Scientology 1.0.0 – part 5
Talking about well-being from a Scientology 1.0.0 perspective, if you really intend to get to the point, is going to eventually end up dealing with the incredibly complex, often misunderstood, subject of pan-determinism.
Pan-determinism is one of those things that, if pondered on long enough without the background to do so, can tip you into the drink big-time, but it’s got to be on the table eventually because it’s the whole point. It’s also one of those many things that lends itself to being easily weaponised; anyone can use pan-determinism to take the stance that any problem is really the fault of the other party, such as when the master says to his slave, “Why so glum? What you need is to be more pan-determined!”
In Scientology 1.0.0, there are three determinisms: other-determinism, self-determinism, and pan-determinism.
First, there is other-determinism. This refers to those opposing forces that an individual confronts when attempting to achieve self-determinism. This could be anything from the laws of nature to a parent’s or other people’s ideas. Or maybe an illness, or inclement weather when one wants to go fishing. It’s the determinisms that determine the other vectors in life, whether they be people or things. Some of this ends up as the junk that inevitably piles up in one’s head because all upsets are a clash between self-determinism and other-determinism.
Over time, it’s these upsets that eventually prevent the individual from achieving their goals in life. Like that parasite that gets into the head of a rodent that then causes it to rush up to a cat to get eaten (the parasite needs to get into the feline gut to have a Roman style orgy and thus reproduce), these other-determinist upsets re-route a person towards self-destruction unless they get these incidents cleaned up. On the Tone Scale (see article, Space, Emotion, and Well-Being), you can see how the descent into this possible self-destruction is plotted.
Then there is self-determinism. Self-determinism is how things get done. The individual pushes through counter forces or barriers when and where necessary to fulfil an agenda, achieve a purpose, or reach a goal.
Now, obviously, most people would agree that things in the world could stand some improvement (as they always have). Nearly every day there are various situations, or even dangerous crises, that present themselves where one could ask, “What could the most enlightened approach to this problem be?” In Scientology 1.0.0, the best possible answer to that question starts with pan-determinism. The pan-determined view.
The pan-determined view
Pan-determinism, pan, meaning all. This is what is actually at the very core of all serious discussion regarding religion and philosophy.
So, here we go. First, you would take the pan-determined view, which is to see all sides of an issue from an exterior perspective without prior judgement.1 Moving forward, though, means that all the self-determinism of the individuals, groups, or whatever must come into play, and that usually means something needs to get stomped on or pushed against, that is to say, other-determined. No chicken dinner without some chicken having to give up the ghost (vegetables too, for the vegans that may be reading this). The trick is to set about solving the problem without doing unnecessary harm.
Take Israel and Palestine. The independent state of Israel came into existence when thousands of Jews left Europe after the Holocaust and immigrated to Palestine, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Naturally, the Palestinians objected. Both sides have the view that they are absolutely right, and thus the tragic problem still remains seven decades later. There’s no way to solve this problem without first taking the pan-determined view. Only from that outside, exterior, view can you see the whole picture, and so you could have all the information you need to come up with the best possible solution. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian governments are so entrenched in their self-determined views that they have become thoroughly other-determined. That is to say, they are wholly reactive to each other. One side does something and the other side reacts. Snore.
Imagine being high, high above any problem in life where you can see not only all its parts but the whole of its past and the potential multiplicities of its future. That’s the potential power of pan-determinism.
Taking action on a problem, though, means eventually getting on the ground, down in the trenches, as they say, where you can’t see all the angles. But having first been pan-determined, you can perhaps now make much better choices. This sort of practise can be used in one’s own life all the time, especially when married, raising a family, or working with a group. Imagine both partners in a marriage having the ability to do this.
A married couple finds they are at an impasse, and a storm between them is brewing. But luckily, they are both schooled in the pan-determined view. and are also un-reactive enough to pull it off, all the way to a satisfactory conclusion for both of them. They would start by explaining to the other side the other’s position. They would do this until each had explained the position of the other to that party’s satisfaction. Then, once that’s settled, they’d set about working out a solution to whatever problem might still exist between them (often, the pan-determined view discovers that what was thought to be a problem was just a misunderstanding).
Pan-determinism is ultimately what one could achieve with empathy, so long as empathy isn’t confused with sympathy, which it all too often is.
Anyway, that’s why the Dynamics are laid out the way they are (see previous article, The Eight Dynamics, a Map of the Self). They are a tool that can help with the sometimes complex activity of problem solving. How much harm would one solution do to any given dynamic as opposed to the other dynamics? This is from the phrase “for the greater good of the greatest number.”2 With these dynamics, that phrase takes on a much more nuanced meaning: very often, to move forward, harm must be done to something. This is not the idea of compromise, however, as compromise might imply that there is in fact a better solution. The idea is to achieve the best possible solution, although compromises may be inevitable.
All this figuring can be done by an individual or a group and can be greatly assisted by referring to these eight dynamics. They can be used to work out all the vectors in a problem. Where an individual or a group gets into trouble is when they don’t take into account enough of these vectors, as in a modern corporation that is responsible only to its shareholders and neglects the wider social considerations, too simplistic (I’m not arguing against capitalism here; I’m just commenting on one reason it can get into trouble). Or a state that favours the “good of the group” over the rights of the individual, subjugating the first dynamic.
Cleaning up, waking up, and growing up
Getting to this place where pan-determinism is a normal and natural way to approach life is achieved by, as Ken Wilbur puts it so succinctly, “cleaning up,” “waking up,” and “growing up.” Scientology 1.0.0’s processes, therapies, and exercises are designed to help the individual achieve these three goals.
Cleaning up: clearing away and resolving all past incidents of trauma and upset so that they can no longer adversely affect the individual in the present. It is impossible to achieve pan-determinism without getting cleaned up, because otherwise too many negative thoughts (other-determinisms, see article, Stories of Redemption) can crowd in on you, which can prevent the operation.
Waking up: This is that event where the individual experiences fully that they are not merely a separate, material, isolated thing but a wide awake, conscious intelligence that is both “exterior” to, yet completely connected with, the world in some fundamental way. Unfortunately, many people wake up as one can with drugs, but then go back to their own bad habits and go right back to sleep (often suffering more than they did before).
Growing up: This is often the missing ingredient, as Wilbur points out. It is where the individual rearranges their life in accordance with their newfound wisdom, gained in cleaning up and waking up. If one continuously keeps cleaning up (life gets messy no matter what), then different levels of waking up can occur, and thus whole new levels of being a grown up must be achieved.
In Scientology 1.0.0, the cleaning up part is called “clearing,” the waking up part is called “exteriorisation,” and the growing up part, “ethics and administration.” These activities form what is called the Bridge, a sequence of steps that is designed to help take an individual from one state of being into another, potentially better, state of being.
The goal, ultimately, is to get to the experience of being fully exterior with full perception because this gives a person the possibility of seeing the big picture, as they say. This experience has been talked about for millennia in countless different ways, especially as mysticism (see article, The Wild Mind – Part III).
When you get to see the “big picture,” or merge with “the all,” or “see God,” you get a look at all eight dynamics at once and discover that everything is working to survive in one fashion or another; that, bizarrely, no one and nothing is entirely “wrong” in what they are doing. After the experience has passed, though, and you’re back on earth, you are, of course, still faced with a million complicated choices. Hopefully, now, with this new perspective, and eventually, with the right education, you can gain an improved ability to understand this new panorama, allowing you to make better choices, all starting with the pan-determined view.
You can choose to do no harm at all and become a Jain, or you can follow a different philosophy that deals with inevitable destruction but also tries to do as little harm as possible, like Buddhism, or make up your own path.
Whatever you do, there is no going back. I believe the world is full of people who have glimpsed this phenomenon and who have never quite regained balance. Perhaps, in some cases, there are those now consigned to the streets (or asylums) who tried to go on with their lives but failed to make the vital changes that their experiences demanded of them, which is why the “cleaning up” or the “clearing” is so very important.
I also believe that the pan-determined view is actually experienced very early on by most children, but it gets drummed out of them quickly by their family, school, and society, before they can ever get a handle on it.
At the end of the day, you can’t improve the world before you improve yourself. And maybe, if enough of us improved ourselves, that’d be all it would take to improve the world.
1 This is what the judiciary is supposed to do in a well-organised society but is often prevented from doing due to laws based all too often on arbitrary ideologies.
2 This comes from the philosophy of Utilitarianism, an influence on Scientology 1.0.0 thought, but unlike some parts of Utilitarianism, Scientology 1.0.0 is not a pragmatist philosophy in the sense that “the ends justify the means.”
14 responses to “Pan-determinism at Last”
Thank you for another great article Arthur. Are you aware of the existence of Justin Craig who says that he is L.Ron Hubbard now returned, and posts about New Era Scientology on Facebook? Keep up the good work and take care of yourself.Tony.
Thank you Tony. No, I didn’t know about Justin Craig, I never really know what to say about this sort of thing – I wish him luck I guess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Arthur. Nice reply. I only seen your reply today via someone else. He has actually changed his name to Lafayette Hubbard and has written two books and impressed some people with Infinity Processing.
Thank you Arthur. Delay getting your nice reply. I have signed up to Word Press hoping to correct.
The Justin Craig man doesn’t seem like he’s well.
thank you for this new article.
I read all the articles so far and I am very pleased with them.
I could not find so far a definition of your concept of 1.0.0 relating to Scientology.
Could you explain this to me?
Thank’s a lot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Thomas. You are right, I’ve not yet gotten to explaining the 1.0.0 concept. I’ll be explaining that as I go along but since you ask, 1.0.0 refers to versions – like software. Scientology has a complicated timeline, the version 2.0.0 (1982) such as can be found today is nothing like the original, so much so that to call today’s version Scientology is to perhaps engage in a misnomer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Arthur.
Enjoyed your writings very much. I met you at CCINT in the 80’s. I was a painter then. I had told you that I also was born in 1958 and you said, That was a good year wasn’t it?”
Sorry I had to correct my typo.
I must say that your way of describing these concepts is by far the best I’ve ever seen. And I LOVE the usage of the software terminology. Very fitting. Especially when applied to viewpoints as discussed in your earlier blogs haha. We are a bunch of zeros trying to not get tangled up in all of these 1s.
Soy un ” artista plástico” Mexicano autodidacta.
También soy un Cienciologo veterano ya que fui staff cienciologo desde los 15 años hasta los 22.
Tuve el gusto de escribir a tu padre y recibir algunas pocas cartas suyas.
Si bien recuerdo acudí en la Ciudad de México a un recital de piano de tu hermana Diana en 1981.
Me alegra saber de ti.
Tengo 55 años de edad.
Un saludo afectuoso desde Mexico
[…] self-determinism, and, the brass ring, pan-determinism (for more on this, see article, Pan-Determinism at Last). This is the state of being where you can connect all the dots of all the things everywhere and […]
[…] Speaking of self-determinism, here’s an example of its lack. During the past year or so of this SARS-CoV-2 situation, I did a lot of research to discover what the problem really consisted of. As I observed my fellow citizens here in Los Angeles, California, though, I was not very encouraged to discover that, as usual, quite a few of them were just doing what they were told, despite the fact that vast amounts of contrary information was easily available, thus challenging such foolish and destructive measures as extended “lockdown” (this was before all the censorship by the media, by the way). Blindly doing what you are told only applies to extreme emergencies where time is very short (“man the guns!” or “abandon ship!”) and not to situations that actually allow time to consider the problem at hand and all available solutions. The sort of compliance demonstrated during this Covid thing runs in the opposite direction of true self-determinism and, because of this, leads to finite games where they don’t apply. Ultimately, continuing on this course and given enough time, this sort of misbehaviour leads inevitably to gulags and death camps. No joke. (For a further description of determinisms, see the article, Pan-determinism at Last) […]