Recently I started a thread on this blog questioning one of the Scientology basic philosophical principles. Out of this came a challenge for the scientologists readers:
Ask 5 non-scientologist the following questions:
- 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?
Then briefly explain the ARC triangle to them and say:
“These three terms are interdependent one upon the other, and when one drops the other
two drop also. When one rises the other two rise also.”
Ask if they believe this statement is true. If you like, write the results here by leaving a comment.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Geir, do you want to rebuild people’s faith in Scientology? 🙂
When looking into Scientology and seeing how LRH screwed his own principles and built a fascist organization, my “faith” will not grow even slightly. The ARC triangle can work but sectioning out the true and false data from the ocean of Scientology data would be a lifelong mission. There are other worthwhile things to do in my opinion. Or if a team could do that’s fine but I hope, LRH and Scientology will not ever be deified, cause it does not deserve.
And if someone would ever do this sorting out, the naming of the correct source would be as well extremely important.
I’m on a mission for truth. I see Scientology as a good starting point in many areas. Lifelong mission; Yes, I am on a lifelong mission. Several in fact.
gOD,
How do you know there is either true or false data in the ocean of Scientology data, unless you have in fact sorted it out for yourself?
What a defeatist attitude you carry. Doesn’t it get heavy?
… and when they ask what is ARC triangle, explain them, it is Scientology data and direct them to the nearest Church of Scientology 😀
What! No Scientologists here?
.
After more than 500 posts on the other thread, I find it interesting.
The only reason I found this was because of your last reply to me on that earlier thread. Didn’t get the usual email notification.
Ah, OK. It went out on Facebook and Twitter, and on the FZ and IVY mailing lists. It produced an interesting buzz of… silence. Now you know to check the front page of the blog as well from time to time 🙂
Glad to see you here.
Oh, I thought we could depend on those email notifications – so we can’t, then?
Thanks for the welcome. 🙂
Weird that the e-mail notification failed…
Sorry, I just double-checked and now see that I did get it.
You better be. You need a course in KHTK. 😉
.
After seeing Geir and Marildi go back and forth on the subject of ARC on the previous thread, I feel tired about this subject. I feel it is too complicated, and I am ready to give up. I don’t plan to look at the subject of ARC for some time to come.
I prefer simplicity, and not the attempts at “skinning hair.”
.
Tired? Now, you know that is a symptom of MU’s. Better stick around and get them cleared up.
I think you have an MU on The Three Barriers of Study if you think tiredness is symptom of MU.
Now report to Cramming, i.e. to me, because I used to be a Cramming Officer at Flag.
.
From Tech Dict def of dope-off: “the phenomenon of a person getting tired, sleepy, foggy (as though doped). One of the phenomena of going past a misunderstood word.”
You must be getting rusty, Vinaire. 🙂
I am not feeling dopey at all. It is more like the following:
(1) Education in the absence of the mass in which the technology will be involved is very hard on the student.
It actually makes him feel squashed. Makes him feel bent, sort of spinny, sort of dead, bored, exasperated.
If he is studying the doingness of something in which the mass is absent this will be the result.
I think what you were guys were doing was trying to fit everything to the theory, rather than looking at what is really out there. You lost me long time ago.
.
That last paragraph is a good summary of my point. I find that scientologists all to often will try to fit the world to a scientology theory rather than realize that the theory doesn’t quite fit the real world.
These Scientology datums, and formulas, are so loose that, when applied in a rote manner by starry-eyed Scientologists, they end up resulting in wrong indications.
.
Point taken, both of you. I’ll try to keep it in mind. A work in progress, as you guys like to say. 🙂
Vinnie,
She said ‘dope-off’ , not ‘dopey’.
Squashed, bent, spinny, dead, bored exasperated, tired, & dope-off all have specific definitions and specific phenomena.
As Marildi said … you are a bit rusty on the barriers 🙂
Dennis, I’m going to assume that Vin simply misspoke and didn’t mean “tired,” because that is clearly in the definition I quoted above.. I’ll give him a break – one time only. 🙂
That MUs can result in tiredness does not mean that all tiredness comes from MUs.
Absolutely true. It was just that he indicated his tiredness was a result of the discussion. Then he really stuck his foot in his mouth when he replied, “I think you have an MU on The Three Barriers of Study if you think tiredness is symptom of MU.” Saying he was “rusty” was pretty kind. 😉
Some Scientologists remind me of Jehovah Witnesses. They go by the word with no sense applied. They are literal.
Geir made the correct indication.
.
Marildi: ” Dennis, I’m going to assume that Vin simply misspoke and didn’t mean “tired,” because that is clearly in the definition I quoted above.. I’ll give him a break – one time only. 🙂 ”
I will too 🙂
My apologies if I was misunderstood.
Not misunderstood by me, Dennis. Vinaire may have used the wrong word when he said “tired” – might have meant “sort of dead” or bored. But he did goof on not knowing what tired manifests. Anyway, all is well…
Some Scientologists seem to be trigger happy. Instead of duplicating the viewpoint of the other person, they take the easier way of interpreting the words used by person in their own way, and then using that interpretation for their own purpose. They may use it to even make the other person wrong.
It seems that for such people, their own viewpoint is more important than the viewpoint of the other person. And when that happens, no communication is possible.
More sensible people will take pains to understand the viewpoint of the other person before responding.
.
I find that the ARC triangle has some workablity to it but I also see that some ARC breaks can’t be fixed. An auditor once told me that when I used to be the good little follower.
I find that the auditor is correct for the ARC Break between me and him has never been fixed and I doubt it ever will be. I noted that when something has been broken in any comm line most times it is unfixable and often the more communication a person attempts the worse it gets so now I withdraw when I see nothing is going to work.
So LRH was not totally correct and I would like to see a peer review to weed out the crap from the tech.
I have never in my life experienced any ARC break that was unfixable.
What about the OP – did you do the exercise?
That is you. I have had unfixable one’s and that is fact. Once something has been done often it can’t be forgotten easily.
I don’t know what OP is.
Barb
OP = Original Post (the actual blog post at the top)
Yes, that is me. And I believe that Anything can be fixed. Anything. Maybe not with the tools you have tried – but I do believe anything can be fixed. And I believe you are able to fix it.
That is theory only. Not fact. Even in the Resouce based economy world nothing is going to be that perfect.
I am not trying any more as I said it is unfixable and I tried for 8 years and I quit.
If this ARC is fixed then I would believe in the gold at the end of the rainbow but maybe their is. LOL.
I find leaving an ARC break works best as the argument can’t continue with disappointment for I find they get worse if you don’t.
I find you can’t say what you think and if you do boy does that get one into trouble.
Sometimes they can be fixed but it is not often by my view.
Barb,
You need something that you can do yourself to fix the unwanted condition.
Please check out KHTK.
.
Barb, I shall take up the challenge to fix your ARCX, which Isene just pooh poo’d.
The reason some ARCX’s cannot be fixed Scientology style is because the Scientology process cannot address the fixidity of “self”. Self is not the ultimate essence in the form of individuality as assumed in Scientology.
Would you like to fix your ARCX?
By the way, I won’t be fixing your ARCX. I may just guide you so that you may fix it. You can, of course, do it. 🙂
.
Thanks and at one time I was really up to fixing it but I am not so sure any more. This being is not the being he used to be so so long ago.
How you you fix something when the comm line is totally broken and I quit trying to even communicate as there is laws on such things.
It would be nice to have it at an end just for my own. I can’t think of the world. Calmness or cleaner self space.
I don’t follow the tech like I used to. I have seen that it has limits and the reasons that it does. It explains why people even in the OT levels can be brainwashed and auditing don’t handle that.
I still know auditing can help but I no longer think it can fix anything and be anything like I used to. In my case I have celiac and it effects my thinking and emotions. No auditing is going to fix that but some says it will cure it. I highly doubt it will like it don’t cure diabetics.
I been observing out here for the last ten years. I been mocked because I get sick and have gotten upset because of such. Celiac I recently found out causes a leaky brain syndrome.
I find that I was picked at more in the FZ than I ever was in the real world. Some are good people there but I got a lot of right wing church think which I don’t want any part of any more.
So I take what works. Yeah it would be nice to end something hanging over my head but for the last year or two it did not matter as much as it used to. I quit trying.
Barb, there’s a bulletin called, “Physically ill pc’s and pre-OTs” (or pretty close to that). Sorry I don’t have it to quote from, but my recall backs you up.
It basically explains that it’s not all spiritual with physical illness and that some things just belong to the body. It does, however, state as well that ULTIMATELY it is spiritual, and what that means to me is that if you were fully OT, you could change physical things including illness.
I should have said too that I think auditing or some other tech of Scientology can help still help you. 🙂
I find that harmony within me also produces harmony with others and with the environment around me. So, I simply focus on harmony within me.
At any time I simply pick up the inconsistency that rises up in my mind and look at it non-judgmentally and without resistance till it dissipates. This simple action keeps me happy. I don’t feel need for any auditing.
I wish you all the best in your effort to find harmony. I write about my philosophy on my blog. Probably a click on my name here will get you there.
.
Barb,
I do understand where you’re coming from and that it can leave a pretty bad taste in one’s mouth – even to the point of physical reaction.
As for the FZ – yes, there are good & not-so-good out there. It’s like shopping … you may have to kick the tires until you find someone who you feel comfortable with and who really duplicates your scene.
There are many good people out there.
I you need a few recommendations, feel free to ask.
Dennis
A being is a living thing. Formulas like the ARC triangle and their applications are reduced knowledge. Tricks. That’s why it does not always work. I actually hate when I saw Scientologists using the formula to achieve something to their ends even if it is just raising the “other two corners”. Manipulate the totally ignorant, please:) No, do not manipulate even those. But the ARC triangle is made up for the purpose of raising the other two corners. So for manipulation. You can try to deny it but it is basically true.
The only and the only “manipulation” is forgivable when it is done with goodwill. But goodwill is rather rarely mentioned in the whole subject of Scientology. Only Total Freedom is mentioned only the Bridge is mentioned as a substitute for goodwill for which you have to pay and devote your whole life. Without actually getting anywhere (except a very few). That is manipulation. Introduce the subject of goodwill, please and you are free to use formulas. And introduce honesty regarding the workability ratio of the formula. And the formulas will work.
“But the ARC triangle is made up for the purpose of raising the other two corners. So for manipulation. ”
That statement is not logical. It is a (big) leap of logic – and I suspect it comes from your emotional desire that it was true (correct me if I am wrong). It does not logically follow that the purpose is for manipulation just because it was made for the purpose of raising the two other corners, at least not manipulation in any negative sense. Also, how do you know it was made for that purpose and not simply as an observation of how humans interact?
“reduced knowledge”. goodwill is indispensable. goodwill is missing from the formula. tone scale is one thing but intention is other. that underlies the tone scale.
how you communicate? what is your ability to raise your own reality? what is the ability of the other person to raise his reality?
a girl’s affinity will not raise to the level of love just because you communicate “do fish swim?”:) there are other factors.
we have this formula and we can’t see the wood from the trees.
otherwise the formula is not bad at all but do not be the slave of it:)
gOD (clever moniker, btw), I think you are basically right. There definitely are things that underlie ARC, such as considerations and postulates – and intention, like you said. And I think goodwill would fall into the category of intention.
The ARC Triangle is meant to be USED in a certain way, not to be the slave of it, and you are correct about that too. We use it by raising one corner, usually the C, and we can do that by communicating about something real to the person – the R corner. And we can also use the A corner by communicating at the right tone level. That’s the way we “see the wood from the trees.” Good expression, I’ve only heard something like “see the forest from the trees” or “the trees from the forest.” Yours is taking it even more basic! I guess we should also “see the trees from the wood.” 🙂
and yes, manipulation, because you say: how can I do something with this someone? who knows if he wants you to do that? therefore it is manipulation.
example: I want to sell him this book. so I communicate with him about this book and he will have more reality of this book, so I can sell him better. 80-90% use of the triangle is for manipulation for our own purpose. even if unknowingly.
I wasn’t denying that it Can be used for manipulation. I was simply refuting your logic.
Gee, must be rough going shopping in a mall … all that manipulation.
Now that you mention it, that Starbuck’s kid seemed to have a real seedy look on his face when he suggested cinnamon on my cappuccino.
Thanks for the heads up … I’ll watch that little manipulator in the future 🙂
… and come to think of it (now that you have me in session), I remember a little grey-haired lady in Barnes & Noble ‘suggesting’ a book to read.
Can ya believe it !!??!! Suggesting … suggestions … hypnotic …. yikes!!
Where’s Vinny … bail me out arrrrg
gggg
hhhh
…… .
Dennis, try out some KHTK exercises. 🙂
They are totally free, and you have the choice to do them or not.
.
I am sorry but it is manipulation. You are trying to get someone to respond how you want them to by doing so.
People often notice when you are doing it too and blow you off for doing manipulation.
Eh?
I think Sincerity is a factor that has to be considered. Barb talks about others using ARC as manipulation, and if one asks the question, “Is this affinity, reality, or communication truly sincere?”, the answer will tell you if that person is trying to manipulate you.
People have very well-tuned sincerity detectors, I have found. That is why they often mistrust or don’t like politicians, used car salesmen, et al.
Sincere, heart-felt Affinity, Reality, and Communication, either individually or working together, can be magical. And beneficial.
Good point, John. And the thing that people detect is actually part of the comm and would be included in a fully duplicated communication.
You can’t have sincerity unless you let go of self completely, or view self as part of the communication particle.
Self and viewpoint at “both ends of a communication line” are actually part of the communication particle. This is missed in Scientology.
.
I agree and my son would know when I tried that and you know what I quit it.
We do better without it.
Yes it is manipulation. I find if good will is there it is and if not then not. I move on when it is not.
Quote: ” I actually hate when I saw Scientologists using the formula to achieve something to their ends even if it is just raising the “other two corners”. Manipulate the totally ignorant, please:) No, do not manipulate even those. But the ARC triangle is made up for the purpose of raising the other two corners. So for manipulation. You can try to deny it but it is basically true. ”
Well, it’s unfortunate that you had people ‘manipulating’ you … that’s not ARC – it sounds pretty covert to me. I have seen it done many times myself and generally found those individuals of questionable character. 🙂
ARC is natural … similar to you trying to console a kid who just skinned his knee. Innately, you would like to help & see that person do better, or well.
It’s quite obvious to me that you may have had some rough times.
Understanding ARC and the components and having a good comm cycle can produce wonders – and none of it ‘manipulative’ at all.
Your mention of questionable characters reminded me of the following:
Message 18816
.
Geir,
You are really doing Scientology exactly as Hubbard said it should be done.
That is: Evaluating and building a better bridge.
The way Hubbard said it should be done when he was tone 4 and talking to those tone 3 and above.
He established the idea of “standard tech” for those 2.5 and below.
That is those who do not have enough theta units to think for themselves ( the sheople) .
Hubbard was a pro at inventing data and speaking at people’s tone levels and a great story teller ( in the real world those types are sometimes called con men) .
Read Excalibur Revisited by Geoffrey Filbert; Geoffrey says that only one tenth of one percent of what Hubbard said was true.
Much of the bridge was invented as a result of pressure from the group, ….. the “group” as Hubbard described to John MacMaster, as people who were scientologists because they needed to be some thing ( some kind of “ist” ) and did not know who they were or what they were, and what to “be” or who to “be” so they decided they wanted to be scientologists.
Out of necessity Hubbard had to keep on creating fodder for the flock for almost 30 yrs.
( Like every preacher does every week. )
To Hubbard it became a business of selling data to build a bridge, which really does not go anywhere.
Some one recently said it went up but not across the chasm.
Filbert said it was a situation where the person was following a carrot on a stick, but he did not know that the stick was fixed to his own back. That is the billion yr contract. Only a fool would sign that. It is a trap for fools.
Being a Scientologist is actually a limitation.
I am an intelligent, responsible, loving unlimited free spirit. Within that definition I can be anything and everything. I can be a Scientologist, a Christian, a Buddist , a Muslim, a Hindu and on and on.
For more information read TROM by Dennis Stevens and Excalibur Revisited by Geoffrey Filbert.
To gOD who posted about refining the Scientology bridge: That was done by Geoffrey Filbert in “Excalibur Revisited”. He gleaned the one tenth of one percent as was mentioned above.
Rolf Dane also did a similar thing in “Clearbird”.
There may be others that I am not aware of.
On the same line of thought where in Scientology you are required to define a word in your own words to pass, if you can’t, you flunk.
Same goes for the bridge, if you can’t build your own bridge and build a better bridge, you flunked Scientology.
Standard tech is for those who flunked Scientology.
Diogenese II
Still looking for a sane man.
( Diogenese : an ancient Greek Philosopher who Hubbard said was known for going around town looking into houses with a lantern looking for a sane man.)
I shut off the posts here. It seems like Geir has changed and his responses to some of my posts were a bit of a put down in my thinking.
This is his blog so it is as he wishes. I bow out.
Please don’t. I believe in you. And I believe in your power to fix anything. That’s all.
Any spiritual practice is most beneficial when it is practiced by oneself. No other person can know you as well as you know yourself.
An insane or sick person may need very specific help (and that is how Hubbard got started), but an average person may need only simple guidance that is quite general. Somebody telling him what to do about his case would only be a shot in the dark, no matter how good is the theory behind that advice.
In a spiritual practice advice should be kept to a minimum; and that advice should be very general. It should provide the broadest scope to the person to charter his or her own course. Better than advice is simple discussion that provides another person with the opportunity to air the things that doesn’t make sense to him, and total freedom to derive his own understanding from that discussion.
I like the idea of studying the knowledge in Scientology with an open mind along with Wikipedia and other sources available to me. Because that gives me the most freedom to think. I don’t like to be straitjacketed with the requirement of a closed mind, which a cult demands. I want to learn and practice the knowledge that I find most beneficial to me.
I do not like the idea of some “C/S” evaluating my case and telling me what I need to do to improve spiritually. I just want to keep good company and learn from that good company on my own terms. If I like a process I may ask a friend, whom I can trust, to run that process on me.
Any spiritual help should be exchanged with spiritual help freely. A fee may be charged only when there is a good amount of labor involved, and there is a mutual need. Money should never be the motivation when giving spiritual help.
That is how I feel.
.
On the thread “Questioning Scientology Basics: ARC” Maria posted the following LRH quote, which I think is applicable to this discussion:
“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 Maria’s 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.”
And this was my comment in a reply:
Geir, let’s take the apparent “vagary of ARC” (meaning, something that shouldn’t happen with the ARC triangle) that you just gave as a possible 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 the Questioning Scn 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.
(I think Maria made a great contribution to the discussion about the ARC triangle.)
And over at that thread I answered something to the effect of: This does not change the fact that LRH presented in many places a hard link in the motion of the factors in the triangle. At best he is contradicting himself. And with Maria’s quote it is an incomplete theory even.
I had that same response at first and started looking in different books to see exactly what he said, and I looked carefully at the wording. So far I haven’t seen anything that would contradict the above quote. If you know of one, I would like to know too.
I will find it. But apart from that – if that interpretation of that quote would be the theory in whole it must be one of the worst presented theories I have seen – because All the scientologists I have spoken to about this understands the theory as a hard link. And if that would be how LRH presents his theories, then I would think that more than 90% of what he has written would have to be misunderstood also. I mean, if one has to carefully interpret such a basic thing as ARC, then it does not bode well for the rest of the tech.
Then again, false data can spread like wildfire. But I’m truly interested to see just how he did present the theory, considering such without having that datum (true or false) in mind.
That fales datum must have spread directly from the surroundings of LRH since old timers also have that understanding. I would be flabbergasted if one would have to interpret it like that to make it fit.
But Geir, isn’t it possible the false datum, if it is one, got started with the old timers?
I think you’re right, though, we should see the other references.
False datum starts from confusion. And many a time confusion has started from Hubbard because he was not precise enough, or scientific in other words.
.
I could answer “yes” to all of the questions above and I am a Scientologist. Sometimes more communication = less reality. Sometime no reality = big affinity (curiosity) Yes, I believe in love at first sight (no communication or reality) because it happened to me, twice. I believe the ARC triangle has some truth behind the theory, but Hubbard himself said, “There are no absolutes”. That in itself was his theory. I have experienced absolutes too. The thing with the Scientology is you just have to see where these theories can and would work and use them if you can to improve conditions. More than A,R, or C, I have found tolerance and mercy to be key factors in making any relationship positive. The Sea Org members have this datum about ARC, but without tolerance and mercy and granting of beingness it falls by the wayside like a label come off a soup can flying in the wind.
Nice 🙂
theoracle,
After seeing the LRH quote which I put in my post just above yours, what I get is that tolerance and mercy and granting of beingness would essentially be included as factors in the ARC triangle theory, and with them missing you wouldn’t be able to raise ARC.
Apparently, what LRH was saying about this triangle was, first, if one corner goes DOWN, the others will also. And from the references I’ve looked at, unless I’m missing a reference to the contrary this isn’t said about a corner going UP.
The other thing he said was that if the corners do go down, you can causatively bring them back up again – rehabilitate them, as he put it. But the way you do that is by applying certain Scn tech, including correct tone level and other things such as the ones you mentioned.
Not so:
“These three terms are interdependent one upon the other, and when one drops the other two drop also. When one rises the other two rise also. It is only necessary to improve one corner of this very valuable triangle in Scientology in order to improve the remaining two corners. It is only necessary to improve two corners of the triangle to improve the third.” (POW)
LRH’s use of the word “improve,” rather than “goes up” or some such, indicates that he is talking about deliberate efforts to “rehabilitate” the ARC.
I thought more about the way LRH presented the theory, when you said in the thread above, “…if the interpretation of that quote would be the theory in whole it must be one of the worst presented theories I have seen – because All the scientologists I have spoken to about this understands the theory as a hard link. And if that would be how LRH presents his theories, then I would think that more than 90% of what he has written would have to be misunderstood also. I mean, if one has to carefully interpret such a basic thing as ARC, then it does not bode well for the rest of the tech.”
Perhaps if LRH had simply stated that when one corner goes up the other two will also, it could easily have been misinterpreted. In other words, people could assume that by simply communicating MORE, meaning more words or more often or something on that order, that would be increasing the C. But in fact, lots of “words” going back and forth isn’t necessarily increasing C. The C won’t actually arrive if other factors besides lots of words aren’t present. And that’s why there’s a whole tech to rehabilitating ARC.
It seems to me LRH has done this kind of thing regarding other things too and later stated why he did, but I can’t remember now what they were – I do have that concept, though and it may come to me.
I wasn’t talking about MORE communication – I was talking about more QUALITY communication.
There is no getting around the fact that LRH says “When one rises the other two rise also.”
I appreciate your mental Aikido in trying to help LRH or the ARC theory not loose face. But this is getting a bit ridiculous. Because if your interpretations (and that is what they are) are correct, then he made a communication about his theory so poorly that 99%+ of the scientologists on Earth misunderstood him and end up avidly defending this hard-link view that is indefensible. That same scientologists end up with blind spots – social situations they cannot see because the theory prohibits them from happening. They keep on trying to fit reality to the theory and not the other way as it should be. I have talked to scores of scientologists about this. I have held seminars to hundreds on the ARC triangle. And I know for a fact that all the scientologists I have talked to about this have the idea that you cannot have a situation where the A goes down while the C stays the same or goes up etc. … until you really show them, make them recall, demonstrate that such situations do exist. When they finally come around to admit that the situations can occur, they do one of two things: 1) Get confused, hurt or bewildered, or 2) Goes into mental Aikido mode. In fact, this happens regardless of what tech in Scientology that gets questioned, be it ARC, KRC, the tone scale, conditions, the Axioms, The factors, the rest. And I am not here talking about group or cult dynamics. I am talking about the danger of accepting stable data without proper examination and then not be open for it to still be wrong. Progress toward truth relies on one’s ability to not believe, to not defend, to not cherish data and to keep one’s eye on what really matters, the progress, the improvement.
Good post by Isene.
I think Scientologists are afraid to let go of their faith in Scientology data (being 100% correct), because they are afraid of losing their gains if they do so.
That means, they believe that their gains are dependent on Scientology data being correct. That is hell of a dependency.
Such gains are not real gains in my view.
.
Firstly, I have already agreed on the point that “There is no getting around the fact that LRH says “When one rises the other two rise also.” I don’t know why you continue to belabor it. Don’t you remember my comment in the other thread after you found the quote “ARC form a triangle the corners of which are all at a single level,” where I stated it actually made sense to me since ARC are manifestations of the same thing. I am not denying the hard link at this point! I’m only saying that LRH didn’t specifically STATE that a rise on one will precipitate a rise on the other two and that he may have had his reasons. Furthermore, in that same exchange I then went on to also state why, to me, the hard link still does not get yours and others’ examples to the contrary out of the category of vagaries. But the exchange between us has evolved since that comment and isn’t quite finished yet, so we’ll see.
Thanks for appreciating my mental Aikido, but what I really, really, really wish that you could appreciate is that I am NOT trying to help LRH or the ARC theory “loose face”! Please try to imagine the possibility of that actually being true – and that I am “open for it to be wrong.” My OWN, personal sense of the ARC triangle theory is that it is valid, and I honestly have not yet seen it disproved.
Also, I am not trying to “interpret” LRH. I’m only trying to understand exactly what he meant – through aligning all the things he said and by looking at each of them carefully. And just as you have seen Scientologists “accepting stable data without proper examination and then not be open for it to still be wrong,” I have seen Scientologists who are critical of those stable data who also cherish their ideas and are not open for them to be wrong. Mainly, I observed that quite a bit as a long-time word clearer and saw time after time that their ideas and criticalness and confusion and mental Aikido were based on MUs (and I learned that the reality fit with the theory). So I don’t easily accept criticisms, knowing that MU’s COULD be the reason – as well as other possible reasons for not doing a “proper examination.” But I also consider the possibility that the critics might be right!
One last thing is that I fully agree that what really matters is progress and improvement. That’s the precise reason I would not like to see a piece of basic truth misconstrued to be false (IF that’s the case) as this would obviously not be progress or improvement but the reverse.
The “defense” rests. 🙂
I realize at this point that no matter what I say, you will hold on to the theory being correct. That is despite having tested this on several scientologists and non-scientologists and you remain the only one that cannot see the falsification. Anyone else reading this and protests, please raise your hand. Fact: LRH says it is a hard link. You say it is a hard link. 100% of the people I have asked can see almost any combination of a skewed triangle being possible AS WELL AS almost any possible combination of motions up and down in the corners of the triangle. That gives 100% agreement on falsification of the theory as presented by LRH (minus you). And if you were correct, then LRH was here a terrible communicator, scientist and presenter of theories. And one should then start to seriously question all of his theories, because we could than just as easily have false positives (where something he presented is actually – also according to you – blatantly wrong while it seems reasonable).
I rest my case.
“I realize at this point that no matter what I say, you will hold on to the theory being correct.”
Could that be true for you yourself? It’s strange that you keep going back to the point about hard link when I’ve assured you several times that I am not saying that. It’s the straw man fallacy and that isn’t like you.
By the way I think there was one other besides myself who did not agree with your “interpretation” that the ARC triangle is not valid – Maria. And that puts me in very good company. But this is an ad populum fallacy anyway that you are using, which again isn’t like you and makes me wonder even more about your own defensiveness on the subject, sorry to have to say about my favorite blog meister. 🙂
hehe. I felt you were vacillating somewhat in your argumentation – that is why I belabored the point. As for the ad populum fallacy, it is not really so – because it is Tested on many people – a bit different than Just many coinciding viewpoints.
Tested on many people, you say. Would you be referring there to those people you “asked”? Sort of like a straw poll? Not exactly scientific. (tsk tsk) And I believe you said the results were 100%? Oh yeah, VERY different from “Just many coinciding viewpoints.” 🙂
But all banter aside, I had one last request. You asked me a question and I looked at it sincerely and answered sincerely. So now, as turnabout is fair play, I would like to have you answer a question too.
Here it is: Just before you began to disagree with the ARC triangle theory, what were you into?
Then please let me know.
Not into anything special – as I said I am on a continual quest for truth.
Tested on many people: I did the OP on people and the outcome validates that those people find several instances from their own life where the hard link is broken.
Now, did you do the exercise yet?
I’ll answer your question next but let’s please complete the first cycle first. Got it on not anything special, I know you’re into lots of things. But what popped to mind, or now comes to mind, when you consider that question?
Nothing in particular actually.
“Nothing in particular actually.”
Okay, fair enough. Thanks for answering.
P.S. Just to let you know, the reason I wanted to check that question out was that you seemed to be a bit more heated in the discussion than your usual aplomb. That might have been a misperception on my part. Or, I could have misinterpetated the meaning.
From “Scientology 8-8008”:
“ARC form a triangle the corners of which are all at a single level. Thus if one wishes to create an increase of tone for the preclear — and one must do that to increase his self- determinism — he will find that he cannot raise the emotional state of the preclear without also addressing the reality and communication of the preclear. He cannot raise the reality of the preclear without addressing his affinity and communication problems. He cannot raise communication with the preclear without addressing his reality and affinity problems.”
The first sentence in that paragraph is core to the theory.
“ARC form a triangle the corners of which are all at a single level,”
I looked at that and thought it totally makes sense when you consider that each of the three are manifestations of the same thing. But to me, neither does it confict with the other LRH quote or your example of, “I can cut down my affinity for something while increasing communication with it.”
Here’s why, using your example. When the affinity goes down, at that point the communication and reality will actually do so too. Your R decreases due to decreased agreement, and your C will decrease as well along with your lower A and R – i.e. you are going to be less inclined toward C. Thus, the three do remain at a single level and this aligns with the other LRH quote, “One can’t cut down one without cutting down the other two…”
Nope – I can have them at different levels. All at the same time. In the same instance.
I’m trying to imagine that. I mean, you may continue to have words going back and forth but with less A and R how high can that C actually be?
As I said – I have experienced A going up through quality communication. I have also experienced A going down. Or R. Both ways.
By now someone should have been able to actually do the exercise proposed in this blog post. Anyone care to report the results?
But my point was, the actual Quality of your C would decrease to whatever degree when your A went down.
It didn’t. And it doesn’t necessarily. Me and my wife have disagreements, the A can go down while we sort out our disagreements – and the sorting out means higher and higher quality of communication; Like this: R is a bit down. C goes up to fix it. A goes down along the way. C continues up (yes the quality) while A and R goes down. Then R goes up and A goes up. C flattens while A and R goes up. Then C is not much needed and goes a bit down while R and A still goes up. It varies with the situation. Almost any combination is possible as far as I can see.
I have no doubt that you and your wife are capable of doing a very good job of REHABILITATING the ARC between you. I’m sure the two of you apply the Scn principles needed – which is what rehabilitation is all about, as a matter of fact.
Here are some quotes from the definitive book on Communication, Dn 55, as regards Intention:
“Of some greater importance is the fact that the Intention to be received on the part of A, places upon A the necessity of being DuplicatABLE…
“There is another fine point about communication and that is ‘expectancy.’
“Basically all things are considerations. We CONSIDER that things are and so they ARE. [my caps, replacing LRH’s italics]. The idea is always senior to the mechanics of energy, space, time, mass.”
.
So you are right, because of considerations, “almost any combination is POSSIBLE.”
And therefore the hard link shown by the 8-8008 quote and the POW quote is falsified.
marildi; What would happen if ARCU was proven wrong? What is the worst consequence?
Here is another one from Phonix Lectures: “The basic principle here is that as one raises or lowers any of the three corners of this triangle, the others are raised or lowered”
One must redefine and interpret to make this “right”.
“What would happen if ARCU was proven wrong? What is the worst consequence?”
That’s a good question here – and a good piece of tech in general (and I appreciate your intention in using it on me. :-)) And I’m willing.
Actually, I’ve been thinking about that off and on myself (while considering my concession speech [he he] because I had a feeling there was no way I was ever going to impinge on your viewpoint). But anyway, being the cooperative pc that I am I’m now looking at the question more.
Basically, I think it might affect some of your readers who might then become dissuaded about Scientology in general. And that would be unfortunate, from my point of view, because I don’t happen to think there is any comparison between the outpoints of true Scn (whatever they are or may show to be) and the tremendous value of it. Now, the actual number of those so affected might not be great, but then again it could ripple into something not so tiny. But if I tell you that it wouldn’t greatly upset me since I have a pretty positive outlook in general, would you even believe me? 😉
Another thing that could happen is that you, Geir, if it’s true that you are laboring under a false notion, would not be well served. And I don’t like that idea either. (You sure you want to “rest your case?” Funny comeback!)
One incidental thing that could happen is that this energizing contest of mental Aikido sparring would be all over. 😦 But besides that more or less secondary aspect, there is also the fact that I’ve been learning a lot from you and others posting on this subject – about the ARC triangle itself (ha!), about science(!), and about communication and ARC (ironically enough), Oh yeah, I’ve also learned a bit about writing and feel like I may have improved on that – which goes to show what intention can do for anything whatsoever.
By the way, did you know that the translation of Aikido is “the Way of unifying (with) life energy” or “the Way of harmonious spirit”? (Wikipedia) So how could even the mental version be less than energizing? But no matter, I’m sure there will be other points for us all to debate, or just have a fun or interesting or enlightening discussion on. 🙂
It is energizing (the mental Aikid, albeit tiresome in the long run). But you do know that I love you.
I suspect your apprehension about the consequences of ARC/LRH being wrong is clouding your judgment in the direction of truth. As for any negative consequences on myself; do not worry, I am a work in progress and will always be 😉
Now consider this one single statement again: “ARC form a triangle the corners of which are all at a single level,” With this you cannot ever understand something you do not like. You cannot understand something with which you disagree. With this we can conclude that LRH never understood psychology or psychiatry.
P.S. One thing I learned about science is that some very respected theories, embracing what are considered “laws,” can be superseded by improved ones – such as Newton’s, superseded by Einstein’s, which is now superseded by quantum physics. The ARC triangle theory, developed way back in ’51, seems itself to have been superseded by LRH’s own “considerations are senior to mechanics.”
I learned that theories and their laws are valid in the context they were intended for and even though others have superseded them they are still valid in their own context – including each of those science theories mentioned and including the ARC Triangle.
That’s all, folks. 🙂
+1
+1? Does this mean that we can agree to the fact that the ARC triangle is valid in its own context? C’mon, Geir, say yes! That would make this exchange an outstanding proof of communication (once again dissolving all things) and the rest of the ARC triangle at work as a fabulous tool…okay okay, along with the other one of consideration and intention. 🙂
Deal or no deal? (I know what a good businessman you are.)
It is useful as a tool or reminder on what to focus on in communicating with others (I’ve said this before). As a tool for predicting human behaviour it is useless.
“Now consider this one single statement again: “ARC form a triangle the corners of which are all at a single level,” With this you cannot ever understand something you do not like. You cannot understand something with which you disagree. With this we can conclude that LRH never understood psychology or psychiatry.”
True. Unless you go out of the context of the ARC triangle and into that of considerations being senior. (touche’?)
And with that the whole use of the ARC triangle went out the window as a prediction tool. As I said it is a useless catch-all phrase – “Oh, the ARC theory works…. except when it doesn’t… which is quite often”. So forget the Chart of Human Evaluation. It is then useless in so many cases – can’t trust it.
“True. Unless you go out of the context of the ARC triangle and into that of considerations being senior. (touche’?)”
A parallel: If Newton also said “Physical reality is senior to physical theories”, then that would not make his theory of gravity any more correct.
That LRH said “Consideration is senior to mechanics” does not make the ARC theory any more correct.
You admit that there are exceptions to the hard links. Now that indicates room for improvement right there. Now, let’s embark upon improving the ARC theory, shall we?
I do get what you’re saying about the ARC triangle being useful as a tool and yet can’t be depended on for prediction. (Take a win! That wasn’t easy – for either of us. ;-)) And per what I see (1) it’s useful as a tool in terms of rehabilitation of ARC, and (2) unable to be depended on because of the factor of consideration. Would you agree with those interpretations?
However, there’s still something that nags at me. It is my understanding that C/S’es use the Chart of Human Eval to note the pc’s “change of position (or lack of) as evident from the pc folder and so forth.” (I found that quote online in the Pretended PTS issue of ’84.) Obviously, this then would mean it does work as a tool for prediction. What do you say about that?
Hey, I know I’ve been trying you’re patience, perseverance and perspicacity. And I love you for sticking in there with me. But I think you almost have as much a product as you’re ever going to get, probably to no fault of your own. 🙂
P.S. Last sentence should begin with And instead of But or it communicates something different from what I was trying to say.
“I do get what you’re saying about the ARC triangle being useful as a tool and yet can’t be depended on for prediction. (Take a win! That wasn’t easy – for either of us. 😉 ) And per what I see (1) it’s useful as a tool in terms of rehabilitation of ARC, and (2) unable to be depended on because of the factor of consideration. Would you agree with those interpretations?”
I agree fully.
“However, there’s still something that nags at me. It is my understanding that C/S’es use the Chart of Human Eval to note the pc’s “change of position (or lack of) as evident from the pc folder and so forth.” (I found that quote online in the Pretended PTS issue of ’84.) Obviously, this then would mean it does work as a tool for prediction. What do you say about that?”
I was planning to do another blog post on this – because there is an inconsistency in the tools used by the C/S. The main tool is the OCA where the levels across some of the Human Evaluation chart varies wildly, while LRH says the levels are fixed on the Chart itself. Makes no sense.
“The main tool is the OCA where the levels across some of the Human Evaluation chart varies wildly…”
I didn’t know about that. Can you tell me the reference, especially as to how the OCA is used exactly? This is a key point.
I have read every reference there is regarding the OCA as well as the full history of the test. Check out the red volume index for bulletins referring to the OCA. You probably also know that it is standard procedure to take the test before any major service (for C/S purposes) and after to verify results and for further C/S’ing.
Yes, I do know about taking the test before and after any major service, for C/S purposes. Specifically what I don’t get is what you meant by “The main tool is the OCA where the levels across some of the Human Evaluation chart varies wildly.” How exactly does the OCA indicate a wild variation in the levels of the Chart? (I no longer have my Tech Vols, so I hope you can state the answer to that briefly.)
Several points on the OCA corresponds to the Chart of Human Evaluation; Reality = H, Affinity = I, Communication = J, Responsibility = G etc. The test shows various and actual levels on these columns on the chart. The tech of the chart says “no-no” => Inconsistency.
Thanks. I forgot about the headings on the OCA columns and the fact that some of them correspond to the Chart columns.
I’m thinking that the test actually shows social tones more than chronic, like the Chart. Social tones are a matter of social conditioning, education, environment, that sort of thing, and thus are more arbitrary – which could account for inconsistency across the columns. But social tone may be useful to the C/S somehow, anyway.
So, a person on chronic tone anger is exactly equal across all those columns as any and all other people on chronic tone anger?
The OCA sees what the person is in life – the test is stable over time if the D trait is above +32, I’d say that’s about as chronic it gets.
“The OCA sees what the person is in life – the test is stable over time if the D trait is above +32, I’d say that’s about as chronic it gets.”
I was thinking the OCA sees what the person CONSIDERS he is in life, and even this would be assuming he is answering honestly. But I guess there are references that go into all this and from what you’ve said, you’ve already looked at them.
“So, a person on chronic tone anger is exactly equal across all those columns as any and all other people on chronic tone anger?”
LRH answered this in SOS where he described differences in volume and quality of theta and then stated specifically that this is what would account for those strange differences. But I can hear the coming reply – “thus the Chart is invalidated.” (You see, I have been paying attention. I hope Vinnie notices that also. ;-))
The OCA pretty much tells you how the person operates in life.
I looked at that refence in SOS and I don’t think LRH is actually saying there would be differences in tone level, rather in such things as intelligence and force of personality.
I know – that is why I question the validity of the Chart – either the chronic tone level cannot monitor all columns or there is something wrong with the concept of Chronic Tone Level.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-7375
Marildi said at the link above:
”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.”
The point you are making comes from fixation on self. This fixation is the error that underlies all of Scientology. “Same place” is a consideration. What is occupying that place is also a consideration. “Self” is a consideration.
In looking, there is no fixation on self, or a fixation on self to be occupying some place.
In looking, one simply looks. There is no resistance. There is no judgmental viewpoint. Any judgmental viewpoint is a fixation. Any resistance is due to fixation.
KHTK is so simple that it cuts through all fixations.
NOTE: KHTK is an effort to express the core ideas of Buddhism. This knowledge is totally free as it always was.
.
When we speak of self, it’s in a certain context of agreements. You seem to be viewing things and speaking from another context – another view-point – and it may be just as valid for all I know. Peace?
Self seems to be the ultimate condition of sensory input. Please see
KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY
.
We have witnessed here between Geir and Marildi something called a DEBATE.
In a debate, the debaters are committed to their points of view, and mean to win the debate, either by persuading the opponent, proving their argument correct, or proving the opponent’s argument incorrect — thus, either a judge or a jury must decide who wins the debate.
I prefer the dialectical method, which is a dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments. Socrates championed this method.
I believe that the difference lies in the desire of a participant… whether he wants to be right, or, whether he wants to discover the truth.
Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
.
When two people are trying hard to get across their own viewpoint, while unwilling to duplicate the other person’s viewpoint, there is no communication taking place.
Debate is NOT communication.
.
🙂
Vin, by now you’ve seen my last comment, which was posted a few hours before yours:
“I do get what you’re saying about the ARC triangle being useful as a tool and yet can’t be depended on for prediction…”
So, you see, there actually was Communication taking place, which was followed by duplication and Understanding. Have I restored your faith in Scientologists? And in the ARC triangle? And in debate? 🙂
This debate has been going on for 2 days now. It is boring like hell.
I don’t see any product so far in the department of increased understanding. I just see lot of wheels spinning.
I am about to chuck this thread.
.
And we are about to move onto improving the theory of ARC. Stay tuned or tune out; Your choice 😉
That’s already been done. Check out KHTK.
I think that a discussion on KHTK materials is going to be much more fruitful.
Maybe Buddha is still ahead of the times.
.
Vinaire, it may or may not be true the KHTK is a better theory than ARC = U, but right now the idea is to improve on that theory. Maybe it’s possible to align the basic principles of KHTK with ARC, as a direction for improving it. If you can do just that, you may convince a lot of people to take an interest in KHTK. In other words speak to them in their own “language,” the one they know.
I see convincing as a harmonic of hypnotism, so I don’t think I am interested in doing that. I’ll only recommend people to take a look at KHTK on their own if they wish to.
Here we are talking about ARC. From that perspective KHTK is pure C. If one focuses on the purity of communication then the purity of affinity and reality will follow.
I find C (communication) to be totally screwed up in Scientology because whole of Scientology is based on a fixation on self or beingness (individuality).
.
“totally screwed up”…
I am going to ignore your bullet-rants until you go and get a good day again.
Vinaire, I can understand it getting boring. But even though it did take too long, there was a product. Please re-read my post again and you’ll see that there was an increase of understanding.
Scientology seems to put one in a mindset when that person is not willing to look at another person’s viewpoint.
Thus, Scientology tends to inhibit real communication.
In Scientology, there seems to be a lot of talk, but there is little walking per that talk. That seems to be the case right from Hubbard down.
.
Vinaire,
The majority of your last few posts contain huge generalities.
If it fine that you are an anti-scientologist, but your insistence on being ‘right’, or ‘better than Hubbard’, or having the ‘I know; you don’t attitude’ doesn’t lend itself well to good debate.
You continually bring up scientologists as if we are all a bunch of blind sheep and fail to differentiate between what goes on in the church and outside the church.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but many of the things you accuse those hypnotised scientologists and Hubbard of doing, you do yourself.
Afterall, you were the one reprimanding us from bringing it up all the time.
I learn from some of your postings, but the majority have outpoints galore.
A little more granting of beingness (right or wrong) would be in order.
Thanks
+1
I doubt very much if you know what a generality means because if you knew that to be wrong, you wouldn’t be using it. Labeling me as an anti-Scientologist cancels out your whole post in my mind. I don’t think you know what you are talking about. It is not even worth taking up.
Take a good look at each point you are criticizing me for, and then take a good look at yourself. Then meditate on the term “wog.” You may become a one-shot clear.
.
Hubbard did prefer “close minds” to “open minds.” That always troubled me right from the beginning.
.
Really?
When did he tell you this?
It was on one of those tests, not IQ or OCA, but a third one that measured reaction time or something. One scored high if one gave preference for “closed mind.”
.
You are probably referring to the Aptitude Test.
That is correct. After one had taken the Aptitude test a few times, one knew to select “closed mind” in order to score high.
.
Well, there are many situations in life where a narrow focus is important. One must e able to focus.
Then Hubbard should have used the phrase “narrow focus” and not “closed mind”. You are making it sound as if Hubbard had a misunderstood. I don’t think he did.
Look up the definition of “closed mind” at Dictionary.com.
.
Take a look at the Aptitude Test – where do you find anything about “Closed Mind” there?
How do I do that? I am not in the Church any more.
.
I remember the test pretty well – and I saw nothing about “closed minds” in there.
I tried to find it on the Net, but nope. I also don’t have it in my files.
Anyone have a copy of the test pack?
But I did (it could be some other test), and it always amazed me because it was so out of character of what I thought Scientology to be.
But it doesn’t surprise me now.
.
It’s not the Aptitude test, the IQ or the OCA at least.
Vinaire, you may be thinking about some questions on the aptitude test that related to ideas in KSW 1. I know that if HCO staff wanted to get your score higher on the Aptitude test, what they did was to have you read that issue. The questions that related might have been concerning leadership – e.g. whether or not an organization should have a single person at the head of it or a group.
Come to think of it, there was a Leadership test too, wasn’t there?
Yes, and a Tone Scale test. It’s in the scientometric testing package.
Geir said, “You admit that there are exceptions to the hard links. Now that indicates room for improvement right there. Now, let’s embark upon improving the ARC theory, shall we?”
Taking the example you used, in which the more C you had with a friend the less you liked him (A) or agreed with him (R) – i.e. the A and R decreased as a result of increased C, contrary to the way the ARC triangle is supposed to work. I came up with an explanation for why A and R decreased, as follows: Prior to when the increased C occurred, you had come to the conclusion and thus had a consideration that honesty isn’t okay. So when the increased C showed that he was dishonest, instead of going up the A and R went down.
I’m thinking now that the R you had about dishonesty would have been a result of C just prior to that R – meaning, there was an ARC triangle existing at that earlier time. So what I see, then, are two ARC triangles in conflict with one another. The question would be – which one takes precedence thus determining whether the A and R would go down or not. Off the top of my head, I imagine that it would depend which had the most volume. What do you (or anybody) think of this line of reasoning?
Oh! Gawwwwwwwwwd!
Why do some people like to make life so complicated!
.
My post was intended as a step toward working out a better formulation of the ARC Triangle theory. It seems to me that before the simple truth can be arrived at, you might go through some complicated thinking. I’m sure you know that too!
Criticism can help sometimes but you can also contribute something constructive, anytime now. 😉
Let’s start with a basic premise and have a look at it:
U = A + R + C
or is it:
U = A * R * C
or
U = xA + yR + zC | {x,y,z} are some variables
And do we fully agree that A, R and C are the only components of Understanding?
Looking at my ARC toward thread… it is going down, down, down to the rock bottom.
There is just a record playing… a boring one too.
There is no communication.
.
Stop whining.
Whining is better than this debate.
.
And then Vin kept on whining. This isn’t like you.
Now this would be a real test of ARC.
At least we have some communication now. Let’s see what the real tone level is.
And what the reality is.
.
Looking at how you react to the above communication of mine you can have a pretty good idea of your own tone level and reality.
.
Vin, do you know what tone level follows after boredom? It’s antagonism.
Or maybe your feeling critical is the manifestation of an MU, already at the point of second phenomenon. But if I were to try asking you if there was something in the debate you didn’t understand, would you just bat it back at me – as in the tone of antagonism?
Anyway, I gotta give you credit, this much volume of misemotion seems to indicate a pretty good native volume of theta. 🙂
hehe
Aim – Fire – Hit
That is quite motivational, indeed. Hubbard was very good at that.
.
Your off the cuff evaluation, and wrong indication, is a hallmark of a Scientologist.
.
Chill.
I am already chilled and ready to be served.
That comment was for for Marildi, and her harping on MUs. These are new ways to invalidate another person post-Scientology. Only a Scientologist uses them.
The flaw is in the communication formula as presented in Axiom 28. That axiom does not account for the duplication of the viewpoint/self at either end of the communication line.
Now it would be interesting to find out where invalidation fits in Axiom 28. It is there because Scientologists are good at it. I am simply trying to keep up with them.
.
“The flaw is in the communication formula as presented in Axiom 28. That axiom does not account for the duplication of the viewpoint/self at either end of the communication line.”
That’s interesting. Do you mean being in the same place as the other end of the line? Or what? Seriously, I’m interested in this one.
I believe I mentioned somewhere else on this thread that viewpoint, or self, has to be part of the communication particle, but this is not included in Axiom 28.
.
The more I think about it the more it makes sense!
Yes, I am going down tone on this thread. It reminds me of a cow sitting down and regurgitating and chewing on what it ate earlier.
.
Having a bad day much?
Oh! I don’t know. I am thinking of going back to mathematics now. There is no use playing flute to water buffalos here.
.
Don’t whine-quit. That is even more pathetic than a rage-quit.
These words are just “manipulation” words.
Don’t worry I shall be back to annoy everybody once this silly thread is over. Right now there is nothing exciting for me here.
.
And still you continue to be excited about it. Think about that for a split second.
“There is no use playing flute to water buffalos here.”
But I love flute music! (except when it has a bad “tone” :-))
.
You also said, “Yes, I am going down tone on this thread. It reminds me of a cow sitting down and regurgitating and chewing on what it ate earlier.”
I kid you not, Vinaire, I laughed out loud on that one. Very funny!
The formula might even be A = R = C = U.
The corner of A=proximity means that receipt point is near enough to perceive=C and thus be able to duplicate=R and with that duplication comes U. It seems to me that A and R and C and U all take place simultaneously, not in a sequence as in A + R + C = U. Here’s why: U occurs at the moment R occurs, which is at the moment C has fully arrived; and A, or proximity/nearness, has to exist at that moment C arrives.
This also explains how it is that A, R and C are each manifestations of the same thing and thus equate to each other. They do not occur independently but are interdependent in their existence. And now it seems that U should also be included as one of the manifestations of the same thing as it occurs simultaneously with R and the others. Also, since Life is Understanding, or Life=U, then Life would be another manifestation of “the same thing.”
So I was trying to figure out what each and every one of these would be a manifestation of, if U and Life are just two additional manifestations which themselves equate with A-R-C. Somce :ife is “basically a Static,” that which is manifested must be Static – it is actually Static as manifested.
So the expanded formula would be:
Static –> Life = U = A = R = C
(That was a very interesting exercise, fruitful or not!)
typo near the bottom: “Somce :ife…” should be “Since Life…”
Since Life is basically a Static, that which is manifested must be Static – it is actually Static as manifested.”
Now that is a misunderstood. Even Hubbard might say that.
.
Ha ha! I read it back and it doesn’t read right to me either! I was basically trying to say something about the quality of a living organism that makes it different from a rock or from the MEST of its own body. Life or Life source is quite unlike MEST and in fact LRH stated that it is “basically” Static. So I got the idea that so-called Static “manifests” itself in the form of “Life.”
Can’t agree with this one as we have already established that there could be instances where A, R and C could have different values. No elasticity = no change.
Right you are. I saw that too when I got to the end. Posted it anyway in case someone could do something with it from there.
But I do know what your going for. Back to the old drawing board.
When do you sleep?
Very observant of you! I don’t sleep much sometimes. But it’s irregular too – I make my own schedule.
Now go to bed!
Ha ha! I was about to do that when I saw the emails you sent out. And of course I had to see what they were.
Anyway, yes sir!
Okay, I’ve got an idea for an improved ARC triangle. It seems to me the formula needed is the one with the variables of x-y-z.
First of all, I think that Intelligence has to be included as a component of Understanding along with A-R-C. Individuals vary on their ability to duplicate and thus understand. Native intelligence varies from person to person. It’s what LRH calls the quality factor and he says that it’s a separate factor from tone level (which is ARC). But besides LRH’s say-so, this variable is easy to observe.
The other thing that varies among individuals is the strength of their dynamics, also expressed as personal power, force of personality. or persistence. This one LRH calls the volume factor and it too is distinct from tone level. I think this variable would manifest in a person’s Affinity, which per one definition has “a rough parallel in the physical universe of magnetic and gravitic attraction” – in other words, force or power or persistence.
So considering the above, it seems that the formula with the variables makes the most sense, with the addition of intelligence as a component of U: U = xA + yR + zC + IQ
And the way this improved triangle would be applied as a tool is simply by taking into consideration each variable factor of the triangle. For example, say you have an employee who has high intelligence but is not getting enough products or quality products. HIgh intelligence manfests in high R, and you see that his C is good too. That leaves A. So the thing to do would be to increase his A, possibly by getting his necessity level up which you could do with a condition assignment. You could also increase his A with other tech, such as O/W’s or TR’s or auditing. The way you would go about raising the A would depend on available resources and the rest of the situation.
How’s that for a start?
It’s an interesting and good start 🙂
It’s interesting that through all this and all the discussions of the tech around the Net that nobody never objected that IQ was not made part of the components of Understanding. I am ashamed to admit that I didn’t see that at all. Because LRH defines the three properties of a thetan in SoS as Tone, Intelligence and Power and thus made Intelligence outside the realm of ARC and thereby outside the definition of Understanding – which to me seems a clear miss.
Just got back and saw your comment. I took a big mental Aikido win! 🙂
I have to confess that I got the idea about intelligence because it was mentioned in the SOS pages to do with quality (and volume), which I just recently had read. The very fact that those two factors are outside the triangle got me to focus on them as the arbitraries that would cause the triangle to not at times have those hard links – just the type of thing that had to be included in the improved triangle since they must be the ones that cause the dreaded preclusions (my recent nemesis, as you know). Then I thought of the fact that intelligence is already quantisized in the IQ test. So I started thinking about how the 3 corners may already be quantisized too and I thought of the OCA. But the jury (you :-)) I guess has already ruled on that. Or was your point just the fact that it seemed to disprove the Chart? Because if the OCA is valid (or some other test like that) then we have measuring sticks for the corners too…
Next I figured that the one other arbitrary factor of volume must also affect one corner or another, to skew the triangle the way Intelligence would affect Understanding (unless someone falsifies that, but it’s looking good that you yourself haven’t!). Affinity seemed like the corner that would be altered by volume, per its definitions that have to do with space. I quoted the most simple one, though, about the physical universe comparison to volume, both of which concern force. But I think the other defs compare too (they’re just more complicated to explain how). Does it compute to you too that A would be based on volume?
Anyway, there you have it – the Ongoing Evolution of a New ARC Triangle Theory (the book title) – which will take us from a metaphysical Newton to the metaphysics of Einstein – and from there to Quantum Physics! (Oh, the gall of some people – Vinnie is saying. “Don’t encourage her!” :-))
Yes, the corners of the ARC triangle is quantized with the last three points of the OCA test (points: H = R, I = A, J =C). And I think it is now obvious that Intelligence (quantized as IQ) would be the fourth factor of Understanding. It’s an ugly break of symmetry – but I mean, intelligence just has to be a factor in understanding (duh). As for volume… hm… there is also volume in C. Is the volume in R the same as the amounts of beings agreeing to the reality?
“As for volume… hm… there is also volume in C.”
I guess LRH wasn’t saying volume (of whatever amount it is) isn’t part of each corner, just that it has no bearing on the “pitch” – the tone level. You’ve got a certain “pitch” at each point but – per my extrapolation – the A may vary widely in “loudness” compared to the other two, but they still have whatever volume of loudness. Now, if the individual has a comparatively high native volume, I figured his A would be “louder” than the other two corners. Does that seem right to you? And it’s hard for me to conceive how volume would affect C. What are you picturing there? (I’ll be thinking about R in the meantime.)
Well gosh, just now I read this, “Aberration, considered as pitch or tone, is theoretically independent of quality (structure, probably) and volume (theta endowment). The factors of quality and volume would account in part, for the individual differences which may be found in aberrated persons at similar levels of the Tone Scale.”
Another quote: “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.”
I think I better get a good night’s sleep now and then go back to the drawing board, and see how it all looks in a new unit of time.
Today I see things differently from what I had concluded! Vin brought up a definition of intelligence: “the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities.” That defintion says Intelligence is an “ability.” And this ability would differ from person to person according to what LRH says about the Quality factor. Also with that definition it seems Intelligence is a part of either the C or the R corner, whichever has “recognition” in it, but either way it would mean Intelligence is already included in the formula ARC = U. In other words, it’s already a component of U and wouldn’t need to be added.
The other thing I looked at again is the factor of Volume. In addition to “pitch” being a part of each corner of ARC, there’s always some degree of loudness (Volume) with each too. And it now makes no sense that a person’s endowment of theta (his Volume) would be different from one corner to the next, since each of those is an aspect of the same person – i.e. each of A-R-C are just different manifestations of the same thing. My problem is that, while it’s real to me that volume of Affinity varies with individuals, I don’t’ get what volume of C or of R would actually mean – unless it’s just the fact that with C or R the A is always involved.
P.S. But then again, possibly “recognition” does take place at Understanding, which follows upon R. 🙂
It follows – like A and C are also related – but not quite – since there is a difference in people’s intelligence that would not be hard linked to their ability to duplicate or reach agreement.
P.P.S. In other words, first you duplicate the comm and that is R. Then comes an assessment of the data duplicated, which is the recognition of similarities, differences and identies – i.e. intelligence. So Intelligence, a matter of “recognition,” comes after R and leads to U.
So I’m back to seeing it again as a separate and additional component of Understanding!
Agreed.
Right! I Q-A’d with it a bit, but it’s clear to me now that you can duplicate but then you have to ASSESS the data, and to do that you have to have the “ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities” (def of Intelligence) before you can reach Understanding.
“Is the volume in R the same as the amounts of beings agreeing to the reality?”
That was a good question. I couldn’t think what volume of C or R would be, and your question gave me the idea that volume of both C and R would have to do with comm cycles you have at either Cause or Receipt points. At either point you are participating in communication and you get agreements between you and another at both points. So yes, amount (or number) of beings agreeing would be volume of R.
For example, with just your blog alone you have a high volume C and R!
Per Data Series, Intelligence is the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. Thus, intelligence has to do with the ability to perceive.
This would also be the ability to communicate. I would, therefore, put intelligence under pure C, which is covered in KHTK, but not in Axiom 28.
.
Got it. Okay, will have to think about that. I’ll get back!
Okay, Vin, you got me “looking.” And looking through the Data Series, I found something that I think puts that tech in context: “Thus we will not be stressing HOW to think but how to analyze that with which one thinks – which is DATA.” (Data Series 3)
I also thought of a comparison of intelligence with computers. The difference between the hardware and software of a computer is similar (I believe) to the difference between native intelligence (described in SOS as “structure”) and the ability to analyze data, as in Data Series tech. That is to say, a higher-quality computer with better hardware “structure” has greater capacity for memory storage and processes data faster that a lower-quality computer, where both have the same software programs.
So, for now at least, I’m sticking with Intelligence as being a component of Understanding.
Marildi,
I do like your input regarding intelligence. It does seem like a nebulous x factor in itself and duplication does seem to be dependent on it It would be similar to me going to a medical seminar where most of what was being spoken was medical nomenclature … my ability to understand would be minimal at best.
But, where one’s intelligence or environmental education (as in a cleared cannibal’ is at a different level, this too can pose problems.
Tone scale seems to me to be very important in that a person’s ability to duplicate, AND, his willingness to duplicate varies depending on his tone level.
A person in Mild Interest is at the very least is inquisitive – attention is outward, whereas a person in Unexpressed Resentment puts up a ridge. I remember that each of the tones related to a Flow, Ridge or Dispersal. As an example, Anger is a Ridge.
It seems to me that if one is throwing up a ridge on a subject, it becomes difficult and the perception of that person may be that one is trying to convince him of something or force him into communication.
I found that changing the subject for the time being and picking something that was REAL to the person would open the ‘flow’. This is contained in many processes in Grade 0.
How this relates to improving the ARC formula, I don’t know. It seems more of an application of other bits of tech along side the ARC triangle to accomplish the aims of moving upscale.
Your other point on ‘strength of dynamics’ is a great one too. It’s like the amount of space which a person controls. Like you have that person walk into a room and he fills or pervades the space. These are strong individuals who when up the tone scale are a pleasure to communicate with and be around, whereas one of these types low on the Tone Scale can be downright rude, overbearing and thumps the life force of others.
Hi Dennis,
You said, “How this relates to improving the ARC formula, I don’t know. It seems more of an application of other bits of tech along side the ARC triangle to accomplish the aims of moving upscale.” Exactly. The “application of other bits of tech” IS, to me, the whole reason for improving the ARC formula – with an improved one pointing to such tech, at least in a basic way. That’s a hazy abstraction, I know, but you are probably a higher trained and more experienced auditor than most of us and may be better able to conceive of an improvement along those lines. So keep those wheels turning!
I’m now thinking that the other one of the two factors LRH says is separate from Tone – the factor of Volume (or Power or free theta) – should also be accounted for in the ARC triangle formula, as it does affect the triangle in arbitrary ways since it varies in individuals. In SOS (p. 373) he says this about free theta (Volume), “The amount of free theta has a great deal to do with the persistence or reasoning force of the individual along any course.”
That could be applied to an example Geir gave. He and his wife had a disagreement and yet they continued the comm and in fact it didn’t decrease, contrary to the theory of the ARC triangle where C should have decreased when agreement/R decreased. This could be explained by the factor of Volume or free theta, whereby “persistence or reasoning force” was operating to alter the expected decrease of C. The two of them were able to override, through force of reasoning and persistence, (i.e. Volume or Power, or what I see simply as will power), the usual operation of A-R-C to decrease together.
Another thing I was considering is that a higher volume doesn’t necessarily have to relate to what is native. There are those times where an individual simply gets his necessity level – basically, will power or intention – up high enough to alter the mechanics of the triangle. Also, volume doesn’t just belong to the A corner as I had first thought (that was the only corner where I was able to envision how volume varies). Now I see that volume has to be a part of every corner of the triangle since each one is a manifestation of the same thing, and for that reason the amount of volume would be the same in each – but would vary from person to person, and would vary for an individual from time to time.
But I’m not sure how this additional factor of volume and the way it affects the triangle would be expressed in the ARC triangle formula. (Geir, would you know? Or Vinaire or anybody?)
Wow – so much significance on the subject of ARC.
LRH never said ARC was an absolute. Factually the best descriptions of ARC are much unknown by the general public because they were given in lectures from late 1950 to early 1951.
When listening to these it is very evident that ARC was discovered as a workable observation of how to better the relationship between the auditor and PC and hence make the processes work for the PC.
It was always known that there are many factors involving the subject of communication, hell there is a hole book written about it. There are many references on the subject of reality – hell whole tape series are devoted to that, same with affinity.
A Scientologists using ARC as an absolute would factually not be applying the full array of technology because the full array of technology is there to try to get auditors to have a full conceptional understanding of the mind as without it there will always be some robotic application.
This robotic application is in my own experience the root cause of “failed tech”. It is not the easiest task to put down the inner workings of something, like the mind, in terms of 1,2,3 rules. Even LRH kept finding new discoveries which modified earlier discoveries. His earlier observations were observations and had workability, but none were absolute.
The best auditors are those who use common sense and have a good understanding of man and (agreeing with Isene here) free will.
Due to the heavy push on KSW and referring only to something in writing, life situations “have to” be defined within the boundaries of the knowledge and/or what’s available to the student or auditor. This is one of the key failures of Scientology training as it stresses to only use established rules or don’t use it at all. There is a sense to this, but often fails in application.
I have had sessions which went really off the anticipated and I used common sense and took action based on what was happening to the PC in front of me based on my understanding of life and this worked, every time, but upon video review I was “out-tech” because what I did or said wasn’t covered in policy.
So, back to ARC. I see nothing wrong in the basic definition of ARC as it is demonstrably workable, while it isn’t an absolute. I can find oddball scenarios which defies pretty much any principle but that doesn’t mean the basic principle isn’t workable. Maybe not perfect, but workable, and I believe that was LRH’s own view on his technology.
As you will have seen by reading this thread and the other one referred to, there is indeed room for improvement in the ARC theory. So why not help improve it?
Raul, good post. It shows very good conceptual understanding, yourself, IMO.
Hey,read my idea on a possibly more workable triangle, just above, and give me your input. I’d be interested.
Raul, you are quite right. ARC cannot be put into a simple mathematical relationship for people to use it in a rote manner.
And you can see from this and the previous thread how brainwashed some people are, and how insane a debate can get.
.
One simply needs to get away from all this significance and start living life.
.
Great post, Raul!
The way I looked at KSW was regarding the processes themselves in that the commands or doingness of a specific process could and should not be varied.
As for how these processes were C/Sed and what process was needed exactly for that PC in that moment in time, a well seasoned auditor with an overall understanding and assimilation of the tech would be able to be creative and apply what was necessary for the PC at that moment.
The whole idea idea here, in my view, is to see if a better formula could be worked out that would basically point to the other tech that is sometimes needed – and thus make the ARC triangle an even more workable tool for those who don’t already have all the tech that auditors do. Minimumly, a better formula would lessen the chance for misapplication.
Marildi the tech works beautifuly,it need not to be improved but to be applied, in session when one is useing it than real can see how those auditing questions hit the targer every time.
You see no need to improve any part of the tech whatsoever?
Not in running thge rudiments.
Is there any part of the tech for any purpose for any situation for any person ever that could use some improvement?
Elisabeth; Care to answer the question?
Elizabeth, I agree the tech works beautifully. That’s why I was thinking perhaps a better expression of the ARC triangle might help to actually apply the tech, not change it. But see my recent post near the bottom of the page (it’s long).
Raul, ” I see nothing wrong in the basic definition of the ARC as it is demonstrably workable, while it isn’t an absolute”
Question, if it used that formula in session works or not? Yes or no?
Great reply! How simple, and no one else here thought of that. Pretty good proof of the pudding. Love it.
Valkov, why don’t you come add your “life” to the party?
The arbitrary (falseness) is the definition of the world “reality” as “agreement”. This was a fundamental manipulation on LRH’s part to get Scientologists to AGREE with him.
AGREEMENT has too little to do with human relationships to make it 1/3rd of the description of how human relationships work.
Drop that and you begin to get somewhere.
Look at the altered importance of REALITY AS AGREEMENT as 1/3rd of the equation and you begin to see what LRH was trying to do to you.
Add the word “love” into the equation and you allow for actual humanity again. Love has almost nothing to do with agreement.
Bottom line, don’t let L Ron Hubbard define human relationships for you.
Sorry, but I have to break in say it again.
Ultimate reality is as follows
SOMETHING IS BECAUSE WE CONSIDER IT IS.
“Reality is agreement” doesn’t even come close to describing it. Agreement does not lead to understanding. When one is agreeing with false data, one is agreeing with false data, and that is all there is to it.
.
Exactly so.
Agreement is not necerssarily equal to Understanding.
But wait!
Absolute understanding may be equal to truth.
Absolute agreement may be equal to truth.
And therefore, Absolute understanding = Absolute agreement.
As I see it, agreement and understanding are both manifestations of considerations, and intextricably linked to shifting considerations.
And therefore, false data can and does become reality at the exact point it takes form for the individual and at the exact point that it forms a consensus — it becomes a reality for those participating in the consensus.
I don’t have good words for this next bit that I have been sampling, hopefully it’ll make sense.
There is a subjective objective reality. And a subjective subjective reality. Then there is a an objective objective reality. And an objective subjective reality. And then there is a clarified objective objective reality and a clarified objective subjective reality. And maybe an expanded objective subjective reality and and expanded objective objective reality. and out of all of that worlds of fantastic diversity emerge and become apparent. APPARENT.
And for all of the above:
one for me, one for you,
and one shared by everyone in the zoo.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist the little rhyme!)
I understand and agree with your every word. That is my subjective subjective reality. And you might now have an objective subjective reality that agrees. And if Vinaire were to agree too then for all three of today’s posters there would be an objective objective reality for this blog. But Geir might then post a comment that would change it to a clarified objective objective reality. And that would then make my personal reality a clarified objective subjective reality. Yet if Dennis were also to post a comment before the day is done and express a subjective objective reality; that could give me an expanded objective subjective reality and all of us an expanded objective objective reality.
And if my understanding is false but you were to agree with all these considerations, then we would have absolute agreement. And absolute understanding. And absolute truth. Apparently.
— Fellow zoo occupant.
Understanding, to me, is having consistency among all my considerations.
Absolute understanding to me, is as-ising all the considerations I have. The outcome of that cannot be described.
I have talked about truth here: Essay #9: THE NATURE OF TRUTH
Agreement may simply be looking from the same viewpoint. That’s all.
Any “mathematics” depends on the definitions one assumes. I like meditating on the definitions of “understanding,” “truth,” “agreement,” etc. KHTK style. I start with not assuming anything. That helps me uncover the basic considerations underlying any concept. That penetration continues as I continue to look. There is no effort involved. I patiently wait for the answer to appear.
Rushing for answers is an occidental approach. It has its advantages. But patiently looking for answers has always been the oriental approach. It penetrates deeper.
Agreement still assumes two different “selves” or “viewpoints” that are agreeing. Basic assumption here is that of the “self” or “viewpoint” being taken for granted. But when one starts to look at “self” or “viewpoint” as considerations too, there is a very sudden and huge shift. Maybe that shift is what Buddha referred to as “Nirvana.” It is so simple to intellectualize yet so difficult to attain.
Yes, we can call all these things considerations, but it is the CONSISTENCY among all the considerations that one holds, which is the “second prize.” The “first prize” is, of course, as-ising that consistent whole.
The fundamentals of false data are in taking things for granted (not questioning them). Actually, false data can be so deeply buried that it is off one’s radar to be even perceived and questioned. KHTK looking is the only method that I know, that has any chance of uncovering that deeply buried false data.
Your argument, Maria, seems to be taking “self” for granted. “Self” is the hardest thing to let go of. But, I love your sense of play.
Vinnie,
I went and got the etymology of the word understanding:
O.E. understandan “comprehend, grasp the idea of,” probably lit. “stand in the midst of,” from under + standan “to stand” (see stand). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning “beneath,” but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- “between, among” (cf. Skt. antar “among, between,” La. inter “between, among,” Gk. entera “intestines;” see inter-). But the exact notion is unclear. Perhaps the ult. sense is “be close to,” cf. Gk. epistamai “I know how, I know,” lit. “I stand upon.” Similar formations are found in O.Fris. (understonda), M.Dan. (understande), while other Gmc. languages use compounds meaning “stand before” (cf. Ger. verstehen, represented in O.E. by forstanden ). For this concept, most I.E. languages use fig. extensions of compounds that lit. mean “put together,” or “separate,” or “take, grasp.”
O.E. understandincge “comprehension,” from understand (q.v.). Meaning “mutual agreement” is attested from 1803.
And the full range of definitions of understanding:
1. mental process of a person who comprehends; comprehension; personal interpretation: My understanding of the word does not agree with yours.
2. intellectual faculties; intelligence; mind: a quick understanding.
3. superior power of discernment; enlightened intelligence: With her keen understanding she should have become a leader.
4. knowledge of or familiarity with a particular thing; skill in dealing with or handling something: an understanding of accounting practice.
5. a state of cooperative or mutually tolerant relations between people: To him, understanding and goodwill were the supreme virtues.
6. a mutual agreement, especially of a private, unannounced, or tacit kind: They had an understanding about who would do the dishes.
7. an agreement regulating joint activity or settling differences, often informal or preliminary in character: After hours of negotiation, no understanding on a new contract was reached.
8. Philosophy .
a. the power of abstract thought; logical power.
b. Kantianism . the mental faculty resolving the sensory manifold into the transcendental unity of apperception
It seems very clear to me to there are several different “modes” of understanding. The core concept is likely found in the etymology though.
As far as assuming a “self” in my post, of course – at the heart of communication is the establishment of a cause point and an effect point in all interactions except those where the affinity/space is such that there is no separation. And then of course there is no separation and communication is instantaneous and the cause – distance – effect principle no longer applies. And if there is no separation then we have total pan-determinism and I am you and you are me and we are we and we are all together.
You might find it enlightening to read FOT again – I recently reviewed it and found that its very, very clear about what the stated/published objectives of Scientology are and I did not find that those objectives included attaining nirvana. FOT was the last book that was written that actually stated the most current objectives, other than materials written after FOT that were intended for coursework or promotion – they appear to be all compilations of previously released materials. Great care was taken with FOT to use language that could be accurately translated.
But you are right – I am having a great deal of fun!
Maria, do you believe there is a thetan that is immortal or permanent?
.
Absolute agreement may be equal to truth.
And therefore, Absolute understanding = Absolute agreement.
Maria, absolute understanding comes in the moment of cognition therefore it is the truth. That means: 100% affinity reality, communication=understanding cant get any higher than that
100% understanding = As-isness of the whole game.
.
Elizabeth, that has been my experience too, that moment of cognition.
Vinnie, in answer to your question about whether I BELIEVE there is a thetan that is immortal or permanent, I don’t have any BELIEF like this. I do have a “continuum” of awareness, which shifts focus.
To me, immortal is a time-system word. So is permanent. I see only now. For me now is the only “when” that isn’t the past. I see past, present and future all as past for once something can be perceived it is already past. So there is now, and its result – then. Since I don’t live in then, that leaves now. And for me, now is cognition.
As I wrote elsewhere, I would rather replace the word “agreement” with the word “consistency” (meaning lack of outpoints). That would change Elizabeth’s statements as follows,
“Absolute consistency may be equal to truth.
“And therefore, Absolute understanding = Absolute consistency.”
Moment of cognition = As-ising some inconsistency (that had been taken for granted)
Yes, thetan is a consideration. That thetan is immortal is also a consideration. These considerations are either created or agreed upon by us. The basic inconsistency would be to have these considerations as fixed.
In fact, any consideration assumed to be fixed, would be a basic inconsistency; because anything created can also be dissolved.
Any stable datum would be an inconsistency, that is holding in place (though hidden) a bunch of other inconsistencies. You shake somebodies stable datum and he is, all of a sudden, engulfed in inconsistencies that were held in abeyance by that stable datum.
.
The more I think about it the more it seems you are onto something regarding Consistency.
Wow Vinnie! That was awesome. A treasure! That one goes on my wall!
I have been saying the same thing for some time. I think I just the right note here. You make me feel wonderful, Maria.
.
Had a little time so decided to drop in and drive Vinnie crazy with more discussion!
Geir, you commented that the information was poorly presented. I agree. The problem seems to be that there is a big gap between the succinct summaries of the information, point by point after many evolutions in working with it. As an example, here are some quotes from Fundamentals of Thought, which was carefully written in language that could easily be translated into other languages. This version of the description of ARC makes no statements about being level, etc. It is pretty much the final version on the subject and I assume that it was written with great care so that it could be correctly translated:
The A-R-C triangle is the keystone of living associations. This triangle is the common denominator of all of life’s activities…
The third corner of the triangle is Communication. In human relationships this is more important than the other two corners of the triangle in understanding the composition of human relations in this universe…
As has already been noted, 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.
If you would continue a strong and able communication with someone there must be some basis for agreement. There must be some liking for the person and then communication can exist. We can see then that simple talking and writing randomly without knowledge of this would not necessarily be communication. 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…
Fundamentals of Thought references Dianetics 55! as the definitive text on communication.
There was a comment that knowledge is not encompassed in the ARC triangle. I always thought that it was part and parcel of reality. To me this includes learned knowledge, and subjective knowledge, which produce a layer of filter on perceived physical reality. I have often wondered just how much our school lessons, familial lessons, genetic lessons, etc. contribute to what we perceive our world to be and how much our world would actually change if suddenly we discovered that some long held belief or key knowledge series such as gravity were no longer subscribed to by a large percentage of living organisms. Of course, there would be an entire series of changes in physical reality that would accompany that change and I rather think life would be VERY different!!
I’m no really sure what the purpose of this exercise is, I am guessing it is to dismiss the idea of an absolute law and to more definitively describe ARCU or to detect missing elements that should have been included?
For me, it seems very clear that the whole point of Scientology was to find methods of rehabiliation. Anything beyond that was not particularly addressed, either considered to be beyond its scope or areas that people would develop in the normal course of using the information in social, administrative, humanities, etc. areas. So I have always studied the materials from the point of view of comprehending how auditing works, and what auditing would be most effective. LRH liked to pontificate on other things but I always thought that he never did know how it would all come out. After all, auditing works on the abilities of beings who have as their most basic ability, the ability to create, apparently well beyond the narrow confines of life on Earth.
As far as most Scientologists not having a very good comprehension of these materials, I think most do not. They learn enough to do the processes they are learning to do, they learn enough to get a little better edge on their games, they learn enough to pass their courses. Sadly, most will not really do much in the way of really getting in there and establishing their own viewpoint on any of it. They’d rather get auditing. They’d rather do auditing and time is very short when you’re on course all the time or you are working flat out to pay for your next step…
I love that song, “You drive me crazy.”
.
I can’t believe that would be your taste, Vinaire. The Patsy Kline song is more your era, isn’t it?
It’s actually a beautiful song besides. And the lyrics fit you better: “I’m crazy…”
Patsy Cline – Crazy
Lyrics:
Crazy
Crazy for feeling so lonely
I’m crazy
Crazy for feeling so blue
I meant this song: SHE DRIVES ME CRAZY by Fine Young Cannibals.
.
Songwriters: GIFT, ROLAND / STEELE, DAVID
I can’t stop,
The way I feel,
Things you do,
Don’t seem real.
Tell you what,
I got in mind,
‘Cause we’re runnin’,
Out of time,
Won’t you ever,
Set me free,
This waiting’ ’round’s,
Killeen’ me.
[Chorus]
She drives me crazy,
Uh uh,
Like no-one else,
Uh uh,
She drives me crazy,
And I can’t help myself,
Uh uh.
I can’t get,
Any rest,
People say,
I’m obsessed,
Every-thing,
That’s serious lasts,
But to me,
There’s no surprize,
What I have,
Fatal last truth,
Things go wrong,
They always do.
[Chorus]
She drives me crazy,
Uh uh,
Like no-one else,
Uh uh,
She drives me crazy,
And I can’t help myself,
Uh uh.
[Instrumental Section]
I won’t make it,
On my own,
No-one likes,
To be alone.
[Chorus]
She drives me crazy,
Uh uh,
Like no-one else,
Uh uh,
She drives me crazy,
And I can’t help myself,
Uh uh.
Oh okay, much better. Nice easy-going rhythm and “tone.” 😉
I don’t like sentimental songs.
.
I love them. Well, some of them…their beautiful sadness.
LRH was an intuitive giant, but no mathematician. He himself admitted being weak in mathematics and tried to put that subject down.
As long as you don’t go too mathematical, as you are doing, Maria, this subject doesn’t sound too bad.
But forget about any effort to prove that Hubbard was mathematically correct. That is where I tune off. There is too much disharmony there.
.
Hi Maria,
Once again, you made so many good points. Amazing about FOT being the final version on the subject of ARC and a very important reference in that it was to be translated – and yet it says nothing about the corners being level. Also significant is the fact that its whole emphasis is on ARC being used as a tool, rather than for prediction, and C being the thing to focus on. This really does imply that LRH by that point was attempting to avoid the absolutes in regard to the links, possibly in part because of the factors that can alter them and thus make the subject complicated but mainly to emphasize the value of the triangle and the best use of it to rehabilitate, which I agree with you is the actual point of Scientology.
In SOS (my favorite LRH book, btw) LRH talked about education and personal experience positioning a person on the tone scale, and that tells me knowledge would in fact be encompassed in the ARC triangle, just as you said. As regards knowledge being “a layer of filter” in perception, he also said education and personal experience “fix attention,” which I would say aligns with perception being filtered and probably does include physical reality too, IMO.
Education and such would definitely affect one’s personal reality and, like you, I have commented that one’s own reality would influence the outcome of a comm cycle. But it’s interesting that it is not actually included by LRH as a component in a cycle of communication since the definition of reality is merely “duplication” of what was communicated. So I can also see how personal reality is outside the basic triangle itself – unless you think of it as coming into play after duplication and before coming to an Understanding. (Wow, I just thought of that – which goes to show that this exercise of analyzing the triangle is helping to understand it better.) The other odd thing is how all of us do use the word “reality” to mean one’s viewpoint or opinion, but I don’t know of any place where LRH has actually defined it that way. Do you? All the definitions concern agreement.
As far as most Scientologists not having a very good comprehension of the materials, that’s got to be the very reason the ARC triangle is viewed apart from that bigger context and then considered not to work. But I have to say that I do like the idea that Geir has – to formulate it better and have a more comprehensive yet succinct expression of all the factors involved. And even if that turns out to be too much to ask and impossible to fully do in a single formula, there could still be a lot to learn by trying (as I’ve done even in writing this comment!).
Your post, as usual, was a voice of reason and very helpful. 🙂
Maria, Your selection of the FOT reference for discussion is well chosen.
The three concepts A, R and C are very involved in themselves. They are not simple monotonic variable, as the A-R-C formula assumes.
Communication is the key because the universe comes about in response to the perception that nothing is there, and that being not acceptable.
I would say that affinity and reality develop with communication. They may even be conceived as aspects of communication. Thus, reality comes about as communication continues. That reality may then assist or dampen communication. Similarly, affinity comes about as communication continues. That affinity may then assist or dampen communication.
In my view, knowledge is reconstruction and deposition of reality, so that it may be accessed, used and exchanged.
Understanding is the duplication of communication consistent with one’s considerations.
Auditing is attaining consistency among the considerations one has been exposed to up until now.
LRH data is a seed that helps one establish one’s own understanding. There is no understanding in data itself.
Stick with whatever you want. I don’t care.
.
The above response was to Marildi’s comment here:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/challenge/#comment-7571
.
I notice that Scientologists on this blog have found two good uses for the Tone Scale and Study tech.
They use it to evaluate others and invalidate them.
This is KHTK Looking.
.
And what were you yourself using as an excuse?
Being an unpleasant truth.
Witty.
But it’s more like – an insufferable filter. 🙂
(Just trying to keep you entertained.)
You have an MU (see I can be like one of those Scientologists).
.
By writing that you have done the samething. it seems we can only communiucate give answers if we evaluate first. Even if you say nice day to someone that person automaticaly will do the above before give on answer. If what you say would not be true you could not write that statement. As you can see, by reading I too need to do that. If you re-read every coment in this blog you will note that debate is all about invalidation and evaluation.
There is evaluation and then there is evaluation. 🙂
Some leads to understanding. Some does not. What is the difference?
.
There is evaluation and then there is evaluation.
Some leads to understanding. Some does not. What is the difference?
.
One of the above duplicate comments may be deleted.
Elizabeth is looking only at similarity. She is not looking at differences. The following LRH definition is not being applied by Elizabeth:
Intelligence is the recognition of differences, similarities and identities.
.
Vinaire, you said, “There is evaluation and then there is evaluation. Some leads to understanding. Some does not. What is the difference?”
The difference is in the intention. My own intention in anything I said to you about MUs was either sincere intention to be of help or obvious banter just for fun, not meant to invalidate. What was your intention?
My contention is that if wants to help one should help by being explicit.
Obvious banter just for fun is fine. I have no quarrel with that.
.
Okay, explicit it shall be since you seem to indicate you will accept that.
Hey, you’re pretty good with the banter yourself sometimes. Now we just have to remember to make it clear that it is.
Why even post drivel like this.
Your statement is not only evaluative, it is also meant to invalidate.
Time to play nice and practice what you preach 🙂
And what do I preach?
.
No one has reported doing the challenge here, on the IVY e-mail list or the Freezone e-mail list. It is curious that not one single person reported on this, yet many has engaged in a debate on this topic. Anyone has any clues why the challenge stirs response but no reports at all?
Because it is all significance in the mind of the Scientologists. Not surprising to me. 🙂
.
If one were to ask the 5 questions listed, it’s pretty obvious what the replies would be. (yes)
However – it was never obvious when I talked to people while still in the church…
There are a couple of reasons why I don’t do the actual exercise:
1. I answered all the questions myself, and also reviewed the many social interactions I have observed over the years between others and the answer to each of the questions is, yes.
2. I have no idea who wrote the book “What Is Scientology,”but like much of the promotional material of the C of S it tends to be a very simplistic rendition that doesn’t have the purpose of teaching the actual principles. It intends to foster a receptive frame of mind towards the subject, a frame of mind that might foster more interest, booksales and sign-ups for courses.
As for me, I do not see ARCU as a simple subject IN PRACTICE. My experience with it is that each element has to be be very thoroughly defined, and then drilled, as in doing TRs 0 to 4, learning the tone scale, and comprehending the materials in Dianetics 55! And on top of that, you need two people who WANT to employ the materials to the end of improved ARCU.
Without that, just interacting by communicating a LOT might take the form of one rising up the tone scale from resentment to anger, the other dropping from cheerfulness to conservatism, and both ending up somewhere around antagonism. And that would be a rise for one and a drop for the other. And yet they are both in the UNDERSTANDING level of antagonism at that point. They are actually sharing the same tone level now and they are VERY real to one another. Its just that antagonism is not a level of understanding that lends itself to accepting much of anything, and it is a tone level where ARC is reversed – the reversal point occurring at 2.0 or boredom. There is going to be a sense of loss for the person who was feeling cheerful – and a gain for the one who was resentful. The cheerful one might decide (power of choice) not to have anything to do with the other one because he/she doesn’t like the feeling of antagonism. Happens a lot.
With people who have very poor communication skills (even as defined outside of Scientology) the results of more and more communication are generally NOT an improvement for all too often the CDEI scale comes into play, all kinds of efforts to enforce reality are carried on the communications between them, all kinds of of invalidation and evaluations take place and the result is not at all as presented by the What is Scientology article. Duplication goes out the window, power of choice is violated, reality is shifted to a focus on what’s wrong with the other person, and what affinity there may have been reduced for one, raised for another. Or they might both plummet down the tone scale! Oh, they have understanding alright – they hate each other and both agree that the other is an a-hole!! What’s interesting to me is that between couples we often get make-up sex at this point – a very solid communication with a LOT of affinity and they kiss and make up.
For people who have poor communication skills or who are stuck in a tone level like antagonism or resentment, I find it much easier to tell them that they need to find things they like or once liked about the other person, to be respectful of the other person’s viewpoint and to focus on the difficulty between them, working together to find a better way of interacting with one another or on an agreed upon outcome rather than personalizing and demonizing.
In other words, I give them a process with some rules that will preserve and enhance what little ARCU may be present and may give them soome tools they can use to work towards building some agreement and/or towards a better attitude towards one another.
Most people want some very simple guidelines to improve themselves. They know that the more sincere is the communication, the closer two people feel to each other, and the understanding increases as a result. This is pretty intuitive.
This makes ARCU formula redundant in real life. It may be more useful in a formal auditing.
What may be more useful to a person on the street is how to feel harmony within oneself, because a person who is in harmony within oneself does have better harmony with others. Here the ARC formula is not useful as such, but TRs are. Or, more basic to TRs is simple meditation if done right with KHTK’s looking approach.
.
I’m not so sure that harmony with others is what everyone is after. There are some real adrenaline junkies out there!! I think that people are mostly concerned about having their power of choice reduced or taken away. You want to see a bunch of very upset people, just take their power of choice away from them. And really, I think that if you can move freely on the ARCU spectrum, then you do have power of choice. And ultimately, that power of choice includes stepping away entirely to nirvana, to nothing, to everything or to whatever your heart’s desire may be.
This is a really good area to investigate. I am interested in this. I hear a lot about stress. People feeling stresses and all kind of problems resulting from that stress. Is this a good point to start this discussion?
By the way, I do not understand how one can take away such a basic thing as a power of choice, unless you drug them up completely to the point of unconsciousness, or bash their head in.
.
Seth commented, “If one were to ask the 5 questions listed, it’s pretty obvious what the replies would be. (yes)”
And Geir replied, “However – it was never obvious when I talked to people while still in the church…”
The ones you talked to in the Church who weren’t very well trained were probably merely defending, as you’ve already noted. The trained ones, I would imagine also knew that the examples you gave would be answered with “yes” – but at the same time knew that it didn’t disprove the ARC triangle. And it’s probably for the same reason that no one has taken up the challenge in the OP – it’s already obvious from whichever viewpoint you have that the answers are “yes.”
Sorry for being such a blog hog lately but here I go again. With what I’ve learned and realized in this discussion, along with some review of references, I’ve now come full circle (to my chagrin, after going on and on first from one viewpoint and then the other). And once again, I would agree with the trained Scientologists viewpoint.
To explain, I’ll use an example: Pete receives a communication from Joe, but in attempting to duplicate it might “filter” (Vinaire’s term) it with his own considerations – whether they are (a) biases stemming from false or reactive data or (b) well-informed opinions based on relevant and adequate knowledge including the knowledge gotten from personal experience. As I say, the communication might be filtered by any of those things. But Pete, with (1) enough Power (Volume factor) to set aside and look beyond his own reactions and fixed ideas and other held considerations and (2) with enough Intelligence (Quality factor) to grasp the meaning of the comm itself, would be able to achieve a duplication and understanding of that which was emanated from Joe.
Assuming the latter, that the comm was viewed without filters and was duplicated and understood by Pete yet he is not in agreement with it, Pete might conclude that Joe has considerations based on false or missing data or that Joe has had insufficient Intelligence or Power to correctly sort out the data. The thing for Pete to do in that case would be to get the correct data across to Joe and by so doing he could then get Joe’s agreement – in other words, by using the ARC triangle and specifically using C to increase R there could be a rehabilitation of their ARC.
Or this may be the scenario: Joe may find that he has not adequately communicated to Pete the idea he had intended to and now needs to do something about the fact that Pete is in disagreement with some other idea than the actual one. If this were the case, Joe himself could use the tool of ARC by communicating further to Pete, with the intention of both clearing up any false data and getting across any missing data to him. And in the process he should be taking into account the other two factors too – Pete’s Intelligence and Power, either of which might influence his ability to duplicate. Any or all of that might be needed in raising Pete’s R.
An alternative to raising the C in order to raise the R, Joe may see that it’s necessary to first raise Pete’s A so that “intention to receive” (FOT) would be high enough for further C that would bring about raised R. A related quote from FOT: “For instance, amongst the A-R-C Triangle laws, a communication to be received must approximate the affinity level of the person to whom it is directed.”
To summarize, in the above examples the C from Joe may not actually have been accomplished in the first comm cycle, or if it was then duplication/R by Pete may not have come about due to considerations (missing or false data) or due to insufficient Intelligence or Power on Pete’s part. In either case, use of the ARC triangle would be needed. As regards both Pete and Joe, knowing of the existence of the other three factors – as part of each one’s R – would better enable them to determine exactly what was needed to raise the ARC.
In other words, when I thought more about it I realized that all the factors that may affect ARC would (or could and should) in fact be included as a part of each individual’s own R and therefore they are not at all outside the ARC triangle and its workings – any more than knowledge about the mind or the dynamics or any other principle that contributes to each person’s R and thus ability to use the ARC triangle and rehabilitate ARC. All those things – and in fact all knowledge of tech – contribute to that ability and any of it may be needed for high ARC to continue or be rehabilitated or brought about.
That is taking a broader, longer view of the ARC triangle but that is what I feel LRH actually intended as regards its meaning and application. And if understood that way the ARC triangle can be seen as a basic law that only appears to not be a law when an actual comm cycle hasn’t taken place for whatever reason – involving the influence of any of those three factors or the Tone factor itself – OR when the comm hasn’t continued long enough to get the product. And again – those other three factors come into play within the use of the ARC triangle and are handled within its use..
The main point here is I don’t see that LRH ever limited the application of ARC to one or any certain number of cycles of communication or amount of time, to actually get the result of raising ARC. Here’s another relevant quote from FOT: “If you would CONTINUE [my caps] a strong and able communication with someone, there must be some basis for agreement, there must be some liking for the person and then communication can exist.”
As far as using ARC for prediction goes, that too would be valid – albeit not necessarily in the short run either.
I talked to all kinds of scientologists about the subject of ARC while in the CoS and after. Many very well trained (old Class VIIIs etc.). The idea of even questioning the ARC triangle the slightest never ever came up.
Apart from that – you have contributed the best falsification of the ARC theory yet – that intelligence is not included as a component to Understanding is an unbelievable omission. However – I am sure that any die hard Scientologist would be able to deftly explain away that too. In fact I believe that if LRH said that the moon was made of cheese, then there would be a cast of Scientologists able to “prove” even that.
Didn’t you think that my examples “deftly explained” the fact that Intelligence is actually included in C and R? The ability to communicate effectively and to duplicate well – these both absolutely require intelligence.
It isn’t from a die hard Scientologist point of view that I now see that. I sincerely did not when I first considered it and was willing to say so. Just as I’m now willing to admit I made a mistake and it isn’t the way I thought.
No, I don’t think the explanation for intelligence cuts it. It must be interpreted. It would be similar to LRH stating only that U=C and then everyone would go “aha! Yes of course!”. And when someone would query that and say “But hey, what about emotions, empathy or the old word Affinity?”, then Someone would start defending it by Explaining that it is inferred, that one would just have to look at the whole of the works of LRH, etc. Nope, it doesn’t cut it. Axiom 28 is lacking the very same – because there is no direct link between Duplication and Understanding. There is (obviously) intelligence in between. Possibly other factors as well. It is an omission.
Do you disagree then that Intelligence is implicit in C and R? As well as considerations?
I am thinking that the U=ARC, and ARC being the ONLY components of U is missing the a native ability of recognizing the differences etc.
To me C leading to U sounds right (I am not using the = sign). The other considerations would be
(1) Not being judgmental (corruption of reality)
(2) Not being resistive (corruption of affinity)
And that is pure C leading to U. Intelligence would be part of C (clarity of perception in terms of differences, similarities and identities). Affinity would be an aspect of C of how C is delivered and received. Reality would be the content of the communication particle.
This is what KHTK is trying to express.
.
I just don’t see that you are doing anything different by grasping that Intelligence is part of U – how is that not an “interpreted” or “inferred” consideration too? Is what I’m doing any different from you, when I say that Intelligence is “obviously” (your word again) part of both C and R?
It seems slightly odd that LRH decided on just ARC as the components of Understanding, including A nd R, but excluding I (intelligence). One could, I am sure, justify this every odd way, but why? And wouldn’t it be pertinent to highlight intelligence as part of Understanding and as part of Axiom 28. And, btw, why is not the triangle turned and descried as C=cdARIU, Communication equals cause, distance, Affinity (distance), Reality (agreement or duplication), Intelligence and Understanding?
“It seems slightly odd that LRH decided on just ARC as the components of Understanding, including A nd R, but excluding I (intelligence). One could, I am sure, justify this every odd way, but why?”
At the risk of batting your comm back one too many times, besides the possibility that one could justify it in every odd way – would you agree that it is also possible could be a very intelligent explanation for it? Because if you haven’t even considered that, maybe you yourself have an unwillingness… (ouch – this hurts me more than it does you, I’m sure)
.
And, btw, why is not the triangle turned and descried as C=cdARIU, Communication equals cause, distance, Affinity (distance), Reality (agreement or duplication), Intelligence and Understanding?”
Maybe he took the simpler description? But that’s really interesting, I’m going to think about it!
.
“And wouldn’t it be pertinent to highlight intelligence as part of Understanding and as part of Axiom 28.
This one too, for sure – it’s definitely pertinent to the exchange.
I do belive in the simplest route and thus Occam’s Razor. That is why I see your justifications for the OP not falsifying the ARC triangle as contrived.
“They are all at the same level” – well that IS falsified.
I do believe in the simplest route and thus Occam’s Razor. That is why I see your justifications for the OP not falsifying the ARC triangle as contrived.
“They are all at the same level” – well that IS falsified.
“I do believe in the simplest route and thus Occam’s Razor. That is why I see your justifications for the OP not falsifying the ARC triangle as contrived.”
What’s interesting is that you could make your point there without calling my conclusions “justifications.” If you referred to them as illogical, for example, that wouldn’t be so offensive. And neither would it be so suspicious sounding. It seems you cannot conceive of any other possibility and that just doesn’t compute from what I’ve observed in you. (Including the fact that you can take blunt communication…I think.)
.
“LRH already took an Occam’s Razor route with the simple ARC triangle formula.”
It does get complicated trying to explain it to those who are asking for explanations due to the fact that they really don’t grasp it well. (That’s my return evaluation – but I think it’s better than evaluating someone’s ability to be rational.)
.
“They are all at the same level” – well that IS falsified.”
I could probably to do a better job contesting that at this point, but I think you’re tired of it and then it probably wouldn’t be very productive and not much fun.
.
But you have still not answered my question a few posts up. I’ll phrase it a bit better: I don’t see how it can be that my inferring intelligence is “obviously” a part of C and R – is any different from your inferring it is as “obviously” part of U.
I think intelligence is a More obvious part of defining U than R. Ask around, I think you will get agreement on that one.
One may wonder why the ARC theory hasn’t gotten any traction outside of the world of Scientology.
“I think intelligence is a More obvious part of defining U than R.”
One’s reality could be seen as one’s data base and that data is what you need to think with – i.e. apply intelligence to. You also need to have intelligence to communicate effectively. Maria’s post today with the SOS excerpt describes higher I as being involved with higher levels of R and C and lower I with lower levels of the tone scale. What did you make of that excerpt?
I think that a theory should not leave core principles up for interpretation or inference. Intelligence is more integral to understanding than Affinity and Reality methinks. Hence should be presented as a core, not explained through inference in texts.
“One may wonder why the ARC theory hasn’t gotten any traction outside of the world of Scientology.”
Have you wondered why it is that the tech trained Scientologists overall feel confident that it’s a valuable tool? As opposed to those not trained who are the ones ready to say it’s useless. I really think this is the significant point.
Sure – as it is with house building. It has only gained traction with those who are trained to build houses. Some dabble in house building, but the real traction stays with the house builders. But house building has gained a tremendous traction in the World. The ARC theory has not. Why?
Didn’t Hubbard say that moon was made of cheese. It is so obvious!
.
I’m no die-hard Scientologist,( in fact I don’t what I am any more,) but I do not see that intelligence is not included as a component even if it is not specifically designated.
In any case, here are some definitions of intelligence:
Intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. (dictionary.com)
Intelligence is a general capacity of an individual consciously to adjust his thinking to new requirements: it is general mental adaptability to new problems and conditions of life. [Stern, “The Psychological Methods of Testing Intelligence,” 1914]
Etymology: late 14c., “faculty of understanding,” from O.Fr. intelligence (12c.), from L. intelligentia “understanding,” from intelligentem (nom. intelligens) “discerning,” prp. of intelligere “to understand, comprehend,” from inter- “between” (see inter-) + legere “choose, pick out, read” (see lecture). Meaning superior understanding, sagacity” is from early 15c.
As far as I am concerned, the further up the tone scale and individual goes, the freer his mental capacity is, the greater his ability to duplicate, and the more willing he is to choose new realities. That is intelligence.
The problem I see is that the C of S has created an environment of hostility towards additional/conflicting/diverse knowledge, in a very adversarial fashion, and is hell-bent on coercing people to focus only on what “LRH says.” This action alone curtails any real expansion of a being’s ARC, and there is no good reason on earth or in heaven to do that other than to control the shit out of everyone and make them biddable.
btw: I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume that if someone does not agree with your analysis then it follows that they are a “die-hard” Scientologist. I would argue that I have met very few actual Scientologists.
1. If intelligence is part of C, why is not Reality also?
2. The more I look at it, the more I see this as a flaw in Axiom 28 more than that of ARC. That intelligence is not included in the axiom is just plain weird.
I am not so sure that it is included in communication, but it certainly is covered in the text that was first written about ARC.
Excerpts from Science of Survival:
“Mind operation being what it is, as a person drops lower and lower on the tone scale his affinity potential, his reality potential, and his communication potential also drop. Thus, by entirely mechanical means, we get reduction of visio, sonic, somatic recall, all other perceptics, and talking and listening. The highest level of the scale contains the faculty of communicating completely and withholding nothing; also the ability to communicate with complete rational selectivity, also the ability to be conversationally creative and constructive. At this high level of the scale, the individual is able to listen to everything which is said and evaluate it rationally. He can listen to entheta communications without becoming severely enturbulated. He can receive ideas without making critical or derogatory comments. And,
while receiving another person’s ideas, he can greatly aid that person’s thinking and talking.”
“There would be two realities with which the individual was most intimately concerned. The internal reality, of his own existence and past, and the external reality, of his present-time environment. To this could be added, of course, his future reality. The reality tone scale on extroversion-introversion would be, at At 4.0, the individual would be creatively and constructively inclined toward reality. He would be more likely to adjust reality to him and to postulate new future realities than he would be to adjust himself to existing realities. He would search for different viewpoints and changes in reality in order to broaden his own reality. He would have a complete flexibility and understanding in relating and evaluating different realities.”
“In common human experience we all know something about the truth and we know that we cannot deal in a black and white breakdown between the truth and lies. Truth is concerned in the issuance and acceptance of data about facts. Some people favor constructive facts; some favor facts which are not so constructive; some prefer to twist facts; some prefer to hide facts; and some prefer to lie about facts. Some favor high and powerful facts; and some favor only apathetic facts. As one examines this whole subject, one then discovers that the tone scale itself from 4.0 down to 0.0, postulates the selection of various types of facts; and that the most reasonable facts are the most constructive ones; and that, as one falls away down the tone scale, the facts selected are less and less rational and more and more contra-survival. It could be said that life was made to be lived, not died out of; and that facts which encourage a high level of living would be, for man, the most truthful facts; and that those which encourage his demise would be the most untruthful facts. Those things which are truest for man are, then, those things which most powerfully aid his survival, in theta, life, and MEST.”
Actually I think an argument could be made that R is part of C. That was the gist of my post where I stated that in fact all the components of ARC could be seen as happening at once (the one where I suggested the formula A=R=C=U, and Vinaire replied with, “Oh gawwwwd…” – remember? :-))
I’ve seen where LRH states that A must first be there before C and R can take place – and this is easy to see since you have to be in the space before you can perceive anything in that space. But then in FOT his wording is something like it “might” be considered that C begins the triangle. My point is that there has to be a simplified way of talking about these things, giving it all a starting point even if an arbitrary one.
.
“If intelligence is part of C, why is not Reality also?”
Did you mean why isn’t Intelligence part of reality?
If so, on that long post of mine, I specifically showed how it actually IS part of Reality. But including it in the formula along with other things that could be included would only complicate the formula unnecessarily and probably beyond easy workability. What’s needed, once again, in order to understand its workability and to use it fully is conceptual understanding rather than rote. Apparently, judging by the comments of this blog, it’s mainly those with a fair amount of training who can do that.
No, why is not R part of C if Intelligence “is part of C”?
Awesome, Maria. Several quotes from that excerpt indicate clearly that Intelligence does align with the tone scale and that it is part of C, of R, and of U (caps are mine):
“The highest level of the scale contains…the ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WITH COMPLETE RATIONAL SELECTIVITY…able to LISTEN to everything which is said AND EVALUATE IT RATIONALLY… He would have a complete flexibility and UNDERSTANDING in relating and evaluating different realities.”
“As one examines this whole subject, one then discovers that the tone scale itself from 4.0 down to 0.0, postulates the selection of various types of facts; and that the most reasonable facts are the most constructive ones; and that, as one falls away down the tone scale, the facts selected are LESS AND LESS RATIONAL and more and more contra-survival.”
“No, why is not R part of C if Intelligence ‘is part of C’?”
Why should it be? Do you feel they all have equal standing somehow or are parallel in some way?
Really do want to get back to trying to understand where you’re coming from, and I’m not seeing your point yet.
I am saying: Axiom 28 explains communication, includes R in the explanation (R as part of C), includes A in the explanation (A as part of C), includes U in the explanation (U as part of C) and leaves out intelligence. I find that odd.
I agree that it’s “a bit presumptuous to assume if someone does not agree with your analysis then it follows that they are a “did-hard” Scientologist.” It’s been a wrong indication to me and I have had to use some of my Power/Volume/free theta to withstand it. 🙂
It is not relevant whether someone agrees with me. In this context it is relevant if they would go to great lengths to defend something due to perceived negative consequences of something proven wrong – instead of moving one step further toward truth and even higher workability.
I wanted to comment on the “Volume” part but I won’t. 😉
.
“it is relevant if they would go to great lengths to defend something due to perceived negative consequences of something proven wrong”
My dear Geir, that is a variation of the same theme. If you didn’t directly state that I was doing that, it was certainly implied from where I sat.
And when I later began to take a different viewpoint, it was simply because I saw it that way for myself (at least temporarily) – not because you or anybody else was saying it and obviously not because LRH as saying it. I hope you have more confidence in me now. 😉
I have confidence in you. Perhaps not your willingness to falsify a scientology basics.
“I have confidence in you. Perhaps not your willingness to falsify a scientology basics.”
You really seem to want to hang onto that, Geir. So let me ask you this, what basis do you have for saying it other than the fact that I haven’t agreed with you that there has been any falsification?
I don’t think you would do an A = A with me and some other Scientologists. would you?
I wouldn’t. The basis: You go to extraordinary lengths to defend the theory – by any and all, even contrived means.
“You go to extraordinary lengths to defend the theory – by any and all, even contrived means.”
I don’t see what you mean by contrived – extraordinary lengths? I’ve stayed with understanding coordinating the materials as best I could in an attempt to understand them. Did you give my long explanation serious consideration? (sticking my neck out by asking, but just wanting to get back to the actual subject.
(I’m not any more or less fervent than you are and that’s because I’m also on a mission for truth here (if you would please grant me that beingness :-))
So back to the premise again; If you are able to explain all thinkable scenarios with the ARC theory, it precludes no social situations, renders the theory unfalsifiable and thus the theory becomes useless for predicting human behaviour and you have effectively killed the Chart of Human Evaluation. So, either you open the ARC theory for falsification – or you have effectively falsified the Chart of Human Evaluation. No, you Cannot have your cake and eat it to. Which is it?
The Rube Goldberg machine seems to be simpler than the explanation above.
.
Good one, Vinaire. 🙂
However, my intention was to get in all the different aspects of ARC so as to cover all the so-called preclusions. And it wasn’t easy keeping it to what I did!
Btw, I notice you yourself can get pretty windy and complicated and significant at times and yet you felt justified in describing another comment of mine this way:
“Oh! Gawwwwwwwwwd! Why do some people like to make life so complicated”
Why don’t you point out then when i have said something windy and complicated instead of complaining about it later.
By the way, what does “preclusion” mean? Is that an english word?
.
Windy and complicated aren’t necessarily bad. Sometimes that is what is needed to express what you’re trying to express – which itself happens to be long and complicated. It’s not necessarily an inval and I wasn’t complaining about it, honestly. I was just pointing out that you have done it too, so why invalidate me for doing it.
“Preclusion” is the noun version of the verb “preclude.” It was used a lot in the earlier thread questioning ARC, which was why I used it here. Thanks for asking. I don’t want to give you any MUs and then have to harp on it. 😉
I think “preclusion” is somebodies made up word. I don’t see it in the dictionary.
.
Vin, you won’t find it in its own entry, just at the end of the definition of “precluded” as another part of speech.
Alright, so “preclusion” means “something shut off.”
Something excluded, forbidden, prohibited.
Thanks.
.
Copied from my blog this is my reality on ARC and running the rudiments.
I hope I have not given on impression to any of the blog’s readers that some new tech, was invented by me. NO, I have not invented any such a thing. LRH’s Technology I have used in all my sessions. I have not modified the TECHNOLOGY I just understood and used the basic, the rudiments, the most powerful one from all his creation.
Running ARC, B-ks , using the rudiments All Of THEM, is very powerful and very precise process. Since the MEST universe become the MEST Universe because the being has brake in affinity, reality, communication therefore no understanding toward the MAST.
Running the rudiments in session is the must how one would clear up all the MU’s have cognition on the whole track the immense number of chain of ARC’B-ks if one not cleaning up=confronting those? O/W’s, the suppress button is the must too.
One could never be free if one has not confronted every aspect of the track. Plus 4 flows and earlier similar. When one truly understand the meaning of the words in the Rudiments and what makes the MEST a MEST than one can understand the POWER OF RUNNING THE RUDIMENTS.
With use of the Rudiments one not setting up a sessions but runs a session with that one is confronting the ARC B-ks one has with the MEST Universe.
I have written in my posting in detail ‘Walk the walk of a solo auditor #2” . and the importance of running the Rudiments. I have not invented new way of auditing, different technology.
Ron was a rascal but a brilliant one, he given a great gift and the most valuable pieces of all his work and the most powerful is the Rudiments. It’s simplicity in use holds the power and that is the very reason so difficult to comprehend how great, workable a process is and one can confront and as-is the MEST Universe with its proper use. I have used the TECHNOLOGY in all my session and nothing else since nothing else is exist
PS: Every question is dynamite, directs the PC points him to the exact spot of the un-confronted mess. How one can improve such? Is there a break in reality, understanding the meaning of the basic questions?
[I understand that you don’t have any and you have a purpose posting that exercise.]
“[I understand that you don’t have any and you have a purpose posting that exercise.]”
What does that mean?
Sorry, my MU, not having miss-understanding on ARC, and have the desire expending your reality.
I still don’t get it. Please explain to me like I was a four year old child. Please.
Is that a sarcasm?
The thoughts don’t seem to be connected very well here. Can somebody summarize what Elizabeth is saying here?
.
Beats me.
I believe Elizabeth means that “you don’t have any” ARC breaks, and that you have a purpose in posting the challenge in your OP.
This is a great example of what I tried to get across in my long comment below. People meet communications with different realities – which may be based on superior knowledge or may be based on their filters.
P.S. And the factors inherent in their realities of Intelligence and Power also come into play.
P.P.S. And also the Affinity or lack of it comes into play when receiving a communication, as described in that last long post of mine. I hope SOMEBODY dupicated it – which would also depend on all these factors.
I did! I thought you did a magnificent job of tackling the subject!
I don’t think I have enough free theta to now challenge two of them… lovely people, I mean. 🙂
.
Maria, you are a generous soul. But I already knew that. 🙂
What I loved was the fact that your post tackled pretty much same points as mine, showing that we evaluated the importances basically the same way. But we approached them from different angles. And lIke you – I’m having fun!
“I wanted to comment on the “Volume” part but I won’t. ;)”
“I don’t think I have enough free theta to now challenge two of them… lovely people, I mean.”
Big smiles from me again.
Yer not so bad yerself. 🙂
Marildi, I am just curious… does your name start with a ‘K’? If so then …. well later.
.
You are good. By now you should know that not everyone can add new reality different viewpoints to the debated.
What is the point for debate? To teach, upmanship? To show off ones knowledge, convince others I am better because I know different , I know more, I am important, I can quote well known writers, teachers, educators, expend ones reality, by looking for different reality which makes one more comfortable to live with, less stimulating, more stimulating, more impressive therefore more important.
Debates establish what one thinks, their reality, their thoughts considerations, agreement and that shows how they view the others and how they create.
Debate is a very stimulative activity, holds the being in those confinements of thought: the debated item. Debate creates not takes away. Debate points are strong anchor points big energy tossed back and forth like a ball in the court. Not every ball hits the target.
What is the purpose of that comment?
Where is Elizabeth coming from? I am having difficulty understanding her point.
.
Elizabeth, I don’t think that giving one’s views in debate or in discussion is any different from what you do on your blog – which is also to give your views. Reading your views and participating in discussion have similar benefits – gained understandings and cognitions.
And I know the view you have that the only real cognitions or the best ones are from auditing. Perhaps you’re right, but that might be because cognitions come in gradients and some of us are at the gradient where discussion does give us cognitions as well as understandings.
I find that simple non-judgmental discussion, which simply presents one’s honest observations is the best way to have new realizations.
Debate is different from a discussion in that a debate is the process of convincing another person of one’s viewpoint. There is an axe to grind in a debate.
Elizabeth is not discussing. She is desperately trying to convince others of her viewpoint of “solo auditing” and “rudiments” no matter what the topic is.
.
If you actually met Elizabeth, you would know she is not desperate in the slightest.
It might be that her command of the English language may be a bit of a challenge to get her point across, but to invalidate HER just because YOU don’t understand is petty.
It takes 2 to tango. 🙂
Your 1st paragraph is spot on.
What’s interesting to me is thatbetween couples we often get make-up sex at this point – a very solid communication with a LOT of affinity and they kiss and make up.
This is a great one! Ilove it, made me laugh. More likely the sex bit is avenue out total none confront from both persons, the reality the understanding each othere is so way off that a new element was entered into the game which can be agreed by both. The none confronted is till there but pushed into the back, that noneconfronted item has established a wider communication gap. in the long run one step toward separation which not even good sex can repair.
just my reality nothing more, debates are great fun and to look at them from every angle.
It was confusing. I was not sure what was going on. By the way, debates and discussions are not the same thing.
.
This seems to be same old… same old… Is there a fresh viewpoint here?
.
Life is a recursive process of creation?
I don’t think I understand it all yet, because I am still here. 🙂
The new viewpoint that I find exciting is Buddha’s idea of “dependent origination.”
Please see:
Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way
.
I don’t think I understand it all yet, because I am still here. 🙂 :):):)
“Thus, a manifestation of a universe (that includes all existence) is like a soap bubble floating a void. ”
Image of a transparent pearlescent sphere reflecting light, and there, inside, nose and hands pressed against surface tension, looking out to the velvety black beyond, twinkling lights. Spherical consciousness, 360 degrees in all directions.
I like it!
Space Odyssey 2001!
Remember?
.
What may be obfuscating this whole issue of ARC triangle is not looking at the whole Tone scale at once.
If communication depends on duplication then there isn’t much duplication at lower points of the tone scale, or the duplication is of a certain limited kind. Duplication increases as one goes up the tone scale, and that is where the factor of intelligence comes in.
“More communication” simply means more communication per the definition. Increased communication simply means that there may be only few sentences exchanged, but they are more fully duplicated.
So, I believe, when LRH says, “More C,” he simply means, “more duplication or better duplication, or more rational duplication,” He doesn’t necessarily mean, “More exchanges back and forth.”
If we look at only one unit of two-way communication cycle at the lower end of the Tone scale, and then look at that same unit of two-way communication cycle at the upper end of the Tone scale, the difference would be much more duplication. This may be referred to as more C.
That means,
Higher on the Tone Scale = Much better duplication = More consistent reality.
Now that makes sense to me.
.
Please look at the above explanation just within yourself (self to self flow). What happens to your perception when you are in exhilaration or in action? What happens to the consistency among all your considerations? You catch inconsistencies (outpoints) right away and resolve them snap, snap, snap! Your reality comes into a sharper focus because of such consistency.
.
YES!!! YES YES YES!!!!
The misunderstood seems to be on what “more” means in “more C,” or in “more R.”
To me, “more C” would mean better duplication; and “more R” would mean better consistency (lack of outpoints) rather than more agreement.
The expression “more agreement” has always bothered me, because I see more agreement in hypnotism yet lesser reality.
An accurate expression for me would be:
“Reality is consistency,” and not “Reality is agreement.”
.
A bit of a side track, but nevertheless; Total Understanding would be total duplication of consideration equals no space (total Affinity) equals One-ness.
There we get into the “unknowable.” When there is total understanding, there is also total as-isness. “Unknowable” may be described as follows
What is left after total as-isness may be considered, but that is just one’s consideration in a new unit of time.
One-ness is a consideration in a new unit of time.
.
Zero would be something taken away but still referred to – i.e. there’s no chair in this room. We have chair minus chair = 0.
Null is different. No comparisons. No “thing” implied or present. Can’t be known for there is nothing to be known. Dissolved or not yet anything.
Right on! Sister.
This is what I wrote about ZERO in this essay:
MS A3: SUBTRACTION
I believe that ZERO was discovered through subtraction.
.
Vinnie, you are on a roll today!!!!!!!!
Aha!!!! BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING BING
(That’s me watching a big bullpen (slot machine) empty out Las Vegas style as I read your last several posts)
All you are asking for is a precise mathematical relationship between the two. If the relationship is not linear, is it quadratic, or cubic, or of some higher power.
My simple answer is: “I have no idea, nor do I care.”
.
Thank you, Maria. I go so excited by your response that i clicked the response of Isene at the wrong location.
Anyway, I feel that you and I are on the same wave length. Your entry on this thread has really been inspiring to me.
When are you coming with me to Las Vegas!
.
But it is of course possible to fully duplicate something and not understand it. Is it possible to not duplicate something and still understand it (pure knowingness)?
I think this is just playing with considerations, because one can always say, “The degree of understanding is proportional to the degree of duplication.”
Duplication and understanding are not black and white.
.
No, but can you have one degree of one and a different degree of the other? That is the question.
All you are asking for is a precise mathematical relationship between the two. If the relationship is not linear, is it quadratic, or cubic, or of some higher power.
My simple answer is: “I have no idea, nor do I care.”
(This response got inserted at the wrong place above.)
I am interested in this as I believe I can see the possibility of no direct correlation between the two without adding intelligence as a factor in the picture.
My appreciation of intelligence is the same as what I mentioned here:
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/challenge/#comment-7664
In short: “Intelligence would be part of C (clarity of perception in terms of differences, similarities and identities).”
Intelligence would appear as “rationality in duplication” at the upper end of the Tone scale.
Understanding, to me, is simply a word used for a circumstance where one has a high sense of being there, a high sense of duplication, and a high sense of consistency among all one’s considerations.
.
And would you consider then R, A and U part of C?
I think A, R, C, U are simply looking at the same phenomenon in different ways. The misunderstood would be to look at them as separate phenomena.
When one really understands something, one has a sense of really being there with that something (concept, object, etc.). One also has the sense of consistency among all the related considerations. The communication with that concept (as in using that concept) is also very fluent.
There is a feeling of total effortlessness. One feels like jumping with joy. There is freedom. Nothing is tugging at you, like you have to go back and look at something. the cycle is simply finished… completed Your attention is totally free.
This is how I feel now about this ARC triangle.
.
So, can you understand inconsistencies. Or, can you feel great about inconsistencies? Or, can inconsistencies be created through excellent communication?
I see inconsistencies as unknowing assumptions (things taken for granted), that disappear as soon as they are spotted.
.
Any consideration would disappear as they are spotted.
The considerations that persist (the known considerations) are actually alter-is-nesses. They are persisting because the underlying as-isness is not known.
For example, “Reality is agreement” was persisting for me all these years, and I have felt uncomfortable about it as long as I have known it. It was an alter-isness.
Now that uncomfortable alter-isness is now gone as soon as I related Reality to consistency. Now “Reality is consistency” is not persisting for me in any kind of uncomfortable way. I feel enthusiastic about this datum, and I am applying it everywhere to see where it might fail. I no longer feel stopped a I felt with the datum “Reality is agreement.” I already saw how it could be easily falsified. I also knew about consistency, only I didn’t relate it to reality the way I did it this morning.
What disappeared for me was that uncomfortable, nagging feeling associated with the datum “Reality is agreement.” That datum was almost right but not quite.
To respond to your statement, “Any consideration would disappear as they are spotted,” I would modify it as follows:
“Any inconsistency would disappear as soon as it is spotted.”
That means, if you think something is inconsistent, and it is still persisting, then you haven’t spotted the underlying inconsistency yet. Inconsistent items are a product of some inconsistency not yet discovered.
Maybe, what I am trying to say here can be stated a lot better. I’ll be patient till that flash come to me. 🙂
.
Carry on Vinnie!
I too like consistency as a much improved wording. It aligns with my current awareness of predominating activated thoughts monitor my reality. Now I add consistent predominating activated thought to the mix and its really sweet. Like music.
It is very interesting that consist comes from com – together and sistere – to stand.
persist is per – thoroughly/continue steadfastly
exist is ex – out/forth
resist is re- against
The root words of sistere trace as:
sist: to stand
sist comes from from stet: let it stand
stet is the 3rd person singular present subjunctive of stare
stare: to look fixidly at, to stare at, stiffen, stand out, project, rigid, become frozen, hard, firm
Do you have any comments on the following essay?
KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY
.
Geir, the following comment you just posted is the one I think I need to focus on:
“So back to the premise again; If you are able to explain all thinkable scenarios with the ARC theory, it precludes no social situations, renders the theory unfalsifiable and thus the theory becomes useless for predicting human behaviour and you have effectively killed the Chart of Human Evaluation. So, either you open the ARC theory for falsification – or you have effectively falsified the Chart of Human Evaluation. No, you Cannot have your cake and eat it to. Which is it?”
I guess I still haven’t got the actual point you’ve been trying to make, and I would like to. I’ll start with this – how does the theory of gravity – what goes up must go down – compare to ARC?
This may be the very reason why I believe you are defending the ARC theory to its own detriment – i.e. avidly defending it in an indefensible way like most Scientologists I have met immediately tries to do.
The theory of Gravity precludes objects repelling each other through the force carrying particle called Graviton. Such repulsion would simply not happen – objects will Not fall upwards.
The theory of ARC according to you can account for any and all of the objections I can come up with, i.e. it precludes nothing and is thus worthless as a tool for predicting human behaviour – the very foundation for the Chart of Human Evaluation which is indeed based on the ARC triangle.
I am really trying my best to get this point across. And it is a crucial one and right on the OP.
I’m trying too.
1. The level of A will follow the level of C will follow the level of R will follow the level of A, etc – vs. The level of A will not follow the level of C…etc..
2. Objects will fall down – vs. Objects will not fall up.
That’s the comparison I see between the two theories, no difference. Tell me what I”m missing in the same simple example way.
No reply, Geir??
I did answer – it got lost somehow…
I will answer your next instead, see below.
Probably didn’t word that right. Try this:
If the level of A (or R or C) rises the other two will also rise.
If the level of A (or R or C) falls the other two will also fall.
Preclusions:
A (or R or C) rises and one or both of the other two stay the same or decrease.
A (or R or C) falls and one or both of the other two stay the same or increase.
Or, if you want a specific example: Joe and Pete have a quality conversation and afterwards one or both of them has a lower R and A.
I did give you just those situations from real life earlier that you now preclude. You defended that the ARC theory could even account for those situations, hence they, according to you, were not preclusions after all… Which is it?
Can we please carry on with the analogy to gravity – I think that is the way I’m going to get this.
In other words, if we were talking about gravity and you asked me for preclusions what would the answer be and how would that differ from the answer for the ARC triangle theory? Or how is my answer about the preclusions to ARC different from the gravity one? Let’s put aside anything I said before, for now.
The theory of gravity precludes me throwing a ball upwards and it starts accelerating upwards. If someone then came and demonstrated that he indeed can do that, then that theory of gravity would have been falsified. On the other hand if a person would start interpreting the theory to cover all possible thinkable scenarios by adding new factors or justifications, he would effectively have rendered the theory useless for predictions, i.e. rendered it unscientific – just as Popper pointed out is the case with Freud’s theories.
Okay. Again, we’re starting fresh because something has been missed it seems. No interpretations have been made at this point.
Where I’m coming from is this: If in fact the ARC theory is a law, as much as gravity, then there wouldn’t be any preclusions that could be found to actually exist, any more than there are for gravity. I get how it doesn’t meet the criteria as a scientific theory, but that’s just a handy rule of thumb that Popper came up with and it is pretty workable – but he himself knew it didn’t prove the theory wasn’t correct. Correct me if I’m wrong on any of that.
If ARC is a law then there won’t be any actual preclusions either – they can be mocked up, of course, but wouldn’t be found to exist. Gravity is something real to me, so aligning the whole idea with that I think would be helpful to see what I’m missing.
Maybe even from the above you’ll see what is out.
No, there would be social situations that someone could think up that the ARC theory should preclude – just as there are physical situations that someone could think up that the theory of gravity would preclude (like throwing a stone up and started to accelerating upwards). So, again, you will have to come up with imagined social situations that would be precluded by the ARC theory – situations that makes the theory testable, falsifiable. This I believe has been the greatest test for my patience on any forum to date.
I know. And you’re a real gentleman. And you passed the test with flying colors! A while back. Lately, I’ve been expecting for you at any moment to ban me or something. 🙂
But I did give you, just above, a specific social situation with Pete and Joe. Your response was to tell me that EARLIER I had viewed this sort of situation differently. Please forget anything I said before. This is now, a new unit of time, a new me, who has seen a crack in the light of dawn and is earnestly trying to see the dawn. So did I give a correct example of a preclusion, or not? (Or would it be called a possible or potential preclusion? And a real-life example would be an actual preclusion. Hey, I just spotted that as a possible source of dim-wittedness and confusion for me on this subject!)
.
P.S. You already saw from my other post lower down, that it seems you and I and others have at least at times had a confusion on what actually is meant by a corner increasing or decreasing, as shown by the examples we’ve been giving and accepting. Probably also misunderstandings on key definitions, which I posted there as well. And we know that MUs can make people stupid! Held-down fives preclude(!) thinking straight.
Do you want to go back to looking at some real-life examples a bit, O latter-day Job? To see if they really are preclusions and skip the mocked-up ones for now (before you have no hair left from pulling it all out)? I think it’s only right and logical and probably scientific to take another look at real examples that would falsify the theory.
(I’m ducking for cover now.)
I will never ban you 🙂
I never had any confusion as to what is meant by raising a corner. And I have given you plenty of situations that I think would constitute preclusions. In a new unit of time; Do you agree that those are indeed preclusions against the theory as presented by LRH where all corners are level at any given point in time?
First – phew! 😀
And yes yes preclusions. I agree I agree. Uncle – okay? 🙂
But get ready, I’m still going to be the bane of your existence a little longer: 😦
Here’s what I mean. In your OP examples you have:
1. “Have you ever liked someone less when you learned to know them better?”
Reality = the degree of AGREEMENT reached by two ends of a communication line
So does “know them better” mean you have a greater degree of agreement (higher tone) – or does it mean that you know MORE about them?
2. “Have you ever ended up agreeing less with a person when you communicated more.”
“Have you ever understood someone less when you communicated more with them?”
For these two, again what I’m saying is that “communicated more” is not the same as communicated at a higher tone level.
3. “Have you ever grown tired of something the more you looked at it?”
This one doesn’t actually fit the definition of communication that LRH is giving in the context of the ARC triangle. Here’s the definitiion I just cleared up as the one that fits:
Communication: an interchange of IDEAS between two terminals (people) (POW)
1. Less affinity with better AND more reality on them, their life, their intention, their situation.
2. More, deeper, better quality communication.
3. So, the ARC triangle does not work for situations or for ideas or for MEST, is that what you are saying? Or, if one cannot have communication with anyTHING, then C is obviously zero – then how come I can have affinity or understanding of things (A and U not zero)?
It’s not what I’M saying, it’s what does the ARC triangle theory itself say. The definitions I quoted a few posts up are as the ones stated in the references describing the theory. We’ve all been making it too complicated, I believe.
There’s also this from Dn 55:
“The DEGREE OF AGREEMENT reached BETWEEN A and B, in this communication cycle, becomes THEIR Reality.”
What I see from that is, C is between two people (also per def of C) and the R is referring to the Reality, i.e. degree of agreement (which is defined as “shared considerations”), “reached BETWEEN A and B…THEIR Reality” (as above), their shared considerations. There are other definitions for A-R-C that fit other contexts (such as the def of R in the context of the physical universe). But the whole idea of the ARC triangle has to do with “living associations” “human relations” “human relationships” “discourses”– quotes from FOT. It doesn’t say that means one can’t have A, R and C (including C as simple perception) in other situations.
Actually, I was just thinking about something before I saw the above post of yours. My conception of ARC is that it’s an observation LRH made. He observed that the Communication between two people “vibrates” at a certain wave length, and that very same vibration exists in the “considerations shared in common.” And of course that same vibration exists in their emotional response, their A. It’s an observation of a single thing, a cycle of communication or a human relationship – looked at from different perspectives, looking at its different aspects. breaking it down that way.
This and only this is why I have not been willing to say it ain’t so. I probably shouldn’t have brought up the “theory of gravity” when all I really meant to compare it was the observation that what goes up must come down, something anyone can observe. And I think it’s the same kind of “law” with ARC. If you observe one “side” of it increasing, you know for sure the others are too.
Or not. As I believe that one can indeed go from little communication to more vivid, nice, great, fantastic, eloquent, quality, excellent wavelength, beautiful and whole-hearted communication AND at the same time experience a drop in agreement as their realities are going apart. They can through this fantastic and enlightening and strikingly artful communication end up realizing that they better get a divorce. I have seen this happen. Others have too.
WTF? OMG BBQ!!
“a drop in agreement as their realities are going apart.”
I don’t know what others have in their minds when they say what “happened” to them. Because I’m not sure what they’re calling C or R (i.e. the definitions). But I’ll take your example and say that what I understand Reality in human discourse to mean is “shared considerations” – cuz that’s exactly what the theory states. I can’t imagine that the description of C that you gave (with a fabulous selection of modifiers, wow) would be occurring and all the while there isn’t much “shared consideration” or it’s going down. I haven’t seen anything like that, unless they’re talking “at” each other – or some other definition of C that isn’t C, or some other definition of R that isn’t R. For example, “their realities going apart” means what exactly? That one has of them has one Reality and the other has another? That isn’t the definition. It’s “shared considerations.”
No wonder so many Scientologists don’t think the triangle works. I don’t think a single person posting here (including myself) has known the correct definitions or they would have pointed it out when the terms were being used incorrectly.
But honestly, if you can explain the above points I’m questioning or give me an example that sounds plausible and fits the definitions, I’ll gladly admit whatever that would imply. 🙂
Let me answer with another question:
Could two people have a shared consideration that they don’t understand each other, or that they hate each other?
P.S. Or I can admit that the theory will account for all possible scenarios. But would you just tell me how it differs then from “what goes up, must come down.” You’ve been inching me along, slowly and tediously and excruciatingly – don’t give up now. WTF 😉
“They can through this fantastic and enlightening and strikingly artful communication end up realizing that they better get a divorce. I have seen this happen. Others have too.”
So if ARC results in understanding, then no one would ever get divorced? Ever leave a company? Ever leave their familial home? Ever choose a new direction? Missing from this equation is power of choice, ideal scenes, diversity, change of direction, new goals and interests, and so on.
Divorce would be the logical and reasonable choice when consideration of all of the facts and circumstances of married life yields a realization that each individual’s desires, aspirations, values may be better served pursuing other options. And that need not be destructive of the ARCU between the two, in fact, enforcing tandem effort in the face of divergence may itself be destructive, while coming to terms with it may very well result in a tremendously high level of ARCU and a wish for the other to go for it, live the life they dream of and aspire to everything they can be. That seems very high-toned to me.
But it certainly explains the viewpoint of the only reason anyone ever leaves is because of overts and withholds. i.e. if the ARC is so good, then why leave? Then again, just because one is high-toned doesn’t mean that anyone who was also high-toned would be an ideal partner at a particular phase of life/interest or development.
So we would have the natural tendency for very high toned goals, purposes, values, and so on to go into conflict. It just means that the partnership is not ideal for the fulfillment of both parties goals, purposes and values.
“Could two people have a shared consideration that they don’t understand each other, or that they hate each other?”
I’m sure they could. But that could be seen to be the result of many other considerations that were NOT shared. And the overall low R would go with the low U and low A of not understanding each other or hating each other.
Could they hate the fact that they reached a shared consideration?
Wow. Sudden bright blues!!!
I’m on a wild abandon 😉
Nice colours, Gier!
… and look at all those ‘Reply’ buttons!!!
Looks great!
It seems to me that ARC is very dependent on what Considerations are in play for all parties in a comm cycle.
It may be the one thing above all, or, at the base of all duplication. It seems that way to me – your mileage may vary.
Barriers, beingnesses, ridges, serfacs & case all hamper one’s ability to duplicate if the above are not under one’s control where one realizes he is Cause and can causatively know he is creating them in PT and dispense with them as he pleases.
My 2 bits worth 🙂
Barriers, beingnesses, ridges, serfacs, case, etc. are all phenomena of space, and shall fit under the factor of affinity (A).
.
Vinaire, I read some of your posts today and I get that you are basically in agreement with the construct of ARC, just not with all the wording – which might then only be a matter of semantics and wouldn’t invalidate the phenomenon itself. Did you know that one definition of agree is “to be consistent” (Random House College)
Okaaaaaaaay!
Dennis, absolutely agreed about ARC being dependent on Considerations. And the examples I mocked up in that humongous comment of mine recently, show (I really feel) that it works reversely too – considerations are ultimately under the control of ARC and ARC is still senior to everything. What I described was how considerations actually get addressed and how any interference to ARC by them gets handled with the full and true application of ARC. The formula works in spite of Considerations – if it is simply followed through with!
And in fact, that goes for other two factors that are separate from ARC – those of Intelligence and Power. You said, “Barriers, beingnesses, ridges, serfacs & case all hamper one’s ability to duplicate” and I agree. As a matter of fact each of those would be indirectly addressed since they all fit under one of those three factors if not within the bounds of ARC itself. Did you read that post of mine and follow what I was saying there? So far the only one who has commented on it was Maria and it was positive, but now that I think of it she didn’t actually state her agreement or full agreement. I’d be interested in your take!
Here is my favorite quote from The Phoenix Lectures by L. Ron Hubbard:
“There is a level lying between considerations and A, R and C and this is Is-ness. It’s the consideration of Is-ness. Things are because you consider that they are and therefore something that is, is considered is. If you don’t consider that it is, it of course can be considered to be something else. But if you recognize that it is a consideration you only have to recognize that it is. And if you recognize that something is, then you have recognized merely that it is a consideration. As soon as you have recognized that something is, IS, you have reduced it to a consideration, and that’s that. One has affinity because he considers he has affinity. One has reality because he considers he has reality. One has agreement because he considers he has agreement. One has disagreement because he considers he has disagreement. One has a Dynamic (A Dynamic: any one of the eight subdivisions of the Dynamic Principle of Existence — SURVIVE — which are: The urge to survive as, or to the survival of, (1) Self, (2) Sex and family, (3) One’s group, (4) Mankind, (5) Any life forms, (6) MEST: Matter, Energy, Space, Time — the physical universe, (7) Theta, spirit; the Thetan, a spiritual being, thought, etc., (8) Supreme Being — the “Infinity Dynamic”) — one has a Dynamic because one considers he has a Dynamic.”
Hi Marildi,
Yes, I did read your posts up above while drinking my coffee this morning.
I wanted to read it again … I’m still trying to wrap my head around ARC, Axiom 28 and how we progress from where we are to higher levels.
I did like your take on ‘intelligence’ … it also seems to me that intelligent quotient or imbued intelligence varies wildly from person to person and this does affect duplication.
There is also the simple definition of Stupidity – Unknowness of time, place form & event. This is not a derogatory definition of stupidity in case anyone jumps on me for not ‘granting beingness’. It is simply something the person does not know; therefore stupid. I am very stupid on a lot of things. Hopefully, I recognize it and can seek answers which will as-is that cloud of stupidity.
Gee, I’m going off-topic here …. I also look at these abilities that we get from auditing are REGAINED abilities. So this assumes that we all have these to greater or lessor degree. (I won’t get into the Big Being/Minion data right now 🙂
So, I look ahead and try to envision what ARC is like at higher levels. ARC prior to the decision ‘To Be’ ? This is very esoteric for my pea-sized brain … stupid.
Maybe it’s time I got a demo kit together 🙂
Hey Dennis. You said, “intelligence varies wildly from person to person and this does affect duplication.” Did you have anyone in particular in mind? I ask having just taken a glimpse at the embarrassing array of comments of mine strewn throughout two whole threads. Taking every possible stand on the topic under discussion and vehemently expounding on each in turn. And Geir all the time trying to get something, anything, through my head – with sporatic success.
Oh yes, Intelligence and Duplication will probably be the next hot topic. IF we manage to get through this one before Geir blows up for real and puts a big CONDEMNED sign on it. Did you see that?? “WTF? OMG BBQ!!” With two exclamation marks even. I don’t think I’ve seen him use more than one – about every six months. Between Geir and me the thread theme song should be “Getting to know you…”
Or for me, “Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.” I’ve managed to demonstrate that superbly, in all variety of ways. For all the world to see, forevermore – right here for all posterity in the annals of the cyber sphere. Very embarrassing. Worse than I thought when I actually looked back through. Oh…cringe.
(Now, aren’t you glad you have that auditor beingness that gets people to itsa on and on? :-))
Was curious what you meant by, “I’m still trying to wrap my head around ARC, Axiom 28 and how we progress from where we are to higher levels?” Maybe I could use some of that.
Seriously though, I enjoyed your philosophical ponderings.
Here’s a funny one related to the OP: I like you just the same as before even though the understanding between us has gone down – yes, I felt I understood You better before than I do now. I feel there is less consistency – but the affinity is level. Go figure 😉
I would say that inconsistency has remained the same, because I do not see anything added or subtracted as far as inconsistencies go. I haven’t seen any inconsistency been agreed upon and resolved.
.
“I like you just the same as before even though the understanding between us has gone down.”
Here’s the problem I see in what you say. The discussion we had (up to now) yielded a lack of shared considerations – low R as regards the discussion.. However, your Affinity for me did not go down because the discussion topic is not your R on me ME. And my Affinity for you did not go down because the discussion is not the same as YOU.
The discussion was about a theory. My Understanding of that theory has increased due to the increase of shared considerations – shared with LRH in this case.
My affinity for you didn’t go down either, but it COULD have. And sometimes it does. Why?
Vin, you say: “I haven’t seen any inconsistency been agreed upon and resolved.”
Agreed. And the inconsistencies started with a lack of duplication/agreement/consistency in relation to the theory itself – what the theory IS exactly. That is the point of departure needed going forward – IF a sincere interest in pursuing truth will win out over sheer exasperation over the inability to make something that is inconsistent in itself (duplication of the theory) into consistency.
A continuous lack of duplication should lower the affinity… but it hasn’t. I find that interesting, because it may have. So, why does it lower A when it does and why does it not when it doesn’t? We could have had the exact same scenario and experienced another outcome of A. What is the determining factor?
“…What is the determining factor?”
Cool! I feel the comm line going back in for real – the C rises again!
Here’s one idea. The overall ARC between people gets established and re-established as time goes on and more and more C occurs with the corresponding R and A. This is how ARC builds – or doesn’t, as the case may be, depending on the amount of agreement or disagreement coming into being. And that’s why when you get to know someone better it either means more ARC for them or less – you have either more shared considerations or fewer, with the corresponding A. So it seems to me there is a relative or comparative thing when a single comm cycle or exchange does result primarily in disagreement yet the A doesn’t decrease – the overall ARC isn’t noticeably affected. We’ve all seen this with long-time friends, family members, etc. We “Understand” them.
Here’s another possibility, the one you mentioned. The R in a single cycle might have been enough to lower the overall A – as it was too much for the basic ARC to stand up to. We’ve all seen this too, many times.
Yet another possible scenario (and you’re gonna really like this one). Let’s say the situation was as above and an individual feels a lowered A. He then DECIDES (postulate/consideration) to like the other person as much as before because he simply wants or needs the ARC to be there, based on extraneous considerations of one kind or another (the kids, the job…). Yes, you are right, this would be a preclusion of the theory when looking at the hard links part. The other factors of Considerations and Intelligence and Power can override that part of the theory. (I learned so much on this thread, thinking it all out.)
And yet, despite the above, USE or APPLICATION of the theory and its BASIC truth about increasing or decreasing corners, still holds. This is because one could take steps to handle the situation (using Scn tech especially), as I described in that one long post where I went into all the possibilities (I could think of) of what can happen when Considerations or I or P mess up the basic operation of the triangle. But that’s just temporary, IF you do apply the data in the rest of the theory, not just the datum about the hard links. It’s a whole theory.
Now, does it need to be restated so as not to be as vague or misleading? I think we may be able to come to an actual agreement about that! 🙂
Over to you…
So, you think the hard link of all the corners is wrong or not?
Hi Marildi,
No, I did not have anyone in particular in mind 🙂
As for the comments … I really enjoy reading everyone’s comments. The more angles/viewpoints, the better. I am wide open to change my views on life and this blog is the best I have found.
We are all seeking – greater understanding, more space ( or no space if one is up that high 🙂 ) I prefer discussing different points rather than forcing an opinion on others. After all, my opinion on a subject could radically change in a second.
I look forward to cognitions as I read your and the other’s comments. Personally, I am in a state of constant flux – yes, I do have some stable datums I operate by, and yes, they may be aberrated, but I constantly look for greater understanding.
My greatest gains are cogniting on truth which is 180 degrees from where I am. That really shakes my universe 🙂 It is truly a pleasure to realize that I had something so ass-backward and now I see truth and the nutty computation as-ises.
So I avidly read your comments for those little gems – they, among other jewels on this blog, spur me on my quest.
A-R-C triangle should be compared to gravity-mass-attraction triangle. The Law of Affinity should be compared to the Law of Gravity.
What is the law of Affinity? Similar vibrations combine with each other, and dissimilar vibrations reject each other.
Affinity may be resulting in consistency and inconsistency depending on how the vibrations interact.
..
My God, Vinaire, it was really gratifying to read your comment about Law of Gravity compared to Law of Affinity and the ARC triangle. I myself was only able to “sense” a comparison because I’m not knowledgeable about the gravity or physics in general.
I gotta tell you something. Not just this one but a number of your recent comments have really bumped up my ARC for you. For one thing, I saw that you do not actually reject LRH and Scn without having “looked” at it sincerely, and that you are willing to accept it if it’s “consistent.” For another, you showed a real insight into the dynamics in the discussion (or “debate”) and were willing to state your observations in a straightforward and ARC-ful way. I’m glad you’re a member of this “family.” And I do feel a familial relationship amongst us here. Really, really cool.
I’m gonna have to take you more seriously now too. 😉
Dennis, thanks for your comment: “After all, my opinion on a subject could radically change in a second.” Just the right ack! Actually, when I looked back again at my changing thoughts here, it didn’t seem that horrendous. (The previous thread, not so much. LOL)
And thanks for your other acks. Your posts have been helpful to me too – got me thinking a number of times, as I’ve told you. I’m glad you’re posting here – bird of a feather that you are. 🙂
“So, you think the hard link of all the corners is wrong or not?”
In its own context, the ARC triangle with its hard-linked corners is correct and true. Vinaire’s post of the Phoenix Lectures quote put ARC in the larger context to show that it itself is the result of a consideration and that other considerations can alter it. BUT it does generally operate in life and even when it goes out because of other considerations, the triangle ITSELF can still be used/applied to handle those other considerations and bring ARC up where it has gone down – which is part of the theory too! And that very capability is what makes it a basic and powerful “truth” as much as any other consideration that is held widely.
The upshot of all that is – you are probably right: from another point of view (context) the hard link isn’t always true and thus the theory could be better stated so as not to be confusing or misleading which actually diminishes the likelihood of its application by individuals. On the other hand, if we decided that the triangle has been “falsified” THAT might even more generally or broadly diminish the likelihood of its valuable application.
You do realize that what you have written here is indeed a falsification of the ARC theory as proposed by LRH?
Apart from that, you also resort to a logical fallacy called Appeal to Consequences of a Belief .
It is not a matter of what we decide and the consequences of that choice. It is a matter of improvement in face of one’s own fear of such consequences.
That said; This is the end of trying to make you see the possibilities for improvement in this area.
“You do realize that what you have written here is indeed a falsification of the ARC theory as proposed by LRH?…” That said; This is the end of trying to make you see the possibilities for improvement in this area.”
.
Yes, I do see it as a falsification – in a certain frame of reference as I explained. And I already agreed with you that it could be improved upon! The improvement would probably be in the form of wording that would take into account the ways it doesn’t strictly apply – to make it a broader truth. (Now I’m the one who feels that I’m re-explaning, btw. ;-))
As regards Appeal to Consequences, I see it as an appeal to the value of it and not unwittingly diminishing that by labeling it as “false” rather than incomplete due to not being worded as correctly as it should be. Maybe its semantics here.
“This is the end…”
I never heard you say such a thing to anybody. But that tells me there is still something wrong with the C (and thus the R with all its unshared considerations). And just when I thought the C was going in that would resolve the conflicting considerations. I thought we were starting to do the type of thing Vin suggested, sincere efforts to understand by taking it from different angles, etc…
There is a limit to even my patience.
You seem to have an M/U on “falsification”. It is not the same as invalidating or making something wholly false.
10-3
You seemed to be making “hard links” wholly false. Was I wrong about that, then?
That part is either fully correct or not. If it is “usually correct”, it can be falsified and is in need of improvement.
p.s. Just to be clear, I know that you didn’t say the “links” were totally false, just that they weren’t “hard” and that it occurred quite commonly that the links weren’t there and thus false.
Right, “fully correct or not” was what I meant too, and that the “hard” part isn’t.
Just wanted to say something else. I have the understanding that each person in a comm cycle is responsible for the ARC and then U going in. Here’s the closest LRH quote I could find, expressing that basic Idea: “It is the responsibility of anyone who would communicate that he speak with such vocabulary as can be understood.” (Dn 55) So I take my share, or more than my share, of the responsibility for the lack of a resolution and am sorry about succeeding only in trying your patience beyond endurance. (ugh)
There’s also the LRH notion that “more communication, not less” dissolves all things, which was what I was still hoping for. But I also agree fully with free choice as the senior datum. So I will respect what you choose at this point and give it a rest. 🙂
p.s. One other thing I wanted to re-iterate, in case it didn’t communicate, is that you did achieve an understanding and agreement by me that the theory as expressed could be and should be improved. My idea was that its limitations, the factors that alter, it should be included in the formula.
Let me make some comments on Serfacs (Service Facsimiles), since it has been mentioned above in the context of ARC. The only person I have seen using it repeatedly is Dennis here. I am sure he looks at the behavior of others through the lens of serfacs. He has attributed some serfacs to me. I haven’t had much use for that concept, but let me look at what it is.
Most Scientologists think that by knowing Scientology they become smarter than those who don’t know about Scientology. I think this has been used commonly as a serfac by many Scientologists I have known. But this is an old serfac
Many Christians have a similar serfac. They regard Christianity as the only true religion. All other religions are false. A Christian colleague of mine believes in that whole heartedly. I have had some interesting discussions with him.
Many Muslims have a similar serfac too. They also act on it. But here things started to get weird with such a serfac. What happens when they are lot of Christians, or a lot of Muslims, and there are lot of denominations and sects? Then this serfac starts to go into confusion.
This is happening now in Scientology. We have Churchies, we have Independents, and we have Free Zoners. This serfac is going to be in confusion in Scientology too.
By the way, the basic inconsistency I see is “Knowing How to Know” being a religious activity. It is like mixing knowledge with devotion. This is the basic squirreling that got introduced in 1952 or so. The fruits of it we are witnessing today.
Hail to knowledge! You will know it only this way. This is the only true way.
.
The reason I gave serfac as a separate item in the list above was that it is not part of case … it is a computation generated by the preclear (not the bank).
In the context of ARC and general communication, one’s own computations can also be a specialized type of barrier.
One has many serfacs and I too hope to handle as many of my own as I can as I seek greater knowledge and understanding.
I would say that any serfac is part of the case just like any fixation is part of the case. “Preclear” and “bank” is an arbitrary division.
Why do certain Christians think that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions are false? Why do certain Scientologists think that they are smarter than the wogs? One may call it conditioning or serfac, but I look at it as a “stable datum” that is providing the person relief from some great confusion. And that stable datum is being reinforced by the company of similar believers as in a church. If you shake that stable datum an incredible amount of confusion would be let loose.
By calling it a fixed computation that serves some function is just being fancy. If you use that definition than the biggest serfac is “ego” or the very idea of “survival of that ego.” That will make any stable datum a serfac. Now that is an interesting look.
As Rafael referred to “fixation” in a recent post, I would say that any “fixation” would lead to a serfac.
.
The definitions of such words as computation, service facsimile, preclear, bank, stable datum, etc are out of the tech dictionary.
You may like to re-define words to suit your think … that is entirely your choice.
While you may find your statement “That will make any stable datum a serfac.” to be true for you. Others may have different points of view.
Personally, I see stable datum on both ends of the scale – one can create a stable piece of data and operates within the limitations of that computation in all facets of life and fail. On the other hand, one can create a stable operating basis or set or data and survive quite nicely.
My opinion: One should have fluidity – be able to be cause or effect at will and not have to assert his rightness.
In Scientology we have all this terminology, such as, Reactive mind, Analytical mind, entities, service facsimiles, computations, etc. I think we can do away with such terminology if we keep in mind only two categories of mental phenomena:
(1) Fixation
(2) Inconsistency
If we simply address these two categories with KHTK Looking, we can pretty much handle almost any case. It may need some guidance in the beginning, but very soon one can learn to handle one’s case all by oneself.
Stable Datum is useful and it won’t lead to any aberration unless it becomes a fixation, or is inconsistent with other considerations that one is subscribing to.
.
I looked back through some of the examples given and I get that there has been confusion (including my own) on the meaning of “increases” or “decreases.” We’ve been talking about examples that are increases or decreases in the amount of C (MORE or LESS of C occurring) or a greater amount of R (meaning MORE or LESS Reality about someone or something). But the increases and decreases should be in regard to the tone level of of the A, R or C, as on the Chart of Human Evaluation. Here’s a portion of the column of “Reality (Agreement)”:
4.0 Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality.
3.5 Ability to understand and evaluate reality of others and to change viewpoint. Agreeable.
3.0 Awareness of possible validity of different reality. Conservative agreement.
2.5 Refusal to match two realities. Indifference to conflicts in reality. Too careless to agree or disagree.
2.0 Verbal doubt—defense of own reality. Attempts to undermine others’. Disagrees.
1.5 Destruction of opposing reality. “You’re wrong.” Disagrees with reality of others.
1.1 Doubt of own reality. Insecurity. Doubt of opposing reality.
The column for Communication is the column of “Speech: Talks / Speech: Listens” (“manifestation of perceptic communication”) and here is the top part of that column:
4.0 Strong, able, swift and full exchange of beliefs, ideas.
3.5 Will talk of deep-seated beliefs and ideas. Will accept deep-seated ideas, beliefs and consider them.
3.0 Tentative expression of limited number of personal ideas. Receives ideas and beliefs if cautiously stated.
2.5 Casual, pointless conversation. Listens only to ordinary affairs.
2.0 Talks in threats. Invalidates other people. Listens to threats. Openly mocks theta talk.
1.5 Talks of death and destruction only. Hate. Listens only to death and destruction. Wrecks theta lines.
1.1 Talks in apparent theta but vicious intent. Lies. Listens little but mostly to cabal or gossip. Lies.
How about we offer examples now relating to the tone levels of A-R-C?
My original examples where about both amount AND quality. Like the one where I made an artwork and liked it – but the more I truly, with great quality and perception looked and communicated with it ended up liking it less. Or, when there is an average A between me and a friend with practically no C for a while and when C finally picks up (both in amount AND quality), the R drops and/or the A.
I have a problem seeing what the ARC theory does not preclude if it didn’t preclude those examples I have given.
Geir, I also looked again at these definitions:
Communication: an interchange of IDEAS between two terminals (people) (POW)
Reality: the degree of AGREEMENT reached by two ends of a communication line
Agreement: a specialized consideration, it is shared in common, and this we call an
agreement
I’m not sure how your examples fit with those.
(btw, I keep forgetting to tell you I love your new blog design and format. Easy to read,to follow threads, even prettier)
We like prettier 🙂
It seems to me that the basis for the ARCU triangle is the assumption that there are fixed states of mind/operations/behaviors, which can be organized into levels that portray greater and lesser qualities/quantities of survivability.
And what life is that? HUMAN life. The key book is entitled: Science of Survival – Prediction of HUMAN behavior. HUMAN.
And what is human life? An aggregate of cells acting as a cooperative entity. And that entity acting as an aggregate of cooperative entities within a group, and that group aggregating in cooperation with all life forms, a googleplex of aggregates acting in cooperation. And at least within life forms, the base units, cells die and are replaced with astonishing speed and so all of the aggregates are continuously changing. And within ecosystems the prey must cooperate with the predator. And the predator must cooperate with the elements. And the elements cooperate??? The quality and quantity of life rests squarely on cooperation. Cooperation. CO — OPERATION.
Liver cells don’t cooperate? No liver function. No liver function? Sickness. Weakness. Vulnerable to predators. Death one way or another if the liver function is not restored. Will full or greater cooperation from all members of an aggregate forestall the death of the human form? Will it result in cattle not being eaten? I don’t think so.
OPERATE: from L. operationem (nom. operatio) “a working, operation,” from pp. stem of operari “to work, labor” (in L.L. “to have effect, be active, cause”), from opera “work, effort,” related to opus (gen. operis) “a work.”
OPUS: L. opus “a work, labor, exertion” (cf. It. opera, Fr. oeuvre, Sp. obra), from PIE base *op- (Gmc. *ob-) “to work, produce in abundance,” originally of agriculture later extended to religious acts (cf. Skt. apas- “work, religious act;” Avestan hvapah- “good deed;” O.H.G. uoben “to start work, to practice, to honor;” Ger. üben “to exercise, practice;” Du. oefenen, O.N. æfa, Dan. øve “to exercise, practice;” O.E. æfnan “to perform, work, do,” afol “power”).
Never mind nirvana when it comes to human behavior. We are talking about a composite here, a composite that must work with other composites and can fall prey to other composites.
And the greatest advantage a composite can have is higher reason, greater dynamic and full cooperation in the interests of any composites being participated in.
Does it predict HUMAN behavior? Yes I think it does.
Does it predict beyond human behavior? No. All bets are off.
The wild card is the thetan or whatever you’d like to call that which transcends.
That’s a different territory.
I don’t think its charted.
It may be that it can never be charted.
Am I right? I don’t know. I really don’t. But it seems like a reasonable extrapolation to me, one I can use to explore further.
And with that premise we would be able to predict certain HUMAN social situations that cannot occur – situations that we might think up but that the theory says cannot happen.
Maybe. If you could take out the wild card then it would probably be a great deal more consistent and predictable. That’s exactly what science tries to do by using scientific method. But in the realm of human behavior that wild card can’t simply be ignored. Is it a wild card? Or is it just a justification for why things don’t go as predicted? In other words, throw up one’s hands and say “It’s God’s will,” it’s a supernatural force, it’s beyond this world, and so on. To me, that is the problem with falsification. It attempts to find absolutes and ultimate simplicities when maybe that effort is a flawed assumption in and of itself. It doesn’t make me happy to say that. I find it really annoying in fact. I’d like everything to be pretty and tidy and bundled up in neat packages. But maybe its all a great deal messier than that and the best we can do is extract principles we can use with relative confidence in context to develop technologies to serve our interests. Maybe that’s as good as it gets.
I don’t agree – there is always possible to improve something – predictions included. Now the real problem here is that LRH does present many a theory as perfect or near perfect (like the Chart of Human Evaluation or the State of Clear). To then defend his presentation of theories with a wild card that he also mentions in totally different contexts is, I believe, intellectual dishonesty.
Ah Geir, you misunderstand. I am not defending the ARCU triangle. Nor am I defending LRH. The truth is I NEVER promote Dianetics or Scientology and I never direct anyone to these subjects. I find the presentation bombastic, confused, poorly laid out, often contradictory, annoyingly authoritarian, and counter-productive to what I seek. I found the auditing beneficial, the TRs excellent, and the insights I could glean and accept on my own terms extremely valuable.
No, what I am referring to is the general state of science. Invariably wild cards do appear. And when they do, its not uncommon for everyone to throw up their hands and say: it’s God’s work, its an anomaly, it isn’t repeatable, ignoring the fact that even if it only happened ONCE, it happened. Instead, the wild card is shunted off to the realm of “unscientific,” perhaps “spiritual,” “pseudo-science,” etc. Why? Because it can’t be repeated on command. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It means only that no one knows how to repeat it.
Perhaps I have drunk too deeply of uncertainty and critiqued all my knowledge down to a big, big question mark and a place where only flux exists and where I have no faith in science or religion. I am quite willing to utilize processes that result from the studies of these areas, provided I am interested in the results, but in truth, reality just doesn’t look very absolute or particularly consistent to me any more. It’s an uncomfortable state I’m in, but it is often really fun, that is, whenever I think its fun.
I am referring to LRH when I claim intellectual dishonesty or anyone using his wild card in His defense. So called wild cards opens the gates to further understanding by simply rejecting the wild cards as valid.
We need to improve the understanding of the ARC triangle itself, which has been expressed poorly by Hubbard. Hubbard certainly gets the credit for getting the hunch for such a relationship. But I don’t think he got around to exploring it fully.
I see a lot more potential in the ARC triangle that has gone unexplored. A new door has opened up simply by replacing the word “agreement” with “consistency” in the definition of reality.
.
LRH was an intuitive thinker. He was not a systematic thinker. He jumped around a lot using trial and error. He could have accomplished a lot more, if he were more of a systematic thinker (scientist).
.
Instead of “co-operation” if we use the phrase “consistency in operation” then we can expand this argument to both animate and inanimate entities.
In the book “Dianetics: Evolution of a Science,” Hubbard arrives at the conclusion, “The only test of an organism is survival. That can be computed.”
To me a more precise statement would be, “A worthwhile test of an organism would be how well it is meeting its design criteria.”
Thus, designs that are consistent with each other are bound to come together and evolve into still more versatile designs. This would happen at inanimate level as well. Here we see the operation of the ARC triangle.
R = consistency among designs
C = perception of that consistency
A = combining of those designs in a way to produce more versatile designs
.
i”ve read this all. And I still don’t see anyone who has actually done the experiment.
You are all fired. Here is your replacement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/apr/02/eureka-laws-nature-artificial-intelligence-ai
hehe
“You are all fired. Here is your replacement.”
Hilariously apropos!
Now, can that machine work out the laws of metaphysical theories too?
p.s. I got here by realizing that just about every we measure, we measure with what we are measuring. i.e. the emeter uses the human body. The instruments of science use the technology developed by science. Everything is sidechecked back against itself. A recursive loop. I see no way of substantiating anything outside of the loop without utilizing the loop. Exactly how can I confirm that when I am experiencing something outside of the loop it is actually outside of the loop when I am looking at from in the loop. I don’t know. Any ideas?
In this I would go with workability and improving the workable toward the purpose one envisions.
Maria what you seem to be hinting at here was originated as the idea of “dependent origination” by Buddha. It was further developed into a theory by Nagarjuna. Alanzo and I are starting to discuss this on TSF (Geir’s Forum).
.
These are my ideas:
When we are looking from inside the loop we are being effect of something.
The best I can do is look as cause point, that is what seems to get me out of the loop.
But then I am creating everything I see……………..
Maybe a good start point would be awareness about what are we being cause of and what are we being effect of……………Become aware of what loop are we in.
The moment we look at the loop we can get outside of it. This is equivalent to looking at the basic consideration of that particular loop. And it seems to require an adequate framework which usually means an extra datum of comparable magnitude, or looking at the datum and its opposite at the same time, which is probably how it was done when it was postulated for the first time. (To create a decision “to be” one has to stand on the concept of “not being”, same with “know” and “not know”. Even being cause is inextricably linked with being effect, so much that I was considering the possibility of measuring how much cause is somebody by looking at how much effect he is.)
So,… the ability to measure,…. the aquisition of knowledge and becoming cause will always be limited for a being.
Then maybe another good starting point would be geting rid of all considerations
which limit the being, including beingness itself, not necessarily becoming nothing but at least getting rid of all fixed considerations about self.
Considerations themselves are not a problem, they turn into a problem when they become fixed beyond our control or our awareness.
Becoming aware of all considerations would bring the automaticities back into our sight, and hopefully our control, and keeping the game would mean to continue creating them knowingly and at will.
Good post, Rafael.
Things persist because of alter-is. Alter-is is not absolute. Alter-is can be visible only in terms of inconsistency, and that inconsistency can be several levels deep.
Any fixation leads to persistence. A fixation keeps inconsistencies firmly in place by taking them for granted. An axiom is an arbitrary consideration taken for granted. “Self” may be looked upon as the most basic axiom.
Is fixation only a compulsive create?
Well, look at some examples, such as, fixation on Scientology (being right), fixation on Hubbard (being wrong), or fixation on the concept of “self”. Then see what it is without adding anything more to it.
.
.
I have just enough time to say that I now see ARC trianle law to be more consistent than what I thought before. The change in view has been due to replacement of the word “agreement” by the word “consistency”. So, I am going to take Marildi and Maria more seriously now.
(By the way I can’t see what I am typing. Stop playing with these colors, Geir)
.
So, would you say “agreement” is a wrong term?
Also, again, can one be loving inconsistencies?
The thing that is starting to move me toward closing the whole thread here is that nobody has actually addressed my points regarding either a) coming up with real social situations that are precluded to make the theory testable/falsifiable or b) admit that the theory will account for all possible scenarios and thus render itself useless in predictions. I have repeated this point at least ten times in different ways over two threads and nobody gets it or wants to get it or are to slow to read the sentences or God knows why.
And the fact that nobody has actually addressed the OP itself.
I would say that “agreement” is a misleading term. It sounds almost right but it involves one of those curves that Hubbard talked about in the Philadelphia Doctorate tapes. It is not an outright honest term.
I think you should make some effort too in digging more deeply at what is missing here, and not just depend on others.
Make it a discussion and not a debate.
.
It will be a discussion the moment the understanding is not a one-way street.
Then don’t make the understanding a one-way street. Relax and discuss.
.
You may not have gotten my point. When my dear M admits there has been a lack of understanding on her part through at least 10 iterations of various angles of trying to get across a point, then there has indeed been a one way street here. Discussion seems best when points are understood instead of the necessity of explaining again (because that is neither a discussion nor a debate, it is re-explanations).
I only know that a discussion is a teamwork to understand something. If somebody is not getting something, then I keep presenting my understanding using different words.
Then I also look at the possibility that the other person may be right and I wrong. I circle around the point of discussion and keep looking at it from different angles. I try to isolate the inconsistency as best as I can. My effort is never to convince the other person of my viewpoint. But to arrive at a better understanding for all.
That is how I discovered the curve in the datum, “Reality is agreement.”
“It will be a discussion the moment the understanding is not a one-way street.”
My dear G, here’s a paraphrase (from Dn 55) for BOTH of us:
“He who would understand must be understood.
“He who would be understood must understand.”
.
As for “re-explanations,” here’s a quote
“Stupidity is the effect of misunderstood words.
“In those areas which give man the most trouble, you will find the most alteration of fact, the most confused and conflicting ideas and of course the greatest number of misunderstood words.”
Now, in a discussion multiply that by two. 😉
Example # 1: Have you ever liked someone less when you learned to know them better?
Affinity is not just “liking or disliking somebody.” Affinity conceptualizes everything that has to do with the phenomenon of space, such as, beingness, identities, beliefs… in fact the whole case; and that too at both ends of a communication line. It covers the conditions existing at the source and receipt points. Presence of deception would be a lack of real affinity as well as reality.
So when one penetrates a deception, such as, that of a PR personality, affinity changes from being false to becoming more real. Reality also changes from being false to more real. Both are movements in the positive direction, as the communication increased in terms of better duplication.
Just look at the affinity of the PR personality. When he or she is deceiving others by pretending, what is the real condition? And when that deception is discovered, how does the new condition compare to the previous condition? It would be more honest, wouldn’t it? And more positive compared to before.
As I have said many times previously, affinity is not a simplistic, monotonic variable. And that is why I have not found ARC triangle much useful in day-to-day interactions.
The above example appears to falsify the ARC triangle, when affinity is considered very narrowly and superficially.
.
A person, who has always been a PR personality, has no clue what an honest and sincere relationship is like.
Affinity is more of a gut feeling than some point on the tone scale. In real life, when one deals with another person, one goes by a gut feeling. One does not have time to think in terms of where that person is on the Tone scale, so you can match your tone accordingly. That’s too crude. You just know how to act in response when you don’t have your own case.
.
Vin, what would you say a gut feeling is, besides a subjective sensation? My idea is that it is an actual perception of the “energies” of someone else, the very scientific waves in the vicinity of the person – what his been called his universe or “the theta universe.” But if it’s reactive, then it’s reactivated energies. Or dub in, I suppose.
You are right. I would call gut feeling, “Looking and recognizing what is there without adding anything to it.”
I would call it the KHTK approach. 🙂
.
This is in response to the post at the following link.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/challenge/#comment-7886
So, Marildi, are we in love again?
.
I would say that A-R-C triangle will rise or go down in unison because these three corners are simply different ways of looking at the same thing.
The actual situation is like an onion. A-R-C is occurring at all different layers. If you remain consistently with a layer, the A-R-C theory will hold. But if you take A from one layer, R from another layer, and C from a third layer, you can come up with all kind of exceptions to the A-R-C theory.
In case of these exception, one is not being consistent in picking A-R-C from the same precise context (layer of onion).
Actually, there is no “law” here. All you have in A-R-C are three different views of a single phenomenon.
.
That may very well be the truth, that A, R and C are synonyms on a deep level – but also U? And how about intelligence (nope, it’s not simply a part of C – look at two people with Down’s syndrome in love with each other). But if this would be the truth, it would be at the bottom of a fractal view that really does not preclude any social situation as such, rendering the Chart of Human Evaluation falsified as a predictive tool.
I think there is a lot that we don’t know here. First of all, we should simply focus on the law of Affinity, just like we focus on the law of Gravity. We should not focus on the ARC triangle, just like we do not focus on the Gravity-Mass-Attraction triangle.
We look at the implications of Gravity on Mass and Attraction. Similarly, we should look at the implications of Affinity on Reality and Communication. The Chart of Human Evaluation should simply be read against the Affinity scale, and a study should be made that at any point of that scale, if Reality and Communication follow as implied.
I haven’t really studied or used the Chart of Human Evaluation. I am sure others have done this. They should speak up if they find any anomalies in that Chart as presented. Do you find any anomalies in that chart, Geir?
..
Yes, I do. Firstly – both R and C are expressed as different columns of that chart as well as a host of other characteristics that Hubbard claims are all on the same level for any given person with a certain chronic tone level. I do question the validity of that thesis as it contradicts my own observation as well as the use of the OCA test or other personality tests (where the various points are certainly not on the same level).
You may be right. I would have used that Chart if it were consistent.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/challenge/#comment-7933
Marildi, please don’t try to convince anybody of your viewpoint. Simply try to expand upon your viewpoint just for yourself.
.
That’s what I tried to do and actually did – have expressed several times that I now understand the theory better from clearing some MUs and from the discussion itself. The discussion was specifically on the point of whether the ARC triangle is a universal truth or not and I felt I expanded my viewpoint specifically on that too. But you apparently saw something else, and I’d be glad to hear your views about where I went wrong along the way in that respect..
You’ll go wrong if you have expectations of agreement from others.
This is the major difference between consistency and agreement. One seeks consistency within oneself. One does not expect agreement from others. Agreement is secondary to consistency.
.
Wise words. I don’t know if I necessarily expect agreement, just duplication – which could result in either agreement or disagreement. When the duplication itself doesn’t seem to go in, there’s something out. And it’s no doubt related to the ARC triangle itself, which is obviously involved in a cycle of communication as applied in TRs. This is what I know must have been out somehow – TRs.
Maria, on the other hand, is great at expressing what is essentially a contrary viewpoint and yet she keeps her TRs in. She manages to state her ideas without inval or eval (good TR 1) and at the same time acknowledges well (TR 2), etc etc. Granting beingness I’m sure is a big part of it. Not surprisingly, Maria indicated that TRs was a big area of gain for her in Scn.
Considerations from all sides about altitude also come into play in the dynamics of exchange, as that affects granting of beingness in both directions. But this comes under expectation, I believe, and that too is part of communication per Dn 55. You just have to bear it in mind. It’s just amazing what good communication takes under its umbrella – everything.
Anyway, the opportunity to “drill” one’s comm cycle is one of great potential benefit in blog discussions – the comm cycle is really challenged with the vias of writing and distance. And there are so many other gains to be had too, some of which I have already experienced and all of which I could stand to gain more! Actually, with any and all areas where gain is possible I guess there’s always going to be more to gain.
Thanks for being a terminal on this. It helped. 🙂
Whether it is expectation of agreement, or expectation of duplication, it is still an expectation. An expectation is sort of an effort to control the other person.
Top-level A-R-C exists when no one is trying to control anyone. All inconsistencies are eliminated through the self-determined effort of each person. There is simply a natural consistency.
Give the other person time to sort out his or her inconsistencies. You also keep alert for any inconsistencies in your own viewpoint. The only way you can help the other person is by making an effort to be more and more clear in expressing your own viewpoint.
Actually, I learn a lot simply by making the effort to express myself more clearly. If I can’t express something clearly, I know that I don’t understand it fully.
Maria is good because she has thunk the thought through many, many times in her mind and has taken care of all the inconsistencies she can find. That is why she can express herself so clearly. She is totally honest with herself. And that is the fundamental effort. When one is totally honest with oneself, everything else just falls in line. That is TRs because honesty comes from total confront.
This is not meant to be a lecture. It is just an effort on my part to understand this area more clearly. Geir is asking about synchronization. To me synchronization is simply the natural consistency already existing in the fabric of space. One simply has to fully plug into it.
It is much easier to plug into the MEST universe than to plug into the super universe of considerations.
.
The basic question is how do you “plug into” something that you did not consider?
Does it have to be the flow of “something that you did not consider”? How about you being considered by that something?
I think that one is naturally plugged in. Only one is distracted by inconsistencies. Keep removing inconsistencies as through KHTK Looking and the discoveries will come all by themselves.
.
I don’t buy statements like “I think one is naturally…”. I want to get to the bottom of it and not accept statements like “God is Why” or “it’s just natural” or “that’s just the way it is”.
Vin Says: “Whether it is expectation of agreement, or expectation of duplication, it is still an expectation. An expectation is sort of an effort to control the other person.”
I don’t think this is necessarily true. Duplication as itself does not have to be an ‘effort to control’ or ‘be controlled by’.
It can be simply an observation of what is like simple obnosis or complex concepts.
It seems to me that if one considers or is guided by a consideration that expectation is an effort to control, one has cut his own comm cycle and unwilling to have other’s viewpoints.
Not all control is bad.
Vin, your point about TRs on a flow 0 is a great one. It’s intellectual honesty and personal integrity all wrapped in one. I’m aware of that too and try my best to abide by it. And, as I’ve already expressed in different words (of love ;-)) – in the latter part of this thread I realized to a much greater degree, that you do too. We may not always succeed but… we try.
I see the merit in all your other points too. It’s a new meaning for Geir’s wonderful phrase “mental Aikido.” Knowing when to reach and when to withdraw might be for self-determined purposes or for pan-determined ones. Either could be valid, depending on circumstances.
Dennis, excellent post. You said “It seems to me that if one considers or is guided by a consideration that expectation is an effort to control, one has cut his own comm cycle and unwilling to have other’s viewpoints.” And then you added. “Not all control is bad.”
There’s truth to the first idea, IMO (also a matter of personal integrity) as well as the second.
You and Vinaire were both expressing levels of truth. Now all we gotta do is pick the right level at the right time! Thanks much for your input. 🙂
Dennis, please look at the context in which something is being talked about. There is no such thing as “obnosis with expectation.” If one is trying to obnose with expectation, one is trying to monitor whatever is being obnosed.
.
Yes, Vin, again and more than ever. 🙂
Oh, wow! :blush:
.
Ha ha! Well, you keep up this level of ARC and all the girls will be in love. You might even have a few bromances so be prepared!
Instead of the A-R-C triangle, the Law of Affinity should be more fully researched, and then its implications on Reality and Communication should be studied. This is similar to researching the Law of Gravity and then studying its implication on Mass and attraction.
The phenomenon of Affinity covers the Beingness and all the various inconsistencies of Beingness we call CASE. All the reactive and analytical aspect of the case, engrams, unwanted feelings and emotions, indoctrination, beliefs, doctrines, fixed ideas, fixed viewpoints, fixed identities, service, facsimiles, computations, etc. fit under this category of AFFINITY.
May be we should have a separate thread to explore what affinity is and how it relates to one’s case. Or, we should explore what a person’s case is and how it may be expressed through the phenomenon of Affinity.
LRH has simply provided some pointers. There is great intuition there. Now we need to look at all that intuition more scientifically, and start organizing the data and start filling the holes.
Good luck to all of us!
[Now I have used an exclamation mark. Oh! my god!]
Wow, it seems right to put study emphasis on Affinity (although in terms of practical use of the triangle, C still seems to be far more practical). For me Affinity expresses and is the essence of the being, the “be-ing”, more than anything. It’s the BE in the Be-Do-Have triangle, and I think C would be the Do and R the Have.
As for relating it to gravity, LRH said that Affinity “has a rough parallel in the physical universe in magnetic and gravitic attraction,” in which case gravity would relate more directly than just as an analogy – similar phenomena of space and forces. And the reason the parallel is a “rough” one, seems to me, has to do with the very point you mentioned about “all the reactive and analytical aspects of the case” – the key principle that I realized and what I tried to say was the why for variability of the relationship between the corners. (I’m curious, did you duplicate my C on that – whether your duplication resulted in an R of consistency or inconsistency – ha ha!) That conclusion I reached about the variability is the same thing, I believe, as what you call “various inconsistencies of Beingness.”
You said, in an earlier comment, “Actually, there is no “law” here. All you have in A-R-C are three different views of a single phenomenon.” I had already stated that last part almost exactly the same way and I don’t know whether you came to it independently or first got the idea from me and then made it your own – an interesting outcome (among many) of the discussion, either way. But one thing I didn’t get was why you think ARC is “just” a phenomenon and “not “a law but Gravity is a phenomenon and also considered by you and in general to be a law. I feel like I must be missing something you mean to say about one or the other of the two.
From Wikipedia:
Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. …”
Fill in the blanks:
(1) Affinity is a natural phenomenon by which __________ attract with a __________ proportional to their ____________.
(2) In everyday life, affinity is most familiar as the agent that gives __________ to __________ with __________ , and causes them to __________ when __________.
(3) Affinity causes dispersed __________ to coalesce, and coalesced __________ to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of __________.
.
Not exactly my forte’ but I’ll take a stab at it.
(1) Affinity is a natural phenomenon by which [beings] attract with a [force] proportional to their [space/density].
(2) In everyday life, affinity is most familiar as the agent that gives [attraction] to [beings] and causes them to [increase proximity] when [communication occurs].
(3) Affinity causes dispersed [considerations] to coalesce, and coalesced [considerations] to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of [shared considerations].
Good show! How about this:
(1) Affinity is a natural phenomenon by which [realities] attract with a [pull] proportional to their [consistency].
(2) In everyday life, affinity is most familiar as the agent that gives [credence] to [considerations] with [consistency] , and causes them to [disappear] when [duplicated].
(3) Affinity causes dispersed [considerations] to coalesce, and coalesced [considerations] to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of [beingness].
.
On (1) and (3) it seems you’re saying A=R… hey! That was my formula A=R=(etc). You know – the post that you replied to with, “Oh! Gawwwwwwwwwd!” (I’m never gonna let you live that down. he he)
But seriously, I’m beginning to get your viewpoint about self being a matter of all the layered considerations. And Geir’s idea about a thetan being all his creations. (Don’t know how we ever got through that exchange unscathed – ha ha!) Well, maybe y’all got me a bit more receptive – just a bit, mind you. There hasn’t been total coalescence yet – still seems like the original “beingnesses” started out differently from each other (gut feeling ;-)).
On your (2) I’m still scratching my head. I can see as-ising the prior considerations, but the ones we are now giving credence to (which become either part of our A [beingness], or our R, or both) remain with us until and unless new considerations come along that replace them. Maybe you should write a (2)R (revised). 🙂
I am just playing here by assuming a parallel among the following. This may not be the case:
Physical bodies, objects, etc. = Realities
Mass or solidity = Consistency
Weight = Credence
Matter = Considerations
Maybe the parallel to ” …and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped.” should be
“…and causes them [the realities] to merge when communicated.”
So, the (2) should be better expressed as,
(2R) In everyday life, affinity is most familiar as the agent that gives [credence] to [realities] with [consistency], and causes them to [merge] when [communicated].
How does that sound?
Yes, there is no being without considerations, and no thetan without creations. But there can be considerations without being, and creations without thetan, in my opinion.
.
Your 2R “communicated” and pressed its “weight” on my heart (or mind) and effectively “merged” as a “consistency” with my “reality” and gave your 2R “credence.” A poetic way of saying – sounds much better!
“But there can be considerations without being, and creations without thetan, in my opinion.”
I guess this contains your premise that it isn’t any thetan or being that creates considerations, and that who or what or “if “ there is a creator is Unknowable. This one isn’t impinging on either my heart or my head, yet. But it’s okay – you are entitled to that “consideration” 🙂 (or opinion. if you like). And I may someday agree with you – and we may even be right!
You did a fantastic job in trying to understand where I am coming from.
But go with what is consistent to you and prosper, my love.
.
Vin, one of my favorite LRH lines is in DMSMH and I will paraphrase it for you, with a small addition:
“Beneath the dirty cloth of aberration [and inconsistencies] they loved each other well.”
🙂
Oh wait, in the interest of scientific accuracy let me amend that paraphrase to:
“Beneath the dirty cloth of aberration [and other inconsistencies] they loved each other well.”
I think that covers it, aberration being just one category of inconsistencies.
And here’s another quote just for you:
“Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.” 😉
Knowledge is a shared phenomenon in a discussion where everybody learns. Forget about who got what from who. That is simply an egoistic distraction and irrelevant.
What is relevant is a decrease in overall inconsistency for everybody.
Does it have to be an egoistic distraction or can it also be a curiosity and interest in the workings and benefits of the discussion itself? That was what I had in mind. Though I may be take a win on helping someone learn something, it would not really be an egoistic win so much as one related to the dynamics of life.
But I do love the decrease in overall inconsistency too!
You may be right. It is good to validate one’s inherent consistency. What I find inconsistent is to identify oneself with a certain beingness, and not be willing to change one’s beingness.
If one finds a flaw in a certain beingness, one should not justify it but look into that flaw even when it changes one’s beingness completely.
If one should criticize another’s beingness then it should be done in a constructive manner to help another become more consistent on one’s own accord. Invalidating or slamming another’s beingness would be an inconsistency in one’s own beingness.
.
Tall orders sometimes, from what I’ve observed in self and others, but totally agree with you. So now you and I can hold each other to it. 🙂 (doing so in ARC, of course)
Sure! Just remind each other without making a big deal out of it. Just that should be enough.
.
It’s a deal – no big deal.
🙂 🙂 🙂
A law is simply the essential consistency one finds in a phenomenon. That essential consistency in case of gravity is that the force of attraction is directly proportional to the product of two masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
I am sure there is an essential consistency in the phenomenon of affinity. We just have to pinpoint it.
.
There just has to be an essential consistency. It’s physics in a higher plane, what else? (not learnedness there, just gut instinct)
That’s a pretty good gut instinct. 🙂
.
Let’s get back to the spoon theory first before one can tackle the Synchronization Problem.
When you close your eyes do you see the spoon front of you?
If the other person closes the eyes can they see the same spoon?
If the person blind that have never has seen spoon before can they see it? Is the spoon existing?
Looking with eyes one only can see what the eyes pick up.
When one closes the eyes one only can see what is front of the eyes in that case the inside of the lid and some light which seeps through the tissues.
Can’t see anything more because the eye lid was created for that purpose to act as on barrier for the eyes not to see. Eyes are instrument, part of the machine, in this case the body, where created like a camera and the lid is the cover for the lenses. [Properly named both, lenses and lid]
The eyes do only pick up energy more solid the sharper is the image. But we know by now because improvement with technology with cameras now can pick up much more than solid objects. Nerveless they are still energy no matter how flimsy; thin they are, they are part of the MEST
The eyes, seeing with the eyes is the barrier “to see “360degree for the being=spiritual without the body. The Eyes are the instrument which introverts the being totally by only allowing the person to SEE very limited. Because of that the being has a huge hang-up and remains within the boundaries what the “eyes can see”. The being trust these images believes that they are real. No wonder one believes that one can’t see through the walls etc…eyes can’t see through the walls so the being believes in the image too …..Lies within the lies.
So how many being see’s the same spoon even if you don’t see it?
There is two answers for that. If that spoon viewed by those who has eyes or those who do not view with eyes but just simply know.
PS: I have just posted on article in my blog about not view-ing, and the difference what is light and so called darkness. I have solo audited many hours in many sessions about viewing=see-ing about reality what we see and if it is still existing if we do not view it any longer. Interesting the sessions were
Relevance?
I thought it would be new point in reality, my mistake do erase it.
Why? I just wanted your input on the relevance.
Elizabeth, I think your comment is totally relevant to the new blog post, “A Theory of Everything & the Synchronization Problem.” Why don’t you post it there.
Simply there is more than the EYES can see. Spoon or no spoon, who see’s the spoon or the forest?
The OP is agnostic to Eyes. Eyes matters not. I am referring to any perception along any channel whatsoever.
Perceptions incises as one has more sessions, erases the considerations which are the walls. Keyed out being have perception of any muck up, there is no solidity, solidity do not exists. One can see through anything like it would be made of mist. I have experienced this many occasions but proof I don’t have. Since these experiences are part of walking the path, just normal occurrences.
There are 3 anchor points the being uses [while still have the Bank], if inside the body than one only can see through the eyes,[the being lies here to self of course in order not to know]
Few steps back from the left shoulder than we see the body front of us,[ here the being say that body is not me since i only can see it from behind, second lie]
If from above we see, we know everything. From the above view point we don’t play the game we are not involved.
We see everything as all time, but because of the game the agreements we simply deny that we do know.
Over the years I had fun with this, see-ing through things. Sitting in the lobby of the hotel, I looked on as a man walked across the lobby but only as a skeleton, there was nothing, just moving bones other time I observed a child inside the womb.
Other time i have listened to conversation in great distance. There have been many occurrences over the years which have become normal experiences to perceive. Other occasions no matter how the ears were covered the sounds voices could be heard clearly. I have experimented with this over and over again. I can “hear” without ears.
On many occasion I have “seen” inside the body and noted the injuries within the tissues.
I have written about the ability I have regained how I can pick up on article object and ‘SEE” its history its track, from the moment of its birth the original postulate which brought into existence. Plus how it will end, crumbled, broken, becoming dust, melting into different form as it will return into MEST. All this things happen I can perceive if I put my intention to do it.
I would love to tell you all of them. To me they are just normal since I have forgotten how it was before. Just think Geir, how many walls= agreements, considerations i have erased, so my reality is very different, which is of course the perception.
Sorry I did not get the note on the computer otherwise I would have given my best to give my reality. I hope this have some use in your search. I have others who use my email or like Chris call, when there are questions. 604 467-5238
The spirit of spoon. 🙂
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/challenge/#comment-8035
I am simply pointing a direction to look into. It is your option whether to look or not.
If you don’t want to look that is fine.
If you have looked and found nothing that is fine too.
.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/08/27/challenge/#comment-8042
Basically, what I am saying is that an expectation is an additive to simply looking to see what is there. It prevents duplication.
.
Yes, that additive would most likely keep one from being able to obnose. On the other hand, if one has an intended direction, a purpose (be it a self-determined one or pan-datermined) couldn’t that be kept in the back of the mind while obnosing – and the intended direction taken once one has already made the obnosis? (Working on agreement here and consistency of viewpoints, the R between us – as regards this point.)
I would not call that expectation. It would be a decision about which area one wants to look into before one starts to look. For example, I may decide to look into the area of second dynamic.
What I mean by expectation is, expecting to see something while looking. That would certainly affect what you see.
.
So is that where you’ve been lately – off looking into yet another subject of contemplation? If so, don’t stay away long – there’s plenty here as regards the “dynamics” of discussion to contemplate. 😉
Geir, you aren’t talking about ARC. You are talking about ARCx’s.
•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?
Those are simply out ruds,
No, I am not talking about breaks. I am talking about a gradual increase in certain points and at the same time a gradual decrease in other points..
Geir and everybody, I just wanted to sum up what I got from the discussion and from thinking a bit more about the subject of the ARC triangle theory since then. And I’d be interested if anyone had any comment on it or wanted to add something or whatever.
Firstly, at the beginning I didn’t fully have the correct definitions for A-R-C-U, and clearing those up was greatly helpful. The main MU (for myself and others too, from what I got) was on Reality: “the degree of agreement [or disagreement, as per other definitions] reached by two ends of a communication line” (Dn 55!). I also cleared the key word in that definition, agreement – “shared considerations” (Tech Dict).
As for the definition of Understanding, I don’t think the Tech Dict definition of it was ever brought up in any comment and I just recently cleared it: “Understanding is an action… a knowingness of life to a certain direction and object and thing or action…knowingness in action.” I found that definition very helpful because a cycle of Communication itself is an “action” (movement of an impulse or particle) “to a certain direction and object.” (“object” meaning intention, I believe) and the intention in Communication is to bring about duplication (which is Reality) with Understanding. In other words, the C and R (and by inference, A as well) add up to or result in Understanding. So the formula might be better expressed as one of the options Geir suggested:
A + R + C = U.
In addition to clearing up definitions, the key thing I realized about ARC as a triangle is that it exists for an individual in many different respects and on many different levels, not just in connection with an isolated comm cycle or exchange or relationship or any other single situation. Every individual himself has a specific tone level as a Being (acute or chronic) whenever he’s involved in ARC with another person, but in addition there are other people and considerations which may come to mind for him – each of which also has a specific ARC/tone level that can impinge on him, impinge on his current tone level. Thus, the resulting Affinity, Reality (agreement or disagreement) and Communication can be (and probably often is) based on other than or more than just the ARC level of that particular cycle of communication or interaction.
In other words, in life ARC is actually multi-fold, and the basic truth and simplicity of the linked ARC corners of a particular situation (“linked” corners because of the fact that they are all manifestations of the same thing) isn’t necessarily going to be the ARC manifested.
Because of that (as Geir originally pointed out) the triangle wouldn’t seem to be of any generally reliable use in prediction (except possibly with due consideration in this more complicated light). That is the actual point that it seems should be made clear in the ARC triangle theory and the formula too should be modified in some corresponding way, such as: “A+R+C (ARC) in its basic simplicity = U.”
In addition, as regards the practical use of the ARC triangle, the theory should probably specify and emphasize that its use is in the tech of rehabilitation – that is to say, whenever one wants to raise ARC there is specific tech (some of which is simple, some complex) that can be applied to do so.
Lastly, there was a more general gain I got from all this – the realization that it is possible (as Geir suggested) to improve upon even LRH and Scientology (or anything else). Thank you, everybody – these are good wins! 🙂
Wanted to share something I just came across in Scn 8-8008:
“The handling of particles, of motion, is Communication. Reality is the consideration of particles. Affinity is the opinion about particles and sensation.”
Not only does that add to the concepts of ARC (especially Affinity!) but clarifies for me the difference between consideration and opinion. It seems the definition for consideration (at least in some contexts) is simply this one: “a thought or reflection” – i.e. a consideration is more like “just a thought,” just “a reflection” (literally, it reflects or mirrors what is there [the particles] – in other words, duplication). That is, it’s not an evaluation of what is there – which would be an “opinion.”
I don’t see that distinction between consideration and opinion. Both are creations with an arbitrary level on a scale.
If I understand what you mean by “an arbitrary level on a scale” I see that too – opinion (a creation) adds an arbitrary significance to the particles, themselves a creation, and that makes it another level on the creation scale.
But as for my point about the meaning of the word consideration, I know that I (and others, I’m pretty sure) have mostly been taking it to mean “an opinion based on reflection” – its other definition, which really means the same thing as opinion. But I’m sure there are contexts where it actually has the simple meaning of “a thought or reflection” and in fact that’s the one that must be meant in the above quote, to express the idea of simple, mirror-type duplication (the essence of Reality) of the particles. That would also differentiate it (the word consideration) from the meaning of opinion, used in that same context.