Consciousness Part – 1
Scientology 1.0.0 — chapter 41
Epistemic circularity
First, I need to describe what seems to me a slight complication in attempting to describe Scientology, something known as ‘epistemic circularity’.
Epistemic circularity refers to the situation where ‘x’ cannot be explained without prior knowledge of ‘x’, which in turn cannot be understood without knowing the initial ‘x’ — similar to the chicken-and-egg problem. For instance, to account for a puzzling observation, one must employ a theoretical framework, but to develop or justify that framework, one must first treat puzzling observations as evidence that demands explanation. If the thing that is puzzling isn’t even thought to have an explanation, well, then you really do have a puzzle.
In the case of describing Scientology, understanding either ‘x’ might even necessitate being in decent psychological shape to really grasp anything about it.
X-1:
Is the observation that much anthropogenic disorder exists in a world already beset by natural entropy, and that such confusion is possibly arbitrary rather than natural.
This x is refuted in part due to the prevalent ‘contingency theory of history’ taught at every level of academia. This theory is the idea that historical events result largely from chance, unforeseen circumstances, and random human choices, rather than from inevitable laws in nature or predetermined forces (planning). It’s all an accident — ‘Them’s the breaks, Bub.’
Then x-2:
All this political and social chaos is caused by a muddle so deep and so profoundly fundamental that ignoring it would render any improvement in arbitrary disorder extremely difficult, if not impossible.
This second x is rejected due to the prevalence of materialism, which tends to block inspection of underlying metaphysical phenomena. In other words, studying the de facto scaffolding of reality that might make managing the systems that actually support human flourishing possible.
So x-1 can’t be explained if x-2 is thought to be rubbish, and x-2 can’t be posited if x-1 is taught as baloney. A puzzle which, if presented to any cynic, possibly appears merely a logical fallacy.
But be warned: this particular epistemic circularity might not be a logical fallacy. What it describes could also be called an epistemic trap. A trap that could very well be built entirely out of contingency theories that deny human agency its appropriate place in the hierarchy of causation, and materialism that tends to disallow explorations of underlying causes. That is, how we are programmed to perceive a world that has never existed instead of the one that quite possibly always has.
The why before the why
When I discuss Scientology with others, I often find myself wondering whether they could grapple with the reasons the subject was ever developed in the first place. I’m not referring solely to the existential dangers present in the world eighty-odd years ago — although that is that — but rather to the psychological and, more significantly, spiritual circumstances that made many of those ‘unforeseen’ and ‘unavoidable’ events possible, even justifiable, for so many people (such as gassing minorities and dropping atomic bombs on civilians).
Unsurprisingly, not many know very much about that long-ago history (x-1); those symptoms that I am positing are the result of an underlying problem (x-2) that inspired my father to first begin writing about the mind. Nor is much known about the thinking behind what followed, which resulted in Scientology. After the next chapter, I shall attempt to lay out those circumstances. But first, I think it is necessary to try to provide a decent explanation of x-2, the precise metaphysical perspective from which he was evaluating those historical occurrences (x-1).
A condition before proceeding: the metaphysics in question must be framed in a particular way, and not everyone will appreciate it, which is perfectly acceptable; one should not insist on concession. However, for anyone wishing to grasp any subject rooted in a heterodox worldview, it is essential to temporarily set aside preconceptions, be open and listen. This is not about ‘agreeing’ with anything; it is about learning.
So, what I would like to do now is invite any sceptical (or even cynical, though there’s usually no hope there) reader to suspend judgement for a few minutes while I elaborate on the paradigm (x-2) that my father was entertaining before laying out the world affairs (x-1) that inspired him to develop Scientology in the first place. If his singular approach is disagreeable or too fantastic, readers can choose to conduct their research using more conventional resources, or they can simply disregard the whole thing and return to thinking whatever they like; no harm, no foul.
X-2
Danger! Danger!
If history is any guide, it appears that any person pursuing any branch of knowledge that attempts to address this baseline disorientation cannot do so without dealing with a great deal of flak for their trouble. It’s one of the reasons so many groups touching upon these subjects were forced underground or had to organise secretly.
Untangling this peculiar knot is not only inherently challenging but also almost inevitably met with violent resistance because it can invalidate everything most people have been taught, leading to the collapse of sacred prejudices, which is understandably disorienting and upsetting.
In addition and paradoxically, when this perplexity is clearly outlined and made public — which it has been many times — not only can it result in blowback, but it will also make almost no difference. I mean, you could plaster this datum on every billboard from here to Timbuktu, headline it in every newspaper, and get it announced by every broadcaster, in every podcast and YouTube video, and you’d get… goose eggs; a phenomenon I will tackle as we go.
So, what is it? What might this Confusion of Confusions be?
An educated guess
An ‘educated guess’ is called a ‘hypothesis’. A hypothesis must be based on observations and should make a testable and reproducible prediction about reality. Then, through independent experimentation, it is possible to transform a repeatedly validated hypothesis into a scientific theory.
In the realm of metaphysics, however, this process is problematic because it involves the ambiguous and weird nature of the observer.
That being said, here’s a hypothesis anyway:
Consciousness is not a consequence of the physical universe; it’s its source.
Many readers are already aware of this idea, but some downstream effects may not have been considered.
The denied observer
Today, I see many of our big-time thinkers struggling with the subject of consciousness. Many of these experts are, of course, hard-core empiricists.
An empiricist is someone who supports the opinion that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. That is, if it can’t be measured (seen, touched, smelt, heard, or tasted), then it ain’t real. This system has proven to provide great dividends in technology but has come at an enormous price: somehow they have removed themselves from the equation.
The thinking goes: no one can know anything without the five senses and the help of various measuring tools — gauges, scales, protractors, etc. What the tools ‘say’ is what is real. At the same time, it must be ignored that no one knows how all these senses came to be or how those tools got invented, or who’s looking at ’em. This leaves a significant gap in the logic.
As a matter of fact, it seems to me like a form of denial. Incongruously, while discounting themselves as observers — a kind of self-invalidation — many who hold this view display considerable egoism. (This might explain the territorial acrimony at scientific conferences’ Q&A sessions or in online debates — usually no one stridently asserts their views unless down-deep they suspect their positions are weak.)
In reality, this kind of scientist doesn’t seem very scientific. According to them, ‘good science’ must reject miracles — though the phrase ‘good science’ itself often signals an opinion rather than a description. For instance, the Big Bang is thought to be valid science. But ‘expansion from a singularity’ — which is how the Big Bang theory is often characterised — begs the question, where did the ‘singularity’ come from?
True, there seems to be no record of the non-physical, while there is an abundance of evidence for the material. But this still leaves the central questions unaddressed: nobody knows how we got here, or why, or even where ‘here’ is. Every conventional theory proposed by materialists resembles fleas crawling through the fur of the proverbial 800-pound gorilla.
So, when such investigators try to ‘get to the bottom of it’ — consciousness — ‘see behind the curtain‘, they always find… nothing. Well, of course! Because this is doing a 180: consciousness is not a byproduct of the physical universe; it’s at its foundation. In short, it’s you. Us. We’re it!
(Truth be told, underlying consciousness is its source: the truly terrifying reality known as First Cause or God, whichever you prefer, and that’s not ‘nothing’.)
The struggle, then, might be to try and figure out for oneself what consciousness really is. What needs to be known as a prerequisite is the nature of being and knowing.
A working hypothesis
The following working hypothesis used in Scientology is unlikely to be tested, as most scientific exploration occurs too far along in the causal chain. In other words, most of science has proceeded from insufficiently investigated presuppositions, leaving much of discovery wobbling uncertainly in mid-air.
That said, it is:
Anthropogenic disorder, according to x-1, is a fairly prevalent condition. The first step in addressing a truly deep disorientation is to first ‘find out where you are’. This means ‘locating’, or clarifying the muddle mentioned in x-2.
In general, it is advisable to determine one’s location. This means knowing not just something like your GPS coordinates but also the type and time of place you are in. If you woke up at 34°07’18.2″N 118°19’59.9″W, you’d find yourself not only in Hollywood, California, but also right in the middle of a reservoir. Being in a lake requires unique skills like knowing how to swim, compared to surviving, for instance, in a desert, a forest, or even a disparate climate, so you’ll also need to know the time: spring, summer, fall, or whatever calendar or clock is applicable. You’d certainly need to know what country you live in so as to understand how to live there; what’s the culture? What’s going on? If you found yourself in the middle of a conflict between two places, you might want to understand the reasons for the war to decide whether to stay and fight or relocate, possibly to the opposing side.
Cities can be distinct too, so it is important to understand what games they’re involved in as well. Angelenos play entirely different games than people in Nairobi, Санкт-Петербург, or 深圳.
There are many games occurring simultaneously too, including games nested within games, which cannot be accurately identified and understood properly without knowing their particular locations.
However, all the above is just preparation. What is even more important to determine is something vanishingly few people ever seem to figure out: the location of all these games collectively.
This means discovering for oneself the broader, BIG picture ‘here’.
The meta location hypothesis
So, ‘where’ are we, anyway?
If the above is right, then understanding macro-level games is crucial in ultimately resolving any prevalent chaos (x-1), as widespread ignorance regarding them helps fuel the growing number of people intent on wrecking all the games contained therein.
Here is an extremely condensed cosmogony based on parts of The Factors proposed by my father between 1923 and 1953.
Before the beginning was a Cause (the 8th dynamic) and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect. This purpose develops through consciousness: theta as the viewpoint (the 7th dynamic), creating and locating dimension points (a dimension point is any point in a space or at the boundaries of space). In other words, it is a probabilities game composed of theta creating potentials that eventually manifest as seemingly wave-like ‘thought’ patterns for the purpose of realising those effects.
(If anyone can discover any evidence whatsoever that there is something else going on here, I’d sure like to know.)
To continue. As an average of all thoughts is produced, they appear to densify slightly and independently bounce off (interact with) one another, which in turn gives the illusion of secondary effects that are ‘external’ to theta (a cosmic version of the video game Pong ‘set free’ from the mainframe).
All other games are nested within the macro-level game just described.
Survival
This densification leads to the appearance of a physical universe where the dimension points manifest as matter, energy, space, and time, ‘MEST’ (the 6th dynamic).
Since the aggregate (or averaging) of our thoughts shapes this reality, such thoughts also influence our individual experiences, which in turn affect our emotions and thus our behaviours — a feedback sometimes called a ‘strange loop’. That is, as one’s thoughts and feelings are influenced by the myriad other vectors in the universe — viewpoints interacting with dimension points — these vectors in turn respond to one’s thoughts and feelings, thus impacting one’s form (such as a body) and environment, along with those of every other viewpoint.
When a viewpoint becomes increasingly dependent on these constantly created and changing dimension points (such as one’s body), the concept of ‘non-survival’ emerges, leading to the ‘survival game’ and making the negotiation of these complexities the central challenge within the larger cause/effect + MEST framework.
In other words, if the dimension point (which is finite) ‘ceases to exist’, you ‘die’. ‘Game over’. Quite the pastime, to be sure.
Therefore, in this ‘survival’ game, remaining an observer of objects (called ‘exterior’) rather than a mere object of observation (called ‘interior’) is paramount.
Getting ‘played’ (as the colloquialism goes) and objectified (getting too identified with all those dimension points) means being too much at effect.
Therefore, keeping one’s position in space and time appropriately located (knowing where and when one is), as well as keeping one’s own thoughts, feelings, and behaviours identified and differentiated, means being more appropriately at cause in life. Which means success, a success which, at this time, can be seen to run as two vectors: quantity and quality.
Quantity: the longer one remains alive while maintaining some awareness, the better the win.
Quality: the more one can be genuinely alive and truly aware while living, the greater the victory.
The quantity and quality of success are wholly dependent upon the player’s level of awareness.
Originally, the game was played with and sometimes ‘against’ the dimension points, but the viewpoints can also compete.
However, if this awareness becomes too dimmed, viewpoints may begin to ‘square off’ against each other in earnest (a cosmic version of the video game Spacewar!), potentially leading to today’s social chaos, unstable economies, and irrational politics.
Thus, this working hypothesis gives a possible explanation for the second ‘x’.
Awareness
Then there’s the further understanding, echoed in Scientology, that can indeed be a very difficult pill for some to swallow.
To discover the meta-location, one has to locate oneself as oneself.
Again, this involves keeping one’s position in space and time appropriately created, as one is not ‘in’ anything that was created by something or someone else. Then by owning one’s own thoughts, feelings, and behaviours by keeping them identified and differentiated from all other vectors, thoughts, etc., all to be accomplished without egoism.
Ultimately, this can only be done by oneself, and not by other viewpoints (such as teachers or gurus — although they can help initially) and, certainly, not by any dimension points (such as governments or drugs).
Therefore, an individual’s awareness remains their own private and personal responsibility and cannot be delegated,
Abdication of personal sovereignty has been the norm in Europe for many decades and is now spreading through the United States. It’s a kind of hell that is not so much hot as it is cold and lonely, despite joining the sweaty huddle of the collective, each person blaming the other for their condition.
A hard pill indeed.
Working hypothesis expanded
What if there is no unconsciousness, not ever? What if, being a flawed human prone to error and capable of committing atrocities, you could never, ever get away from yourself nor anything else? What if the motive of all materialists and many atheists, who propose simplisms like the Big Bang theory, is, in essence, a need to escape? Could it be that for them, the idea that there might be infinite consciousness would be too revealing?
What if, regardless of how convinced one is that there is unconsciousness — from snoring through a wild party to being so knocked out during a surgery, say, that nothing of the procedure can be recalled: one minute, you are counting down from a hundred; the next second, you’re in the recovery room — twelve hours gone! — there remains still, an overriding, overarching consciousness that is fully, utterly, completely, and perfectly aware at all times?
The range between 3.0 and 0.0 on the Tone Scale represents a level of awareness where the viewpoint becomes so befuddled that the belief in the possibility of unconsciousness begins to bite.
That is to say, although awareness decreases (becomes increasingly confused) as one descends the scale, it does not become effectively counter-survival until 3.0, and, lower, it becomes seriously non-survival (1.9 and down), where remaining hidden from others becomes almost entirely automatic.
The previously described concept of consciousness, based on an infinite continuum as it is, implies that unconsciousness does not truly exist anywhere in this universe, even when one’s awareness of being aware blips out. Therefore, pretending that unconsciousness exists could lead to a significant amount of chaos, including unspeakable crimes against humanity, which, once committed, must be kept secret.
This means that although an individual or a group might become very unaware (confused) as themselves, as it has become for too many of us, they’re still engaged in an infinite consciousness that brooks no lie, no falsification and… no hiding.
If this working hypothesis proves true (and Dianeticists and Scientologists are satisfied it has), it could explain many mysteries, not just to understand but also to act upon. This understanding could potentially lead to the development of technologies specifically designed to uncover what is currently too obscure, too concealed. You know, ‘And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free’, etc.
(It seems the Bible makes this point over and over. A person can lie, cheat, and steal and seem to avoid legal and social consequences, but they still suffer terribly: the violation of conscience has consequences, even for those without one.)
This concept of total consciousness is one of the key aspects of the underlying theories of Dianetics and reflects the specific understanding held to be true in Scientology. However, in the broader world, these ideas remain at best wild guesses and at worst — in the view of critics — delusions.
If this theory is correct, though, it would provide sufficient motive for some individuals to want both subjects crushed and discarded, along with their adherents, out of fear that they might develop the tools to reveal and expose crimes. Naturally, any group working on this theory would be a prime target for infiltration and sabotage.
Coda
Between the contingency of history and the denial of spirit lies an epistemic trap: we cannot see the cause of our disorder (x-2) because we deny the disorder itself (x-1), and vice versa.
If these hypotheses turn out to be right, the way out begins with a single admission—simple but daunting: consciousness is not made by the universe; it makes it. We are not the effect of the world; we are its creators, and there is no escape from one’s creation, one’s own awareness.
To know this truth is to locate oneself—not by GPS coordinates, but by the coordinates of being. From there, and only there, the possibility of ending one’s contribution to the general chaos becomes real, and the game of removing the trap and creating a positive society begins.
Next: duality and monopolarism
Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard 