THE ANNOTATED AXIOMS
Due to the fact that the axioms I am commenting upon are under fiercely defended copyright, they will not be quoted on this page. Therefore you should compare this to your old copy, or buy one if you do not already own it. Non-scios should perhaps skip this article.
Other people's cognitions are of no use to people who read them, unless they are used by the readers to cognite in turn. Even if LRH's Scn Axioms were 100% true -- which they definitely are NOT! -- for most people they still constitute an acquired artificial mind, an "implant" if you wish to abuse that fatally flawed Scn term. Therefore when reading those axioms, and these comments on them, do not take into yourself the words as truth. Words are viewpoint oriented opinions. Merely use the words as a way to view the truth on your own. And when you do, you will no longer need anyone's words. Not even your own.
Axiom 1. Exactly half correct. This axiom is a dramatization of the #1 primal dichotomy found in Primal GPMs. The truth is that life (theta) is both a static, AND everything in all universes and all times. The ability life has is to "decide". Perception is postulated (a decision) along with everything else, which he covers in Axiom 2.
Axiom 2. True enough as far as it goes. It would be a trifle more accurate to say that it makes decisions about beingness.
Axiom 3. True, except for that idea of agreement. The list of created items do not require agreement made by viewpoints in space-time. The actual creation is made at a level where all identities and selves are united. My researches are indicating that the physical universe is NOT being postulated at the level of a thetan. A viewpoint located in space does no such thing apparently. The self as ALL does however, near as I can tell from what knowledge I can bring back to this viewpoint in space called Ouran.
Axiom 4. A weak truth which is also almost startlingly puerile. It doesn't really say anything. I guess the old man couldn't figure that one out and had to write something plausible. Axiom 4 should read something like "Space is a separation of existences, beingnesses and identities held apart with non-existences, non-beingnesses and non-identities." The original space at the highest level I've spotted is separation between selves.
Axiom 5. Is sort of weird... what happened to the alternate valid view, of energy as waves? So this axiom is partially true, but ignores the motion by/through/via postulated fields (which still isn't correct but I have no idea how to describe the actuality in words). Energy is not located exactly, it is in motion. Stop energy in space and it is a solid. Examine the solid you have stopped and you have put it in motion again at least, if not annihilated it by inspection. This is quite bound up in the phenomena described by Heisenburg, and codified as his Uncertainty Principle. Matter and energy are mutually convertable into one another. Basically in the physical universe one either knows the energy of something, or its location, but never both completely. So Axiom 5 describes energy by saying it is matter. Yes, but if it's energy then it should be described as energy, as a motion of somewhat indeterminate location. By saying energy is particles, the old man stopped the energy so he could look at it, at which time its energy became unknowable and it became from his viewpoint, a solid.
Axiom 6. Is a reasoned (thinkingness effort) result depending on Axiom 5. Both of these axioms are squirrely -- in this case no particle or "solid" is actually solid because it has energy. The closer you examine a solid, the fuzzier it becomes. The truth is that there are infinitely fine gradations of energy on a scale between the Nothing of life the static, and the solid everything of life the Mass.
Axiom 7. Dumb. the only way to obtain energy or solids is to resist it enough to make it stay "a while" (a GREAT phrase used by Filbert!). Time is resistance. Time is STOP.
Axiom 8. The apparency of time is vibration. And what is vibration? An apparent switching back and forth between the poles of dichotomy #1. ...It's there / it isn't there / it's there / it isn't there... etc. Change is the apparency of the apparency.
Axiom 9. Yeah, okay. Seen from a mechanical viewpoint in space which is below death on the tone scale, yes. (The mechanics of reason and logic are in the effort band of the scale.)
Axiom 10. No, the creation of an effect is the #4 purpose, not the #1. (see Primal Goal Processes, and Primal GPMs again) He could just as easily have said that the highest purpose was to have everything (#1 goal), be individual (#2), or be aware (#3). In the L-13 materials Rowland Barkley calls this foolish axiom an implant. I will not dispute him; Rowland has seen outside the universe too.
Axiom 11. Brilliant. He spotted the actions (triangle) of the #4 purpose (primal goal). For that alone he could be highly honored. He spotted that isness is different from the other three, but not why: "as-is, alter-is, not-is" form a triangle equivalent on their level to "be, do, have", "start, change, stop" and "affinity, communication, reality".
Axiom 12. Nice. He only missed the truth that theta (life) itself is at all locations. And anytime theta duplicates, there is a vanishing. He missed it is because he missed that whenever theta is being/placing itself aware at one location, it is also placing itself at all other locations, as unaware.
Axiom 13. Correct. "Create" at this level perhaps should be written "form". But the idea is right. He mentions in passing in the PDC that he spotted these various triangles as related to one another; then never followed up on it by researching it fully.
Axiom 14. Oops, he mixed the planes! Survive is the #8 purpose which is being slightly confused with the actions at the #4. His statement is basically true because the higher levels of reality control the lower ones, and the actions of alter-isness and not-isness have their equivalents in the effort band. But his statement reflects his mistake of ascribing all command value to pursuit of goal #8, whereas each primal dichotomy is a pursued goal, i.e. a command. There are scios who postulate dynamics 9-16 as dynamics of survival. Nuh-uh. The next level up from "Survive!" would be the dynamics of affinity, the #7 purpose.
Axiom 15. Sure, why not? There are other ways to say that which are just as true. For instance: "creation is accomplished by a decision to be."
Axiom 16. Sure. Just keep in mind that theta is duplicating itself, that each person is everything, everywhere, everywhen. (If you wish to test this assertion for yourself, do the look at oneself from a remote viewpoint process I found in Ken Ogger's notes.)
Axiom 17. Sure. The most common alter-isness I've noticed is tagging the creation with another creation, otherwise known as significance or meaning.
Axiom 18. Correct. This observation is the basis of effective therapy. There are different levels of this action, all of which could be described as taking no responsibility for what was created. In addition to not-isness, another good general name for this action is "resistance".
Axiom 19. Technically this statement is not absolutely true at all levels. In Axiom 19 he is describing his observation of the fact that if you view as-is the alteration (significance or meaning, which is on a scale of values, read Dennis Stephens on value and importance) you will obtain a partial relief. The next step would be to view perfectly (as-is) above any conditions, as in Axiom 20.
Axiom 20. Perfect. Except that he misses that the person IS the thing being vanished.
Axiom 21. Correct. This is a cycle like start-change-stop, and its correct sequence is affinity-communication-reality.
Axiom 22. Correct. "Not-isness" represents a highest level of resistance (Goal #4), whose equivalent in the ARC triangle of understanding is agreement (forced reality) which seems to drop down the CDEI scale passing through disagreement (inhibit), unreality (no), etc.
Axiom 23. Oops, just mixed the planes again! He is essentially correct because all the scales are united at the top.
Axiom 24. Yes, and what I said about Axiom 23.
Axiom 25. Brilliant. The axiom is brilliant. The explanation below it less than brilliant in a couple places, but overall this is among his best work.
Axiom 26. Or not. When he states that it is agreed-upon, he places it at the bottom of its cycle. That is because he couldn't fully confront the infinite shared consciousness (co-existence) at the top. Near as I can tell, physical reality is created at the co-existence level.
Axiom 27. Not quite. True at a level of apparency, and can be applied as a weapon (this axiom is probably from Excalibur, the Dark Sword). Above apparency, any creation anywhere in any universe -- no matter how personal, private, or out of "agreement" -- can be known by anyone. Axiom 27 is a major mistake in theory.
Axiom 28. Too mechanical. True only at a level of efforting. See Ghost Danse 6 for the truth.
Axiom 29. Ha ha ha ha ha! I'm sorry (no I'm not), but this one is hilariously true because it is a lie! Axiom 29 is quite a joke! The joke is that when anyone says "I" created something, THAT is the lie which obtains the persistence! Even saying that everything is co-created is not quite a perfect statement. I can't think of a way to put the truth in words though, so let "co-creation" stand as a finger pointing at the moon. Too bad he had coexistence and individuality in opposition in his mind. Another LRH "implant", as Rowland might have said it.
Axiom 30. Quite good. The old man had the mechanics of auditing down pat. Kudos.
Axiom 31. Said sort of screwy, but kind of truish. Close, but he's scrambling the levels again; let's pry them apart. Considerations (alter-is) are around tone 80 (purpose #5), and opinions (not-is) are around tone 22-20 (purpose #6, the thetan in space). This axiom essentially states that considerations are mere considerations. No duh.
Axiom 32. Sure. And anything which you are not-being also. This is why space could be described as the separation between thetans, which statement is not perfectly true, but please sight down the length of that finger...
Axiom 33. Okay. Therefore not-know and not-be are both resistance/force. Allow me to point out that prior to this happening the as-isness has to have been altered by a consideration, otherwise no not-isness can occur. He goofed on this one by using two terms of a triangle (as-is, alter-is, not-is) to describe a dichotomy.
Axiom 34. This should have been Axiom 33. An isness, by the way, is the persisting result of alter-isness.
Axiom 35. No, the ultimate is beyond the static: what we for convenience call "native state". Native state is not static, not everything, both static and everything, neither static nor everything, and all those statements canceled out. Words are impossible -- another finger pointing at the moon.
Axiom 36. Mask? That's an awfully solid word for something done in near infinite joyous playfulness! The action looks more like an idiot savant godbaby stacking blocks atop one another. The first example he gives is not correct.
Axiom 37. Sure. The apparency is the consideration (alter-isness), not the initial creation.
Axiom 38. True, but he uses a different definition for "consideration" than he used earlier in axioms 28, 31 and 37. What he meant to say is true, but he said it sloppily.
Axiom 39. A better statement would be to say that life creates existences which are in opposing pairs, which forms a problem by desiring one of each pair, and avoiding (not-ising) the other.
Axiom 40. He didn't study enough Buddhism, otherwise this would have been said more clearly. The CDEI (desire) aspect is missing. A problem is any creation of which: 1. either the existence is pursued and the non-existence denied, or 2. the non-existence is pursued and the existence is denied.
Axiom 41. Yawn. He's thinking too hard. This is reasoned from Axiom 40, not created as-is.
Axiom 42. Ditto.
Axiom 43. Mechanically truish, but only as apparency. This one is dependent upon a standing consideration that a creation only exists in the time of its initial creation. Given that, yes.
Axiom 44. True. Also it has ALL locations in space and time.
Axiom 45. No, theta can consider itself conscious at a specific limited location, and consider itself not-conscious at all other locations.
Axiom 46. No, by posing itself as static pursuing MEST, it denies being MEST, then fails because the postulate of a goal is a preassumption of failing to reach that goal, followed by switching poles to only being MEST (and denying being static). The truth is that theta is both static AND MEST.
Axiom 47. True. Anything created can be uncreated.
Axiom 48. No, life is a game where theta as nothing pretends that it isn't theta as MEST, and so pursues it. It's odd that he acknowledges "theta as MEST" in this one, a fact that he vehemently denies most of the time. It's as if he recognized the fact, then covered it up again due to the fact that he was still trapped in the primal GPMs and had to pursue matter, which pursuit can only be done as the static.
Axiom 49. Sure. This is a decision, by the way. Choose to do so.
Axiom 50. No duh. (antagonism can be a fun game to play with occasionally, like playacting)
Axiom 51. Sure. Like I said, the old man had the mechanics of auditing down pat. His phrase "live communication" is an unfortunate one...
Axiom 52. Very true. Too bad he forgot it when he formed the Sea Org.
Axiom 53. RED ALERT! Erase this axiom from your mind. Stable data are only correct and usable in this manner if you create them yourself. Stable data acquired from others (like LRH for instance) are foreign minds which act as an impediment to duplication and enlightenment. His axioms on logic and reason are the heights of thinkingness, i.e. efforts to think.
Axiom 54. This is no higher than the effort band of the tone scale. "Survive" is the mechanics of animals. Which can be fun, but don't take this axiom as higher truth. Did I mention that LRH was stuck in the survive vs succumb dichotomy? I can't take credit for initially observing that; Filbert spotted it first.
Axiom 55. Okay, an aware nothingness is senior to an aware body. Got it. And yes, the basic cycle manifests in different forms at different levels. So why didn't he research it? I did (Ghost Danse 7).
Axiom 56. Huh? Theta brings a disorder of creations, which decays into orderliness at the point on the tone scale where affinity decays to death and is reborn as perfectly ordered reasoning, then below there it fragments into chaos again. Orderliness is in the middle of the tone scale. At Death 0.0.
Axiom 57. He's switching legs among different actual triangles, and redefined control (an effort activity) as postulation. The sequence of this should be: control (create), communicate, have. But it's still screwy. He has control from the first leg of the creation triangle, communication from the second leg of the ARC triangle, and havingness from the third leg of the being triangle. This triangle can be used, but it's written as a chimera cobbled together. What he has actually done is made a triangle spanning the three bands of Thought, Emotion, and Effort. As such, CCHs properly done constitute a type of magick...
Axiom 58. True. Raises effort (thinkingness) to its highest level. Useful.
Someday, someone will come up in the freezone who sees these axioms more clearly than I do. This person will laugh at my words, and lovingly point out my mistakes and stupidities.
Hurry up will you?
back to index