By Jim Logan

In a taped lecture of 12 October 1955, COMMUNICATION AND INTENTIONS, DETERIORATION OF, the validity of knowing the source of a communication is discussed.   This follows from the Axioms and Factors. Where the author of a communication can be known, then an as-isness can occur. 

 It’s really that simple. Thought you may enjoy this one.

“If somebody came along and said that Dianetics and Scientology --  this has nothing to do with grandeur, it just has to do with an infinite practicality -- if somebody came along and convinced somebody that it was invented by a bunch of savages sitting in Iwijiba and that was what we were actually studying, it would have misplaced this source and lent some doubt into the whole thing, see? You could put this much doubt into the thing so that you would trap people in the subject. And we don't want an entrapment to occur. You see how entrapment could occur?

“It would be very, very easy for a charlatan -- a highly skilled con man of some kind or another -- could simply alter values in the subject itself to a point of where it made a universe. Got it?”  …

“But it becomes important to this degree: there is a terminal someplace that made this and therefore we know this, so therefore that can be as-ised. See that? It's a known terminal, therefore it can be as-ised.

“If we try and set aside this terminal completely…if we set this aside and confuse the issue of origin ... now, we've got a big unknown. 

“...So there's a point of the track that can't be as-ised. And you're on no such track in Dianetics and Scientology, so don't make the mistake of believing you are. Now, just where you picked up as an individual -- just where you picked up this whole idea of considerations which match up the general track itself, therefore can be inspected. You aren't left sticking in the unknownness of who said that this agreement existed.

“Therefore you can as-is the fact that it has been said to you. And then you can inspect where you got it in the first place and then it blows and comes under your control.” LRH

Comments   

 

+1 # steve 2013-05-02 03:32

Yes. So in the end we'll be left with the knowingness, but won't be stuck with a bunch of words spoken by God knows who. We'll know where they came from so we can dispense with them. Brilliant in its simplicity. Thanks Jim.

 

 

+1 # Espiritu 2013-05-02 05:08

You know, to be honest, I am not sure that I agree completely with this quote.

For instance, if one were to be given a series of quotes from various sources without knowing who the sources were, asked to read them, and only then asked to give one's opinion as to which rang more true...wouldn't that be a more accurate way of knowing which was more "true for you" than if we knew the sources beforehand?
It seems that by knowing the sources beforehand one might be more likely to be swayed by the prestige (or lack thereof) of the source rather than the content of the ideas. However, as LRH pointed out, LYING about the source would be another matter entirely. Basically, in my experience, it seems that most of the ideas that LRH expressed in his writings can stand on their own two feet without the need of his "prestige". And that's why he has so much prestige in my eyes.

 

 

+1 # Nickname 2013-05-02 16:45

A foundation for ethics is thinking for yourself, which you do. You hit on the "lie" aspect of it. Anything can be as-is-ed, so one could indeed think "Iwijabi tribe, my ass" and get on with the content, keeping the source on a back burner. What we have of Socrates is largely brought to us via Plato. But LRH always spoke to a point, whatever the examples or the syntax, and his point here is very clear we know where Scn comes from - one of the problems with blogs is "anonymity". You do not know if am 8 or 60, male or female, Class 0 or Class XII, Life Repair, or OT MCVII, grumpy, or jovial. That makes for blog misunderstandings - it's a real art to keep things clear. Scn materials sidestep that problem - the more I think about lectures, the more I see what a smart decision it was for LRH to tape so much stuff.

 

 

# Espiritu 2013-05-03 03:22

Well that is how I look at this idea too and it is why I have never had a button on KSW. It is so simple. All of Scientology comes from LRH. If he didn't say it or write it, it just isn't Scientology. Period. It is that simple. There may be other things which are originated....some which may be harmful or some which may even be beneficial, good, or workable. But they still would not be called Scientology. They would be something else.

 

 

+2 # Nickname 2013-05-02 16:46

Thank you. Your comment will be punished once reviewed.

 

 

# Espiritu 2013-05-03 03:24

Oh no! Not again!!! :-)

 

 

# steve 2013-05-02 17:28

Espiritu, this quote is not about the truth of the words beause it acknowledges they are all lies. The words point the way to a potential knowingness. Once you achieve that knowingess you have the problem of what to do with those mest words.

For example, the kerb you sometimes trip over on your way to work each day. You think that kerb rings true simply because you skinned your knew on it? No, it is formed from lies. One day we will want to dispense with that kerb. It has served its purpose. Now we want to move on to another universe or simply create a different kind of kerb. On that day you want to dispense with that kerb, you will need to track it back to its source. When you find the source you will have the complete truth about the kerb and it will as-is. It's the same with every piece of mest in this universe - including Scientology. The reason it is such a problem is that the individual pieces are not easily tracked back to source. So we are stuck with the mass and the garbage tips are getting bigger and bigger.
The real truth is, at the end of the day the only thing we can take with us is our knowingness because it isn't made out of mest.

 

 

# Espiritu 2013-05-03 03:56

"The real truth is, at the end of the day the only thing we can take with us is our knowingness because it isn't made out of mest."

Agreed, Steve!

This conversation somehow inspired the following:

All Truth is jus' made of "us",
including even old cousin Gus.
Including,it seems, Thee and Me
Individually. And "collectively"
Simultaneously and instantaneously.
Yes, we ARE "the Truth. The Light.
And the Way".
We Reveal
As we are in turn Revealed
We vanish the night
With our Light of day.
What more is there to say?

 

 

+1 # george 2013-05-02 05:58

Great reference Jim! Makes perfect sense, as usual!!

 

 

+1 # KFrancis 2013-05-02 10:50

LRH as a universe and source always seems to work out in auditing and training.

David Miscavige …well …..I guess you already know.

 

 

+1 # Ingrid Smith 2013-05-02 13:46

Beautiful quote. Ron in his not only infinite wisdom , but also infinite selflessness gives us ourselves. He has no desire to own us as a charlatan would who won't give us correct authorship in his overt or covert attempts to "take contol"

 

 

# Ralph Hilton 2013-05-09 15:48

Its axiomatic. Axiom 29.

 

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post

You have no rights to post comments

JComments