fließendes

Scientology axioms.

Does anyone have an opinion on this one?

Axiom 1

Life is basically a static.

DEFINITION: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

(postulate: a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the individual himself to resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past.)

If you go to postulate in the glossary, it also gives you an illustration involving a Model T and a Buick.

Yes there is a Scientology thread going. However, I think Hubbard too voraciously appropriated other ideas to consider the basic nature (plus other aspects) of Scientology in a single thread. He may also have put together some original ideas, but he was such a horrible prose writer it's difficult to tell.

From the Scientology and Dianetics glossary

axioms: statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences.

IsItJustMe

OK. The problem with this is that it's too vague.

"On the order of..." What does that phrase mean? I can't make out of it anything more than "similar too." Of course, all things are similar one to another in some way, yes? So, in what way are they similar?

Does he explain what a static is?

Life is "basically" a static. Does this mean it's like a static but not exactly? Does it mean that life is a static plus some other things? Why "basically?"

And then we seem to go from "life is (basically?) a static" to "a life static." Is life, taken as a whole, a static, as the original statement seems to say, or is EACH life a static?

In either case, what is life, or what is a life? Is L. Ron suggesting that bacteria, or plants, can "postulate?" If not, then does he not mean "human life?"

Perhaps L. Ron was trying to say cogito ergo sum and it just came out wrong.

As written, all we can take from it is that there is something to do with life which is outside of time and space, aphysical, supernatural and able to "postulate." But it is ambiguous as to whether there is one or several such "statics" and, if there are several, with precisely what physical, natural things these "statics" are associated.

whichphilosophy

One has to discover in their own terms what life is to them. There are hundreds more of these. Imagine how many lifetimes these would take to discuss.

whichphilosophy

You may see why this subject takes a lot of study and observsation. I think you asking some interesting questions which only the individual can answer for themselves. As for the last paragraph that's up to the individual as well.

It reminds me though that when doing courses years ago, (and NOONE is allowed to hint of give you answers) it is amazing when discovering our own truths. In fact working 8-5.30 every day and doing courses 7-10 every evening was not exhausting at all. In fact the opposite especially when discovering something.

Your smarter than I was when I first looked at this. (There again so were the other collegues with me who did these courses).

fließendes

So it's not worth discussing? It must only be an inner dialogue between me and Hubbard? :Cheeky:

I'd rather discuss it with you guys.

I believe there's only one lifetime. All Ideas that interest me are worth discussion.
We're on a religion/philosophy message board. Hello.

:wave:

fließendes

If you look at the word order and its etymology, I think Hubbard was using this phrase as equivalent to "in the same rank as". He appears to be saying that these axioms are as self-evident as the laws of physical science. I say that for two reasons. One, he was a military brat, so must have been very aware of the idea of "rank". Secondly, he was not known to be modest.

An alternate literal reading of "on the order of" is "of the arrangement of", which would be saying that these axioms are ruled by the same principles as those of the physical sciences.Why of course:

static--something which doesn’t have wavelength, so it is not in motion; it doesn’t have weight, it doesn’t have mass, it doesn’t have length, breadth or any of these things. It is motionlessness.

From "The Religious Heritage of Scientology":

There were some however, like Charles Darwin , who had a very different message: Man was but another rung on the evolutionary ladder, and could never hope to raise himself to greater levels of awareness...

My guess is no. Bacteria can't be audited.

whichphilosophy

Mind you, if you discuss it with Hubbard then it won't be an inner personal subject. :wave:
If we have one lifetime is it one life of 70 or so years or one eternal existence? Another topic.

fließendes

Definitely another topic.

Why can't you have an opinion on axiom 1?

whichphilosophy

The lifespan could be another topic according to how the person sees it.

But if the individual wants an alternative to axiom 1, that would also be their choice but it would not be Scn, but another subject :wave:

uncool

OK, lifetime has no mass, etc. I mean, this is a no-brainer - a lifetime is a concept, not a physical object. This statement has pretty much no meaning.
=Uncool=