************* The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org ************ Here is Denis' argument from the book 02 the Philosophy of TROM
Pete McLaughlin The Philosophy of TROM By Denis H. Stephens Okay, I'd now like to take up the subject of the philosophy of TROM—philosophy of TROM. I'm very grateful to Terry Scott who reminded me of the importance of this subject in a taped communication to me; he felt there's a definite need for a look into the philosophy of TROM. Well, I agree with Terry. And so here we go, we're going to talk now about the philosophy of TROM. Let me say at once that the theory of TROM is quite consistent with the theory of Scientology, and there are no areas, really, were they are at variance at all with a definite exception that there's one of the axioms which definitely does not apply in TROM. But I suspect that Ron in his later years, himself, would have suspected that there's something odd about that axiom. Because I used to talk to Ron in the early fifties and we used to skirt around the subject of that axiom. There's things he said then that made me suspect that he felt there was something odd about it. Axiom 31. Anyway, the axiom is Axiom 31 in Scientology, and this is the axiom which states that "Goodness and badness, beauty and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion" that is Axiom 31 of the Scientology axioms. And this axiom tells us that goodness and badness is really relative to the situation. In other words, it's entirely a matter of opinion. That there's no basis for goodness or badness, or beauty and ugliness in the universe. That there's no basis. Well now, discounting the subject of beauty and ugliness, for which I would be inclined to say that the second part of the axiom is true, but I haven't studied it all that much. I would say that if the axiom simply read, “Beauty and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion,” I would agree with that. But it's the first part, goodness and badness that sticks in the craw. Now this is a very old philosophical point that Ron hit when he hit Axiom 31. I don't know whether he knew that he'd hit a very old philosophical argument. I missed it at the time. It wasn't until a number of years later that I realised there was a flaw in this axiom. It wasn't really until I started to get down to my own research that I began to seriously doubt the validity of the first part of that axiom. And I hadn't got too far into my own research before I realised that the first part of Axiom 31 is in error; it's simply wrong. This is the way it works: if you say that all goodness and all badness are simply a matter of opinion, then you stop all possibility of social comment. You know, you can't then point your finger at something and say, “Well, I consider that bad.” The person would say, “Yes, that's fine, but it's simply your opinion that it's bad, and I consider it to be good.” You see that? And, bang, you've destroyed the whole subject of morality and ethics in one swoop, just like that. You've just wiped them off the face of the planet. You see that? Once you say that goodness and badness are simply a matter of opinion you've just destroyed all social comment, you can't comment about an action, because the person could immediately say, “Axiom 31!” He could invoke Axiom 31. So, “Well, look, these things are simply a matter of opinion. You consider it's bad, I consider it's good.” And there's no absolutes on the subject. Well, not so much as no absolutes, but it's simply a matter of opinion, simply a matter of opinion. “I know my opinion's as good as yours, old chap,” he can say. So you can't comment on an action. Now, that is a very dangerous way to run a society, I can assure you. Societies tend to collapse when this is adhered to. If you were to try and run a society on that basis it would run itself into a hole, it would run itself into a hole rather rapidly. Usually this concept is associated with hedonism: That whatever I do is right and whatever you do is right, and it's all a matter of opinion, and we all live for today for tomorrow we die. It's a hedonistic philosophy. And no society has ever flourished using that philosophy. It simply leads to the graveyard, very, very quickly. The society just collapses. It just falls apart. Usually it just falls apart into bloody conflict. That's an end to the society and something more stable takes its place. In other words, it's not a workable; it's not a practical proposition. So the first part of Axiom 31 is a fault. So with the possible exception of that, TROM and the body of data of Scientology are consistent with each other. And all we can really say is that TROM bears the same relationship to Scientology say as, oh, say Einstein's relativity theory bears to Newtonian mechanics. It's just a smoother way of looking at it, and a much faster and a much more practical way of getting the job done. But it does contain some more fundamental truths which were missing from Scientology and so tended to limit the application of Scientology. I suppose, logically speaking, from a philosophical viewpoint, you could put Scientology within TROM with the exception of these odd little bits and pieces like the first bit of Axiom 31. But you can't put TROM within Scientology, because there's data in TROM which is not known in Scientology. But there's everything that's known in Scientology in TROM. You'll find that it's all in there. So the senior subject is TROM, I can assure you. It's the senior subject. But Scientology, with few exceptions, is quite consistent with TROM. So we do have a philosophical background there, the philosophical background of Scientology. But we can actually take the technology of TROM, and from it get a much more workable philosophy than Scientology could ever have. And god, Ron worked hard at this subject with the philosophy of Scientology. He really did over the years burn the midnight oil there to try and get a philosophy of Scientology. And in his latter years he even started to get into this subject of ethics, you know, and started to say what was ethical, yet in his own axiom, Axiom 31 says that goodness and badness are all alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion. Yet here he was in the latter days of Scientology expounding a code of ethics. Well, this is inconsistency in his own field, and he paid for it. He paid for it. You can't teach the students, make them learn Axiom 31 by heart on the one hand, and on the other hand insist that they abide by a code of ethics. They're two things that are logically inconsistent with each other. You see that? There's these logical inconsistencies that caught up with him in the final years. Code of Ethics in TROM Well, we're not going to fall for these logical inconsistencies of that type. We do not say that goodness and badness are simply a matter of opinion. We know that there is the subject of goodness and badness, we do know that there's such a thing as ethics. You will find in TROM a code of ethics. It's written up quite firmly in TROM. And as you live by this code you flourish. And if you don't live by that code, the further you run your life away from that code the less you flourish. But we in TROM, we can go much, much further than that code of ethics when we talk about the philosophy of TROM. Code of an Ethical Being: Never force a person to know a thing against their choice. Never prevent a person from knowing. Never force a person to make a thing known Never prevent a person from making a thing known Sent from my iPad > On Nov 5, 2016, at 3:03 AM, The Resolution of Mind list > <trom@lists.newciv.org> wrote: > > ************* > The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org > ************ > 05:33 05.11.2016 > > The weekend is around the corner and I thought I create some > time and do a quick write up for your and my edification. > > Here it is: > > Actually there are no such things like goodness or badness. > They do not exist actually _because_ they are a matter of > consideration and opinion. Only your considerations can > create goodness and badness. As such they are a matter of > illusion. Which puts them in the same class as anything > else which surrounds us. It is simply an additional aspect > of our reality which all together is the product of our > considerations. Since you can change your considerations > or opinions any time, corollary you manufacture and change > your world permanently. > > The seemingly unreality of this idea comes only form the > agreed-upon agreements done in the first place > when you decided to be part of the game; to be part of a > prefabricated "raw" world; to participate in an endeavor > which is called co-creation. > > You forgot about that fact on purpose. > > Now you get confused since you experience an effect which you > were never exposed to in your home universe or anytime you > deal exclusively with your own creations caused exclusively by > your own postulates. On the other hand you learned what the > spirit of play is, which is at the core of co-creation. > > In the course of engaging on such a playground a being now and then > can fail (lose a game embedded in the larger play) and thus gets > erroneously convinced of the necessity to operate on the victors > postulate. > > Thus we have what, in TROM is called, mis-ownership of postulate. > That is one core and cause of aberration. > > At the beginning I had placed this sentence: > > "there is no such things like goodness or badness". > > It is not possible to give "evidence" or "counter-evidence" > regarding that statement. (That impossibility, by the way, is > the specific property which classifies an axiom.) > > It can only be hinted at, by means of metaphors or examples, > why an axiom is something to rely on as a foundation for > a philosophical construct or even an universe. > > I try to give you an idea now: > > We can say: "there is no such thing like good or bad apples." > > Because the goodness or badness of an apple is only a matter > of consideration and opinion. (Even a rotten apple may be > considered good - for instance by an insect or microorganism > which devours it) > > Only thing we can say with certainty is that apples exist. > And they do exist at various states of ripeness. > > There are states of ripeness which we consider as better or > more desirable than other states of ripeness. Again it is a > matter of consideration and opinion. > > In terms of a race, a single member of a race, be it humans > or otherwise, angles or spirits, ... we do sometimes talk > about ripeness of a being or a society. But more often we say > "maturity" or "grade" or "grade of maturity" when talking > about life, theta; and not MEST. > > So we can conclude that there is no such thing like goodness > or badness beyond our considerations or opinions. What we see > around us are only different stages of development towards > higher states. > > Therefore we can state: Criticism or judgment in terms of > good/bad of others is always criticism of oneself as well. > Because we all have done the whole cycle of maturing from begin > to end. Therefore criticism is a futile endeavor. > (If it tells anything at all, then it usually tells more about > the critic than the criticized ;-) > > The apparency (not the actuality) of existence seemingly teaches > us otherwise and makes us believe otherwise. That gives rise to > all kind of conflicts and insanities. > > A factor of importance for mixing-up apparency and actuality in the > MEST universe is the factor of time. But time itself is a matter > of consideration and actually an illusion. > > (That's why "timebreaking" or incident running (no matter if > narrative or in chains) can work at all. By which I mean: > to work for a mind which is designed to interface a MEST > environment. That kind of processing would be worthless for > other minds which were made for other universes where time - > as we know it - does not exist). > > Since time is not an actuality it becomes obvious that a > sequential occurrence in term of cause -> effect does only > exist as far as the mind is concerned and not beyond that. > > In other words anything is simultaneous. But this state of > is-ness is perceived by a being as a sequence of events, a chain > of incidents along a virtual time-track, with and by the assistance > of a mind. The mind serves as a filter and a kind of compass > in order to not get utterly lost and confused in the MEST universe. > > (Theoretically one could immediately as-is his whole track in > an instance if he is in very, very well shape. It is kind of > funny that a being, which is so well, has no necessity to > as-is anything ;-) > > As long as one is still interested in that universe it is > recommendable to not resolve the mind completely, just heal > it or repair it. Like it is not advisable for a sailor to > throw the compass and sextant over board. If the instruments > mislead, you just repair them. > > Conclusion: > > Ron's version of Axiom 31 can be regarded as superior to > Dennis' truncated version. Most likely Dennis tried to > challenge "The Old Man". He failed because he did not > have yet reached the intellectual capacities of his foster > father. > > Both personalities held different positions on the > tone scale. Other pieces of circumstantial evidence are, that > Dennis had perceptional troubles like sub-optimum hearing > throughout his life and bad eyesight in later years. > > (An auditor would as well be suspicious about a PC who tells > that he is "easy-running". Of course he would not tell him. > It's when a PC does not run anything at all. It's because > of an improper gradient for that person. Either too low > or too high.) > > Interesting that Dennis states in regard of Axiom 31 > that he had reason to think that Ron himself, in his later > years, had doubts about the validity of his Axiom 31. > Dennis only makes vague remarks that something in what Hubbard > said later hinted at that. Perhaps that was only because > Dennis' perceived whatever Ron said very selectively in order > to fit it into his own system of believes. That would be quite > natural. > > Further it would not be too unusual if Ron in fact had doubts > in old age about something he had said when he was younger. > He simply was at his best in terms of intellectual potency > and tone when he was younger. One can see that quite easy > when studying and listening to material from the 50ties and > early 60ties and comparing that to material two decades later. > Things got more solid, less up-lifting, more degenerated. > > Still this all together falls into the class of speculation. > And all speculations, be it Dennis', mine or anyone else's, are > overruled by the mere fact that Ron did never bother to reformulate > Axiom 31 in later years. > > Nothing in the above does in any way imply that the works of > Dennis Stevens are below those of Ron Hubbard. Nor does it imply > that they are above. > > They are similar in many ways and simultaneously different in > many other ways. > > Neither does it tell us anything objectively about goodness or > badness of those persons. They simply operated - in there time > and space - on somewhat different levels of maturity. > Which does certainly not - by application of clean logic - establish > any good reason to start a game on a high level of solidity or > earnestness about that matters :-) > > One can learn a lot form _apparent_ errors or discrepancies. > Often much more than from the rest which can be regarded as > "area cognita" *) and which does not disturb. > > > Robin > > *) I just coined that term in following the term "terra incognita". > By "area cognita" I mean: cognition-free area, subject, space, ... > I'm almost impressed of my own creativity ;-) > _______________________________________________ > TROM mailing list > TROM@lists.newciv.org > http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom _______________________________________________ TROM mailing list TROM@lists.newciv.org http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
