when they do not and even they don’t know.
You can take any person exploring this body of knowledge and where they stalled on the bridge on either side is exactly where they stopped knowing anything about it.
O.K. so you take someone who has done everything, trained through class Xll and is OT8. Even then, who has built a better bridge? Someone who “knows it all” would certainly have built a better bridge right?
It is better to know a few things and know them well than to have a false idea of knowing about everything.
Who can know in Scientology? Only the people using the tech and observing it’s workability and only the people moving on the bridge. The truly brilliant would add better workability and build a better bridge. But that would at least be someone who already walked the existing one all the way and could know,if they can’t run engrams anymore
that doesn’t mean nobody else can’t. And you would have to be up to LOOKING to be able to KNOW.
And what you KNOW is relative to personal character and experience. Just like people can KNOW they can suddenly not KNOW if it suits them. There are people who accept money to NOT KNOW.
NOT KNOW, I think would be a nice hot button to pursue on anybodies case. “I didn’t know” “I don’t know” seems to be a handy disclaimer and pain reliever.
Look at all of the people in “good standing” with the Church who “don’t know” there is something awfully wrong.
People tend to “not know” inconvenient truths.
I’ll tell you what I know. Someone will always come up with something I “don’t know” to sock me back into whatever “don’t know” I mocked up to rid myself of inconvenient truths. And if I MUST KNOW what I DON’T KNOW they will manage to keep me here for a long long time.
“Know” would be a good item to address all up and down every scale. And where would one replace KRC with ARC with ruds?
Was that a break in Knowledge, Responsibility, Control?
Was that an enforced know?
A desired know?
An inhibited know?
A curious about know? etc etc?
That might be interesting.
Stick it in pending at least.
T.O.
T.O. (theoracle), I posted a reply to your comm but put it a bit further down, by mistake. It starts with, “On your points about ARC and KRC…”
Do arcu work together? No. It is rather easy to disprove, and here is a real life example: my arc went way down for the church when I was declared, but as I learned more about why it happened my understanding came up higher and I disliked them even more. You could also say my comm with them went to zero, my r of what it was all about increased and my a was shot to hell.
No brainer really.
Mimsey
Good example. Any takers on this one?
Okay, Mimsey, I’ll be a “taker” on the challenge here.
As you learned more, through increased C, your R increased about the Church and with that new R came an increase in A (a negative A – greater DISlike) and a greater U.
Your new C was no doubt a different comm line than the old one with the Church, which as you say went to zero. The principles of the ARC triangle were definitely in play – you put in a comm line, increasing your C, which brought in a corresponding increase in R, A and U.
On your points about ARC and KRC, I thought of the following quote: “The second triangle [KRC] of the symbol of Scientology is well worth knowing. It interacts best when used with high A-R-C. Thus the triangles interlock.” (Scn 0-8)
You’re probably familiar with that but just in case you weren’t I thought you (or another reader) might find it useful to know.
That could be the next subject in question.
Aw, do you already disagree with it, then?
No, not at all. I do not disagree with ARC either. I am challenging my own views by dragging them out in the public eye so that anyone that wants can help me challenge them. My views will be corrected or they will be strengthened. That is the nature of improvement. I am a work in progress.
And speaking of which; Is it possible to fully understand something yet still disagree with it?
Actually, I do get where you’re coming from. And it’s great!
Wow, that is an interesting question I’m going to think about.
Study Tech says something like, “Only when you understand a subject fully that you can perceive its weaknesses and improve upon it.”
.
I believe that to be false.
Vinaire, you said, “Study Tech says something like, ‘Only when you understand a subject fully that you can perceive its weaknesses and improve upon it.'”
I don’t remember that idea – please give the reference.
Remember your earlier words? “If Marildi wants to protect Scientology then she should provide proper references from Scientology.” Just replace “Marildi” with “Vinaire” and “protect” with “attack.” 😉
What do you believe to be true in this context? The opposite?
.
Declaring something false without any explanation is implying two-valued logic which is not always correct.
.
It is not two-valued logic. Something can be false without the opposite having to be correct.
Now, what exact statement are you referring to?
Two-valued logic is a very primitive form of logic according to Hubbard, and I agree with him. It is two-valued logic that gives birth to crude judgmental nature.
.
Vin, we are to deep in the commenting levels for me to understand what you ask me – what do I believe the opposite of?
Falsification example:
Increase in communication that invalidates the recepient results in a decrease in affinity (same as “increase” in negative affinity).
The ARC formula does not take into account the type of communication.
.
“Falsification example:
Increase in communication that invalidates the recepient results in a decrease in affinity (same as “increase” in negative affinity).
The ARC formula does not take into account the type of communication.”
Yes it does.
Part of Communication is Intention.
When the Intention is to invalidate, and this is duplicated at receipt point, naturally affinity goes down.
Invalidation is the intention to lower the ARC. It is the driving down or lowering of some or all points of the ARC triangle in the other, as well as between them.
Here are possible falsification tests for the theory of ARCU:
Is it possible to understand something and simultaneously be more misemotional about it?
Is it possible to disagree more with something as your understanding of it increases?
Is it possible to love something more despite the fact that you understand it less?
1. “Is it possible to understand something and simultaneously be more misemotional about it?”
Yes, by this definition of affinity: “emotional response; the feeling of affection or the lack of it, of emotion or misemotion connected with life.”
2, “Is it possible to disagree more with something as your understanding of it increases?”
This one really got me thinking. But as I have great confidence in the definitions of words to clear things up, I looked and found this definition: “Reality is a quality which depends upon duplication and in the action of duplication expertly or poorly done we find agreement and disagreement.”
So it seems that the basic concept is duplication at both ends of a communication line – and thus “agreement” of the two ends. This aligns with Axiom 28: “bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication and understanding…” = R and U.
Cool. Reality actually has a broader, more mathematical, concept – like Affinity.
3. “Is it possible to love something more despite the fact that you understand it less?”
I’m having trouble thinking with this one. Could you give an example?
I can’t accept the first answer – as More affinity means higher on the tone scale.
Have you checked out the column for Affinity on the Chart of Human Evaluation lately?
Yeah – and this is the scenario I would like to offer:
What about a concrete situation: A person is very happy about a friendship, he discovers that this friend is really a scumbag, he gets more reality about the person, more understanding about his true evil intentions and goes from Happy to Angry to Fear.
You might be right. But work this into the situation – LRH talks about each tone level also having various volumes, and says that this is the 3rd dimension of the Chart.
Yes, there is volume on the tone levels. But that does not remove this possible falsification.
Gier: “What about a concrete situation: A person is very happy about a friendship, he discovers that this friend is really a scumbag, he gets more reality about the person, more understanding about his true evil intentions and goes from Happy to Angry to Fear.”
Well here is an actual example:
I was auditing a very good friend of mine. We were handling a MW/H and he was having great difficulty in getting this off. After some time he finally told me he had hopped in the sack with my brother’s wife.
I could see & feel the tremendous relief he experienced – big TA – I mean BIG TA! The courage & confront he had to have to get this off to me really showed me that despite feeling so degraded, he was willing to say all and underneath it all had the want to improve.
Oddly enough, I found not a flinch or reaction in my universe when he finally told all – a real win for both of us.
To me, this was admirable on his part for having the guts to confront an area of his life that must have truly been eating away at him.
Later on after session while we were walking back to the org for an exam he said “I suppose you hate me now.” I said, Not at all. As an auditor I am here for you. At that point there was a definite change in his universe – like one heck of a rumbling and then poof!
Needless to say, the ARC went thru the roof for me.
*********************
I remember looking at this as regards to ARCU at the time and thought that a total understanding (total ARC) of the area would simply as-is any adverse reaction.
The comm of that PC was thoroughly duplicated.
Was there agreement with his actions or HIS ‘reality’ on my part? No.
At that point in time I was an auditor and my mission was to relieve another from the vagaries of life and help raise him to higher states. This was not about me.
I wondered had we had not been in session would I have punched his lights out.
Still, the answer was NO.
One early tidbit that LRH wrote was ‘Being 3 feet behind society’s head’.
To me, I try to be an ‘auditor’ in life as much as I possibly can. Yes, I goof up and kick myself in the butt every now & then, but I think operating with that beingness does help keep me objective and hopefully close to 3 feet back of this little planet.
It goes both ways, this ARCU – or rather it goes any way. You can find examples that shows most any combination of A, R, C and U and increases in one becomes increases or decreases in other points. So, the original premise/law that increase in one becomes increase in the others does not hold. It is often so – but not always. Yes, it can be used as a tool to increase the other points intentionally. But as a law, it doesn’t hold.
Dennis, in your example with the friend you were auditing, I would say the ARC triangle was fully in effect. In the session itself, you had agreement – R – when you duplicated his C (i.e. his tremendous relief). But in addition to that particular duplication/R (in the session C itself) there was high agreement – a different R now – with your own viewpoint, which was: “I was an auditor and my mission was to relieve another from the vagaries of life and help raise him to higher states.” So with that second R came a high A as well – in your words: “the ARC went thru the roof.” Now, the second R (relating to your personal viewpoint) also included: “This was not about me” and thus the specific overt that he got off (relating to your own brother’s wife) had no effect on the (second) high A.
“What about a concrete situation: A person is very happy about a friendship, he discovers that this friend is really a scumbag, he gets more reality about the person, more understanding about his true evil intentions and goes from Happy to Angry to Fear.”
This is a snippet of the whole story arc, there is too much omitted data. It is like observing a pc crying in an auditing session and declaring that Scientology auditing makes people sad, and therefore the positive claims for auditing are falsified!”
In reality, at best this would be an initial infatuation with a newly-met person, not a long-term friendship, or perhaps a longer-term relationship with a sociopath or 1.1 type person who has been deceiving one.
What comes after the Fear? That needs to be considered because in the story you presented, the person is right in the middle of the “emotional curve” of the incident he is experiencing. He has just experienced an ARC Break, of course he goes downtone. (drop in ARC)
You could isolate a person at various points of the emotional curve after an incident and draw various conclusions, but they would be relatively false conclusions and not scientific conclusions.
Possible falsification only because we don’t have data on the volumes for before and after.
In any case, I don’t know about you but I’m a happy camper. In the comm cycle I realized that more affinity isn’t necessarily higher on the tone scale. LRH only said there is there’s an INCREASE In the other two points of the triangle with an increase of any one of them.
“Is it possible to disagree more with something as your understanding of it increases?”
If something contains lies, ex. IAS is there to fund 4th dynamic projects i.e. TWTH, Say no to Drugs, Human Rights, etc. but one finds out a larger amount of money is used to hire PIs to harass critics and Indies, to settle court cases against the church etc. then an increase in understanding will result in an lessening of ARC. A reality which was agreed upon or thought to exist was in fact discovered to be non-existent, hence A and C adjust to the level of R present.
———————–
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6834
“Falsification example:
Increase in communication that invalidates the recepient results in a decrease in affinity (same as “increase” in negative affinity).
The ARC formula does not take into account the type of communication.”
Enforced communication/reality doesn’t result in increased ARCU. Tone scale 101.
BTW; I cannot accept that increase in affinity could mean negative affinity.
I like the point you make about A and C adjusting to the level of R present.
This is similar to what I said about consistency and inconsistency when comparing KHTK approach to the ARC in constant ratio approach.
I have never used ARC in constant ratio approach naturally. But I have used KHTK approach naturally as follows (I wrote this on the TSF Forum).
“Personally, what I do at the moment (throughout the day) is let the mind simply observe and spot inconsistencies. And then simply observe the inconsistency in the forefront of my mind until it dissolves into understanding. I don’t force an understanding through figure-figure. I simply keep looking at that inconsistency from all possible angles until something seems to click into place.”
.
Seth, here’s something from Science of Survival that should have been included in Tone Scale 101:
“…when one looks at the tone scale, one is looking at both PITCH and VOLUME. In music, a note may be anywhere on the musical scale and yet not be loud. This would be a note of a certain pitch but small volume. A note can be of a certain pitch with a great deal of volume…
“It is much the same on the Tone Scale of human reaction and behavior. The position on the Tone Scale of a momentary circumstance or of a chronic state tells us only the “pitch” of the individual’s or the group’s or the environment’s tone. Volume is the second factor which must be studied in considering the Tone Scale. An individual may be bored, but not, as the saying is, ‘to a degree.’ He is bored only a minor amount. He may at another time be bored a major amount. In the lower tones, he may be afraid, but only slightly afraid. Or he may be so greatly afraid that the fear is terror. The amount or volume of enturbulence might be read in a third dimension, extending from the face of the chart outward toward its peruser. There might be a little bit of grief or a great deal of grief but the position on the Tone Scale would be the same.”
.
So it seems that the tone level of Affinity doesn’t either increase or decrease, it only goes higher or lower (in “pitch’ or wave length). But the volume of Affinity can increase or decrease. (I just fully got this, myself!)
In the case of the contemptible IAS I would say that A-R-C definitely does increase with an increase in Understanding. Though the tone level of Affinity will go down, it’s volume will increase as a result of the increase in Reality that comes with the increased Communication.
My summary is that each of A, R, C is made up of many more variables, so their relationship is much more complex than a simplistic claim that they increase in unison or decrease in unison.
One cannot define A as a single variable. There may be quarrel among family members but they unite strongly against an external threat. This may apply even to human kind as a whole when there is an extra-terrestrial threat. But look at the terrible history of conflict on earth.
The content of communication would matter. When a communication does not target the recipient of communication, just that fact alone will contribute positively to the relationships and affinity. When people are judgmental of each other then affinity is likely to suffer. Refer to the story of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil from the Bible. That “knowledge” makes one judgmental of each other. Judgmental nature puts an additive there to the purity of communication.
Reality would matter too. A person’s reality will be affected by his case (engrams, unwanted feelings and emotions, indoctrination, beliefs, doctrines, fixed ideas, fixed viewpoints and fixed identities). Two people with similar case may feel comfortable with each other even when they are at logger’s head. Two people with case levels far apart may feel out of place in each other’s presence, even when there is no conflict.
The point I am making is that A, R and C are not monotonic variables. The relationship among them is quite complex. If you try to present them mathematically, a much more complex equation may emerge. The model of a constant ratio may work somewhat at a “macro” level. But at a “micro” or “quantum” level it doesn’t seem to work. Constant ratio model is too simplistic from the scientific viewpoint.
.
I agree. Here’s one example:
“What about a concrete situation: A person is very happy about a friendship, he discovers that this friend is really a scumbag, he gets more reality about the person, more understanding about his true evil intentions and goes from Happy to Angry to Fear.”
So, we have then
Low R
High A
High C
Low U
With R and U increased we get:
High R
Low A
Lower C
High U
These last two posts don’t suck.
Agreed. This makes sense to me.
ARC is a more reliable as a reference to measure understanding than a direct tool to increase or decrease it. And in that capacity, its non-suckness is strong.
Look at the posts. Everyone here is measuring with it.
Here is a word picture.
The Car Triangle:
RPMs
Velocity
Road Conditions
Often if you change one of these you affect the other two. But NOT ALWAYS.
1. If you are on the autobahn and you increase RPMs with good road conditions you will increase velocity.
2. If you are stuck in the mud, you can increase RPMs and you have no velocity.
3. BUT … If you are driving down a steep hill you can turn off the car and glide and get to high velocities with NO RPMs.
Same.
ARC is a tool of measurement and sometimes the measurements are related and sometimes not.
To me, at least now, it seems that there is no direct link between the three parameters, and that it is indeed possible to have a very skewed triangle. Bringing one of the corners up does not necessarily bring the other two up and visa versa. It also seems that Understanding is the sum of these three factors, ARC, and only these three. This is my very current viewpoint.
I believe that A and C are raised by the purity of communication.
Pure communication (without additives) is pretty rare.
.
Correction:
I believe that A and R are raised by the purity of communication.
.
V. Purity in communication means exactly what is said transmitting exactly what is meant.
HUSBAND: “Honey honestly, do you think I’m a shithead?”
WIFE: “Yes.”
HUSBAND: “I hate you!”
Pure communication, and a direct lowering of affinity. No misunderstanding at all.
Now people may point to “other factors” but these “other factors” are not discussed in the definitions revealed here. “Other factors” is just two words saying “we don’t know what we are talking about.”
How about a similar example and we shave this puppy clean with Occam’s Razor.
EXAMPLE: The Motorcycle SSR Triangle (I’m a fan of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)
Speed
Stability
Rider
Make changes in these and you can get correlated change in ONE set of circumstances. Increase speed and the spinning tires make the bike MUCH more stable and faster. Get the driver drunk and everything goes DOWN.
BUT …
There is a different set of circumstances where the values are relevant but NOT correlated and we’ll skip those this time.
ARC seems to work the same. Now using Occam’s Razor, which of these seems the most likely. . .
1. That there is a super ARC theory we can’t define that is so sublime we can’t understand it?
Or
2. The ARC model works in two sets: one that directly correlates and a one that doesn’t.
I think these examples are way too simplistic. it seems to me they are two-dimensional at best, to draw any conclusion about a three dimensional(or perhaps more) world.
Thus I am not convinced either way.
The problem with trying to comprehend the basic concepts of scientology from the way they are introduced in the books is they are presented piecemeal, without any reference to their interlocking nature.
For example, the 8 Dynamics are an arbitrary division of the actual overall Dynamic.
And, the concept of the Dynamics interlocks with the Tone Scale and also the Know to Mystery Scale, and all of those interlock with the ARC Triangle.
Much of the interactions of these parts are discussed in lectures, virtually none discussed in the books. I find most of the books to be much like the “Cliff’s Notes” summaries popular with college students in the USA. They present the bones of the subject, the flesh andblood is in the lectures. And in HCOBs.
Hubbard defined a universe as a “Whole system of created things”; ARC and the other concepts he introduced do not work in isolation from each other. They are aspects of a fluid whole.
Thus this discussion does not satisfy me, and I do not think any reliable conclusion can be reached based on what-all has been posted so far, much less a “scientific” one.
To look at any one of these building blocks of scientology is like trying to analyze the function significance of a finger, without reference to the rest of the organism.
One fails to see the forest for the focus on one tree, or even on just one part of one tree.
Nonetheless the discussion was not bad and primarily revealed to me that most everyone involved, including me, understood something, but hardly all, about the concept of ARC.
And it seems to me very much worth studying.
Ahhh, the word I was looking for – “organic”. ARC,the Dynamics, the various Scales, the Axioms and all those parts interrelate and interact in an organic way, and I believe they need to be approached in the way we study biological organisms, not purely mechanical systems but living systems. If a math is ever developed for them, it would be in the nature of a calculus dealing with variables,because the only stable datum is the Static.(Basic truth)
At https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6847 Marildi wrote,
”This one really got me thinking. But as I have great confidence in the definitions of words to clear things up, I looked and found this definition: “Reality is a quality which depends upon duplication and in the action of duplication expertly or poorly done we find agreement and disagreement.”
This reminded of some Christians who can use Bible to justify even contrary beliefs.
The biblical references I gave show there aren’t “contrary beliefs” on this subject of the ARC triangle. Maybe you didn’t duplicate and missed the whole point, with your bias, filters, and unwillingness to “look.” (I know how to hurt a guy.)
I use KHTK (look at things as they are without additives). I’ll be very surprised if you could do that. 🙂
.
Touche’
Say what? A raise in negative affinity is a rise of A corner of the triangle. Dude – that doesn’t even make sense. Nor does it conform to Ron’s HCOBs on the subject. I am sorry to shake your stable data, but the ARC theory is flawed. It sounds plausible but it doesn’t hold up to serious examination.
For starters Marildi, which definition of reality are you using? What is true for you? Or what is actually real? Which definition of affinity are you using, liking? or distance? Is communication a particle impelled across a distance or a concept? Right there, in choosing your definitions you can go from objective to subjective. That will mess up your understanding of something.
It is quite easy to understand something you don’t like. That alone shoots a big hole in the whole arcu proposition. And something can be quite real to you like a leach sucking the blood out of your leg and you sure as hell don’t like it and I don’t think having a heart to heart hi arc comm cycle is going to make it stop sucking your leg dry.
No, it doesn’t hold water. But if you want to think it does, go ahead. Be my guest. But if you want to be brave, remember this. Ron said he was only human. And, to err is human. QED my friend. QED
Mimsey
Hey Mimsey, I’ve evolved my viewpoint from what it was, through a discussion with Geir. My last comment is at the bottom of this page. Check it out and let me know if you still have any bones to pick with me and I’ll be happy to respond.
Another point to consider – just because you can easily disprove the idea all 3 corners must be up or down at the same time, does not invalidate the workability of assessing an arcx for charge, or finding a subject the other person has R on or finding something he likes and using it to get in better comunication with the person. I use that last data a lot in life. Why? Because it works. What else is there to be said?
All that is being pointed out is the “law” that if one corner is up the rest must be is not an absolute.
Mimsey.
Falsifying a part of a theory does not necessarily falsify any other part of it. Probing a theory’s weakness may give rise to improvement in that theory. And that is what is attempted here.
Sometimes, when I start questioning a tiny part of the tech, some start violently objecting because they seem to think I am invalidating all of Scientology or have a hidden agenda to go duck-shooting the rest of the tech. This is far from the truth, very far. I want to get to the bottom of things that interest me – and I will not put anything to rest before I have truly examined its workability.
That something is merely “workable” is not good enough. Newton’s theory of gravity was fantastically workable. Until you start operating a GPS. His theory was improved upon by many – and X-Rays, MRIs, transistors, computers and the Internet later we have a very different society because of the research after Newton. If the research into the mind and spirit should stop because LRH stopped, we will see the whole subject thrown into a long trend Emergence, going into Danger, then Non-Existence (conditions of existence). Newton wouldn’t have wanted research into his field stopped.
Geir’s attitude here is the right attitude. The effort should always be toward improving what is there. Any improvement effort does not invalidate what has already been accomplished.
I would recommend an examination of the KHTK approach in this area. Please refer to the following and other KHTK issues.
KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY
DISCLAIMER: This is not “selling other technologies”. This is proposed only in the interest of knowledge, and possibly, science.
.
This is to let you know that I very much dislike people who want to hide knowledge so that they can make money out of it.
Knowledge should not be hidden. Knowledge should be used to improve the quality of life and to increase one’s skills.
Money can be made by using those skills. That is a valid way for having a livelihood. One should not hide basic research in any subject, and specially in a spiritual subject, to gain leverage.
.
I wholeheartedly agree.
You said, “Sometimes, when I start questioning a tiny part of the tech, some start violently objecting because they seem to think I am invalidating all of Scientology or have a hidden agenda to go duck-shooting the rest of the tech. This is far from the truth, very far. I want to get to the bottom of things that interest me – and I will not put anything to rest before I have truly examined its workability.”
You’ve expressed something I might have said in relation to myself. Even though I’ve given definitions and references that are not inconsistent with each other and which explain the apparent inconsistencies that others see, some start “violently objecting” to what they consider my passionate desire to defend (as opposed to invalidate) all of Scientology. And I feel (like you) that this is very far from the truth and I too actually want to get to the bottom of things. In fact, I don’t agree with all that LRH said and have expressed different ideas of my own, even on this blog.
But on this subject of the ARC triangle, I sincerely have not seen anyone come up with a valid argument against it and – contrary to some opinion – I am willing to accept one if they did. Yesterday, I quoted a section from Science of Survival (which is THE book about ARC and the ARC triangle) that clearly gave the missing data as to why some examples that apparently refute the triangle actually do not (that includes all of the examples on this thread, I believe). And yet – as I write this, no one has even commented on it. That’s a bit bewildering to me.
Also, I wanted to say that if there are readers who believe that you “have an agenda to go duck shooting the rest of the tech,” I’m not one of those. (But I do wish you would comment on that SOS reference about pitch and volume. I want to be able to passionately attack any disagreement you may express – whatever it is. :-D)
Good comment.
Volume: yes – just as the other basic properties of a thetan has volume (power and intelligence).
Pitch = wavelength = position on the tone scale.
LRH have said that an increase in Affinity is an increase in tone (reference: Chart of Human Ability among others). Therefore – I believe I have falsified the strict relationship between the three corners of the triangle with my example. Also, it is very easy to see examples where I will love things I do not understand or as I increase reality on something, I love it less, or as I communicate more with a person, I go down tone or I like him less, etc. There are now a great many examples that breaks this hard link between the three components of A, R & C.
At the same time, I cannot see that Understanding has any more components than these three, and that all are needed as components for Understanding. I am now wondering if the sum up to Understanding or multiply to understanding.
“LRH have said that an increase in Affinity is an increase in tone (reference: Chart of Human Ability among others).”
I don’t know where he ever said that an increase in Affinity is an increase “in tone.” (Can you give a quote on that?) That would be saying there’s an increase in tone level, rather than an increase in affinity per se – which means degree of liking or not liking, by definition. Increase in tone level would be a “rise upward” on the Chart to a higher level of wave length (smaller). And again, he doesn’t say that. He says that “affinity increases” and considering the definition of affinity, that makes sense in terms of volume, not tone level.
Here’s one from Problems of Work:
“To increase one’s affinity and communication it is actually necessary to be able to confront and tolerate masses. Therefore walking around the block and looking at buildings will be found to bring one upscale. When one is so tired that he can barely drag himself around, or is so tired that he is hectically unable to rest at all, it is actually necessary that he confront masses. He is simply low on the Tone Scale”
Here LRH talks about increasing affinity as bringing the person upscale and the only such scale he refers to is the Tone Scale.
In fact the whole chapter in Problems of Work called “Affinity, Reality and Communication talkes about this and that as one increases in affinity it means going up the tone scale.
Okay, pretty good, and at first sight seems irrefutable. But, here’s the part of what I quoted from SOS that states directly what LRH says about “volume” – which I think fits with the word “increase” more precisely than a “rise” in tone level.
“The amount or volume of enturbulence might be read in a third dimension, extending from the face of the chart out toward its peruser. There might be a little bit of grief or a great deal of grief but the position on the Tone Scale would be the same.”
For me so far, it doesn’t really compute to say that a higher tone level is an “increase” of Affinity. That higher tone would only be a change of position on the scale – a scale which in fact might have been arbitrarily plotted in the opposite direction with no difference in meaning.
Another thing I just realized is that both Reality and Communication are plotted on the Chart too and exist at any of the tone levels, just like Affinity. In other words, tone doesn’t relate only to Affinity and it’s not a synonym for it. Affinity is a degree (volume) of “emotional response; the feeling of affection or lack of it” (definition in Tech Dict) – at any given tone level
From my understanding of all this, it’s clear to me that an increase refers to the volume of any tone level and the increase doesn’t necessarily mean going upward on the scale to a higher tone level. An increase might stay at the same tone level or there might also be a change of tone level, up or down – as in the specific example you gave there in POW.
(I can just anticipate the replies I’ll get from this – probably with a lowering of tone level but with even more volume than before! But please, people, take a good look at it before you hurl it back. :-))
Read the chapter – it says very clearly that one rises on the Tone Scale as Reality and Communication increases.
I just took a look at that part of POW you quoted and I see that LRH is talking about increasing “one’s affinity” which might different from increasing affinity for the environment around one. This idea of one’s own A-R-C is talked about a lot in SOS, in respect to the ARC components of theta itself. An individual’s personal affinity is a whole different sphere of ARC than “affinity for” whatever. And in that sphere I can see how it would actually correspond to the tone scale. One’s own affinity in relation to “affinity for” whatever might or might not be related.
I think you are stretching this real thin by now 😉
There are so many examples I can see (now that I let myself see them) of skewed triangles and where you can raise one corner and other corners remain or even go down in the process.
Confronting the environment might or might not increase Affinity FOR the environment. And, for that matter, it might or might not increase one’s own personal Affinity (i.e. tone level) depending how dismal or whatever the environment is. But in the example LRH gave it would generally be true that one’s Affinity and tone level would go up by just confronting the masses, and it is just a practical application that would generally be true.
P.S. Make that “a practical application that would generally work to raise tone level.”
Believe me when I say that I’m not disallowing myself to actually look at and “see” the various examples, I am looking at them – with the purpose of seeing whether they do (or do not) fit with the ARC triangle. So bear with me, because I haven’t yet seen any skewed triangles.
Looking at the other example LRH gave about the guy who’s feeling antagonistic toward his wife, who then goes out and takes a walk and raises his tone level. For me, his R on his wife would change too since he’s looking at her from a whole different viewpoint and Understanding (which occurs with a change of tone level). So he might very well raise his tone level toward her too.
But sometimes (as with the example you gave with the friend who turns out to be a scumbag, when an increased R occurs) the husband, in confronting the situation and seeing things more clearly now (as one does in a higher tone level), may actually come downtone in his view of his wife. He might be confronting things that he wasn’t before. And that would be an example of a rise in R with a lowering of tone level (not to say A, though).
Over to you…
Simple: Can you prove that any of these cannot occur:
I love a person, understands more about the person and at the same time starts to have less affinity for that person.
I love a mystery as long at it remains a mystery I do not understand. When I starts to understand it, affinity drops.
I have intimate understanding and reality for an artwork I made, but I hate it. The more I look at it, the less Affinity I have.
I have no interest in a person, but the more weird stuff the person does the more interest and affinity I get.
Etc, etc, etc. Thousands of examples.
Over to you…
Simple:
“I love a person, understands more about the person and at the same time starts to have less affinity for that person.” This one is the example I gave. The guy in confronting the situation with his wife starts to see, for example, that she is actually out-ethics, only married him for his money, takes little responsibility for the kids….
“I love a mystery as long at it remains a mystery I do not understand. When I starts to understand it, affinity drops.” As stated, you LOVE a mystery and the fact that affinity drops is in THAT sphere of ARC, not in the sphere of whatever the mystery itself is. Spheres of ARC, btw, was something I was expressing earlier, in the reply to thetanforever – which you then replied to with “Good points.” 🙂
“I have no interest in a person, but the more weird stuff the person does the more interest and affinity I get.” Again, the ARC sphere in play here would be your consideration of what is “interesting.”
But now I’m seeing a common denominator here: the datum that consideration is senior to mechanics. And that might account for your apparently skewed triangles – though it might just be a matter of different spheres of ARC postulated by considerations. Maybe we’re both right – in different frames of reference…
(That’s probably the best deal I will offer you so you better take it. :-D)
I am sorry, but your explanations starts to look very much like the explanations used to account for a geocentric world view, the Epicycles. You are trying to bring in various spheres of ARC to account for something that really is not explained by e.g. the said chapter in POW. LRH does a valiant job at giving a simple theory for life where, when in any given situation, one of the corners is raised in the ARC triangle the other two follows. Simple examples shows that life is not that simple. One may try to uphold the rightness of the theory by adding “spheres of ARC”, but I believe you have then amended the theory – perhaps improved it – or just added a fudge factor to make it right. That last one would be Bad Science.
I believe LRH himself knew that the triangle actually does not hold – as he said that even the ARC triangle is a construct, not a basic factor.
Okay, maybe the outpoints in my thinking that you state are correct, or they may just be apparencies. I’m not convinced yet. Stick with me a little longer/
You never spoke to my point that theta is composed of ARC and that is when A coincides with tone level. Whereas, A that is FOR or TOWARD something or other speaks only for the A toward that item, not the ARC of the person as a thetan. Even in your example of the guy who decided his friend was a scumbag and thus his tone level about or toward the guy went down – does that mean the you yourself had gone downtone? Not necessarily. And does it mean that you might not have even come uptone with your realization?
I think the example in POW is a similar one – it’s talking about Affinity/tone level of the individual, not A towards the environment – which might go up or might go down, depending on what he sees when he looks around at it.
My language (like “spheres”) might be clumsy but ignore that and consider the ideas I’m trying to express, which are what I understand LRH intended to express.
After having done the Human Evaluation Course (and read almost all the basics books – here is my conclusion: Tone level is Affinity. Affinity is Tone level. Just as LRH states in POW. You will have a tone level in a given situation, toward a given person, toward a given thing (these are acute tone levels). Without anything acute dragging your tone level, you will have a resting point on the tone scale – your chronic tone level. Then to mask it all, you will have a social tone level (to be accepted in a given situation). All these are your emotion, your Affinity at any point. With this as background and premise, I believe I have falsified the strickt link between the factors A, R and C.
P.S. On the point of construct compared to a basic factor, I think the basic factor involved would be the one of “consideration is senior to mechanics.”
Yep.
A practical application that never fails to raise the tone level is looking at things as they are without adding anything (non-judgmental, non-resistant), which, in essence, is KHTK.
Any judgment or resistance presupposes something, and thus adds to what is there.
Disclaimer: I am not pushing any technology here. This is pure and simple knowledge that has been around since Buddha, 2600 years ago. I am calling it KHTK because I am expressing these ideas from my understanding. This knowledge can easily be checked out, and one may develop their own understanding from it, and call it something else. I do not own any knowledge here.
.
You may say that communication becomes totally pure when any additives (judgmental nature, resistance due to preconceived notions) are eliminated.
So, a purity in communication leads to a rise in affinity.
.
And I don’t believe in a weird concept like “squirreling” either, which puts a clamp on any originality that a person might express.
.
Does anybody have the transcripts of Study tapes that you may email to me?
vinaire@yahoo.com
Thank you,
Vinaire
ARC follows a well-known format. Now, there are many useful concepts that have used this format in the past.
THIS FORMAT IS CALLED A CONCEPT MAP.
ARC and KRC are three point concept maps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_map
And many, many concept maps work just like the motorcycle SSR diagram I show above. THEY ORDER INFORMATION INTO USEFUL STRUCTURES THAT TYPICALLY MAKE SOMETHING EASER TO MASTER, BUT ARE NOT INFALLIBLY TRUE.
ARC is JUST a three point concept map. It’s a GOOD concept map. But it is just a map. And you can make such REALLY USEFUL maps all day long. Here I’ll show you …
From the Bible: Faith, Hope and Love
From Calvinism: Father, Son, Holy Spirit
From a Old Opera Teacher of Mine (His personal courage formula): Verbalization, Fear and Discipline
From a Rocker: Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll
From My Martial Art’s Mentor on How to Weaken Enemies: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
Off the Top of My Head Right RIGHT NOW THE AMAZING “LEADERSHIP TRIANGLE!”: Courage, Wisdom and Charisma.”
Do you see? You can create the exact same “two set” structure. One set where the ideas correlate and another set where they do not.
Which is more likely? ARC is the secret of the universe or a good concept map?
Occam has shaved this puppy clean. The puppy is wearing after shave, has been bathed and is not ready for bed in his new sweater.
Good contributions here, Bunkai.
Geir, you last reply to me was “After having done the Human Evaluation Course (and read almost all the basics books – here is my conclusion: Tone level is Affinity. Affinity is Tone level. Just as LRH states in POW. You will have a tone level in a given situation, toward a given person, toward a given thing (these are acute tone levels). Without anything acute dragging your tone level, you will have a resting point on the tone scale – your chronic tone level. Then to mask it all, you will have a social tone level (to be accepted in a given situation). All these are your emotion, your Affinity at any point. With this as background and premise, I believe I have falsified the strict link between the factors A, R and C.”
Good post. And point taken as regards affinity=tone level, per LRH. 🙂
I wasn’t remembering about acute, chronic, and social tone levels, but I think those concepts were part of what I was trying to express when talking about “spheres” of ARC – meaning by that: ARC in different contexts. Nevertheless, I do see now that a raise in A would simply mean a raise in tone level (acute or otherwise), rather than a raise in volume of emotion.
It’s true that by considering volume I was trying to make the ARC triangle concept fit the examples you and others gave, but the main reason I tend to reject any minimizing of this triangle is NOT because of a bias I’m unwilling to give up (I would be willing). It’s because of the fact that “affinity, reality and communication are three manifestations of the same thing” (SOS, chapter on “The Basic Laws of Theta…” p. 44, new edition) and for that reason, I just couldn’t think with the idea that they don’t closely correspond to one another. And that was why I figured that my and our understanding must be off somewhere.
On that note, tonight I found another pertinent quote in that same chapter of SOS (p. 51):
“Because affinity, reality and communication are three component parts of the same thing, namely theta, it would be difficult to increase one component without increasing the other two.”
The key word there is “difficult.” And I believe that in those “difficult” examples you and others described, where the corresponding change doesn’t occur – it’s because of the senior datum about consideration being senior to mechanics. This, in fact, was what I was already getting at when I realized, and tried to express in a comment above, that your examples were “a matter of different spheres of ARC postulated by considerations.” And now, with the above quote, I’m thinking that Bunkai was right about “rule of thumb” – with a high percentage.
So what do you say now – deal or no deal? 🙂
(Seriously, what do you think?)
I think it’s good. Deal.
Good quote regarding the “difficult” (although I believe it is rather easy as shown by my examples). That points to a direct contradiction (Vinaire; read inconcistency) in LRH’s writing between that quote and the POW book.
Right, I meant to mention that point of inconsistency, as in that earlier blog thread of yours. Get this, from the same chapter:
“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 factors…”
The first sentence says “very difficult” and the one right after says “one cannot.” In fairness, though, this falls under what LRH described as the 5 different ways to have a misunderstood, including a word, symbol and “concept.” (Another one was a “status” but I can’t now remember the 5th.) Anyway, on this one with the two literally inconsistent sentences one after the other, I think you have to get the “concept.”
All right! We’ve got a deal, then. Good doing business with you. 🙂
🙂
I think how the person reacts depends on how many “held down7s” he has. The ARC triangle would seem to refer to a “thetan”,when Hubbard speaks of it. But presumably you could raise the body’s tone(ARC) without raising the being’s tone.And indeed Hubbard spoke of this a lot, and abandoned certain types of processing because that’s all it did – effect the body, not the being.
My point being, the ‘hard linking’ may appear to work differently in a Clear, than in a very aberrated (restimulated) person with a lot of ‘held down 7s’.
At bottom, a persons’s considerations and his ability to change his considerations would have an impact on the results of trying to effect his ARC.
What strikes me about the discussion is that most of the examples seem to be hypothetical sketches of possible situations. These prove nothing to me one way or the other. No particular real person would necessarily respond in the way described, in real life. And there are no indications, in the scenarios given, of what actually caused the given result in the individual case.
In another context, Hubbard said “Thetans have different responses”. In other words, we are each one of us, idiosyncratic. But an interesting discussion none the less.
I have experienced all the examples I have presented. They do contradict the theory of ARC as presented by LRH, at least in the early days where the quote of the factors all being level comes from. If they do not contradict an amended theory of ARC, then I am still looking for examples that would constitute tests for falsifiability that would at least render the theory useful in predicting human behaviour.
I believe that C needs to be understood better. Duplication of a misunderstood would result in a misunderstood. Duplication of aberration would also result in aberration. Do these things result in better understanding?
Fixed identity and fixed viewpoints may be regarded as corruption of affinity that are channeled through communication. Fixed ideas, doctrines, beliefs etc. also corrupt communication but could be agreed upon and corrupt the reality.
Is the increase in corrupted A, R and C really an increase in A, R and C?
All the Scientologists currently in COS may have an agreed upon understanding of Scientology, and thus, high ARC among themselves, which may not be what it ideally should be.
.
I’m working on understanding these things. Will get back to you tomorrow (or tonight, depending where in the world you are).
I am with Waldo.
.
I am with Winnie the Pooh
Hey! that’s me.
.
Where’s Waldo?
And Tigger too?
Vinaire, you say, “Duplication of a misunderstood would result in a misunderstood.”
1. Okay, let’s say Joe communicates this to Pete: “All dogs have fleas.”
2. Pete duplicates and understands completely what Joe said.
3. Pete then thinks of his own dog and recognizes the datum as false, a misunderstood.
In step 1 above, we’ll assume all components of C are in.
In step 2, Pete now has high U; high A in that he has “the ability to occupy the same space of” the idea/datum communicated; high R in that he fully duplicates the communication; and C has fully taken place as per Axiom 28.
In step 3, Pete’s ARCU has now plunged in that he no longer has a “willingness to be something” = low A. And he does not agree with the something = low R. And his C back to Pete will reflect his A and R, his ARCU – as regards the idea that Pete communicated.
What if Pete doesn’t have a dog?
Most Scientologist are told to accept Hubbard data, which they happily do because they “don’t have a dog”, and data appears to them as valid. If they express doubts about the data then they are crammed up the kazoo, until they find some way to accept it. Then those, who still don’t accept it, are declared squirrels or suppressives.
Where’s ARC in the real life as in the scenario above?
.
Vinaire, on another recent post you said, “It is better not to discuss LRH, and his intentions (whether positive or negative). Just discuss knowledge as such, and that will help keep additives out of the discussion.”
That was a very good idea. And I think we should also end cycle on the outpoints that have occurred with Scientology and Scientologists. Hardly anyone posting here would disagree that “Scientology” has changed since its early decades and it has become something very different. How about we stick to the subjects in the Scn materials, with none of the alter-ised additives? As you stated, “Let’s treat knowledge as such to ferret out what is consistent and what is inconsistent.” I’m for that too!
Amen.
.
Is that true? Wouldn’t duplication of an MU, AS AN MU, cause its lessening?
Wouldn’t duplication of aberration , especially perfect duplication of aberration, cause the aberration to vanish?
Isn’t that the basis of auditing, as well as KHTK ‘looking’?
Of course! First obvious example that popped in my head is the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, which essentially stopped the USA AND USSR from getting trigger happy with nukes.
Affinity for one another? Nope.
Did they have to communicate or even want to? No.
Reality? Yes, individual conclusions as to the long-term effects were reached on both sides.
Bunkai said:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6932
”V. Purity in communication means exactly what is said transmitting exactly what is meant.”
Not so. Purity of communication also means a complete lack of additives. Additives come in the form of fixed identity, fixed viewpoint, fixed ideas, doctrines, beliefs, etc.
<b<I believe that A and R are raised by the purity of communication.
.
Communication is relatively pure when one is simply looking around and spotting things. All the so-called “Havingness Processes” are simply examples of exercising relative purity in communication.
Impurity is introduced through corruption of identity, viewpoint, intention, etc. that influence communication.
.
Is this true? Since everything that exists is an additive to the Basic Truth, Bunkai’s statement seems correct.
This is Bunkai
I’ve started a blog awhile ago and I’m trying to build more referrals to it. For this reason, I need to change my moniker here and in other places. I’ll still post here, but it will be under “Katageek.”
I want to take this moment to thank you for being real Scientologists and welcoming this wog into your communication.
I’ve learned a lot from these communications. I’m a work in progress regarding religious tolerance and I owe you all a debt for helping me create an attitude adjustment that was long overdue.
It’s nice to meet Scientologists who truly can communicate on any subject.
_/!\_ gassho
Nice Bunkai! Let me have the link…
katageek.wordpress.com
Well, “Bunkai” was maybe more aesthetic but I’m guessing “katageek” is more descriptive of who you are (in part), in addition to it relating to your blog. Anyway, it’s great that you’re here – you’ve already shown yourself to be a good “contributor to the motion,” as the Scientologese goes. You seem pretty “fluent” but let us know if we refer or allude to something you don’t get. We have no backoff on verbal data (not the case in the Church). But we do try to give the LRH reference sources – and yet feel free to express our own interpretations and ideas too.
Now, not everyone here considers themselves to be Scientologists anymore and some like you never were, but it’s cool that you recognize those who are – as being “real Scientologists” I agree, because we’re trying to apply the original and true philosophy, including the LRH quote in the OP: “You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis—a very critical basis.“
Good to have your unique viewpoint added to the mix. 🙂
Thank you!
LRH himself states that the ARC Triangle is skewed:
From FOT, Ch 5.
“…the triangle is not an equilateral triangle. Affinity and reality are very much less important than communication. It might be said that the triangle begins with communication which brings into existence affinity and reality.”
I believe it to be a tool to raise understanding between 2 individuals. When used as a tool to manipulate or deceive it breaks down, not being true ARC but only a mockery of it. (my IAS example earlier falls under this)
That’s the simplicity of it, I think.
In the update to the original blog posting Isene wrote:
“Could we find a situation where a person was in total agreement but without any significant affinity or communication. Or could there be a situation where the person had great affinity for something he did not understand or completely disagreed with?”
Of course there is. I don’t recall LRH ever stating that, for example, if you have 100 “units” of A, you would have 100 “units” of R and 100 “units” of C. All that was stated was: if you raise a point, the other 2 go up as well. Not all 3 points need to be at the same “level”.
It was never stated as A=R=C=U. Only that the A-R-C are interdependent.
Perhaps the question should be: If A-R-C are understanding, is it possible to understand something when one of these points is absent?
————
I love this blog post and the concept of questioning basic tech…I can see Dianeticists in the early 50s having this very same discussion. The end result is greater understanding for all.
It’s what LRH wanted. A quote:
“You see,it’s a sort of slave-state philosophy to tell people that they don’t have understanding and that they must believe.”
…
Now, I don’t want you to believe a single one of these Axioms until you’ve looked it over and seen what you’ve seen in the physical universe. Otherwise, the same thing will happen here that happened in organized religion. And we don’t want anything to do with that.”
Statics and Motions and Axioms 1-14, 9 October 1951
LRH did state that when you raise one point, the other two will follow. And that is not necessarily true. That part I believe has been falsified here.
I don’t know your reference but this is not my understanding. You have described the ARC break = misunderstanding so I fail to see how this is falsified.
The theory says that if one of the corners drop, the others (and U) will follow. That is an ARC break.
What I have demonstrated is that you can indeed have a raise in one or two corners and have a drop in others. Or even the opposite is true.
Like if I feel a drop in affinity for a certain person, I immediately starts communicating more in order to fix it. With other friends, not so.
The point is that these factors are more disrelated in their motions than LRH wants us to believe – that, and only that, has been falsified.
It appears, then, that when you feel a drop in A for a certain person, you right away try to use C to raise the A backup? Does it work? Does it work because you bring Is R alsoraised by your implementation of C?
Does this example falsify anything?
It is better not to discuss LRH, and his intentions (whether positive or negative). Just discuss knowledge as such, and that will help keep additives out of the discussion.
Let’s treat knowledge as such to ferret out what is consistent and what is inconsistent.
That is my request. Thank you.
.
Seth, you said, “I believe it to be a tool to raise understanding between 2 individuals. When used as a tool to manipulate or deceive it breaks down, not being true ARC but only a mockery of it.”
That fits in with this from POW: “As can be seen, the A-R-C Triangle is intimately bound up with an ability to control…” and “Attempted control for bad or covert purposes is harmful.” Then LRH goes on to explain how it isn’t control at all. (By the way, Geir, this alignment of control with ARC also explains how the ARC and KRC triangles are interlinked. I’m getting a head start on that blog post. ;-))
There’s also the factor of consideration being the senior datum and that itself I believe to be the primary (if not the only) reason the ARC triangle does not at times appear to be working, including in those instances where there is a “bad or covert purpose,” as in the above quote. It would also account for why LRH said in SOS that it would be “difficult” to raise one corner without raising the other two. Geir feels that it is not difficult but apparently very easy to do, since there are “thousands” of examples. He commented that it’s “been falsified here” but I’m one who isn’t convinced of that yet. 🙂
One last thing: “I love this blog post and the concept of questioning basic tech…I can see Dianeticists in the early 50s having this very same discussion. The end result is greater understanding for all.” +1 to that! With the discussions on this blog I have definitely increased my understanding – from high C to high R to high A to high U.
I can keep giving examples untill you fall over, it’s just to easy:
I have a few movies I loved when I saw them the first time and even the second time, but after the third time or so my affinity started dropping. The more R and U I got after the C (seeing them again), the lower the A. On other movies it’s the other way.
The more I talkt to certain people, the less I like them.
The more I talk to certain people, the less I understand them.
The more understanding and reality I have on certain places, the more they bore me. Others, not so.
Etc.
One really need to be in full blown LRH justification mode to not see that the datum that the points in the triangle raise in unison is not always true.
It is falsified.
But that gives rise to an improved theory. Let’s move over to that, shall we?
Aw, my ARC just went down with that C.
But I’ll look some more…
Who says they rise “in unison”?
If they are, as LRH says, always level, they do rise in unison.
“Otherwise, the same thing will happen here that happened in organized religion. And we don’t want anything to do with that.”
Than he made an organized religion. With it’s inquisition, etc…, Shame.
But where is the cleared planet he and the Church promised? 🙂
That’s a big inconsistency, isn’t it! 🙂
What I find in Scientology is a new approach to looking at knowledge, which is exciting. It got me excited too, and it is still exciting to me. But that approach is booby trapped, and one must step through that mine field very carefully.
.
hahahaha! What a funny little brouhaha this has been!
Allowing Vin to once again hijack the thread and run amuck is fodder for the uninitiated!
Valkov!!! Valkov where are you? Do I need to shine the Bat Signal to get you to weigh in and straighten this all out???
Marildi tried to steer back on course but didn’t muster bayonets and so failed.
I was taught and understand a different ARC Triangle than the one being argued over.
Did no one here attend a similar “Intro Lecture” to the one I attended my first day in the mission?
And whatever became of ARC Break = Misunderstanding? There is more “Tech” in Scientology on the ARC Break than ARC.
Trying to “scientifically” falsify ARC = Understanding in “one direction only” as this argument has done is, well, a straw man argument.
ARC = Understanding can be plotted in the complex plane including imaginary numbers. In layman (my) language, it works both to the + and to the -. The syllogism that I use to argue this is found in fractal math.
But luckily for me, one doesn’t have to be a mathematician nor a quantum physicist to under that ARC = Understanding is a tool which is not something which is robotically applied but is used with intention to increase understanding. It is both practiced to increase competence and used with judgement so as not to create ARC Breaks.
Successfully using ARC = Understanding requires a person to desire to find consistency and harmony but most of all to understand.
To increase affinity using ARC one needs to find something real to communicate about. This increases affinity. (I feel like a patronizing moron writing like this to smart people! You too Vinnie. hahaha)
Decreasing distance decreases the via and improves quality and quantity of communication possibilities by reducing arbitrary interference. When one is too far away and especially for too long a time decidedly creates an ARC Break. This is true for men or machinery.
Face to face communication is preferable when handling “sensitive” or “emotionally charged” communication. I wonder why this is?
ARC = Understanding can be used in reverse to create ARC Breaks by any number of combinations of communicating in any number of un-real ways and thus lowering affinity. If anyone seriously doesn’t know how many dozen examples I can come up with in a row and is truly interested, I will do so – just ask.
I don’t understand the direction this thread is going or why. In Vin’s own words, . . . “I do not remember anytime using the principles of ARC consciously toward any benefit.” . . .
I am reading along and I’m like “duh” who doesn’t know that about Vinnie? He deliberately and continuously applies ARC in reverse and gets what? That’s right, ARC Breaks. It’s too obvious to me to take seriously, especially where you now decided that ARC has been falsified. This is the part I call “straw man argument.” Trying to make ARC false by making it operate in one direction only. It’s just not that way and I can’t understand why the fallacy of ARC must only work upwardly in order to not be false!
On the contrary, to the degree I am applying ARC = Understanding and ARCX = Misunderstanding in life and in session I have been having rip-roaring successes. The usefulness of this triangle to promote (or demote if that’s your purpose) understanding of Life and of Livingness has barely been scratched. I have to say that I’m seeing crashing misunderstood words on this one. Vinaire is excepted from this criticism as I would never accuse him of attempting to understand another’s argument to the detriment of his own! hahahaha!
I believe this thread has successfully falsified the statement from POW (and elsewhere) that if one raises one corner, the other two will follow and that Understanding raises as well. I have never seen this point of the ARC theory structurally tackled like this before.
Chris, I’ve missed you! I’m so glad you’ve arrived with your bayonets of incisive wit and keen insight. Not to mention keen and “incisive” humor. (I just hope Vinnie is thick skinned. Btw, I think his comm cycle is improving! We should grant him that “becomingness.” ;-))
Okay, just to fill you in, I don’t think anyone was saying that “ARC must only work upwardly in order to not be false.” It just happened that those were most of the examples. The essential point of debate is whether or not a change of one corner in either direction will effect a comparable change in the other two.
You made a great contribution to the discussion: “ARC = Understanding is a tool which is not something which is robotically applied but is used with intention to increase understanding. It is both practiced to increase competence and used with judgement so as not to create ARC Breaks. Successfully using ARC = Understanding requires a person to desire to find consistency and harmony but most of all to understand.”
Seth brought up the “tool” point too – as well as the aspect of INTENTION: “I believe it to be a tool to raise understanding between 2 individuals. When used as a tool to manipulate or deceive it breaks down, not being true ARC but only a mockery of it.”
That point of intention seems major to me, because there again is where consideration enters the picture. I found this in POW: “As can be seen, the A-R-C Triangle is intimately bound up with an ability to control…” and “Attempted control for bad or covert purposes is harmful.” Then LRH goes on to explain that this isn’t control at all.
Could it be that this context of using A-R-C as a tool – with the INTENTION to raise the corners – is in fact THE context where it’s true that you can count on the corners increasing and decreasing together? The references I’ve re-looked at seem to support that idea.
But, what LRH writes explicitly about raising and lowering the corners does not support this. He does write that it WILL happen. We can try all we want to excuse him, show that he didn’t really mean it all that serious etc. The fact remains. He said there is a hard link in motion of the factors. There is not. It is false.
Anyone reading me for years knows I am no defender of LRH for LRH’s sake. I never particularly liked the sonofabitch anyway so I have no particular motivation to make him right. If he wrote wrongly then it’s wrong.
Regarding ARC,I checked a couple references and see that you seem to be right in that LRH said if you raise one corner then other two will also rise. So that can be false. So I I’ve just never learned or practiced ARC=Understanding from this point of view. So I’ve thought about this for a few minutes and wondered at how something I “misapplied” could seem so workable to me. It’s been written as a formula so why don’t we treat it as one?
Quantify the amounts of each of A R & C and give them a value. Make that value a positive or negative value and then multiply the whole thing together and plot it in the complex plane. I believe the “U” will now move around a bit better and more closely resemble how “U” responds when we apply ARC in life. It surely does not always go “up” simply by communicating, but you know what? In every calculation it increases. It may increase negatively but I support that as an increase. I promise I am not seeking a rationalization for a wrong comment by der Fuehrer. But if we are going for Truth, then we should begin with understanding.
Remember, people are not machines but composites. They are more fluid in their likes and dislikes and their decision making is usually in the grey rather than the black and white. In my application, the formula is quite rigid. But people are more fluid and cannot be successfully treated with a mechanical attitude. Their “understanding” has to be consulted (usually). Thus the judgement factor. Also the Tone Level should be factored in when “calculating” how much understanding is occurring.
I concede that we can falsify what LRH wrote, but I am not believing that we’ve falsified what I wrote. I think we are not done looking at this as a valuable tool.
I want to take back saying “U increases” what I should have said is that it “Moves.”
I played with fractional values of A R & C and found it plotting “increasingly” smaller.
This doesn’t much resemble Occam’s Razor. It resembles “make it right by whatever means possible – or even impossible by throwing in an ‘i’ (square root of -1)”
It’s an interesting take to make it work, though. Not what LRH says but perhaps an improvement to his theory after falsifications?
How well Chris uses the ARC principle to not create ARC breaks is simply amazing to me.
.
Thank you! I create them using this formula and I repair them using this formula. Cheers.
Many people do that naturally who have no idea of this formula. This formula seems to be superfluous.
What seems to useful is understanding communication, and there too. Axiom 28 does not cover the whole ground.
More to come on Axiom 28.
.
Yes, Marildi – I think so. What I didn’t do was “bone up” on the refs before plunging in.
My overriding point is not to argue a particular chapter or verse but to say that I learned ARC=Understanding as a tool with which one can raise or lower understanding. It does not stand alone on the plane but combines together with other attributes such as the Tone Level of the communicators – both transmitting and receiving.
LRH lectured and wrote daily for years. There is no question that there are inconsistencies in this material. My earlier example regarding Theta vs Static – it matters not if he sometimes misspoke or miswrote, but DO I UNDERSTAND what he meant and can I apply this understanding to myself and others to improve or deteriorate conditions at will.
The arguments presented here falsify a robotic application of communication only and do not take into account the bi-directional street of understanding which if I “understand” correctly is the version of ARC that you and I were both taught.
The falsification here is directly answering the OP – that LRH indeed said several places that if you raise one corner, the other will follow. I believe it is important to acknowledge that this is false since otherwise it will create blind spots in people. False data has a tendency to do just that.
I couldn’t help but notice your wording, “if YOU raise one corner.” This is the type of phrasing I’ve noticed with LRH too. He doesn’t express it in passive terms like “if one corner IS RAISED” but in an active way, like you just did, implying purposeful use of the construct. And by using it as a tool with the *intention* (consideration taken into account here) to raise the corners, I think we will find it works. Do you have any examples otherwise, for this context?
I looked through SOS, POW and FOT and saw that each one of them talks about the ARC triangle in the context of a practical use of it as a tool.
P.S. Actually, I worded the non-active example wrong. It would be more like this “if one corner rises” – i.e. on it’s own, rather than being deliberately raised.
Yep – it is in fact formulated like a law. I stand by that it is falsified. I am trying out my set of questions on non-scientologists. You should too.
In other words, it’s not the difference between the active and passive forms of grammar, but the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs.
“Yep – it is in fact formulated like a law.” I ‘m now thinking you’re right. And it IS a law.
I’ve re-cleared the def of Communication (Axiom 28) and the definition of Reality, and now I’ve re-cleared the definition of Affinity too. (I was about to post this and saw that Maria just posted all the defs of Affinity – great minds think alike, Maria ;-))
We’ve basically been using the word “Affinity” to equate with “emotional response.” However, Affinity “is conceived in Scientology to be something of many facets.” (Tech Dict). In fact, it is in a whole separate column from the Emotion column (on the Chart of Human Evaluation). In the Affinity column at the upper levels are such things as “outgoing action” and “advances” and on the lower levels “withdrawal.” Affinity “expresses the willingness or unwillingness to occupy the same space as or approach something or someone.” (Tech Dict) With that in mind, I took a look at one of the examples you gave which seem to be falsifying the ARC triangle:
“Have you ever liked someone less when you learned to know them better?”
Okay, your A on him became high enough that you were willing to ‘occupy the same space” further and get to know him better through C, so your C increased in response to the high A. With an increased C you learned more about him and thus had an increase of R on him. In this experience, you started with sufficiently high A to increase the C and with that came an increase of the R – i.e. ARC triangle in effect.
(Notice that the high A at the beginning was obviously a result of previous C with the guy – that is, a previous ARC cycle (or sphere of ARC, as I was calling it). Cycles of Communication (and the corresponding A and R) flow one into the next all the time.)
Then, the next triangle came into play. Your new R about your friend was that he was very dishonest and your own Reality is in disagreement with that characteristic. Thus your Affinity for him decreased. This particular triangle started out with a low R, causing a decrease in A – which no doubt would lead to a decrease in C. Once again, the ARC triangle mechanically goes into effect, with the same degree of predictability of any other physical universe mechanic – A-R-C are quantities.
The original basis for considering that A-R-C form a triangle is that they are each manifestations of the same thing – U – and thus there would perforce be a “hard link” between them. That’s the reason I’ve not been willing to easily conclude that the triangle doesn’t always work. My stable datums were being shaken a bit with the apparent inconsistent examples, but I now see that as a matter of my not having a full understanding of the terms (the usual – MU’s).
It’s stated as a law because it is a law. 🙂
And in this you are trying to put the theory of ARC among the unscientific theories as Popper points out. If you construct explanations so as to make it predict any up- or down movement in any combinations of the triangle, it defeats the whole purpose according to LRH. And you’ve put it squarely into the category of unfalsifiable theories as there is no test that could falsify it. In order to make the theory useful in this context you would have to present a case that cannot be – a test that puts the theory at risk. Back to the OP, you see.
I can see how one could loose faith in the scientific strength of Scientology as a subject if scientologists keep justify, reconstruct and “make the subject fit” any contrary situation.
Here is one parallel that I never could get my wits around; That a person is found one one level of the Chart of Human Ability – and one level only. Yes, you could have apparent levels (up or down), but they are only apparent. That is a fantastically falsifiable theory by LRH. I have seen contrary examples many times. But, if you would explain away this by showing that one could indeed have different levels in the various columns, then the whole purpose of the chart is defeated.
I’m not “constructing” explanations or re-constructing anything at all. Everything I’ve said (in these recent posts) is part of the construct itself.
On your last paragraph – wouldn’t the definition of chronic tone answer that? It’s because of chronic tone being the general one – for most of the time – that the Chart isn’t defeated, by any means, and is very useful. In fact, it’s even useful to predict behavior as regards an acute tone – i.e. what the person will do when at that acute tone. This falls under “How would you talk to an angry man?” even though his anger tone is merely acute.
Ah, but I have seen people being chronically at different levels of the chart.
And if that is part of the construct itself; I challenge you to come up with a scenario that the theory of ARC predicts that cannot happen.
“Ah, but I have seen people being chronically at different levels of the chart.”
Then do you disagree with LRH on this: “The position of an individual on this Tone Scale varies through the day and throughout the years, BUT IS FAIRLY STABLE FOR GIVEN PERIODS.” (SA, my caps)
Yes – but the general level on the tone scale does not monitor the general level on all the columns.
“If you can locate two or three characteristics along a certain level of this scale, you can look in the number column opposite those characteristics and find the level. It may be 2.5, it may be 1.5. Wherever it is, simply look at ALL [italics] the columns opposite the number you found and you will see the remaining characteristics.
“The only mistake you can make in evaluating somebody else on this Tone Scale is to assume that he departs from it somewhere and is higher in one department than he is in another. The characteristic to which you object may be masked – but it is there.”
And that is where I have seen this fail. Actual, factual, practical examples during my 10 years in the recruitment industry and more than 2000 people I have recruited.
“And if that is part of the construct itself; I challenge you to come up with a scenario that the theory of ARC predicts that cannot happen.”
The way I got it from Popper’s article is that he is trying to find “workable” ways to determine if a theory is a “scientific THEORY” or not. On the two psycho-analytic theories he gave as examples, he said they were “simply non-testable, irrefutable. There was no conceivable human behavior which could contradict them. This does not mean that Freud and Adler were not seeing certain things correctly… ”
In other words, he says their irrefutability due to no conceivable contradiction
“does not mean Freud and Adler were not seeing certain things CORRECTLY.”
If the ARC theory does not preclude anything, then it does not predict anything. It is then a tautology.
So what does the theory of ARC preclude?
“If the ARC theory does not preclude anything, then it does not predict anything. It is then a tautology.
“So what does the theory of ARC preclude?
I may need your help on this one. 🙂
Give me an example of a physical universe law that precludes something. (So I know what the heck you’re talking about.
If two objects are under no other force than the gravity between them, the laws of gravity precludes those objects from moving away from eachother. This is testable and thus falsifiable.
Is the ARC triangle truly not testable or has there just been no test devised for it yet?
But aside from that, this seems like the same point as before: the ARC triangle just doesn’t fit into Popper’s “workable theory” of what makes a theory a scientific one – and even Popper stated that because something isn’t falsifiable doesn’t mean it isn’t “CORRECT.”
That is not really the point here (it is a point, but not the main one).
The thing is; If the ARC theory does not preclude anything, then it does not predict anything either. So, to be useful in predicting human behaviour, then it must preclude certain behavious and that behavious would be the risk of the theory, it would form the test suit for that theory that would be falsifiable.
If your last comment is just a re-statement of your point about falsifiablity (seems like it), then I’ll re-state mine and say that it doesn’t mean it’s not true…
No, the point is that anything used to predict must preclude some observations or else it is useless as a tool for prediction.
Beside that, are you arguing that the very basics of Scientology, the “science of knowing how to know answers” (COHA, p. 9) is unscientific?
BTW: I love your enthusiasm in this exchange – and the angles you pose.
“…are you arguing that the very basics of Scientology, the “science of knowing how to know answers” (COHA, p. 9) is unscientific?”
Not at all, I only said that it’s not a “scientific theory” according to Poppers construct for that – which itself is in the category of workable at best, by his own words
.
But wait, maybe the ARC triangle actually is falsifiable. We’ve already talked about the fact that considerations are senior to the ARC triangle since the ARC triangle is mechanics. And this is the area wherein it should be tested! Don’t know how you would go about such a test (quantum physics?), but it’s a conceivable test. And, in fact, it’s because of that ONE (IMO) factor only that the ARC triangle would not be a 100% true law.
Not so fast. I will reiterate the main point/question; The theory of ARC must preclude certain human behavious in order to be usable to predict human behaviour, or else it is useless as a tool for prediction. What behaviour does it preclude?
“BTW: I love your enthusiasm in this exchange – and the angles you pose.”
I somehow missed that – in my enthusiasm. But thanks and ditto!
Help me out again – how about an example of what you mean by “must preclude certain human behaviors in order to be usable.” (I don’t know the science or logic constructs that you do, but if you clue me in I’m sure I can come up with a good rebuttal. 🙂
The theory of ARC must preclude certain human situations; like if two people communicate more, their affinity for each other cannot decrease. Or some such scenario. If it does not prohibit anything… as I say it is useless as a prediction tool. And LRH does indeed sell it as a prediction tool.
Agreed, LRH does sell it as a prediction tool. I just don’t get the reason why if it does not preclude or prohibit anything it is useless as a prediction tool. Can you give me an example of how that would be, maybe on some other subject?
If the tool says “anything goes” or “any behaviour possibly imagined is described by the ARC triangle”, then it is of no use in predictions. To predict some a set of outcomes, it must prohibit all other outcomes.
Just one little example? Field of your choice…
I have a theory: That if you throw a ball with a normal man’s strength up in the air, it will come down again within a few seconds. This theory of mine precludes the stone from coming down again after an hour. It prohibits a lot of other things also…
Okay…but weren’t all those examples you gave things that the ARC triangle precludes?
(I this isn’t trying as hell for you, if I’m being really dense.)
I take what LRH says (U = ARC, Raise one corner and the other follows), I proposed questions that goes against that. I have tested those questions with people. They confirm that it is false that if you raise one corner the other follows. This is simple falsification.
You believe you can explain any and all variations of ARCU by some way of looking at it that would justify it being always true. But, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Because if you really can justify any and all situations with another explanation that rights the theory, then you have rendered ARCU useless for predicting any human behaviour.
So, either the theory is falsified. Or it is useless for predictions. Which do you want?
Oh wait, now I get it. With those examples, you were saying they in fact exist and the theory says they shouldn’t. But I’m saying they don’t exist. In the one above of Dennis and Joe or you and Joe having a comm cycle, I believe I demonstrated that your belief that R could go down with an increased C wasn’t the case. I’ve done the same with other examples that supposedly exist, but don’t.
They do in fact exist – I can observe a very gradual decrease in affinity for a ting or person as I communicate more with it/them. This is fully possible (like an artwork I have made). I can also see my agreement go continuously down as I continue to understand better a situation or person. Just the person, just the situation, no other factors involved.
I fully agree that it most often is like LRH says. But not always.
I have another example: I was in FULL agreement with the theory of ARC up until I started probing it, communicating with you guys about it and my reality on it increased while my agreement with it decreased.
ARC=U precludes a movement in any of the points without a commensurate change in the others. If this can be falsified then ARC=U is false.
I am satisfied that LRH’s stated this wrongly. I also think you are giving my plotting of this in the complex plane an unnecessary brush off. I think there is something there but don’t have time to follow through on mapping it out to see. Why are you poo-pooing my imaginary numbers?
I think it goes against Occam’s Razor. It also goes against LRH (I really do think he meant “raise” when he said “raise”).
It is a novel approach – and I may return to it later.
I think that the questions you’ve proposed do not go against ARC=U. With all due respect, you have simply misconstrued something about the ARC triangle. The example we dissected as regards the comm cycle between Dennis and Joe is the type of thing I mean. There were a couple of others like that too.
So, when you ask the questions I pose as tests to non-scientologists and they answer them truthfully, you will respond with a complexified example that shows that LRH didn’t really mean that the corners would be raised For That Situation and that they have to introduce “spheres of ARC” to make the theory fit the observations? Is it then possible for a normal person to read the chapter in POW and make any use of it as it stands?
Also, do we have to introduce other layers of explanations to make the Chart of Human Evaluation work all the time?
What was complex about the example with Dennis and Joe? There was a C that did increase the R as regards that C. With any C that is duplicated you’re going to get increased R – on that C. But there could be many comm cycles (C’s) all around that first one (before and after) and each of them would also operate in accordance with the ARC triangle. It sounds complicated to spell it all out but I feel this is not complicating the issue at all, it’s keeping it simple.
Here’s another example I posted, that may be more “real” (he he):
You said, “Have you ever liked someone less when you learned to know them better?”
Okay, your A on him was became high enough that you were willing to ‘occupy the same space” further and get to know him better through C, so your C increased in response to the A that had come into being. With an increased C you learned more about him and thus had an increase of R on him (you knew him better). In this experience, you started with sufficiently high A to increase the C and with that came an increase of the R – i.e. ARC triangle in effect.
(Notice that the A at the beginning was obviously a result of previous C with the guy – that is, a previous ARC cycle. Cycles of Communication [and the corresponding A and R] flow one into the next all the time.)
Then, the next cycle of ARC came into play. Your new R about your friend was that he was very dishonest and your own personal opinion or Reality is in disagreement with that characteristic. Thus your Affinity for him decreased. This particular triangle started out with a low R (your new R about the guy), causing a decrease in A – which no doubt will lead to a decrease in C. Once again, the ARC triangle mechanically goes into effect, with the same degree of predictability as any other physical universe mechanic – A-R-C are quantities.
You are putting up a valiant effort to defend the theory. But at this time it has become indefensible unless you can propose actual practical situations that the theory will preclude, interactions between humans or a human and a situation or thing that the theory says cannot happen. Without this the theory is useless for predictions and has been falsified on that ground instead (which incidentally is a bigger falsification of the whole theory).
P.S. “Learn to know someone better” is not an accurate statement for either increased C or R. They’re sort of mushed. And to add to that “you then like them less” makes the question a fuzzy statement and doesn’t get across the idea of the ARC triangle at all. So it would naturally be misleading if you proposed that to a non-Scientologist.
That was why I had to “complicate it” and break it down.
The bottom line becomes as stated: If ARCU precludes no situations, then ARCU is useless for predictions. It is then falsified as a whole in the area of predicting human behaviour. If it does preclude situations, it opens itself to falsifications in that area. You need to come up with situations that ARCU prohibits or we will have to conclude it is useless as a prediction tool. And then the whole Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation goes down with it.
Re: Marildi https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7172
Ahh … now that explanation flipped me again and got me thinking.
Now, I am looking at smaller cycles of communication and the ARC triangle within each of those.
You dissection the the Dennis/Joe scenario is a good one.
I’m still leaning toward the idea that there is a constant flux in the level of these components which are affected by case, past postulates, considerations, etc, etc.
I can see how real agreement thru communication can occur whih to me naturally raises Affinity.
I also see situations where more reality (not agreement), or a recognition of the reality of another could lessen the other components.
I can also see that recognition/duplication of another’s reality different from my own (again, not agreement ), may also increase Affinity & Communication & Understanding despite our 2 Realities being very different.
All of the above see, to come back to ME and MY considerations or lack of considerations at that moment.
Ahh – this just got me thinking – are there areas of my life where I do NOT have the usual considerations – that I can truly Have or Not Have communications from others and maintain high ARC NATURALLY?
I think so.
To put in Vin’s words, it would be a ‘filterless’ observation and UNDERSTANDING of another’s communication/viewpoint.
Now, I’m back to duplication … 🙂
Meanwhile, I’m off to find a Flute-loving water buffalo to disprove Vin’s theory below hahaha 🙂
I like your verve Dennis, but that theory of “flute-insensitive water buffalo” has existed since times much before me.
.
Dennis, glad I got you thinking. Once again, you got me thinking too.
Good post!
“If two objects are under no other force than the gravity between them, the laws of gravity precludes those objects from moving away from eachother. This is testable and thus falsifiable.”
I do not believe it is possible to create conditions in our physical universe necessary to test your statement above. There is no space in existence, not can we create one, in which the two objects would be subject to no other forces than the gravity between them.
It would be possible to test whether gravity can be repulsive. Now, that would be my point.
Marildi: “Btw, I think his comm cycle is improving! We should grant him that “becomingness.” 😉 )”
Priceless .. man, I busted a gut on that one 🙂
Hi Dennis! You know, I said it in a funny-sounding way but I actually meant it. He says himself that he’s a work in progress – ain’t we all!
Besides “granting becomingness” isn’t really just a humorous phrase (although it is) – it’s my own construct (I think). Serious! You’ve seen it in life – somebody believes you can do it and then voila! You can. Chris has a good story about that with some grade-school English teacher who believed in him. The parent, teacher, spouse, friend, whoever – they have confidence in you (a postulate) and it gives you the confidence (the postulate) too. It works really well with kids, but I’ve seen it on all flows at all ages.
Hey, your comment upstream here helped evolve my thinking on the subject of this thread. (I replied to it, don’t know if you saw.) You said, “Axiom 28 talks about ‘duplication’ … this does not necessarily mean ‘agreement’.” That made me realize that I was fuzzy on the difference and it helped a lot to clear it up. From there I cleared up Affinity and that stabilized my understanding of the ARC triangle. So it’s good you popped in a couple days ago! Hope you hang around… 🙂
Ahh … thanks for that 🙂 I’m glad that I helped you. I have been enormously helped by everyone here. Yes, we are all evolving with every post. Gosh, it would be great to have a get together …
You know, I was thinking that we may be tossing around 2 separate definitions of Reality. One of course DOES involve agreement.
On the other hand, if one has a reality that is very real to them but I’m not in agreement with his reality, to me, I could still have ARC for/with that person.
When LRH says Understanding is comprised of Affinity, Reality and Communication, he may be simply saying Reality as a subject and not necessarily having to have agreement.
If I duplicate a Reality of another, it seems to me that this is the essence of the Comm formula, or as above, Axiom 28.
Would not have LRH put ‘agreement’ as one of the prerequisites of ARC and the comm formula in Axiom 28 if it was a necessary component?
While I agree that agreement will definitely raise ARC, I believe it also true that agreement may not always be needed.
Whoa… You may have just hit on something again. When we say “my reality” we basically mean “my opinion” and aren’t saying anything about what or who it agrees or disagrees with. I’m going to sleep on that! Until tomorrow…
P.S. To be clear on that, I mean to say that “my reality” is used with no reference to any particular comm cycle, a C in the ARC triangle. It’s usually being used to mean an opinion or consideration about something.
Okay … sleep well 🙂
I like to toss out these ideas – they are concepts I look at myself, so I’m really looking for feedback to see others’ viewpoints.
I actually look forward to having to alter my viewpoint from something I’ve held onto for eons. If I can see another’s view and cognite on a new angle or ‘truth’, this is rewarding to me and part of my own evolution.
Sometimes these revelations are quite shattering thru my universe.
In session, I always looked forward to cogniting or as-ising something I had no idea was there. It was easy enough to get rid of a ‘pain in the zorch’ and notice it gone, but when I ‘rid’ myself of something hidden that I was continually operating on and so much ‘me’ that I thought it was me, the results and new ‘me’ was quite stunning at times.
Oddly, the phenomena felt as though I was and had much more of ‘Me’. This after ridding myself of some erroneous concept or consideration.
It IS an amazing journey and I sincerely thank all of you on this blog for continuing to help open my eyes.
Well said, Dennis. That’s the open mind I admire.
.
Geir (and everybody), I don’t think I fit into a category of “too much in full-blown LRH justification mode to not see that the datum that the points in the triangle raise in unison is not always true.” Don’t you remember, I’ve already agreed that it’s not always true (because of the senior datum about considerations). And I’ve already concluded it’s a rule of thumb rather than a law. The difference in our viewpoints now seems to be a matter of degree – what percentage of the time does that rule of thumb hold. (Am I right about that?)
You also said, “But that gives rise to an improved theory. Let’s move over to that, shall we?” I’m not sure I got what the improved theory was exactly. Run it by me again.
Okay, here’s some more data to fit into either the ARC triangle or a new theory. In that same SOS chapter (“Secondary Engrams”) where LRH describes volume of tone, he says there is a third factor of “quality…which would be different from pitch or volume on the Tone Scale…”
“The amount of free theta has a great deal to do with the persistence or reasoning force of the individual along any course. This would be the volume of a person. The quality of a person would be a structural thing. To make this clearer, a person may have an enormous volume of endowed theta and yet not have the structure with which to be intelligent. Or he may have a quality index which is very high and yet not have sufficient endowment of theta to execute the plans which he can conceive. We have all known the individual who received A’s in every course and yet who was never able to do anything with his education. And we have known the individual who received nothing in the way of grades and who, indeed, never seemed even to comprehend elementary subjects and yet who, by power of personality, forged ahead to a high position in life. A study of this matter gives a useful evaluation of human potentiality and behavior.”
The above quote would indicate that there could be a “skewed triangle” with an individual to start with. That supports your idea that it’s not a simple thing with the ARC triangle. But – there’s no data on how often that happens and thus how it would affect the rule-of-thumb percentage. So now I’m wondering what references there are as to the sizes of the triangle sides or corners, other than the one Seth already mentioned (in FOT), that it’s not an equilateral triangle as the C is more important than the other two. Do you (or anybody) know of other references?
(Take heart, we’re getting close to exhausting this subject. :-))
I wasn’t pointing fingers at you – because I knew that you had seen the basic falsification of “they move up and down together”. However, I see very often (almost always) that Scientologists jump to any occasion to defend LRH and the subject regardless. A knee jerk reaction.
It sure seemed like you meant me since it was a reply to me and since I’m virtually the only one in the discussion who has taken the viewpoint that the triangle works. So I’m glad you say otherwise! And you’re right about too much knee-jerk from Scientologists. I do TRY to be objective. 🙂
Now, I don’t know that I would say I’ve “seen the BASIC falsification” of the triangle. That’s pretty strong sounding. I’ve only said that considerations can alter it – as considerations can alter any mechanics. That’s why I’ve concluded it may not be something we could call a law, but I still haven’t seen that it doesn’t apply the vast majority of the time. You’ve given lots of examples, true, but I don’t know for myself that those are a very big percentage. Seems to me the ARC triangle in action is literally occurring all the time, everywhere, incessantly. Just think of the communication cycles involved in ALL of life – nothing but! So even a small percentage of exceptions could be a seemingly high number.
But I’m still willing to look some more with y’all…
The examples I have given are real and from my life. They happen regularly. Ask any non-scientologist if they can find examples in their life where one of the four factors have gone up wile another has gone down. List them like; Have you ever liked someone less when you learned to know them better? Have you ever understood someone less when you communicated more with them? Have you ever liked something more even though you thought it was getting stranger and you understood it less? Have you ever grown tired of something the more you looked at it? Have you ever ended up agreeing less with a person when you communicated more? Etc. List every possible combination. Funny thing is, a non-scientologist will find it easy to find examples on each of these questions. A scientologist will resist finding examples (I have done this test) – because it violates a stable datum for them. Because the datum that if you raise or lower one corner, the others will follow is a false datum. Believing in such a false datum will generate a blind spot.
The examples you give are so broad and they occur over a period of time. It seems like they’re oversimplifications that would need a lot of filling in. I just don’t think they lend themselves easily to detate.
And I’m sure that there’s a lot of truth to the observation you make about Scn’ists resisting just to be resisting. But what about the fact that they have also seen the validity of a stable datum and therefore take more convincing, i.e. more data. This would just be good science, wouldn’t it?
No, not really – it is covered by something called Confirmation Bias. Validity can be blinding 😉
The examples I give can easily be upgraded to include Time, Place, Form & Event. No generalities needed. Just ask some non-scientologist friends the questions I posed. Then, after they have answered, explain the ARC triangle to them and say “every time you raise any one of the factors, the others will follow – and every time you lower one of the factors, the others will follow.” Watch what happens.
You know, if a person were tryingz to duck the points listed as “tips to avoid confirmation bias” – they probably wouldn’t be posting here on your blog! They could get a lot of agreement at Marty’s and other very pro-Scn sites. Or even Google. 🙂
hehe
Marildi is quoting data from SOS that refers to FREE THETA. What is free theta really?
From KHTK model, free theta would by the ease at which sensory input flows through the layers of (a) Perception, (b) Experience, (c) Information, (d) Hypothesis, (e) Theory, (f) Principles, (g) Axioms, and (h) Self without getting stuck.
In Scientology the flow definitely gets stuck at (h) Self.
Disclaimer: KHTK is not some “other technology”. KHTK is a research project in which anybody may get involved.
.
Affinity and reality seems to me more like products of communication. Here the key is understanding all the components of communication.
.
An interesting step forward, methinks.
I feel that Axiom 28 itself needs to be reviewed. The nature of communication particle does seem to influence affinity and reality, which, this axiom, does not take into account.
.
Methinks too! I agree that “the key is understanding all the components of communication.”
In an earlier comment I made, I was pondering the difference between duplication and agreement or Reality and was considering Axiom 28, which specifies “duplication AND understanding.” That seemed to say that R, a component of understanding, is not exactly the same as duplication. Which makes sense – there’s a difference between “I got what you said” (high R, agreement between the two ends of the comm line) and “I agree with what you said” (possibly low R, disagreement).
It seems to me that one could talk about having Reality on what someone said (which would only involve how well the comm was duplicated). And one could also have a Reality that expresses one’s own opinion (one of the capabilities of a viewpoint, along with postulates and considerations, per The Factors) – opinion ABOUT what was duplicated. And right there is where we may be getting into confusion about the ARC triangle and whether or not the point of R (and A) were raised along with C.
LRH wrote essentially the same thing in FOT:
“It might be said that the triangle begins with communication which brings into existence affinity and reality.”
Yes. To me it is much more accurate to state that way.
.
Stated by Chris and Quoted by Miraldi:
“ARC = Understanding is a tool which is not something which is robotically applied but is used with intention to increase understanding. It is both practiced to increase competence and used with judgement so as not to create ARC Breaks. Successfully using ARC = Understanding requires a person to desire to find consistency and harmony but most of all to understand.”
MY TRANSLATION: “It’s a great concept map that doesn’t work in every circumstance as described in the definition above so we probably should use common sense, compassion and tolerance to think outside the triangle where it doesn’t. DOH!, I just made another 3 point concept map!”
BTW: After reading this, I see it has some snark. Please ignore it and forgive it. I have a lot of respect for you two. You both seem to be reasonable, kind and logical people.
Your translation was good! But have you reduced Chris and me to a 3-point concept map? 😀
But wait – if reasonable, kind and logical are essentially A, R and C then you are right!
But wait again – I just realized you may have hit on something. The reason why ARC doesn’t work in every circumstance is because the construct, as part of the theta-MEST theory, doesn’t account for the component part of a being that LRH later came up with – the ability to postulate, to consider, i.e. the senior datum.
A, R and C are all reducible to quantities=MEST. It was sometime after the theta-MEST theory was postulated that mental MEST (previously referred to as the “theta universe”) was itself described as physical energy, just of a higher wave length.
The theta-MEST theory came out in 51 with SOS and it was only later that same year that HFP was published, in which LRH defined an individual as “a composite of all his facsimiles, plus his impulse to be. Individuality depends upon facsimiles.” (Geir, I think this is similar to your description of a thetan as including all of his creations.) Anyway, that “impulse to be” seems to be how and why there’s more to life (beings) and livingness (the activity of living) than the mechanics of ARC.
Just how often that impulse to be alters the principle is still not clear to me, though. But that may not even be the significant point – as Chris and Seth have said, its value and importance is that it can be used as a tool in interpersonal relations. And it can be used as well in connection with Understanding in general
Bunkai, let me know if there are any terms here you need clarifying. Meanwhile, I hereby pronounce you an honorary Scientologist. 🙂
P.S. Oops, I mean Katageek.
P.P.S. “think outside the triangle” Love that!
Well, thank you very much for the Honorary Title. I’ll take it.
🙂
Yay!
No problem. We’re just talking here . . . hahaha!
Still laughing at “outside the triangle.”
It appears that the communication particle will inherit the characteristic of the person at the source point. The communication particle would not be independent of the personality, ego or individuality, which originates it.
All this would have to be duplicated at the receipt point for ideal communication to occur.
But the personality, ego or individuality of the person at the receipt point would filter the communication and this would make complete duplication almost impossible.
If the personality at the receipt point is reactive then it would be visualizing additives in that communication particle, which are not there.
.
“It appears that the communication particle will inherit the characteristic of the person at the source point.”
That is an interesting point. I t has parallels in particle physics where various particles emit different bosons as force carriers.
Vinaire, I am sure that people pick up others’ “flows” all the time. Some people are conscious of them as such and others may perceive them but don’t realize it and don’t credit it as part of their duplication. You got me wondering now, if there were full duplication of the particle at receipt point, with no “filters” and no reactive additives, would there even be a need for words?
Good post!
That tells me that any fixation on self is a barrier. I would go so far as to say that any consideration of self would act as a barrier, unless one is knowingly considering the self both at source point as well as at the receipt point.
.
Food for thought.
You mean pan-determinism? (I believe that was LRH’s construct. ;-))
Not really. This goes deeper than the idea of pan-determinism.
The idea of pan-determinism still assumes a “self” as a must at both source and receipt points.
What I am saying is that even the consideration of self is not required as it may act as a barrier.
.
Good post Vinaire!
One’s own considerations could have a definite effect on one’s ability to duplicate, or as you call them ‘filters’.
Maybe these cognitions we have in session, or realizations in everyday life where we feel we REALLY KNOW, are simply part of our own evolutions towards total duplication and are really lower harmonics of real knowingness.
Maybe at lower levels we get just a glimpse – a small slice of duplication & knowingness, whereas at higher levels, that same cognition is expanded rather than that earlier cognition being made wrong or invalidated by the later cognition.
To me we are all continually evolving when we seek spiritual freedom. Our actions within the MEST universe are calculated to move thru MEST with the minimal amount of counter intention, both from others and MEST itself.
To view MEST as an adversary to me seems a lost battle.
To work towards duplication of MEST, learning the game rules and considerations related to MEST seems a better way of ‘conquering’ this little game.
Dennis, your viewpoint on MEST in the last part of your post is exactly how I see it and have said it in just about the same way. Actually, it’s the core of the theta-MEST theory – the conquering of MEST by theta. But I’m not just going by that theory, it’s my own postulate as well. Yours too, I’m sure.
“the conquering of MEST by theta” = “the conquering of its own agreements by theta
That’s correct. It is pulling apart one’s reality by smaller and then bigger and bigger chunks at a time.
.
Sure. Different frame of reference.
Hi everyone,
Just some food for thought – there is a great deal more to the definition of affinity as used in the ARCU triangle than what the C of S has chosen to publish on the web. Here are the definitions that were assembled for the Technical Dictionary:
1. The feeling of love or liking for something or someone. Affinity is a phenomena of space in that it expresses the willingness to occupy the same place as the thing which is loved or like. The reverse of it would be antipathy, “dislike” or rejection which would be the unwillingness to occupy the same space as or the unwillingness to approach something or someone. It came from the French, affinite, affinity, kindred, alliance, nearness and also from the Latin, affinis, meaning near, bordering upon. (LRH Def. Notes) 2. the ability to occupy the space of, or be like or similar to, or to express a willingness to be something. (SH Spec 83, 6612c06) 3. the relative distance and similarity of the two ends of a communication line. (Dn 55! p. 35. 4. emotional response; the feeling of affection or the lack of it, of emotion or misemotion connected with life. (HCOB 21 Jun 71 I) 5. the attraction which exists between two human beings or between a human being and another life organism or between a human being and mest or theta or the Supreme Being. It has a rough parallel in the physical universe in magnetic and gravitic attraction. The affinity or lack of affinity between an organism and the environment or between the theta and mest of an organism brings about what we have referred to as emotions. (SOS Gloss) 6. in its truest definition which is coincidence of location and beingness, that is the ultimate in affinity. (9ACC-10, 5412CM20)
Great discussion. Hopefully these definitions will add nicely to the ongoing pursuit of the OP.
Hi Maria!
Wow, you are so right about there being a great deal more to the definition of Affinity than what is published on the web by the CoS. How astute of you! I probably wouldn’t have ever discovered my own incomplete definition if I hadn’t been trying to figure out why something wasn’t making sense about the ARC triangle.
I had actually just cleared it up before you posted the defs – how uncanny (or maybe not!) That was when I realized the definitions they give are very INCOMPLETE. (Whoever decides what gets published probably has an MU themselves!) Anyway, it was so helpful to clear it that I now feel I can explain how all the seemingly contradictory examples aren’t actually so. Almost a crashing MU that word, since A-R-C are so basic to the whole Scn philosophy.
Hi Marildi.
Glad to be of help. Here’s a link to the PDF version of the technical dictionary if you want to download it for future reference: http://www.mediafire.com/?jznmzmgyjyt
Do you have link to Study Tapes transcripts download?
.
I do have a Tech Dict, which was the main book I was using to clear up “Affinity” – right before you posted the defs. It was just ironic that simultaneously you decided the definitions of Affinity were needed too.
But it’s great that you posted the link – most likely others here will appreciate having it.
Say, don’t you want to join the discussion? 🙂
The word I haven’t seen defined on this thread (admittedly I have only skimmed it),is “Understanding”.
Since “understanding” is what we’re talking about, that seems like a pretty big ommission….
Good point; Go ahead and fix it 🙂
Valkov, Maria defined understanding in the thread that follows this one, “A challenge for Scientologists.” A lot of other things came up on that thread too and it would be great to get your input there as well.
A wide series of definitions on one leg is necessary for a concept map to hold any claim to being “the truth.” The problem is that it works for almost any concept map. Here is my retooled example:
The Motorcycle Triangle (SSR)
(S) Speed
(S) Stability
(R) Rider
If we were to make this triangle the “truth” for all motorcycles, then we would have this kind of definition structure for each point.
1. SPEED IS FIXED. However when you count the rotation of the earth, direction of the sun, spin of the galaxy, direction of the galaxy then you get less rigidity. But when you look at speed in relation to a highway and our every day world – it’s pretty fixed unless one NEEDS to change it to make the concept map work.
BUT IF YOU INCREASE THE SPEED OF EARTH OVERNIGHT, THE NEXT MORNING, THE SPEED SHOWING ON THE SPEEDOMETER WILL STAY THE SAME.
2. GYROSCOPIC STABILITY IS MEASURABLE. A motorcycles spinning wheels increases it’s vertical stability as it increases speed. It’s a whole lot easier to knock over when its standing still.
BUT IF YOU INCREASE THE SPEED OF THE EARTH OVERNIGHT, THE BIKE’S STABILITY ON EARTH IS STILL IN THE SAME RELATIONSHIP TO SPEED AS IT WAS BEFORE (Sound familiar?).
3. THE RIDER IS HAS MANY DEFINITIONS THAT ARE ENDLESS. Being human, the rider has so many variables that it requires a multi-layered, ever-changing definition if one is to gain any practical usefulness in making the SSR concept map work.
So what you get is three legs and some with multiple definitions. As new information is acquired, it is put onto different legs as needed.
SSR becomes a tool for organizing ideas.
So for Mike Motor, he may experience that on Tuesday SSR is easy to use and understand, but on Friday his view of SSR is VASTLY different. And by Saturday, some definitions have actually swapped legs in Mike’s head but Mike is unaware of it.
EXAMPLE: Going down hill increases speed right? Well the choice to go down hill is with the rider, but Mike may put “downhill” into the Speed category without realizing he made the change away from rider. But the concept map works both ways.
This is common in religious concepts. People often change their key views on ideas and shuffle them around all the time without being aware they doing so. They may talk to someone who disagrees with them and make huge concessions but then in two days, they are soaring with a friend about how amazing their faith is.
MIKE BELIEVES SSR IS STABLE WHILE, IN FACT, HE IS FLEXING THE CONCEPT MAP IN HIS HEAD CONSTANTLY.
ARC is a concept map. It flexes in a mind like the SSR map does with Mike. The most flexible point with the most definitions attached is “affinity.”
IMHO.
Between understanding concept maps and the proven theory of Cognitive Dissonance, one can see how ideas become traps instead of tools.
And a concept map can be both a trap and a tool at the same time. It’s not either or. Let’s say Mike is in a motorcycle gang cult.
LEADER: “Do I get an SSR?”
BIKERS: “SSR! SSR!”
LEADER: “View your life JUST like a motorcycle. It has SPEED, STABILITY and a RIDER! The more you understand these three principles, the more the world of bike emerges! FREE YOURSELVES!”
Mike then spends three days doing manual labor for free because he parked his bike wrong. He does it because he believes in SSR (TRAP).
But Mike gets out of “BIKER BITCHES” to his old station. He and his girl buy an apartment. He has a lot to do and he sees that THE FASTER HE WORKS THE MORE STABLE HIS LIFE FEELS.
(Tool).
So how would one raise Understanding (ARC) concerning concept maps?
🙂
An analysis of axiom 28:
When talking about Axiom 28, the first basic word that comes up is CONSIDERATION. As I see it, consideration is the most basic ability that there is. It is the ability to visualize. To consider is to visualize something. This could be in terms of any element of perception. Mental grasping of an abstract idea is also an element of perception.
Thus, considering is visualizing in response to a sensory input, even when that sensory input is simply emptiness. A consideration is the product of considering. It could be held out there in one’s mind.
Hypnotism is simply taking control of another person’s ability to consider and then manipulating it. There is nothing good or bad about it. It is just a phenomenon to be studied. Hubbard was very good at hypnotism.
[Mote to come…]
“Hypnotism is simply taking control of another person’s ability to consider and then manipulating it. There is nothing good or bad about it. It is just a phenomenon to be studied. Hubbard was very good at hypnotism.”
So…Hubbard was very good at manipulating people’s ability to consider?
At https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6980 Vinaire wrote:
“It is better not to discuss LRH, and his intentions (whether positive or negative). Just discuss knowledge as such, and that will help keep additives out of the discussion.”
You should take your own advice.
I don’t get how, or why, you made the jump to hypnotism?
Ha ha! You beat me to it. My reply was still in moderation when yours came out.
Vin, we’ve teamed up now to keep you on the straight and narrow! 😉
“Mote to come.” Did you mean “moot to come”? Kidding, but I am gonna argue with you now. Your post was going along just great until you got to the last line, “Hubbard was very good at hypnotism.”
I thought we agreed to leave Hubbard and evaluations about him out of the discussions. Weren’t we going to limit ourselves to just discussing the knowledge of Scn itself?
Gotcha!
Some people may read too much in the sentence, “Hubbard was very good at hypnotism.” I mentioned it simply because I am very curious how he did it.
My curiosity started with an incident mentioned by the Dianeticist/Scientologist, who sponsored the event that later came to be known as Philadelphia Doctorate Lectures. This incident is mentioned here:
Message #18778
I am indeed impressed by Hubbard’s ability, and this has peaked my interest in researching hypnotism. I think Hubbard learned how to do it in the East. I believe that as one moves up on the ladder of spirituality, the ability of hypnotism naturally develops in one. One has to be in-ethics to hold on to this ability.
I truly believe that the first and foremost natural ability of the mind is to visualize. This is the ability that underlies the ability to postulate and to consider. If one knows the fundamentals of visualization then one can easily project one’s visualization directly into another’s mind.
This is communication in the raw. This is an ability worth having. It may be looked upon as hypnotism. But to hold on to this ability one must be in-ethics with it.
I shall be putting my further musings on hypnotism on the thread where the above message came from. As I said above, “Hypnotism seems to consist of the raw fundamentals of communication.”
.
Vin: ” This is communication in the raw. This is an ability worth having. It may be looked upon as hypnotism. But to hold on to this ability one must be in-ethics with it. ”
Well, I sure as heck would not hypnotize someone for any reason.
I’d rather use ARC & the comm formula.
Vin: ” Some people may read too much in the sentence, “Hubbard was very good at hypnotism.” I mentioned it simply because I am very curious how he did it. ”
“…very curious how he did it” ?? Sheesh man ..If LRH did hypnotize someone as part of his research, I assume he would have done it like most others.
ya know … ‘Look into my eyes … you are getting sleeeeeeepy’ 🙂
Okay, totally got it now on where you were coming from. I’m sure I’ll stop jumping to conclusions, given a little time of seeing it isn’t happening willy-nilly. 🙂
Dennis might call this “ser-facing” 🙂
.
And Vin, if he were being fair and not looking through is filters, would call it “looking.”
I think that the term “ser-facing” is used when one doesn’t know what to say.
.
Hi Vinnie,
I rather doubt it was hypnotism, probably more that LRH was in a high state of exhilaration, or perhaps even higher on the tone scale and an individual that is that energized energizes others. This sort of thing is very commonly reported around individuals with high “charisma” or energy levels. Other people are energized around them and do find themselves experiencing greater vividness, a sense of heightened perception and so on. Its very common for people to experience this sort of thing at music concerts where the energy is very high and the rythyms energetic. As far as LRH being a great hypnotist, why not? After all, these days having focused attention on anything is considered to be a form of hypnotism. T.V. watching, absorption in learning or art, engrossed conversation, etc. etc. is all considered to be a form of hypnotism. The 1950s definition of hypnotism is extremely narrow and confined to the operator completely overriding the target’s consciousness to a point where the individual has NO conscious memory of what occurred during hypnotism and NO conscious awareness of any implanted suggestions.
If hypnotism is raw communication, then we should all be thoroughly hypnotised by now… wait a minute… are we all hypnotised? After all, we have been communicating a LOT on this blog and whether or not we are always aware of it, that communication does carry visualization on the line, otherwise no communication would be occurring at all. We all say we only hear words and see the body’s motion, but that is not true. Just visit someone who is angry sometime and you can definitely feel the vibe even before you see their body language or they say anything. And the smoothest liar can make you feel very, very uncomfortable because there is something “off” about them. But we are all very polite and so we don’t press on people when we feel such a disconnect between the vibe we get off them and their physical presentation.
I suspect that most of what people reported about LRH’s uncanny ability was more to do with his high level of confront of people, his position of authority and the sheer admiration people felt for him. He was definitely a charmer, funny, warm, and full of life a great deal of the time by all reports. Even medical doctors who have little charisma, but lots of authority can produce some amazing placebo effects in people. The placebo effect is pretty common even just amongst ordinary folk – they can talk themselves into all kinds of problems and illnesses and so on. And happy people do tend to smooth out upset areas. I’ve seen that myself many a time.
I can probably name at least a dozen spiritual practitioners / teachers such as Sri Aurobindo who reportedly routinely had an enormous effect on people around them. The effects lasted a while and than faded out in most cases. These effects are reported even when the people did not directly speak or interact with these people. And sure as hell, I’ve seen people practically swoon with ecstacy at concerts – I’m sure that Barbara Streisand was not hypnotizing anyone, but she sure could energize, inspire and amaze people and they’d feel the effects for hours and hours.
Then again, I suspect you may be talking about intention, which is the raw carrier wave of communication (or anything else for that matter) and pure intention is just that and it has tremendous command value. I expect you certainly do put a visualization on it, but perhaps you don’t even have to do that – a concept may be quite sufficient, no pictures necessary. Since most people don’t practice ramping up their intention, they simply have insufficient intention themselves to do anything else but what the other intends. And there is your “natural” leader.
I am looking at visualization as forming of something whether it is a picture or a concept. As long as something is being formed knowingly, I am calling it visualization. This is the most fundamental ability that there is. It even underlies the ability to postulate or consider.
Another factor I am looking at is the idea of self being a barrier at either end of a communication line. Direct communication of visualization is possible when self is not acting as a barrier.
Here are some fundamentals that may explain phenomena from telepathy all the way to hypnotism.
.
Oh my gosh, Maria. Your posts are always so superb and this one is one of the best. Even if (or though) LRH had his flaws, I’m sure he has been misunderstood and maligned in many ways and I always feel bad when he gets put down (especially since we owe him all that we do). But you made up for so much of that with this post! And you have also shed light on Vinaire’s approach and that’s very good too.
Hope you’ll feel inspired to lend your insight to the subject of the thread, the ARC triangle. Geir stated that he wouldn’t want to see the ARC triangle held up as truth if it isn’t, as that would just create blind spots for people. I feel similarly but the other way around – I don’t want to see it presented as false if in fact it is actually true and a valuable piece of wisdom, as I still think it is.
Anyway, as ever, thanks for taking the time and effort to give us another one of, what I would call, your gifts. 🙂
The trouble with absolute truths is that THEY REQUIRE SUBMISSION. That’s why they are absolutes. Absolutes act like bosses.
Even an absolute like “there are no absolutes” fits this.
The cool thing about functional mythology (my own term. It means believing in the power of story itself) is that THE MYTHOLOGY SUBMITS TO YOU. By making the practice of overcoming cognitive dissonance a spiritual practice, one can learn to hold mythologies and spiritual ideas as …
Concept maps. JUST concept maps.
And when you do, you own what it does in your life not the other way around.
So does this concept map ARC require submission because it is true? Or do you own it because it is a mythology and/or concept map that you choose to embrace and use?
Submission to it as Truth: Tool AND Trap
Ownership as either falsified or undefinable Mythos: Tool
Sometimes less really is more.
Katageek, I agree that the use of concept maps is a “cool tool.” 🙂 However, it’s not true that ARC is a concept map! And it’s not “just” a tool of some other kind, either. I know I was going along with that earlier, but I’ve changed my mind about it. It’s pretty much a physical universe law, I’ve come to see. Now, not everyone here sees it like that – but the debate is still raging!
Okay, I don’t know how much of Scn you’ve studied so I’m not sure how to go about explaining what I just said, but here’s about the simplest way I can think of. Affinity, first off, is expressed as an emotional response – which as such has a certain wave length (shorter than those in the physical universe). Reality refers to a thought or consideration in the mind – which is composed of energy of very fine wave lengths also (again, as compared to those in the physical universe). And Communication consists of (briefly) a particle being impelled from a source point to a receipt point. In other words A, R and C exist IN the physical universe and as such are potentially measurable. They are not just abstract “concepts,” they are as real and incontrovertible as anything in physics – since they essentially ARE part of physics (scientists haven’t quite discovered that but there seems to be hope for them in quantum physics).
If I’ve lost you now, it’s probably because you haven’t read the basic references on ARC, but Geir has posted some links in the OP. Over to you.
Actually, I do see ARC as a concept map – I meant to say ARC is not JUST a concept map. It’s also a law.
I think it becomes a law out of choice. And we should choose laws we like after all…
That’s what freedom is.
If Mike in the biker group chooses SSR as the law of his universe. It is his.
The Universe within our heads is the only real estate we really own. And if you are wrong M it isn’t bad IMHO. It’s awesome. Because it is the Universe YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE IN!
To ARC!
To SSR!
And I love your sentiment, basically. However, do you not agree that there are actual, objective laws as well?
By the way, is that SSR thing real?. I thought you were just flying along in your imagination, with that snappy, unique style of writing you have.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint. I have no formal Scientology training at all. I’ve read the basic books and the testimonies and stories from as many people as I could find from the 50s to present day.
So I really don’t know much other than the viewpoint of an outsider looking in. And from that viewpoint, I see ARC as a Concept Map.
Wow, if you actually read the basic books with the intention of understanding them and benefitting by them (not for some other purpose such as seeing what cult aspects there are to them) then you may know as much Scientology as many of us! Not saying that there would be anything wrong with studying them to align with your purpose (it’s a very good purpose!), if that’s your interest.
Now, if you USE the data in them, then you may be more of a Scientologist than you think, as THAT is the simple definition of one: “one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scn technology.” (Tech Dict)
And if you really want to get into the thick of it with us, you should get a Tech Dictionary, if you don’t have one. Or download it from the link Maria just posted here. (Btw, I have to look up stuff others post here too – like concept maps :-))
For me, the most powerful spiritual practice is understanding how our mind fools itself and learning to see things through different lenses and to know WHEN we are using a lens such as Science, Religion or Art.
And then fully learn to love, master and enjoy each lens for its purpose.
Much of the banter I see here is that some are looking at the topic through a lens and others are looking at it through a religious lens.
Often, the problem for many is JUST getting people to stick to ONE lens for the discussion. THOUSANDS of words are written and digested just to make that one simple thing happen.
Penn Jillette tells one story that illustrates amazing well about how Cognitive Dissonance keeps people stuck in one lens over another. He isn’t talking about the three lenses, but you see how the person discussed is heavily invested in a supernatural/religious lens.
Overcoming a lens fixation is a great spiritual feat IMHO. Each lens is awesome.
My post above was meant for the bottom. Sorry. Wrong spot.
I have looked at Scientology as much as I can through each lens. Personally, I’ve been guilty of being lens stuck on the “Science” lens.
The problem I find personally is to use ONE LENS AT A TIME and not invalidate the other two with whatever lens I’m using.
MISSPRINT:
Much of the banter I see here is that some are looking at the topic through a SCIENTIFIC lens and others are looking at it through a religious lens.
Yes, some Scientologists are a good study of “closed mind.” A lot of effort went into producing them.
.
It is my belief that whenever a person accepts something as true all the while it is not completely true, it help the person develop a blind spot in that area. I have seen this in scientologists many, many times.
I’ll be more kind than you, Isene, and propose the following theory, which Hubbard might approve of:
Any stable datum is there to restrain some confusion. A person will not let go off that stable datum easily if he or she is going to be confronted with the same confusion again. So the only solution is to provide a better stable datum, and then somehow ease the person from the weaker stable datum to the stronger stable datum. Science simply provides a stronger stable datum.
Sooner or later when the original confusion is handled then the person would not need any stable datum at all in that area. In other words, the stronger stable datum of Science may not be needed either.
GOD and SELF ate two very basic stable datums that help many people restrain their confusions. You cannot get rid of these two stable datums without helping the person handle some very basic confusions.
.
Thanks for the hand 🙂
I am here to help Marildi and her kind. 🙂
.
What’s “her kind”?
Hey! Don’t start trouble now.
.
Basically, Marildi is a good kid… a bit misguided, but good nevertheless.
And “her kind” is good too.
.
Uh…thanks. I think.
Funny, I might have said the same about you. 🙂
But seriously – I know your heart is in the right place (basically ;-)).
I said it first. Your repeating it is not original. 😉
.
And I had the last laugh.
But you are definitely an original. 🙂
Sure, baby (to use some Americanism)!
.
That just made you a cool dude.
“Yes, some Scientologists are a good study of “closed mind.” A lot of effort went into producing them.”
That is a consideration.
Yes, and some Critics are an equally good study of a “closed mind”.
That is also a consideration.
An analysis of Axiom 28 (#2)
Ref: 2011-08-21 at 12:49
Ref: 2011-08-26 at 15:21
(1) Communication takes place across a distance.
(2) Therefore, communication cannot take place in the absence of space.
The basic characteristic of space is separation. If there were no space then there wouldn’t be any separation either. The whole universe shall be at a single point (if that is possible).
Of course, this would be a condition of perfect affinity. No communication would be necessary then. Reality would simply be what one visualizes.
I remember Valkov speculating that communication would exist beyond the MEST universe. If there is no space beyond the MEST universe then I doubt if there’d be any communication.
But this “Valkov phenomenon” brings up an interesting point. It possible to make a consideration that is inconsistent with another consideration that one is agreeing with. And so inconsistencies are possible.
It is such inconsistencies that generate persistency. That is how the MEST universe comes about.
.
The links in the post above do not work because somehow an extra apostrophe is inserted at the end of the url (see at the top of the page where the url appears). Just take the apostrophe off and the link would work.
.
Nice get Kat. I like it.
It’s a great idea to side check our myths vs laws and make attitude adjustments accordingly.
“ARC=U” precludes a change in any of the points without precipitating a commensurate change in the other points.
So, if I have talked to a guy and my affinity didn’t move, then that is impossible?
Well, I have stated several times that I have experienced talking to a person where the affinity went down. I have also seen it go up of course. It seems implausible then that I cannot find a situation where it wouldn’t move.
Yes, it is impossible. Your affinity “must” move up or down except that it shall maintain the same value for one Planck second at a time. In Physics, we call this the “Freeze Frame!” hahahaha!
Communicating is in space-time. Doing so decreases space-time. Thus communicating “instantly upon duplication increases affinity in a positive or negative direction.” I don’t need this to be right. Nothing for me is riding on this. It is as clean a statement of my observation as I can come up with on this Saturday morning.
And let’s leave Hubbard out. We already agreed ARCU as he proposed is wrong. I am not really caring “what he meant.” The OP has been invalidated.
I am confining my focus to these component parts A-R-C-&U for the following reason that I am reconciling if there is truly a mechanical reason why ARCU works for me aside from my bias that I want it to be true. I’ve stated that I don’t “want” it to be true, but just like the guy who sat in the bathtub and watched the water level rise, just so have I watched the corners of the ARC Triangle change when tampering with any of the values.
If you want to dig deeper, we can dig completely out of the Game and say that Understanding is a consideration and thus subject to how you want to consider it. To be fair, we should allow for this to also be an option – “take your ball and go home.” But if you want to play, then please consider this new look at the OP.
I will.
“I am confining my focus to these component parts A-R-C-&U for the following reason that I am reconciling if there is truly a mechanical reason why ARCU works for me aside from my bias that I want it to be true.”
That’s what I said!
“I’ve stated that I don’t “want” it to be true, but just like the guy who sat in the bathtub and watched the water level rise, just so have I watched the corners of the ARC Triangle change when tampering with any of the values.”
Same here!
Chris, I knew you would see it! The Cavalry has arrived. And the Indians may be running away… 🙂
There is a saying in India, “There is no use playing flute in front of a water buffalo.” 🙂
.
Popper and Science cannot be understood by certain minds with fixed ideas.
.
ya know … ‘Look into my eyes … you are getting sleeeeeeepy’ 🙂
LMAO! hahahaha!
If it’s not smugness, is it EGO? (ouch)
Or, it is telling it like it is, without regard to any egos.
Only egos are going to be hurt.
.
The simple question is, “Can the ARC formula be improved upon?”
According to Marildi, it cannot be improved upon any further because it can explain all possible situations to do with ARC.
According to Isene, there is room for improvement because all those “complex explanations” are not obvious to a person on the street, and so the formula loses its usefulness in strict scientific sense.
I am with Isene. I feel that there can be better explanations of relationships between affinity, reality and communication that will prove more useful. I have never found the ARC formula useful as such. I always use the communication to improve affinity and reality.
.
It is very difficult to communicate to a person with a closed mind. His mind is set. He is not open to looking at something from different viewpoints. Such a person cannot meditate. Such a person would not understand KHTK.
.
With the happy face I’ll take it as sly humor.
(But do I detect a note of smugness? :-))
Maybe it is smugness. But that saying is quite true.
.
katageek | 2011-08-27 at 16:42
For me, the most powerful spiritual practice is understanding how our mind fools itself and learning to see things through different lenses and to know WHEN we are using a lens such as Science, Religion or Art.
And then fully learn to love, master and enjoy each lens for its purpose.
Much of the banter I see here is that some are looking at the topic through a lens and others are looking at it through a religious lens.
Often, the problem for many is JUST getting people to stick to ONE lens for the discussion. THOUSANDS of words are written and digested just to make that one simple thing happen.
Penn Jillette tells one story that illustrates amazing well about how Cognitive Dissonance keeps people stuck in one lens over another. He isn’t talking about the three lenses, but you see how the person discussed is heavily invested in a supernatural/religious lens.
Overcoming a lens fixation is a great spiritual feat IMHO. Each lens is awesome.
Chris says: Nice and clear statement. I will borrow this to embellish my coaching my kids on focus.
Chris thank you for such kind words. BTW: I lifted the three lenses from the book “The Structure of Religious Experience” by John MacMurray.
Just a note for you: I really appreciate your contributions.
🙂
(She’s b-a-a-a-a-ck.)
Geir, this is my reply in response to your last comments to me in that long thread above:
1. You’re telling me that I should “propose actual practical situations that the theory will preclude, interactions between humans or a human and a situation or thing that the theory says cannot happen.” Something I’m not getting here, because you have already (supposedly) done that…
2. I think I may have spotted your MU (excuse the audacity). It’s on the word “reality” (and maybe Affinity as well – they were my MU’s too). I don’t think you’re using Reality to mean “duplication of the C” but rather something like “opinion” or “viewpoint.” If memory serves me, in every supposed example of yours of how the ARC triangle was not working, I believe that particular MU was the basis of your contention. And that is also why your examples are not actually worded in a way that expresses the ARC triangle, and thus they would not elicit responses from non-Scientologists that alogon with ARCU.
3. One example: “I have experienced talking to a person where the affinity went down.”
Assuming you duplicated his comm, you would then have gotten a higher R=agreement (which is how R is defined: duplication = R or agreement). Now when your affinity then went down, that was not based on your R/agreement but on your opinion or viewpoint (what you are calling your “reality”).
4. You said about the theory of ARC, “…communicating with you guys about it and my reality on it increased while my agreement with it decreased.”
That statement made me smile because my own “agreement” with it has now INcreased – due to the fact that I cleared up my MU’s on affinity and reality. And from that standpoint, you have probably INcreased your MU’s during the discussion (more audacity ), which naturally would decrease Understanding about the ARC triangle and thus your “agreement” with it decreased – meaning your opinion changed toward the negative.
I will not argue or refute any of the points you make here – simply because you are not getting my main point and you are sidestepping it completely.
State it again?
I have stated several times – most succinctly here:
“The bottom line becomes as stated: If ARCU precludes no situations, then ARCU is useless for predictions. It is then falsified as a whole in the area of predicting human behaviour. If it does preclude situations, it opens itself to falsifications in that area. You need to come up with situations that ARCU prohibits or we will have to conclude it is useless as a prediction tool. And then the whole Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation goes down with it.“
Take your theory about a man throwing a ball up in the air which will return to earth in a matter of seconds – are there any preclusions for that?
of course – it precludes the ball going up, up, up….
Right, well all those examples you gave (just as preposterous as the ball going up) are preclusions, aren’t they?
If you think they can all be explained away, then you need to come up with preclusions that are testable and thereby falsifiable.
The simple fact is that when the definitions of A, R, and C are picked in such a way that they provide a circular logic, then ARC triangle becomes a tautology rather a useful law that will help predict new ways to look at things.
I find it impractical to “raise” A to improve R and C. It just appears to be phony. The same goes for “raising” R. In fact, I have been unable to figure out how can one raise A and R directly without employing communication in some way.
So, I just go ahead and use communication to bring about better A and R. Communication is the entrance point and neither A nor R.
Now I may focus on A while communicating, like being nice to Marildi once in a while (because she is very sincere in her communication), but that doesn’t guarantee a better understanding. It just keeps the communication smooth so that there is a hope of reaching a better understanding.
Similarly, I may focus on R while communicating, and this is where I may run into disagreements with the other person. Then we may simply engage in a dance to bring up inconsistencies into view, which is not always an easy task. Here the problem is that what appears as inconsistency to one person, does not appear so to the other person. Something gets lost in the communication. I suspect that being part of the fixed LENSES of FILTERS, or just the type of SELVES, at the two ends of the communication line.
This is how I see A, R and C, and not as some useful triangle.
.
I agree with all of this – except I see it as a useful triangle. It leaves much to be improved upon though.
Please enlighten me as to how you see it as a useful triangle.
.
I see it as a useful parallel to Energy (C), Space (A) and Time (R) as well as other parallels that serve to enlighten,
I see Space, Energy and Mass to be the same thing at different degrees of “condensation” (similar to vapor, water and ice). I see Time as providing a measure of that degree of condensation.
.
I see time as frames in a movie.
I like Hubbard for many of his observations. The following from Scn 8-8008 is one of them:
“Matter is a condensation of energy. The more energy condenses, the less space it occupies and the greater its endurance becomes. A flow of energy has a brief duration. Flows of energy meeting and causing ridges obtain greater solidity and longer duration.
The solidification of matter is found to be itself duration or time. Energy becomes matter if condensed. Matter becomes energy if dispersed.”
I have only added that electromagnetic energy is the vibration in the “fabric” of space. That makes energy a condensation of space.
.
That makes space to have almost no duration.
.
Nothing has duration.
Of course, duration can’t be there if nothing is there. But if something is there then it is accompanied by duration.
If you call it an illusion then that illusion is there.
.
I think the frames themselves have no duration.
I am not talking about frames. I am talking about apparency of duration being a representation of the apparency of solidity.
.
A movie has an apparency of duration. It is simply frames.
And what are frames… multitudes of them… and the sequence in which they appear?
Does the presentation of that sequence take time?
And what are those frames made up of?
Looks like you are describing a theory made up of certain considerations.
This fits in the sequence that sensory input goes through, namely (a) Perception, (b) Experience, (c) Information, (d) Hypothesis, (e) Theory, (f) Principles, (g) Axioms, and (h) Self.
.
Any theory is made up of considerations.
Actually, it may fit under Hypothesis.
.
Sure.
So we’re now back to the necessity for testability. And that brings us back to Poppers who agrees with that – but merely as a good RULE OF THUMB (i.e. not a rigid law) to classify theories that are and aren’t “scientific as a theory.” If he considered it to be a rigid law, then he would not have said that it doesn’t always mean the theory is wrong.
It seems that if you don’t agree with ARC being a triangle, then you must not agree with one or more of A-R-C as real commodities existing in the physical universe (i.e. you have MU’s on one or more, IMO). If you did agree with each as such, seems to me that you wouldn’t be doubting the truth that they form a triangle – just by knowing what they mean and seeing that they are manifestations of Understanding.
And if you’re going to say that it’s just a tautology, may I ask – aren’t there some actual physical universe “theories” that are in fact tautologies and yet are known to be true? (I have to depend on your honesty, truthfulness, integrity, honor, fairness, genuineness, uprightness, trustworthiness, virtue and veracity (kidding around :-)) to answer this one – as I don’t know enough along these lines to be able to answer it for myself!)
You still didn’t get the point – you did not answer the conundrum:
Either ARC is falsifiable or it is useless as a tool for prediction. Which one is it?
Falsifiable.
I think I got you now. So here’s the ace up my sleeve (which I just located – ha ha!) I propose that the ARC triangle IS potentially testable, as tones are wave lengths and we could conceive of a device to measure them. The test would involve a measuring of the tone “before and after.”
Isn’t it the case that with Einstein’s theory, that there was no device in existence to begin with so the theory was only potentially testable, and then the device was invented to test it. (I hope I have that right) So we of the ARC triangle are in good company.
P.S. Just saw your post paralleling ARC to Energy, Space and Time – that’s the same comparison I made in one of my comments. Isn’t that a tautology too?
No, it isn’t – the theories surrounding Energy, Space and Time are testable and falsifiable. That’s physical science, a very successful science.
As for the falsifiability – no, you miss the mark. Actually the whole wall with the mark somewhere on it.
Again (6th or 7th time by now 🙂 ): To be useful in predicting human behaviour, the ARC triangle must predict that certain situation CANNOT occur. Show which situations these are and you have the test for falsifiability.
Your comment above: “If you think they can all be explained away, then you need to come up with preclusions that are testable and thereby falsifiable.”
Any of the examples to show it isn’t true that you yourself have come up with would be preclusions, so that satisfies “you need to come up with preclusions.” And I now I’ve come up with a conceivable test (only conceivable as yet, just like with Einstein’s theory) and thus they would be “testable and thereby falsifiable.” Am I wrong in that a “conceivable” test doesn’t cut it? (I’m trying to understand you, I really am. 😦 )
You need to come up with:
Social situations that you believe could not happen according to the theory of ARC.
But you did that already – aren’t those good enough? If not, why not – I don’t want to trip up on this point after all this.
Because you seem to think that those are confirming the ARC theory. So, for you to be able to see any value at all in the use of ARC for predictions, then you must be able to see social situations that the theory – according to you – precludes, prohibits, forbids.
Got it.
Okay, let me try. I can use your example of “I have experienced talking to a person where the affinity went down”
Let’s say you begin the conversation with some pre-conceived notion that talking to this person will cause his ideas (alien to your beliefs) to rub off on you and make you more like him. Therefore each duplication of what he says comes with a label of “not good” and thus you go downtone = the affinity went down.
Obviously, this is an example of consideration being senior to mechanics. Consideration is outside the frame of reference of ARC and the theory doesn’t account for it. And since the ARC triangle does not account for this sort of possibility the example would be something that the theory precludes.
So, you have successfully falsified the ARC triangle as an absolute law and a fully reliable tool for predicting human behaviour.
Now, how can we improve it?
I’m not sure the theory has been disproved any more than quantum physics, which demonstrates phenomena outside certain physical laws, disproves those laws. Consideration could disprove any law, couldn’t it? Again – frame of reference.
(I know that I’m probably outside my depth here but I just thought I’d carry this out to the point of exhaustion – not just of the theory. :-D)
The thing is: The statements LRH made regarding ARC being a law etc. is so easily disproven by people that has never been led to believe it is the utmost truth. Try disproving Quantum Mechanics. It has never been done. QM is a successful theory (the theory with the best record ever). The theory of ARC in comparison is unsuccessful – as a theory. However, as a tool, it can be really good. QM doesn’t need interpretations or any catch-all phrases like “well, absolutes are unobtainable” or “considerations are senior to mechanics”. ARC needs those to “rescue it”. It’s like saying “Yes, ARC is absolutely true. Absolutely, sir. Except when it isn’t”.
BTW; The statement that “considerations are senior to mechanics” doesn’t make much sense all the time mechanics are nothing but considerations.
“…so easily disproven by people that has never been led to believe it is the utmost truth” Says you. If you phrased your questions to them as you have in your examples here, I do not think they would have understood the concept of ARC. You should have had them read POW.
“The theory of ARC in comparison is unsuccessful – as a theory.” How is that not a mere generality?
“QM doesn’t need interpretations or any catch-all phrases like…’considerations are senior to mechanics.’” Quantum physics is itself at the level of considerations, isn’t it?
“BTW; The statement that “considerations are senior to mechanics” doesn’t make much sense all the time mechanics are nothing but considerations.” Frame of reference. Or are you saying you not agree with that statement???
I have asked these question to people who have read POW – and they are indeed led to believe that statements – that if one raises one corner the others will follow etc.
You yourself have shown a social situation where this does not apply (because consideration is senior…). Nobody has ever been able to refute QM in this way or another. In the same are we have QED (Quantum electrodynamics) that has proven the most accurate theory today. Compared tot he theory of ARC, then there would only be 70 people living on the planet that could have experienced any social situation where the statements made by LRH was not true. I myself have spoken to more than 35. What are the chances that this could happen? 🙂 So, compared to QM, the theory of ARC is unsuccessful.
As for the statement “consideration is senior to mechanics”… I don’t even understand what that means. Mechanics is after all considerations. That would be like saying “numbers are bigger than numbers”.
Mechanics are fixed considerations.
Bull dog is a fixed identity. 🙂
.
What is a “fixed consideration”? And are all fixed considerations mechanics?
P.S. Here are some things that were confusing in the exchange:
You said that I would need to “come up with preclusions that are testable and THEREBY falsifiable,” which means that if a theory is testable, that in itself makes it falsifiable. And Poppers said that “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, OR refutability, OR testability,” i.e. any one of the three.
But when I did show (I thought) that the ARC triangle was testable with a device that measured wave length, you didn’t acknowledge that one way or the other and seemed to drop it, saying I now needed to find preclusions. But, in fact, didn’t I show that the theory was testable and thus satisfies the “scientific” criterion?
Specifically on that, you said that I “must be able to see social situations that the theory – according to you – precludes, prohibits, forbids.” However, when I went ahead and did that – giving an example where a consideration would create a situation which precluded the theory – you said that I had “successfully falsified the ARC triangle as an absolute law and a fully reliable tool for predicting human behavior.”
So how did it go from being a way to show the scientific nature of a theory – to falsifying the theory? Also, is there a difference between a law and an “absolute law,” and how would that apply to accepted physical universe laws?
Popper used OR to string synonyms.
The via of measuring device is a red herring in this context.
Did you understand the point that in order for anything to predict human behaviour, it must also preclude certain social situations? Now that IS THE MAIN POINT. From that you will obviously get testability and thus falsifiability. The nature of a scientific theory is that it is open to falsification. The nature of anything that is used to predict situation is that it is falsifiable. As long as a function gives the result X, it also precludes the result NOT X. And if you can find that some of X is not given by the function, you have refuted the function. If you find the function yields results in the domain of NOT X, you have similarly refuted the function.
Thanks for all that. I’m not sure at this moment if you are right or it’s just the fact that you’re able to out-think me. When you say ARC is comparatively unsuccessful, I still wonder if that’s because the inner workings (in the coming quote, LRH calls them “laws”) are more complex than we give credit.
Consider this quote from FOT (my caps}: “…the ARC Triangle, UNDERSTOOD, is an extremely useful tool or weapon in human relationships. For instance, amongst the ARC Triangle laws[plural], a communication to be received must approximate the Affinity level of the person to whom it is directed. As people descend the Tone Scale, they become more and more difficult to communicate with and things with which they will AGREE become more and more solid.” Just that much tells us it’s not a very simple phenomenon and that may account for why it appears to be “comparatively unsuccessful” as a theory. But would complexity take away from the basic truth of it?
I suspect the scene is more complex, and like Newton’s theories that was replaced by a more complex but better theory (Einstein’s), the ARC theory needs improvement to fit all possible social scenarios. Or, it needs another, simpler look (like when the Geocentric and complex world view was replaced by a simpler Heliocentric view).
Is Marildi failing in applying the “law” of ARC to Isene? If that is so then that would support Isene’s argument against Marildi’s.
By the way, a fixed consideration is a consideration that remains fixed and does not change. In my opinion a set of considerations that are fixed in relation to each other may be referred to as mechanics.
.
So considerations in general is senior to that subset of considerations? Senior, how?
A changeable, or flexible, consideration seems to be senior to a fixed consideration because it allows for dynamic assessment of what is there, and further improvements, in my opinion.
.
That would be a better statement then “considerations are senior to mechanics”.
Vinaire, you said, “Is Marildi failing in applying the “law” of ARC to Isene?”
I certainly did apply it and it worked beautifully. “More communication, not less” is another way of stating it. I had disagreements with previous C, put in more C which was duplicated and understood. I then got back more C, which I also “duplicated and understood” (mostly :-)) and voila! the other two corners got raised.
You added, “By the way, a fixed consideration is a consideration that remains fixed and does not change. In my opinion a set of considerations that are fixed in relation to each other may be referred to as mechanics.” As demonstrated, the considerations weren’t fixed – and yet the mechanics of ARC were in smooth operation.
Now, did that C of mine help any “fixed consideration” you might have had? If not, I think I get what you were referring to about bull dog identity. 😀
i don’t intend to answer your question because I’ll have to really complicate my thinking in order to do so, and I like my simple self. 😉
.
Vinaire, your WHAT? Your SELF? Thought that didn’t exist for you. he he
Who told you that SELF does not exist?
SELF exists like that table exists. Neither of them are permanent however. Please see the thread where the following post belongs.
Message 18810
It is the attachment to self that is the basic aberration.
.
Marildi, it is good that you are looking for inconsistencies.
But after you find an inconsistency, take a step further to see where that inconsistency is coming from.
.
Didn’t you say one time that you had no thetan and another time that the thetan didn’t exist?
But I will admit, I don’t have your “considerations” down pat. 🙂
Marildi, I have always held that thetan is a consideration, and like any consideration it is something created.
And I have always held that anything created can also be dissolved.
Now draw your own conclusions about what I might have said.
.
This incidentally is also what CBR once said :O
I knew CBR on the ship, but I don’t think we ever discussed philosophy. 🙂
.
On the P.S. post above, first paragraph should read: You said that I would need to “come up with preclusions that are testable and thereby falsifiable. But Poppers said that “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
On third paragraph: “precluded the theory” should be “the theory precluded”
Yes, “the scene is complex” sounds right! Interesting – the theory might need to be more complex or more simple… I like that. And I like what Maria said about “context” and workability as regards different theories..
Anyway, the scope of your viewpoint is just a bit above my pay grade, but I have to say I do feel more and more freed up about the whole thing. Thanks so much for your patience and perseverance! You’re the best. 🙂
Thank you right back 🙂
“One can’t cut down one without cutting down the other two, and one can’t rehabilitate one without rehabilitating the other two. On the positive side, one can rehabilitate any point on the triangle by rehabilitating any other point on it.“
I believe the above has been falsified as a sweeping statement.
But some of the examples given don’t falsify the theory IMO.
“Have you ever liked someone less when you learned to know them better?”
“Have you ever ended up agreeing less with a person when you communicated more?”
By communicating one can find lessening affinity and reality. This is obvious to everyone here I think. It doesn’t disprove the statement above. What happens to C when lowered A and R are found? C drops. What happens next depends generally on who you’re talking to and how important it is to you to maintain a high a level of ARC with that person. If you’re talking to a random person on the street, you might just walk away. If you’re talking to a family member you’ll ramp up C to repair the break.
I think conceptualizing ARC as a triangle is misleading as A and R are the result of, or are established by C. C is the starting point. The OP statement doesn’t take that into account, which is a BIG omission IMO.
LRH does mention in POW that Comm is the most important point. More stress should have been made on this.
The OP statement above is a rough guide (not absolute truth, although presented as such) to be used as a framework (concept map) in approaching inter-personal problems one wants to solve or to achieve a greater understanding.
If I was to reword the OP statement, it would be something along these lines:
Communication is by far the most important of the three factors as it brings about Affinity and Reality. Affinity and Reality are nil in the absence of Communication.
C is the starting point and monitors A and R.
Communication can be used to increase or decrease the amount of A or R, depending on one’s intention and purpose.
The OP explored the theory as presented by LRH – as a law. I agree that it can be a useful tool in communication (see Vin’s point of A & R being results of Communication). But as a law, it doesn’t hold.
Good post, Seth. I hope you saw Maria’s comment (below)as regards the same LRH quote.
One thing as far as C being the starting point, LRH explains that it is actually A. I tried to find the reference in SOS and DN 55 but couldn’t. (I’m pretty sure it’s in one of those.) My recall of it is that there has to be close enough proximity (A) for perception and communication to be possible.
With the quote that you and Maria both posted, I’m curious what examples you or Geir still feel don’t fit with the ARC triangle.
“Every point on the ARC triangle is dependent on the other two, and every two are dependent on one. One can’t cut down one without cutting down the other two, and one can’t rehabilitate one without rehabilitating the other two. On the positive side, one can rehabilitate any point on the triangle by rehabilitating any other point on it.“
Acutally the statement does not say that applying A R or C raises any point on the triangle. It says you can’t CUT ONE DOWN without CUTTING DOWN the other two.
Then it says one can REHABILITATE any point on the triangle by REHABILITATING any other point on it. REHABILITATE is a different activity than apply A R or C.
The keyword is REHABILITATE.
The vagaries of ARC breaks stem from violations of A R C. Rehabilitation implies the repair and remedy of violations of A R and C – which is a deliberate and active process of IMPROVEMENT.
Outside of deliberate and active IMPROVEMENT of these three points we get all manner of violations – invalidation, evaluation, lying, social responses, efforts to overwhelm, etc. etc. etc.
I can cut down my affinity for something while increasing communication with it.
Yes, you can. But what about the effect on the OTHER side of that communication? As I see it, ARCU mechanics are a study of the results or output of processes between two points one acting as cause and the other acting as effect in turn (or not in the case of compulsive cause or effect point.)
IMO there is nothing in the law of ARCU to say that you cannot deliberately lower your affinity or at least APPEAR to lower your affinity. But I submit that there is a VERY big difference between deliberate and knowing PORTRAYAL of a tone level like anger, and actually BEING in that tone level. In a portrayal, you get an outward appearance of ANGER. Inwardly, you do not see the world as solid, threatening, dangerous, confrontational, rigid and you do not feel the impact of your body being suffused with testosterone and adrenaline as it prepares for attack. Ramp that up a bit and you get an explosion of physical communication, perhaps a physical attack, screaming, yelling, punching… I guarantee that if you are really BEING in that tone level and you REALLY act out of that tone level, whoever is on the other end of that communication is going to do one of two things – have a corresponding suffusion of adrenaline and sudden awareness of immanent attack, and a corresponding attack back of some kind or a sudden awareness of not being able to deal effectively with you and prepare for flight. And run like hell!!! I would run – if not physically running, then by supplicating you or withdrawing in some way. I have seen photos of you and its a no-brainer that I would not do well in a physical contest with you. I’m just too small and too female. And I promise you that I would avoid activating that in you again, so I would be very careful of you from there on out if forced to deal with you again.
I say this because I had a fascinating episode in my life where I ended up in the tone level of grief for real. Grief was my affinity. My world was gray, dull, ugly, lonely, inexpressibly sad. My chest heaved and I cried and cried and cried and cried. That’s all I did. Cry. And I was so shocked as I came out of it – I had forgotten what it was to BE in that tone level BE in grief. Not a secondary perception of it, not a concept of it, but living and breathing it and it was awful and it was wonderful and it was the beautiful sadness of it all as I let everything in my life go to hell in a handbasket. And believe me, it went to hell.
I learned from that experience that understanding is what we STAND UNDER. The view of the world we are IN at the time we are IN it. It is NOT an intellectual state based on knowledge, although knowledge can play a role in it, mainly by being twisted to fit the reality of the particular tone level. It is not a parody of a level of affinity. It is not a concept of affinity. It is an entire world view and the world looks, feels, smells, acts, responds, etc. very, very differently between levels of ARC,
Oh yes, I can be angry momentarily or even for a little while and while doing that I still have a disconnect from it enough to control my own actions. I think we all do that most of the time. But this is not the same as living from that tone level.
And in that disconnect, can we really say that we are now standing under that emotion? Or are we standing over that emotion?
Maria,
I’m going to re-read your posts tomorrow when I’m not so tired. But my ARC just got a big boost from what I “duplicated” so far. :-). You know the tech so well! You must be a well-trained and experienced auditor.
This sentence alone would do: “The vagaries of ARC breaks stem from violations of A R C”
Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to do this. LIke your posts, you are superb!
Much ARC, Marildi.
I would say that when an upset occurs, for example between a husband and a wife, affinity is definitely affected because a person feels anger or grief. The person also feels cheated or violated. So the reality (in terms of some agreement) also seems to have been affected. The person is then driven to communication to repair that upset.
One may look at this in two ways.
(1) If communication were also affected then person would not be driven to communicate to handle the upset. This may happen when the upset has gone too far and all the attempts to communicate have failed.
(2) The communication was also lowered by the upset, and now the rehabilitation cycle is starting with an attempt to improve communication. The first part here seems to be an assumption.
The ARC formula seems to be more applicable from the viewpoint of a third party, such as, an auditor, then from the viewpoint of the parties in that upset.
Comments!
.
Yes, I agree. The context for the ARCU triangle is rehabilitation. It was always for the purposes of rehabilitation. And the point of prediction was for the purpose of assessing the case and determining what processes would be beneficial and capable of producing rehabilitation – greater ability, rather than overwhelming the individual. It is definitely a third party view.
I would like to point out though that a withdrawal from an individual one was in communication is a communication in and of itself. It says — I don’t like you. I don’t know how to handle you — I don’t want to share your reality any more. Go away. Leave me alone. And that communication is often used to draw the other person out of a particular behavior. A control mechanism if you will. Because ultimately I think that communication is very much a control mechanism, always a control mechanism, always a means of establishing concord, conflict, supremacy, whatever the effort happens to be. The intent comes first. And that intent is born out of the world view the cause point has at the time of the launching of the intent.
Once you have some fundamentals under your belt, you can try to take steps to rehabilitate. But most people don’t have those fundamentals. They just wait for “time to heal” and they “hope” it will all be okay after a while.
I think its important to keep in mind that there is a tone level called games. And I believe that in games one can futz around with portrayals without becoming immersed or BEING in a particular tone level. Its fun. But it is a completely different thing to play the tone levels than to live them in a state of UNDER standing.
I am more and more of the opinion that the only process required is looking, along with a proper perspective on what “self” is. This is the Buddhist approach, which I am documenting as KHTK.
I am moving away from the idea of having a quiver full of processes and then c/sing them to fit a person’s case. I have handled my own severe upset by sitting quietly and looking non-judgmentally at what happened and not resisting any feelings and emotions that came up. I also looked at my “self” as part of the situation with no bias for or against it. With this process I have always come out of the upset smiling with lessons learned. Looking per KHTK is a totally different paradigm than ARCU. It is a pure application of C. I find it much more workable for myself. I don’t need an auditor with this approach.
One may say that in KHTK looking, ARC may help if one spots the correct element in terms of A, R, and C where the break took place. That may help, or it may simply be unnecessary.
I also find Scientology to be “self”-based in which the viewpoint of self remains more or less fixed. There is a bias. In Scientology, one tends to defend self, and that I find as a drawback.
Please don’t get me wrong. There is good data in Scientology, but it needs to be better organized and simplified. ARCU is not the only way to handle upset. Pure application of C is much more direct and effective.
Through KHTK looking (direct C), I have been able to penetrate much deeper in terms of understanding. Here is something I discovered about Dianetics with this approach.
Message 18802
I feel that C is point where penetration takes place. A and R follow.
.
Good post! Clearly stated and with no sort of bias, really, just clean viewpoints. What you said in the second paragraph about just looking and dissolving things is very true, I’ve done it too and it can work great. The only thing is this, I don’t know if everyone can do that – or do it with any or all situations.
On the last line: “I feel that C is point where penetration takes place. A and R follow,” I wanted to mention one thing. One has to be “willing to occupy the same place” as the other terminal before C can take place. So it seems that A has to be there, either first our concurrently with C. I know that LRH talked about this somewhere (either SOS or Dn 55, I think), but I couldn’t find it! Anyway, C is still the senior corner, per LRH too.
(By the way, Geir, it’s very difficult to get a post comment to “take” on this thread, which may account for lessening comments.”)
The thread can go only so many levels deep…
I just re-read the above post and OMG! Maria and Geir, I believe Maria may have just solved the mystery of apparent contradictions to the ARC triangle. She posted the following LRH quote:
“Every point on the ARC triangle is dependent on the other two, and every two are dependent on one. One can’t cut down one without cutting down the other two, and one can’t rehabilitate one without rehabilitating the other two. On the positive side, one can rehabilitate any point on the triangle by rehabilitating any other point on it.“
And then her own comments about that quote:
“Actually the statement does not say that applying A R or C raises any point on the triangle. It says you can’t CUT without CUTTING DOWN the other two.
“Then it says one can REHABILITATE any point on the triangle by REHABILITATING any other point on it. REHABILITATE is a different activity than apply A R or C.
“The vagaries of ARC breaks stem from violations of A R C.”
.
Geir, let’s take the apparent “vagary of ARC” that you just gave as an example: “I can cut down my affinity for something while increasing communication with it.”
Perhaps it wasn’t a vagary at all if we look at exactly what LRH said in the above quote. We can see from that, it’s not a matter “applying ARC.” Although that CAN raise corners too, it doesn’t always. In other words, just increasing one corner may not be enough – or be what the theory is even saying. Specifically with your example, there was merely “applied” communication occurring. On the other hand, someone could actually raise your affinity again – not necessarily by simply applying communication (or some other corner) but by “rehabilitating” your ARC. And that would be in the manner LRH has described as well as part of the ARC triangle theory: e.g. find something that is real to the person and communicate about that: match the tone level; etc.
I would venture to say that any of the examples given on this thread would also work out to not be vagaries, if we looked at where the theory did or didn’t apply to them. And if the above is indeed the correct understanding it bypasses things like tone level of either person, their viewpoints – yes, even considerations if you realize that a rehab of ARC in certain cases might require auditing or other Scientology tech as the means of rehabilitation. The use of the ARC triangle as a tool to rehabilitate ARC could involve a simple piece of tech, or it might mean the whole Bridge. But the bottom line is that it seems from the above we have been alter-ising and leaving out parts of the actual formula.
Maria, I think you have made an amazing contribution to the discussion with this post and I appreciate it so much!
That quote from LRH does not make the other quotes right where he says that if one corner goes up, the other follows etc. There are many quotes to that effect. The best I can see is that LRH contradicts his own theory.
Yes Geir, I agree – that’s the problem with the materials of Dianetics and Scientology. They were consecutively issued and continually changed/upgraded/restated and so on. So it seems to me that you take your pick of what time period you enjoy and that time period will reflect a particular direction of exploration. Some love the wild wild world of the operating thetan and others love the dumpster diving episodes of Dianetics. Or you can just do what the Church tells you to do. The materials ABOUND – there’s no shortage!!
Its probably critical to keep in mind that whether anyone likes it or not, it was reclassified as a religion rather than a science in about 1953. I realize that many think it was a dodge but honestly, I don’t see what other classification is possible. Society really doesn’t have a good classification that aptly describes what can best be thought of as exploring more-than-human potential and “inner” or “outer” worlds of creation and relation out on the bleeding edge of consensus reality, out where that reality may actually be shifting and one may be participating in many different levels simultaneously. But I digress.
Tomes were written on ARC — and taking my pick, Fundamentals of Thought was written to present the most comprehensive version of the basics of Scientology, using language that could most easily be translated into other languages without using meaning.
Here’s a few quotes from the book:
“The A-R-C triangle is the keystone of living associations. This triangle is the common denominator of all life’s activities.”
“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.”
“Communication is essentially something which is sent and which is received. The INTENTION TO SEND AND the INTENTION TO RECEIVE must BOTH be present in some degree before an ACTUAL communication can take place. Therefore one could have conditions which appeared to be communications which were not.”
Where it gets weird is when the C of S starts jamming things down everyone’s throat as the word of God (LRH) without mentioning that the materials were a recording of everything found and said.
It started out as a science. I think it would have benefited from continuing that road – in the name of progress. Or at least as a pure philosophy.
The problem with religion is GOD and FAITH and “jamming it down your throat.”
Scientology has followed that road as intended.
.
Seems like plenty of preclusions in this post.
My own preclusion is that “if you alter any value of any corner of the ARC=U equation then you cause a commensurate alteration of value in each of the other corners as well as U.”
Geir has asked for preclusion and has gotten a few. But since debunking the OP no one has sought to falsify the modifications to that one misstatement of LRH. Debunking the OP instantly made apparent that the corners move both up and down depending on the application of ARC and now according to Marildi and Maria’s research but that original debunk has been stretched to falsley falsify ARCU as a whole which I don’t see yet.
I’ve lost track whether this thread is to critically question and understand Scientology basics such as ARCU or whether it is strictly intended to debunk ARCU which has been done and then re-bunked by pretending the entire theory is false or whether the purpose is to simply state and re-state how inadequate LRH was.
And as far as “Scientology starting out as a science,” there is plenty of bunk to get out of that statement starting with LRH would have to have not said that “if you want to make a lot of money just start a religion.” So Geir’s comment about how Scientology “would have been better off continuing that road in the name of progress” is thus falsified for not only this reason but also because Scientology is in our hands and will continue down the road that we take it. If that road is scientific, then scientific and if not well then . . . name it.
Anyway, if there is bunk in my own preclusion as stated above, I would appreciate reading anyone’s debunk.
I have no intention to debunk lots of stuff. I wanted to see what parts of the ARC theory that can be falsifies. I believe I have falsified the hard link between the parameters and that this renders the ARCU theory useless in predicting human behaviour (as it can’t be trusted). ARCU as a tool for focus in handling people…. still very valid, still very alive and kicking.
In response to the discussion that A R and C is simply consideration, I consider that to be true. I consider it to be true and therefore I participate. So let us consider the possibility that I am a VERY VERY angry person. My world is very SOLID and it is VERY threatening and conflict reigns supreme. I must overwhelm others or something BAD will happen to me. Along comes Geir in an aesthetic state, He is VERY VERY into beauty and harmony and rythym and alignment and symmetry. I may not be able to see Geir at all. But I can notice that his body is moving towards me and if it comes any closer I will have to hit him because he is clearly threatening me. He communicates like crazy to me but I am busy interpreting everything through the filter of my ANGER. I communicate back to Geir that he is a theetie wheetie namby pamby dilletante of the lowest order. I demand that he duplicate what I am saying. I scream at him, I threaten him. I do everything I can to get him to duplicate me and then I accuse him of not being able to duplicate – he is not communicating with me!!!!!!! The truth is there is no communciation occurring here at all. There’s lots of back and forth but there is NO actual communication because there is NO reality in the first place and the affinity is so far apart that we don’t even see the same world. And so, we get a cut communication.
Now, if Geir knows how to REHABILITATE my affinity or reality or communciation, we can get somewhere. Maybe he knows that I am ANGRY and maybe he chooses to take a really bored approach to the whole thing and maybe I can then connect a bit, see him a little better, at least for a little while. Long enough anyway for me to become bored with the whole thing and start seeing him as something other than a threat and a danger.
Maybe.
But then again, maybe I would have to learn about reality and how my constant efforts to make Geir duplicate that he is a thetie wheetie namby pamby is never going to be duplicated by Geir, because what I am asserting is a false idea. If he does accept it then he will drop like a stone down the tone scale, possibly even below my ANGER state, because then he has violated his own reality by duplicating mine. Then again, maybe Geir is a superb master of communication, utterly secure in his own reality such that he can duplicate what I am saying without accepting it as a reality and maybe, just maybe I might find that liberating. And that liberation may take the form of me realizing that he isn’t such a dangerous beastie after all and maybe I will feel a sudden surge of affinity for him. But then he would be acting to rehabilitate, wouldn’t he?
And I truly, wholly, actually and factually thoroughly and intensely validate the ARC triangle as a useful tool. And most often I see it show the way for The Most Probable scenario in a given social situation.
But as a law… it doesn’t hold.
I’m not sure I get where you are going with the emphasis on rehabilitation. Is this a stated purpose for ARC by LRH? or you or who or what?
Rehabilitate, destroy, ARC break, whatever purpose you choose, ARC=U seems like a workable tool but any emphasis on using it for a particular purpose seems additive to me. To me it works as well for constructive or destructive purposes.
Chris, the discussion on rehabilitation started with a post of Maria’s. Here’s the link:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7276
As for rehabilitation of ARC, you remember all the tech about how to raise someone’s tone level – e.g. find something real (R) to the person and talk about that (C)…etc. But do read her post, it’s great – she takes the viewpoint that the ARC triangle is valid and as usual expresses great conceptual understand of the tech. And the whole exchange of posts after that was really helpful to me too. It continues from that first post to beyond this point.
Hey, this same discussion about the ARC triangle has been continuing, almost entirely between Geir and me on his “A Challenge to Scientologists” blog post, and we’ve both pretty much said what we have to say. I wish you would check it out – I’d be very interested in your comments!
ok now I get it. Thanks Marildi.
Sorry about posting so much at this late date on this OP. I just don’t have much time and when I do get some time I write as fast as I can go before I run out of time again!!!
I have to wonder about this falsification concept at all. As far as debunking “laws” with falsification goes, the classic debunking was of Newton’s law, which was “debunked” by Einstein, who in turn was “debunked” by quantum physics.
Yet Newton’s “debunked” law did get us to the moon.
And Einstein’s laws work very well in other applications, despite being “debunked” by Quantum physics.
Context.
The question is what is the law being applied towards? Does it work in the context it was intended to be applied towards?
IMHO ARC is not the “theory of everything” and it certainly won’t get us to the moon. (just being tongue in cheek here LOL) It seems to me that there are universes (note plurality)… and one of them appears to be a consensus reality universe. And it seems that ARC mechanisms certainly are active within the narrow confines of consensus reality and may even serve to alter that consensus reality. The rest of the universes? I don’t know. I can speak only for my own and in my own I find that ARC works out quite nicely as a law. But this may be because I wish it to be so and so it is.
Since it is so easy to find situations where ARCU does not work as prescribed, I believe it is room for improvement, even while still here on Earth 🙂
There is always room for improvement, and that is true even with the so-called “laws” of science. I have to wonder if there are really any “laws” in an absolute sense. So far there seems only to be one law that I can find and it appears to be absolute at least in all my consecutive nows. I am and I know that I am. All other “laws” appear to be constants, constant because of repeating, predictable patterns that are repeating and predictable under particular conditions. And conditions appear to be prevailing realities. Currently prevailing that is. And I often wonder what the effect of probability theories and quantum fields will have on the constants and prevailing conditions we assume to be constant and prevailing. Should be interesting!! They are busy looking for the “God particle” as we speak. And a speaker at UCLA suggested that when that particle is found, then we will be able to manipulate the very fabric and tissue of reality in a very deliberate way – of course, he was kind of an angry man so he saw it as a wonderful means of defense and aggression against enemies.
I find it fascinating that science is on a quest for truth by improving all theories in its domain while in Scientology, there is a prevailing notion that truth is found and nothing needs improvement – at least not after LRH died. Thsi is tha dwindling spiral in effect right here. I see scientologists go into full defense mode when basic tech is questioned (more so on another mailing list I am on than here) – much like Copernicus faced back in the dark ages of science. Quite similar actually.
Hi Maria,
I think you’re not understanding physics here. Newton’s law of gravitation wasn’t ‘debunked’ — it still holds, for certain ‘classical’ setups and everyday situations. His law wasn’t wrong, it was just incomplete. Relativity improved our understanding of gravity. Similarly, relativity hasn’t been ‘debunked’ by quantum physics; relativity is highly highly successful.
And so it goes. Eventually QED will be amended to be even more successful. This is the progress of science. This is the opposite of Scientology after LRH died.
Hi Charles,
The principle of falsification is that if one instance can be found that falsifies a science principle, then than principle is flawed. It may be useful. It may provide predictions. I may hold true in certain contexts but it is no longer a “law” in any absolute sense. And Newton’s law was debunked as “law” because it did not hold true under all circumstances. It is a quest of science to hone principles in an effort to find underlying laws that hold true under all circumstances. My point was that in classical setups, Newton’s law is very much a law even though it was indeed debunked/falsified. Very definitely falsified.
From my own point of view, I always thought that the “laws” of ARCU were used in the context of rehabilitating ARCU and I certainly never thought that any of Scientology could be viewed as anything more than workable laws. I hope and believe that improvement is possible but I rather suspect that the improvement will take it beyond the scope of Scientology and I am glad of that for I do not think that it should be held in the very jealous and possessive confines of the C of S. So I think that’s a good thing at this point. The C of S appears to be working very hard to close the door on new information and any truth that they cannot control, plus their very real efforts to re-write everything as holy writ offends me to the nth degree. I gained a tremendous amount of insight from my studies of Scientology but never, never did I think of it as holy writ, nor did ever think of LRH as a God to be bowed down to and worshipped as the only possible contributor to the legacy of truth and expansion and transformation of mankind and spiritual beings.
Yes Maria, context.
As in orders of magnitude.
With the limits of the ARCU theory being probed, a next step could be to find social situations that the theory precludes and that we agree that cannot happen. We could then take a new look at the theory and see if we can come up with an improvement to the theory that also precludes those situations but do not preclude situations that in fact do occur.
I think it would have to incorporate something to do with postulates and considerations, maybe the principle about First and Second postulates.
But how about a new blog post for this next step? The thread here is already getting to be cumbersome.
Agreed on that. We could expand on the What is Reality thread.
“THE” What is Reality thread – I take it you mean a new OP on “What is Reality.” Perfect idea! That needs to be “agreed” upon (he he).
That is, the meaning of “reality” needs to be agreed upon.
<- over to that thread 🙂
Yep. See you there.
Okay, expanding on the topic of that thread would make sense. But I thought you might need to post a whole new article, more or less summarizing where we are in the discussion and specifically designating the new one as a continuation or Part 2. Does that sound workable? Otherwise, this thread will probably just continue and it’s already to the point too much “drag.” 🙂
OK, I’ll think about it… if the inspiration grabs me…
Your “Challenge for Scientologists” thread looks like it might carry on the discussion.
Comments on Popper
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6684
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6692
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6693
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6695
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6709
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6710
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6711
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6715
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6717
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6720
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6721
I have decided to put all my comments on Popper in one place for easy reference for myself. Others may find it useful too.
.
Comments on ARC:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6674
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6676
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6700
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6705
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6708
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6716
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6750
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6751
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6759
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6764
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6786
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6811
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6834
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6860
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6918
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6953
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6954
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-6956
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7028
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7029
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7050
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7135
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7229
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7084
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7129
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7179
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7187
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7222
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7298
I have decided to put my somewhat meaningful comments on ARC together in this post so I may refer to them for my analysis of Axiom 28.
.
1. What is it you find meaningful about your comments?
2. https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc#comment-7397
regarding this quote of yours, why do you suppose the inconsistencies need to “come from somewhere?”
Geir, you said: “The statement that “considerations are senior to mechanics” doesn’t make much sense all the time mechanics are nothing but considerations.”
I think it’s like the difference between the “theta universe” and the MEST universe, where there’s no essential difference but there is a certain observable difference that you can name or label. And it’s valuable to do so as the two are different in a significant way.
Mechanics are also considerations – true. But the ones that are senior are those where the individual has “changed his mind,” i.e. changed his consideration. These are the ones we label as “considerations,” a different label from mechanics and for a good reason – they take precedence. I would say that a “consideration” is simply the most recent consideration and “mechanics” is the earlier consideration. Come to think of it, not only are mechanics considerations but considerations are mechanics as they exist in the mind in the form of energy.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7453
Well I am only replying to your statement that ARC must have preclusions, and I am presenting an obvious one. I don’t see that the “hard link between the parameters” has been debunked. It has factually been addressed in only the one context of LRH’s misstatement.
Inspired by my friend Jay Lake’s struggle with cancer: [1]
You go to the doctor because something’s going on with your body. You find out you have metastatic cancer and your chances of surviving five years are slim. That’s an increase in reality. It’s an increase in communication about your body. I daresay it’s unlikely to be an increase in affinity, but it is an increase in understanding.
In general, I think many of these increases in reality, where reality is more horrifying than we’d previously thought, are one of the places where the ARC triangle really falls down.
[1] http://jaylake.livejournal.com/tag/cancer/
Deirdre, someone talking to his doctor about his condition would probably be highly “willing to occupy the space” (high A). And if the Communication from the doctor were of a high level (high C), then his duplication or Reality (which is defined as duplication) would also be high (high R) and his Understanding would improve and increase to a high level also. Now obviously, his Affinity for THE DATA that was communicated may be very low. And his agreement (= Reality) with THE DATA would be low (DISagreement). But IN THAT COMM CYCLE, the A, R, C and U would be level and the whole idea of the ARC triangle would be in effect.
Thank you for your comment! In reading it and thinking about the ARC triangle in a new unit of time I may have to rethink my last conclusion that it is only true in certain terms. (But I’m sure I would need to consider other examples also, in a new unit of time.)
Let me explain my progression of thought. First point is this – I finally realized that an “increase” in the Reality corner of the triangle doesn’t actually mean an increase in amount of data. It means that the increase in that corner of the triangle has to do with its tone level increasing – in other words, an increase is a rise of tone. Amazingly, it seems most of us talk about increased reality meaning “more” reality (on whatever). And it’s the same idea with Communication – an increase in Communication isn’t actually defined as more of it but a increase in the tone level of it, though we commonly speak of increased communication and mean more of it.
In fact, the very definition of reality was a big MU for me (and others too). In the context of a comm cycle (as in Dn 55) it is “the degree of AGREEMENT reached by two ends of a communication line; the degree of DUPLICATION achieved between Cause and Effect.” So if someone highly duplicates a specific Communication, that would mean a high Reality AS REGARDS THAT COMMUNICATION – and that’s because “the two ends of the comm line” would be in agreement. Of course, there may be a disagreement with the data itself, but in that comm cycle, the duplication (agreement) between Cause and Effect would nevertheless be high.
Also, the definition of Affinity was an MU too (and here again, I think it is a common one). Besides “a feeling of love or liking” it means “willingness to occupy the same space.” In a situation like the one you described with your friend, that latter part would be easier to imagine – i.e. that he had a high willingness to be in the same space as his doctor if he really wanted to get the data. But on the other hand I can also think with the idea that he had “a liking” for being there since he was highly interested.
And to add to that – since marildi explains the ARC triangle this way, she has also effectively removed ARC as a tool to predict any human social situation. Any situation can be explained in this way and thus no future situation can be excluded from happening and so the ARC triangle is useless as a tool for prediction.
That was the next thing I intended to look at again! But you say a tool to predict “any human social situation” and I only recall that it’s a tool to predict “behavior” (by means of CHRONIC tone level). Did you actually mean that, or do you have a different reference?
p.s. I was really delighted that you said “any situation can be explained this way.” But then I realized you may not yourself see it that way, just that you see it “can be explained that way.”
“Any human social situation” would of course include predicting any behaviour. You have by your argumentation reduced the ARC theory to meaningless in the field of human prediction. Is that your purpose?
You know very well that wouldn’t be my purpose. I don’t even think it would be yours as a starting point.
But you still haven’t answered my question – a reference for “any human social situation” and now “any behavior.” This is greatly different from predicting general behavior by means of chronic tone. And it will make a big difference in how I look at it.
And; General behaviour would be a subset of Any Behaviour, so yes – it makes it meaninglses for ANY type of prediction whatsoever.
Now, what is your purpose with this?
It isn’t to make you wrong, if that is what’s behind your seeming hostility. I hate making you wrong. But that can’t be the senior motivation – I do have my own personal integrity.
You got me interested in about the most basic principle there is in Scn and it’s an incomplete cycle for me. That’s all. Okay?
But I take it that you have no specific reference for your wording.
Hey, can we just be friends again?
What is showing is my lack of patience with you on this subject. Never have I seen someone so incapable of getting a point in a discussion. I have repeated the point at least ten times with numerous variations over two threads and you seem unable to get it. I chalk that down to cult think. It is the best example I have seen of a blind belief in that something must be right (in this case Scientology technology), and how such an adamant defense of a theory will spawn illogic. In this there is a positive outcome – this example can be used for posterity.
My attention keeps coming back to this post and I decided I should have my say on the matter too, for the record and for posterity. Quite similar to you, from my side I can honestly say that I have never had such difficulty trying to understand someone’s explanation. And neither have I ever had so much trouble trying to make myself understood. I finally realized why – MU’s all around.
You tried your best and with great patience to get me to see that yours and others’ experiences have falsified the ARC triangle. I in turn tried to get you to see that those experiences/interpretations weren’t actually valid preclusions, which I saw more and more clearly the more I realized that the interpretations were mainly based on unsuitable definitions – mostly, I think, an unsuitable definition for Reality.
Several times throughout both threads, I quoted definitions for Reality for the context of ARC and also quoted this from Dn 55: “The degree of AGREEMENT reached between A and B, in THIS communication cycle, becomes THEIR reality.”
Nevertheless, you and others continued to propose questions or give examples like these of yours: (1) “Can you understand and have excellent reality on something that you do not agree with?” (2) “I can have increased reality and increased disagreement simultaneously.” (3) “But can the R on THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE go up while the agreement goes down?”
Each of those implies that Reality and agreement are two different things – whereas, with regard to the ARC triangle, the definition says that Reality IS agreement (degree of) and is “their” (not “my” or “your”) reality. You seemed to be using a different concept/definition of Reality, one that is separate from a particular (i.e. “this”) comm cycle and also separate from the ARC triangle being considered. In other words, I got that your “Reality” = your own separate considerations.
To repeat, everybody else (as far as I noted and can recall) had the same MU – including me for quite a while. There seems to be widespread false data or group think on the meaning of that basic term (and, in fact, other basics too). I struggled with the LRH definition through much of the discussion and I’m sure that my uncertainty about it did cause confusion and that I did sound stupidly confused.
Apart from that, I will admit that in other respects I simply stretched things illogically and you had good reason to be annoyed. My only “excuse” is that I had (and have) a basic sense of the existence of ARC as a phenomenon in life, and naturally felt that even when it seems not to exist it is because of incorrect interpretations (such as those given). The exception, as I’ve already conceded, is when some consideration alters the hard links but, as you agreed, this isn’t the majority of the time.
So you see, it wasn’t really a matter of a “conventionalist twist” or adding anything and everything to the theory to account for all preclusions – it’s that I felt the preclusions didn’t actually exist, at least not the majority of the time.
And I’m also glad to say that, while writing this post, I’ve come to see what the confusion was between us on the point of “prediction.” You must have felt that I was still accepting the “experiences” of others as falsifications. I, on the other hand, thought you had duplicated that I (eventually) didn’t see those as actual preclusions – and thus I couldn’t understand why the triangle wouldn’t be a tool for prediction. If it’s true that ARC is in effect the majority of the time, just by the law of averages it should serve as a tool to predict – by means of chronic tone over a period of time.
Everything considered, the bottom line for me in all this and the thing to take away from the discussion (based on nearly all the comments) is a pretty major discovery IMO, which is – all three basic terms (especially R, then A, and even C to some degree) are very common MU’s. As well, an understanding of the triangle itself, i.e. what is meant by “increasing” R or C, is usually(!) wrongly understood to mean having MORE (in quantity or frequency) R or C, instead of referring to an increase in tone. At least this is my own perception of the scene and, again, I believe this discovery – that certain very basic misunderstandings are commonplace – is the valuable lesson learned.
.
p.s. Writing this seems to have finally made for a completed cycle for me on the whole discussion. Besides that, I must say too that your harshness surprised and intimidated me and hence the comm lag in responding. I thought it best at first to just let it go, but I started feeling like a fool not speaking up for myself and for what (from my viewpoint) I think is the actuality. So I’m doing so now, and I hope you receive it with the ARC intended.
So, do you now get my main point of this:
1. The theory of ARC must preclude human behavior in order to be usable as a prediction tool.
2. If the theory precludes certain human behavior, then it can be falsified.
3. Then make tests to falsify it.
4. Then try to falsify it.
5. When falsified, make the theory better.
Bottom line is: The theory MUST preclude something in order to be anything but a tautology and to even resemble science or to be at all useful as a prediction tool. And that all by itself opens the theory for falsification.
Do you get this?
Totally! 🙂
In other words, you’ve defined it as a self-referential system that is essentially meaningless because of the convoluted narrowness of scope.
There’s a difference between acquiescing to the necessity to speak to a doctor and true willingness to be there and communicate, get what I mean? For example, I put off going to the dentist for a couple of weeks recently because I knew I needed a tooth pulled, and I knew it before they’d jumped through all the hoops and said as much. So it’s a forced communication, in that it’s something that needs to be done and you’re miserable and scared until it’s over.
I think one of the big changes I made after getting out: when I was in, I’d have thought that getting information about having some dread disease would be a reality break, but it is in fact an increase in reality, not a break. I’m not talking about the quantity of data, I’m talking about an increased awareness of the is-ness of the universe, and not just communication between two terminals.
I think the concept of ARCU is useful in looking at how to develop peer-to-peer relationships, but it’s less useful where it’s not peer-to-peer.
+1
Deirdre, I do get what you mean about the narrowness of scope. All I’m basically saying is that I’ve come to see that the ARC triangle is a natural phenomenon that does in fact always exist. Looking at it in the narrow scope of a single comm cycle or exchange, I can see that it exists in spite of the fact that it so often appears NOT to exist. That apparency was confusing to me since I clearly see what LRH stated – that A-R-C are three different manifestations of the same thing. How could it be then that the corners are not linked and are not always on the same level (tone level)? That was the confusion, and why I got stuck in on the whole subject and have continued to try to resolve it for myself. ARC is, after all, basic to almost everything.
So now I’m looking at the fact that in every single exchange in life, be it a comm cycle or any other action, there exists this phenomenon of the ARC triangle. It’s in any and all of life’s activities, from what I can see, and I’ve been considering what all this adds up to. Here’s a quote from SOS, first chapter:
“We are interested mainly in the average level for the individual for the period of life we are addressing…The constant position on the Tone Scale is determined by three factors. The first is the ACCUMULATED ENTHETA in the person – how much of his theta is enturbulated in engrams and analytical locks…The second factor is the AMOUNT OF THETA the person has as life force…The third factor is a RATIO BETWEEN THE ANALYTICAL MIND AND THE REACTIVE MIND. An individual may have a reactive level of 1.0 and an analytical level of 3.0…”
I see from the above that everything that goes into making up the “average level” has to do with various expressions and instances of ARC – including theta (composed of ARC), entheta (enturbulated theta) and the ratio of tone levels (ARC levels) of the analytical and reactive minds. My point is simply that the continuous phenomenon of ARC in every little AND big way does accumulate and affects an individual and adds up to his chronic tone. And since it does produce an average, constant, or chronic tone level, we can imagine that various manifestations of that tone level, e.g. behavior, could be predicted.
Marildi, you’re only able to look from inside the box and say, “yep, it’s a box.”
Where I think Geir and I are both looking from (at least partly) outside the box seeing the limitations thereof.
Deirdre, I’ve looked outside the ARC box too. And what I see there is the whole realm of considerations – and nothing else. They of course are senior. But everything else is in the MEST universe box and that is directed by ARC – the only exception being when considerations come into play.
But most of the time there is a “chronic” operation of ARC, which is why there are chronic tone levels and why one can use this principle – not for any isolated operation of ARC but for its overall, average operation Why else would you yourself have been able to use it; you wouldn’t have if the randomity of it were high.
At least, this is how I currently see it. But contrary to perhaps popular belief I am not fixed. If you have something to say that I’m not looking at, I’ll be happy to consider it.
What is meant by ACCUMULATED ENTHETA in the person? To me it is the degree of inconsistency that a person is justifying to oneself and not recognizing it for what it is.
Engrams and locks are just fixations. Fixed attention prevents one from looking and recognizing what is there. Therefore, inconsistencies accumulate, and the person continues to justify them.
The life force is simply the ability to LOOK without any fixations.
The RATIO BETWEEN THE ANALYTICAL MIND AND THE REACTIVE MIND is simply the degree to which a person can look without fixations.
Please reread LRH’s reference from the above viewpoint.
ARC can be used as a tool to overcome fixations because it is “three different ways of looking at the same phenomenon.” It can bring to light the inconsistency that is not otherwise visible.
It is a powerful tool.
.
It is.
Geir, you do realize that you have just confirmed the hard links in the ARC triangle. If there were no such links there would be no basis for it being a powerful tool. It would be too “unpredictable.” (That phraseology I learned from the best.;-))
It can be a powerful tool for other reasons than a hard link. I hope you are able to see that, because I have no patience left to explain it.
Ah, you won’t give it a shot? You’ve never tried explaining this idea to me. And I’m not all that incorrigible, you know. It might even crack me. 🙂
I’m sincerely interested.
Thus the ARC went low when there was a misunderstanding.
Was that a break in affinity, reality, or communication? _____.
Was that a curious about _____?
was that a desired _____?
was that an enforced _____?
was that an inhibited _____?
suppressed? _____
invalidated? _____
earlier similar? _____
flow 0 _____
flow 1 _____
flow 2 _____
flow 3 _____
These tools consistently help me to sort out my daily aggravations and I can also use them to go deeper always running just until cognition and smiling and then stopping.
There are more opportunities in the above example to also ferret out false data and aberrant computations (inconsistent thinking.)
Thanks for your comment. 🙂
BTW, don’t you use these other two?
no__________?
refused______?
Curious About
Desired
Enforced
Inhibited
No
Refused
.
HCOB 11 Aug 78, Rudiments, Definitions and Patter
Vin, your constructs may be just as valid as LRH’s and may align with his completely. That you see ARC as a powerful tool tells me you too see it as an actual phenomenon and three different ways of looking at the same thing. That has been the essence of my viewpoint – an actual phenomenon and, based on that actuality, a powerful tool. Thanks for the comment. 🙂
My sweet Marildi… please go with the force within you! May the force be with you.
.
Back atcha full “force.” 🙂
The basic realization I got while musing on this thread was that
Reality is CONSISTENCY. As consistency impoves, reality improves too. When there are inconsistencies the reality is poor.
Of course, one is talking about consistencies and inconsistencies among the considerations one holds or perceives. Thus, reality may be defined for oneself, or reality may be defined in general.
.
I very much agree with what you say, whether referring to the Reality of any being or as regards the agreed-upon Reality of the physical universe. And I would add that the consistency (your word for agreement, consistency being one definition of it! and probably the appropriate one) in a comm cycle depends upon (1) how well Cause point put across the C (with clarity and the appropriate A and put in terms of a like R) and (2) how well Effect point was able to duplicate it – something separate from his own general considerations (the R of the being himself).
Rather than his own R, it’s more like Maria’s notion in her post (here or on the Challenge thread) where she gave the definition of “understanding” and then mused that it was the ability to “stand under.” Get that – stand under! From this notion, I realized that it depends upon how well Effect point can truly stand under Cause point’s Affinity and Reality as well as his Communication, in order to duplicate the Communication fully – basically, making it his OWN and thus being in agreement/consistency. In other words – to a degree BEING the other person. This was one of my increased understandings.
(1) There is inconsistency if Cause point doesn’t put out communication with clarity.
(2) There is inconsistency if Effect point does not duplicate the communication.
By consistency, I mean consistency among considerations, where the cause point, the effect point, the “self” underlying the cause point, and the “self” underlying the effect point are all considerations.
The inconsistency will become manifested as:
(a) status of affinity
(b) status of reality
(c) status of communication
(d) status of understanding
If the consistency is high, there will by high affinity, reality, communication and understanding.
ARCU are different ways in which the degree of consistency or inconsistency among considerations is manifested.
For example, on the subject of ARC there is inconsistency among the considerations represented by “Geir” and “Marildi”. So, there is a manifestation of a lower level of affinity, impatient communication and some disagreement in terms of reality and a lack of understanding.
Thus, consistency among overall considerations seem to be the common denominator of ARCU.
.
Vin, you make it sound like in an exchange the considerations of two people are merely counter-posed and that the perceived degree of consistency or inconsistency between those two sets of considerations will be manifested in the resultant ARCU of each of those two people. If that’s a correct understanding of what you’re saying, then there’s no “life” (as opposed to mechanics) in any exchange and no chance of change in one’s “overall considerations,” aka one’s personal R. (BTW, maybe this is the same idea as debate vs. discussion, something you yourself brought up.) I can’t speak for anybody else but personally I did have some changes in consideration. Actually,I know for a fact that you did too. 🙂
For me, the common denominator of ARCU would be the degree one is able to “stand under” or “be” the other guy and/or his consideration – and that would go for both Cause point and Effect point. If you in fact are including THAT in your concept of “overall considerations,” then we agree and I’ll just say it wasn’t explicit in your analysis. But specifying that ability seems more accurate that simply stating “overall considerations.” And, now that I think of it, that ability to “be” has everything to do with INTENTION – a very key part of the comm formula.
Reflecting on what I just wrote about the intention and ability to “stand under” another person’s considerations (= his Reality = his beingness – if you go along with the idea in SOS that theta is composed of A-R-C), it now seems apparent that the greater that ability becomes the more likely it will become even greater. Geometric progression. (This subject of ARC seems to have no bounds…)
Really intuitive and consistent post Marildi. You are working from the pan-determined viewpoint(s) and getting a good result.
On this point of geometric progression of ARC and I think it goes along with your idea about “commensurate changes” in the triangle, expressed earlier on this thread. It seems you disagree about the corners being linked but I believe that idea and your idea are consistent.
What I think happens is that in a given comm cycle there is an A that gets impelled along with the C and which influences the tone level of that C. LIkewise, the IDEA in the C itself determines the A, or the harmonic of the A. Similarly, the degree (i.e. tone level) of Understanding in the idea expressed in C influences how well that idea can be duplicated (note that the U in C includes an Understanding of the ARC of receipt point). Now, based on the foregoing, the duplication at R matches in tone the impelled C with its inherent A and U. In other words, ARCU are functions of each other.
All of that expresses the fact that A-R-C are aspects of the “same thing” and are always together at the same level. By that “same thing” is meant both the current potential of a Being (his current chronic ARC level) as well as the Being’s interrelations in life, down to a specific comm cycle that ends at the point the comm is received, duplicated and understood.
Where the COMMENSURATE changes come about is at the point when one cycle (such as one cycle of communication) of ARC ends and the next begins. For example, in a high-tone-level comm cycle, receipt point will have a high duplication/R – BUT the particular idea in that R may be in conflict with the R idea that is currently part of his ARC as a Being, his own R. And due to that there is a COMMENSURATE drop in A and in agreement/R and in the level of C proceeding from that point in time.
Looking at all that, it seems that this fact of the commensurate changes is less abstract – and more noticeable in life – than the basic on which it rests, the level corners of the ARC triangle. For that reason there might well be a second forumula included in the theory, which expresses what happens in the CONTINUOUS FLOW OF ARC in life. Possibly that formula would be either A * R * C = U or xA + yR + zC = U. Not being much of a mathematician, I’m not sure which, if either, would express the above. What do you (or anybody else) think?
Correction: In first paragraph, “corners being linked” should be “corners being hard linked.”
What I am saying is that ARCU represents the degree of consistency in a system of consideration. The system may consist of a single thetan, or two thetans, or many thetans. The thetan is the life unit in a system. The thetan consists of the capability of changing the considerations through the practice of as-isness (creating or un-creating). Thus, the degree of consistency in a system may be increased or decreased.
The status of the system may be viewed in terms of the degree of affinity, the degree of reality, the degree of communication, or the degree of understanding. ARCU are simply four different ways of assessing the status of a system. The status of a system is a direct reflection of the consistency within that system.
“Theta is A-R-C” is a nice sounding phrase. But what does it really mean?
.
Tricky. First define ARCU then question what it means. You’ve lost me.
Ahhhhh…. I feel duplicated and understood. 🙂
So interesting that you use the word “intuitive” because much of what I “think” about ARC seems to be just that. But I’m not sure – the general training/study I’ve done has given me some basic concepts (or knowingnesses?) that I “think with.” In other words (and this is another point I’ve tried to express, as you well know) the principles of Scientology give a road map that takes you to various aspects of life, and you can go there and take a look for yourself to see if what the map says is there, really is there.
Yes, Scn is just another frame of reference, but I for one haven’t yet thoroughly explored this particular frame of reference. So far it’s been productive to do so and it’s further encouraging to observe that, generally speaking, those who are well trained (and especially those who are well experienced as auditors) are the ones who are quite content and are also impressive as beings. And, interestingly, they are without the need to defend or uphold Scn and are noticeably missing from such discussions (LOL). But such discussions help to make the principles more real to those of us still climbing the Scn mountain of truth.
I’ve learned from some of you astute guys that there may be a higher mountain(s) to scale after this one. Or maybe one can climb more than one of them simultaneously, like you and Geir and Vinaire and Rafael and others seem to be inclined (pun). For some of us that’s a bit steep. (I’m laughing once again at how the “metaphors” of the physical universe parallel thought.)
(Chris, the reply above was for you.)
Vin, what you say here is clear and a great description. Once again I should not have doubted you. 🙂
I would say, though, that “Theta is ARC” is much more than a nice-sounding phrase. If one has duplicated the full meaning of each of those components as described by LRH, one also has a great, very full description looked at from some different angles than yours.
Think of it: Affinity, the ability to occupy a space and to BE something, the willingness (will) to approach, etc. Reality, the capability of consideration, etc. Communication, the ability to create an effect and to interchange with others. This is just the tips of these icebergs. For starters, there are two whole books that practically do nothing but give the meaning of ARC (SOS and Dn 55) and also many lectures, as well as large portions of many other writings and lectures. I’m now more interested than ever in reading/listening or doing so again.
Ah! So you have been doubting me all along… actually, you should go back to doing that, otherwise I wouldn’t have much use for you. 🙂
.
Well, then you should knock off making your communication this clear and your reality so consistent, not to mention the flowing of affinity here and there. 🙂
Vin, the above comment was in reply to you.
.
Geir, you took back the idiot-proof feature we had on the last format where you could see what comment your reply would go under. But the color on this one is much more aesthetic than the last. I think you’ve had this blue before, seems more like you.
OK… I’ll have to change myself then…
.
😦
marildi says:
2011-10-13 at 22:07
Correction: In first paragraph, “corners being linked” should be “corners being hard linked.”
I should have asked the first dozen times I didn’t understand this term, what do you mean “hard?”
That’s Geir’s phrase, simply meaning when one corner goes up or down the others follow. The corners are “hard” or inextricably linked in tone scale level. Exact same idea as in the LRH references.
For me “commensurately linked” isn’t really saying that the corners don’t rise and fall precisely together as that is commensurate too, but rather would refer to a resultant ARC triangle when two contrasting realities meet, per my description above. (Did it communicate?
My first attempt to articulate it could have been better, I see now.).
And now that I think of it, that “resultant ARC triangle” would not just be in reference to a “standing reality” compared with some newly encountered one, but any “NEW standing reality” in the form of a new consideration! That is another good addition to the completeness of the ARC triangle theory, I do believe. 🙂
And to repeat the other idea I was trying to express above, this particular focus of yours on “intermingling triangles” is less abstract, more observable, and thus probably more useful.
I see what you mean. Thank you for clearing that up. Therefore, the “hard link” was falsified. Got you.
On the other hand, it has always been easy for me to see a proportional relationship between the corners. So much so that I instantly saw the problem with the “hard link” definition as proposed in the OP. It was easy to see it as false from my first introduction to it. However, I could still see a commensurate relationship between the corners. What was missing and what I substituted was the use of negative (-) values for the unit values given to the corners. Therefore, if a negative value were given to the change in one corner, then the value might go up or down according to the multiplication rule of positives and negatives. Therefore one corner may be INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL depending on the positive or negative value and number of times used in the formula. I use multiplication because that is the way the “formula” is written. Is it a true formula? Not quite yet. I am not working on it but I will. It looks like a volume formula to me and this is consistent with the claims for it.
The triangle was never an equilateral. It was always as skewed and arbitrary as the manifestation of understanding by the observer.
EXAMPLE: You communicate (+) with someone about something which is unreal to them (-), and their affinity and thusly their understanding goes down (-).
EXAMPLE: You are arguing with your partner and you have little understanding for one another. You both STOP communicating (a negative) about anything at all for a while. Take a break from each other. If sufficient affinity existed (a positive) before the ARC break, “absence will make the heart grow fonder.” – A positive direction caused by the lack of more conflict and dragged UPWARD by the previously HIGH amount of existing affinity. When again you and your partner meet you both may experience a resurgence in good feelings due to the rise in ARC from NOT FIGHTING. All things considered, the “bank account” of ARC=U will be lower than it was before the ARC break began though now higher than when you parted thus creating the illusion of “heart growing fonder.” (I’ve written too much and making this boring.)
SUMMATION: I don’t care whether or not ARC=U is valid. I AM interested in indicators which point to the most basic construction of the universe. ARC=U and other triangles sometimes point my attention to look deeper and possibly better into the fractal construct of the universe. This is the sum total of my interest in whether this discovery is valid. DOES IT HELP ME UNDERSTAND ANYTHING?
“DOES IT HELP ME UNDERSTAND ANYTHING?”
Well, it seems to me it helps understand a lot –it looks like the basic pattern of doingness in life.
You call it “fractal.” That’s exactly what it seems to be – a fractal construct of livingness. It is fractals in motion – the continuous shifting from one ARC triangle to another, either zooming in or zooming out as the triangle shrinks or expands. Which way it goes and how much is determined by all the positive and negative values of the corners of the conficting triangles and how they multiply out.
Call it a doingness type of fractal which is based on the beingness or havingness (depending on the viewpoint taken – i.e. before the next or after the last shift) of the triangle at the moment before the Being goes into “action” and settles into a new fractal. Different size, same pattern. And maybe the hard-link-cornered triangle is just the Planck second space between the motion toward a new creation, the shifting of particles.
Oh wow, I just googled “fractal action motion” to see if there is such a concept as a “motion or action fractal” and look what I got!
THE THREE PART CYCLE (triangle) OF DAMNED NEAR EVERYTHING http://www.freezoneearth.org/ghostdanse/GD7.html
Jun 1, 2001 – COMMUNICATION is a motion of particles in space, i.e. Doingness, …. A FLOW is the most basic action of doingness, from one location in …
OMG, this article seems to be speaking to the very things we’ve been talking about as regards the ARC triangle – as well as the other broad subjects on the threads here. It talks about Creation, a Theory of Everything (complete with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!); Oneness, and the general subject of triangles, LOTS of them (reminiscent of Geir’s previous post article where he was searching for more of them).
Also included – discussion of fractals. “The highest triangle I’ve located in the MEST universe is the Creation triangle of as-is, alter-is, not-is…a pattern we laid down which underlies our triangles…This triangle echoes or cascades down through reality in a fractal manner as a series of other triangles which are derived from it. These triangles are not the ultimate truth but they are close enough to have enormous usefulness.” (I don’t know anything about this author, Ouran, and am only quoting him because he made so many observations similar to and expanding on our own – not that authority or lack of it makes any difference anyway, as we have agreed.)
My spotting (above) of a be-do-have aspect to the ARC triangle is mentioned about triangles in general, and also my notion of the “space” between triangles is expressed by Ouran in this way: “…beginning of something, a moment of silence in a series of alter/not-isness before creation of a new isness.” (Had a win on having this same image. :-))
Also of interest is this statement: “LRH placed them in the wrong sequence. The real sequence is AFFINITY, COMMUNICATION, REALITY. The third leg of “REALITY” resolves upward to DUPLICATION, or down to AGREEMENT.” This seems right – beingness comes first, and also one has to be in the space in order to perceive.
Some other relevant excerpts you (and whoever) may find interesting:
—————————————————————————
Careful consideration will yield this relation [1. be, 2. do, 3 have ] and analogous triangles to The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the energy of a particle may be known, or its location may be known, but not both at the same time. Applied, this means that since life is motion and change, then if you “have” something you have stopped it and all the life (motion) goes out of it. This is why people with a lot of havingness, a lot of possessions, get sort of solid. They are stopped. That may be a backdoor way to describe what is wrong with us in this universe — too much havingness, and everything too solid and stopped. This also chillingly validates the view of matter being “dead theta.”
“1.” is the observer, we who create things.
“2.” is a particle in motion whose energy is known but location is unknown because it keeps changing.
“3.” is a particle whose location is known, but whose energy (motion) has been stopped and is therefore unknown.
I call this the Heisenberg Triangle.
So these primal triangles relate to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which to my mind validates Heisenberg more than the other way around!…
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the energy of a particle may be known, or its location may be known, but not both at the same time. Applied, this means that since life is motion and change, then if you “have” something you have stopped it and all the life (motion) goes out of it. This is why people with a lot of havingness, a lot of possessions, get sort of solid. They are stopped. That may be a backdoor way to describe what is wrong with us in this universe — too much havingness, and everything too solid and stopped. This also chillingly validates the view of matter being “dead theta.”
“…in order to accomplish the as-isness, the thetan must BE the thing created — AFFINITY, remember? And what is AFFINITY but willingness to BE a SPACE? So BE of be-do-have is also AFFINITY and creation of a SPACE & what’s in that space…”
[Here’s a triangle for Vin]
Knowingness – perception – memory
…This would have to be the triangle behind the Know to Mystery scale. (Definitely not the KRC triangle.) In the ascending version of this triangle memory is recovered as in processing, removing the not-is from Knowingness. In the descending version, memory accumulates mass and not-is until it is unconfrontable and lost to view…”
————————————————————————————–.
One other point on your post: “The triangle was never an equilateral. It was always as skewed and arbitrary as the manifestation of understanding by the observer.” Somewhere (I could easily find the reference, a basic book) LRH says the same thing about it not being an equilateral triangle, but says it’s due to Communication being by far the senior corner.
Correction on: “And maybe the hard-link-cornered triangle is just the Planck second space between the motion toward a new creation, the shifting of particles.”
Not sure what I was thinking there. Here’s the main thing – I don’t think you got this but I personally never saw a valid example that showed the triangle theory was falsified. (I can explain again if you want.) What I do see is that the triangle may appear to be skewed momentarily, right before there is a shift from one triangle (with the corners all level) to the next triangle that the Being assumes. It may not be an equilateral triangle, as you say, but whatever the pattern is, it will again be present in the “new” triangle, as I see it.
I tried to give an example of that in my last post above. Did you get the idea?
Hey Marildi, Would you say the statement in the following example is generally true or generally false?
EXAMPLE: You communicate (a positive+ activity) with someone in a way which is unreal to them (a negative- activity) thus increasing their unreality (a negative – result), hence their affinity and thusly their understanding decreases (a negative- result).
I think my conception is similar to that of this guy Ouran, but he may communicate it (plus additional ideas) better to you in the excerpt below. Note that I had already formed the idea above before discovering this guy’s writings. It doesn’t necessarily prove the two of us are right just because we came up with pretty much the same idea independently, but I think it does somewhat indicate that I haven’t just mimicked somebody’s contrived idea and that we both may have found some truth.
———————————————————————————
The “R” of the ARC triangle stands for reality. But there are two sorts of “reality.” One is duplication. In that sort of reality a person duplicates the viewpoint of another person and they share reality by having the same points of view. Another sort of reality is agreement. Agreement consists of holding the same anchor points in space as another, but holding them from a different location (i.e. not being at those locations)… [He gives some examples.]
In the first example, I am teaching with affinity [high tone]. Your views are important to me. So we communicate freely and achieve mutual duplication. In the second example, I have no affinity [low tone] for your ideas on the subject. The communication is one direction… Duplication occurs at two or more terminals, therefore the physical universe apparency is of interchange along two-directional comm lines. One-way flows go black and drop to the bottom of the tone scale…
It was LRH’s mistake because he failed to perceive that each major triangle was actually two triangles: a white one and a black one… To say it in Scn terms, he failed to confront the lower scale “R” of the ARC triangle, therefore it persisted. The more he failed to confront it, the bigger it became, and after some years the white triangle vanished under a wave of SO force: “What does your material state?”, “Make it go right!” and other black ARC.
The moral of this story is that one should duplicate the realities of others. This means reality as duplication, not reality as agreement.
http://www.freezoneearth.org/ghostdanse/GD29.html
————————————————————————-
I consider the above a more detailed way of talking about the ARC triangle (I guess mine is too) than LRH’s, but not a way of saying it isn’t a basic phenomenon.
On a different page is this:
“REALITY is solidified, lied-about agreement without actually achieving the as-isness which is true theta agreement. OR it is spiritual duplication. “ http://www.freezoneearth.org/ghostdanse/GD7.html
Generally false.
I’m referring to Chris’ question to Marildi just above.
How so Val?
Chris, scratch that first reply of mine. Let me try again. The simple answer to your question is – generally false.
The thing that kept showing up the most with virtually all us, on this and the thread that follows (“A Challenge for Scientologists”), was an MU on what Reality in a comm cycle actually is – by definition. Per Dn 55, it is the R of the comm cycle itself, the R between those two people as regards that comm cycle – specifically, the “degree of duplication” by receipt point of the C that was emanated from cause point. And therefore, if receipt point is able to fully duplicate the C of cause point – which would include a duplication of the R and A of the Communication – in so doing, what else could there be but a match of tone level? And to the degree there was any lack of duplication, there would have been a lack of C and thus a lack of R and to that degree the ARC triangle would not be in operation.
In other words, to the degree that there is communication (C), you would then have duplication (R) and a matching of A between cause and receipt points (even if only briefly), and the ARC triangle would be in operation.
And My point in this thread still stands unrefuted.
So then we have proved that any activation of any point of the ARC triangle results in an ?increase in ARC? Including the ARC break? Said differently, “any upset” results in “increased ARC?” Or did we possibly falsify the ARC break as legitimate phenomena?
Geir, would you mind saying how so?
Yes. I have repeated it at least ten times on this thread. I am done.
Okay, I can understand that. I just wondered what you comment meant as a reply to mine. But I hear you. 🙂
Chris, using the extreme of a full Communication, I tried to make the point that the resulting R (full duplication) at receipt point would match that of the C with its A, i.e. the ARC triangle would be manifesting. Likewise, if there were a misduplication – to whatever degree – that would only be the result of a less than full communication, to the same degree. In other words, to the degree that one corner of the triangle is actually in existence, the other corners will match – showing that A-R-C always go together.
ARC breaks I see as being in a different frame of reference than that of a single comm cycle – and this is where other uses of R come in (the ones people were consistently confusing with the R of a comm cycle). For instance, the example you gave above is talking about a Reality that was there BEFORE the communication even occurred. That is the Reality that got broken – i.e. an ARC break occured. In other words, “I duplicate what you are saying” is not the same as “My (existing) reality in agreement with what you are saying.”
1. Specifically, I do not agree with your use of duplication and agreement as synonymous.
2. I believe if your proof would be allowed to stand, then you would have falsified the possibility of an emotional upset.
I always try to duplicate another’s communication. I routinely agree with another’s communication and it is my goal to reach agreement when sending communication but it is not the goal of my receiving communication. And yet the more pan-determined I become, the more I do want to agree with another communication toward me, yet not compulsively.
Interestingly to me I am taking a new look at “understanding” as a goal. Do I have to agree in order to understand? This is a different angle at another possible falsification if one must agree to understand.
So understanding for me is what occurs in the moment of cognition. I do come into an agreement at this point. Thus understanding would have to occur to assume another’s point of view. Thus pan-determinism must be present to agree with another’s point of view.
I don’t think I’ve made a new argument for ARC necessarily increasing due to activating one of the three points. What I see is ARC necessarily changing by an activation of any or all of the corners of the triangle. The change might be an increase or it might be a decrease.
This would also be consistent with a mathematics of growing infinitely in either direction. Otherwise, one has somewhat of a ratcheting mechanism which can only move in one direction — up. This seems inconsistent to me. What do you think?
Chris and Geir, maybe at last I can express what I’m trying to say with a simple example that shows why people mistakenly think the ARC triangle doesn’t work: Person A communicates “apples” to Person B, who disagrees with “apples” – and yet Person B does not feel any less Affinity for Person A. The conclusion that is drawn from such an example is that the R went down but the A didn’t – seeming to prove that the corners do not rise and fall together. However, what is missed is that Person B is only in disagreement with that one communication from Person A – he is not in disagreement with Person A in general and his Affinity in general is not based on just that one communication.
Also Chris, you said: “1. Specifically, I do not agree with your use of duplication and agreement as synonymous.”
For the record here let me repeat what I’ve said before: It’s not just my use, it’s LRH’s definitions as follows:
Tech Dict: reality is composed of the DEGREE OF DUPLICATION possible, and this is also describable under the heading of AGREEMENT. Reality is a quality which depends upon duplication and in the action of duplication expertly or poorly done, we find AGREEMENT and DISAGREEMENT.
Dn 55: “The DEGREE OF AGREEMENT reached between A and B, in this communication cycle, becomes THEIR REALITY.”
What if he likes the fact that he disagrees with apple, likes to disagree with apples and feels this disagreement gives meaning to his life?
“What if he likes the fact that he disagrees with apple, likes to disagree with apples and feels this disagreement gives meaning to his life?”
I see that as entirely possible but I don’t think it fits in with the ARC triangle theory, for this reason – the definition of communication in the context of the ARC triangle theory, is: “an interchange of ideas between two terminals (people).” (POW)
In as much as you’ve stated, at least, there is no communication (as per the above definition) and thus there is no ARC triangle either.
So what if he likes to disagree with the person regarding apples?
I don’t get exactly what you have in mind. Can you be specific as to which corner is either increasing or decreasing while both of the other two don’t.
He disagrees with person A saying Apple (R down). He likes this disagreement (A up).
Okay, I see it this way: he has a low R (disagreement) with “Apple” – but a high R and high A for “Not Apple.” On “Apple” itself, his R/agreement is low and his A for “Apple” would also be low. Two different subjects.
What if he likes Apples, but doesn’t understand Apples?
There must be something about apples that he understands, because he has Affinity for apples and he obviously has R on apples, and has Communicated with apples. And ARC = U.
What if he likes Apples more as he Understands it less?
Ha ha! Very tricky. 🙂 I had to think about that one.
But it’s a contradiction in terms. The same scenario as the earlier one – a rise in A could only result from a rise in R because of a rise in C and thus there would be a rise in U. 🙂
So, you are saying that it is impossible for a person to like something more all the while he understands it less?
Yes. It’s unreal. Couldn’t be real because it’s a contradiction in terms.
So, it would be equally unreal that a person started to dislike something he understood better?
Can you please give an example?
You said that one cannot like something more as Understanding is lowered. Then it logically follows that one cannot like something less as Understanding increases. Right?
Although it happens that I did ace my Logic class way back, I must admit it’s pretty rusty. But here’s an example that shows some sort of illogic in the above:
Pete has a friend named Joe. He receives a Communication about some out-ethics activities of Joe’s, which he fully duplicates (high R) and Understands (high U). The corners are all level in this “exchange of ideas between two terminals” – i.e. the C part of the ARC triangle.
Pete then starts to like Joe less, based on (1) his increased Understanding of Joe, as well as (2) an already existing R/disagreement as concerns out-ethics. That particular R is what people refer to as “his” R (or “my R”) – it’s different from the R of the comm cycle Pete just had, which is “their R,” as per Dn 55. In other words, we’re talking about two different R’s here.
(Hey, I’m getting this better myself. I tried an example like this once before but I couldn’t clarify the particulars as well :-).)
You are reverting to a real life example of the latter part of the sentence. Now, back to the question:
“You said that one cannot like something more as Understanding is lowered. Then it logically follows that one cannot like something less as Understanding increases. Right?”
I am only asking you if you can see the logic that if it is impossible to like something more while your understanding of the same is lowered (which you said cannot happen), then it follows that you cannot like something less as your understanding of the same increases – given that the corners of the ARC are fixed.
Just answer that; True or False?
p.s. You are right that the second datum (liking something less as Understanding increases) “logically follows” the first (its opposite) and I should have started the example above by saying the same thing I had said about the first datum – that it’s a contradiction of terms, which both are. The example itself, however, infers the contradiction, since it shows how it only Appears that one can like something less while Understanding increases.
In the first case (liking something more as Understanding decreases) besides saying that it was a contradiction in terms, I should also have given an example of how it might Appear to be that way. But anyway, it would be the same principle as in the example above of its opposite.
In either case, if it appeared to be that way there would have to have been the addition of an arbitrary – such as another “R” (as in my example) or as I’ve said in the past there might be some consideration that could override the mechanics of the ARC triangle. The bottom line, as I still see it, is that the mechanics themselves are there – always. But it is also true that for all intents and purposes those mechanics are “invisible” or “not there.” This may actually be the main point you have been trying to get across, in which case I think both of us have a point, (Would you agree?) Or was your point about falsification the main one?
So, if I describe to you a situation where someone’s understanding of something increases, the person’s affinity of that very thing decreases, then your interpretation of the ARC triangle is falsified, right?
Okay, as I described above, I see the ARC mechanics as always in play – and it could never be any other way since A, R, and C are really manifestations of the same thing. I see that They are as inextricably bound as anything could be. At the same time, I see that considerations can make it appear that those mechanics don’t always manifest. To me, that apparency seems actually to be the creation/manifestation of another, different ARC triangle – based on the person’s “own R” (as in my example) or else the “R” of a new consideration, i.e. a newly created “own R.” Either way, that R is still part of some ARC triangle – because again, A-R-C exist together. Actually, if I my understanding of fractal sequence is correct, that is what is going on.
So assuming the above description is correct, I guess the question is in fact just what you asked – does this constitute a falsification? And I’m not sure how to answer it! It’s the old frame of reference thing, it seems. Maybe you have a suggestion.
Believe me, I’m not just being stubborn. I’m doing my best to look at this, and I’m being honest about what I see. I don’t have to be right – really. It’s just that I have hated the idea of negating about the most basic principle in Scn – if to do so is incorrect. My viewpoint has been that this would create a true crashing MU in people – and you are an OL, after all. On the other hand, if what you say is correct then it would probably be just as misleading for people to see it otherwise. So I’m really, really glad that you decided to give it another go with me. 🙂 It shouldn’t take long now!
“So assuming the above description is correct, I guess the question is in fact just what you asked – does this constitute a falsification?”
Figure out how to answer that and I will comment further.
I read your comment and thought what a good teacher you are. And I think I told you that once before too.
Okay, since you’re forcing me to think for myself 🙂 it seems to me that the theory obviously does preclude certain behavior and is thus easily falsifiable. It could also be considered to be incomplete as stated, since it does not include anything about the fractal nature of ARC (assuming I’ve got that right). If the aspect of fractal sequence were included then I think that it would basically be a description or analysis of all activities of beings in the physical universe. I guess that would make the theory a tautology and maybe that’s why LRH did not include it, besides the fact that it wiykd be too esoteric to be useful.
As for its usefulness, with respect to individual instances it CAN be a prediction of behavior, but not uniformly so due to considerations. (I should include with those considerations such things as engram commands and training patterns.) However, if we’re looking at the average of behavior, the general behavior of an individual, the theory is more useful. Exactly how useful I think depends on what percentage of the time there are no extraneous considerations involved. And according to LRH, that percentage is high enough that he did consider the triangle to be a tool for prediction – if you take into consideration more than just one column of the Chart, as certain columns might differ from the chronic tone due to case factors or training (as in education). My personal observation is that people do have chronic tone.
I guess you’ll tell me where you think my reasoning is off. 🙂
Next assignment: List 15 social situations that CANNOT happen according to your interpretation of the theory of ARC.
Maybe I don’t understand the assignment. Here is “my interpretation”:
The ARC triangle theory involving only the ARC of a comm cycle is easily falsifiable. But with addition of the Chart of Human Evaluation and all its columns used as a prediction tool, LRH included such modifiers or limiters as aberration and training patterns. I have added to that the factor of considerations of any type, which LRH essentially did too with the datum “considerations are senior to mechanics,” although it’s not part of the ARC triangle theory per se.
With all of the above as “my interpretation,” I have essentially taken into consideration everything that could possibly happen. Thus there is no social situation that CANNOT happen. Maybe this is a tautology but there still seems to be a useful tool involved in this tautology.
And right there you have nullified the ARC theory as a valid theory and prediction tool. Congratulations on an excellent logic breakdown of this theory.
I do get that to qualify as a “valid theory” a theory must preclude some things. But let’s just call it an observation – isn’t it true that people do have chronic tone levels that are stable for given periods of time and thus their behavior can be predicted?
You just nullified the predictive value of the ARC theory. Don’t go back on that now and say that it is a valid predictive tool. If however you are adamant on vindicating this theory (I really do not understand why unless it is some knee-jerk reaction to anything that smells of falsification of anything Scientology or LRH), then I can give you a hint; If the theory as it stands cannot preclude any social situations, it is a useless fundamental principle of a tool. But, you may add that it can be used to predict a majority of situations and that it is a type of forecasting tool. Although LRH does indeed not present it as such (ref. Self Analysis, Science of Survival and the Obnosis bulletin), you would have to present the full scope of such a theory before attempting to use it in predicting important social situations. This would have to include percentages of correct forecasting for any class of social situations, something that LRH never even attempted as he presented the theory as perfect in the first place. It may, may, be salvaged as a forecasting tool but with adequate disclaimer such as: The theory of ARC correctly predicts the behavior of angry spouses in Western European countries in 78% of the situations. It predicts human behavior in stressful situations of war in only 23% of the cases, etc.
Let’s quote Popper here for reference:
“The two psycho-analytic theories were in a different class. They were simply non-testable, irrefutable. There was no conceivable human behavior which could contradict them. This does not mean that Freud and Adler were not seeing certain things correctly; I personally do not doubt that much of what they say is of considerable importance, and may well play its part one day in a psychological science which is testable. But it does mean that those “clinical observations” which analysts naïvely believe confirm their theory cannot do this any more than the daily confirmations which astrologers find in their practice.“
Thank you! That is exactly what I meant and all I meant.
“Although LRH does indeed not present it as such (ref. Self Analysis, Science of Survival and the Obnosis bulletin).”
Actually, he does state in SOS the qualification that some columns may not reflect the chronic tone, indirectly saying that in those situations you for sure would not be able to predict the tone level by the known chronic tone. He also says in Self Analysis that necessity level can raise a person on the chart for brief periods. And of course there’s always the possibility of messing up prediction by means of any old consideration at all, as stated by “considerations are senior.”
But in any case, I never got that LRH said it was a tool to predict individual situations. Do you know of such a reference? I did get that he presented it as a tool to predict overall behavior. And it seems to me you make a good point about an adequate disclaimer. (Your examples were amusing too :-)) But probably the main use of the ARC triangle is the use of the Chart by auditors, as a tool for them to be able to spot the chronic tone of a pc and then use the appropriate auditing procedures. That was the gist of SOS.
“…you would have to present the full scope of such a theory before attempting to use it in predicting important social situations.”
That was basically my idea as regards it being incomplete.
Yes, to be honest I notice sometimes I do have an impulse to defend LRH, to some degree, but I like to think I’m capable of putting it aside pretty well. Sometimes I’ve wondered if you have the opposite impulse :-). Do you think that is true at all? Not to make you wrong, I’m just curious. And my wondering may have been nothing more than a reflection of my own impulses, LOL.
I can’t tell you how much better I feel about this now that it’s pretty much sorted out between us. 🙂
In Self Analysis he presents it as a general prediction tool (as SA is not a book For auditors per se). Also in the Obnosis bulletin and in the Human Evaluation lectures.
And; You are welcome.
So, my conclusion; Do not bet important situations on the usage of the ARC triangle, tone scale or the Chart of Human Evaluation. Take this with portions of salt.
p.s. Oops, I left out the quote I was referring to at the beginning of my post:
“But, you may add that it can be used to predict a majority of situations and that it is a type of forecasting tool.”
Thank you! That is exactly what I meant and all I meant.
Portions and not just a pinch, eh? Oh well, ya can’t win ’em all. 🙂
So there you were, about to make a clean getaway and then you went and included the tone scale…? Whatcha mean?
Well, this was my point all the time. Read through this thread once more 🙂
As a predictive tool as presented by LRH, the ARC triangle is on par with the two theories covered by Popper and linked in the OP.
Okay, teach’.
(Actually I got it, just teasing. :-))
So you don’t take the dare to explain why you included the tone scale? I guess you don’t feel like working that hard. 😀
The Tone Scale is the scale of affinity – one of the corners of the ARC triangle – and the link between the ARC triangle and the Chart of Human Evaluation. So, all three are subject to the same issues; That of faulty predictions (i.e. low or no preclusion rate).
Okay, if you mean “guilt by association,” I get you. But there’s great value in knowing the tone scale and in spotting tones. If you have the tone level already manifested before you, you can respond appropriately. It’s a sort of short-range predictive tool for the very immediate future.
Thanks again. You are appreciated! 🙂
Oh I agree fully with the value of spotting tones – just don’t bet your life on predicting the actions of the robber in front of you based on the Chart of Human Evaluation – which is a very close associate to the Tone Scale.
No disagreement from me about keeping in mind that prediction is not a sure bet, just a good one (except for the more rare, “wartime-23%” kind of thing). That’s one of the points I became so much more aware of with the two threads, as well as my MU’s. Did the whole “experience” (I ask gingerly, LOL) add to your own viewpoint in any specific way? It’s obvious that you had already studied the subject very thoroughly – but still…
I think we’ve only left out one important thing in all this recapitulation. And that’s the valuable use of ARC as a tool to raise someone’s tone level. From my concept of it, this use seems to be more workable than any other, i.e. not just a majority of the time but virtually all the time. And based on the reference about rehabilitating ARC, it’s arguable that it may have been the real use LRH intended, rather than for prediction (except for auditors, as per SOS), because he does state his own disclaimers on that.
“I think we’ve only left out one important thing in all this recapitulation. And that’s the valuable use of ARC as a tool to raise someone’s tone level. From my concept of it, this use seems to be more workable than any other, i.e. not just a majority of the time but virtually all the time.”
This I agree with fully.
“And based on the reference about rehabilitating ARC, it’s arguable that it may have been the real use LRH intended, rather than for prediction (except for auditors, as per SOS), because he does state his own disclaimers on that.”
It may have started out that way – but very quickly it became a tool he sold for real life predictions – ref. the Human Evaluation Tapes.
As for my own learning on this thread; It is much clearer for me that ARC is more of a guideline for improving conditions than it is a tool for prediction. The Considerations are senior to… ARC among other things is also clearer. And this is good.
Cool!!! I was hoping you would say something like that. You put in a lot of time and effort (much of it on me! :-)) and I give you a lot of the credit for all I learned (even though it was kind of mean of you to make me think for myself :-D). Actually, it was like a course, with a great “practical” at the end on the ARC triangle itself. And I think my twin and I passed. :-).
Of course – stated that way it absolutely can and does happen all the time. The problem with this example, like others, is that it isn’t actually expressing what LRH described as the ARC triangle, per my understanding of the definitions of A, R and C. Let me try to explain, re-phrasing what I attempted in my reply to you upstream (hopefully clearer this time).
What I think happens is that in any comm cycle there is an A that gets impelled along with the C, which may or may not match the A of receipt point. Likewise, the IDEA impelled in the C and how it is expressed is its own R and that R either does or doesn’t take into account the R at receipt point. Now, if in the Communication, the A does match (relatively, let’s say) that of receipt point; and if the idea itself and the way it’s expressed, i.e. the R in the Communication, takes into account (matches) the R of receipt point, then the C will be duplicated and understood at receipt point.
Expressed in simple ARC triangle theory terms – this would be an example of a high tone level of ARC at cause point resulting in a high level at receipt point. The reverse of this example would result in a low level at receipt point. That’s how I’ve analyzed it down to the last iota. 🙂
HOWEVER, despite a high duplication, the R, and high U at receipt point, the idea impelled in C may in fact collide with receipt point’s own idea/R on the matter and in recognizing that – depending on the level of his own ARC and ability to BE another and HAVE another’s viewpoint – he might (and probably in most cases does) feel a lowered A and lower agreement (R) with cause point and his C (his DO) would go down correspondingly (or commensurately). This would be a description of acute tone level change – as well as the fractal thread of ARC which ebbs and flows continuously in life. It’s such a dynamic proposition!
Bascially, I do see the basis of human relations (maybe otherwise too) as being the ARC triangle, with its forever-linked corners due to the simple fact that each one of those manifestations are always intimately and intricately and inextricably involved as a single manifestation of the same thing, theta operating in the physical universe.
Sorry Chris, this was in direct reply to your last post and should have been placed under it. My post above was an afterthought to this one.