From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 13 - August 1993
See Home Page at

Thoughts Inspired by ...

...the Dianasis Debate - 4(1)

by Ulrich, Germany

I must have M/Us. I'm sure I do. Thank you, Peter Mumford, for making
me realize this. I always thought that the definition of sanity
that recognizing differences, similarities and identities were a good
thing, and that recognizing more differences, similarities and
were even a better thing. But apparently I'm all wrong. I'm 'bogged
down in irrelevant and complex intellectual argument', as Peter
Mumford rightfully points out.

New arbitaries

As well I imagined that thought monitored function, and function
structure. An idea I picked up from the book Dianetics. Thought-
function-structure. And I parallelled that with: a philosophy,
when it's made to function in life, will result in a set of technical
procedures. I foolishly thought that our technology were the result
of carefully applying the philosophical principles of scientology
to life. Now I'm glad to learn that 'looking not thinking'
is the path to enlightenment. Ron Hubbard apparently did a very wrong
thing when he worked out his axioms. He did too much thinking! And
that's why it's alright to just add another axiom and not even think
about it. So 'Why Axiom Zero?' - 'Because it's there!'
That's great, Peter Mumford, and that really is not an intellectual
argument; nobody could accuse you of that.

From what little I understand of scientology I took as a stable datum
that the thought, the postulate, determined the rest. If Irene Mumford
decided to put a new thought in at the very top of the philosophy,
in its axioms, it should be legitimate to ask why - as long as
one considered scientology a true philosophy and a science, as I do.
However, if one didn't consider it so, one would of course be free
to throw in any amount of arbitraries, of which Axiom Zero is one
example. Where that would get us is covered by Logics 14 an 15. And
as a result scientology would stop being a science, i.e. 'a large
body of aligned data (...) deduced or induced from basic postulates'
(Logic 20).

But I do see the failures of my ways. I committed the heresy of
that the existing Factors and Axioms were sufficient to describe all
phenomena of the world and the mind. And indeed, isn't that 'arrogant,
bigoted and unhealthy', as Peter Mumford so aptly puts it?

Hubbard soft-brained?

With regard to Peter Shepherd's article in Ivy 11, I should like to
commend him on his mental alacrity. He took the opportunity (when
I asked why Dianasis need an extra axiom 0) to write an undoubtedly
excellent PR-article on the subject of Dianasis, yet with equal
I would have appreciated if he had actually given an answer to my

To say that Axiom 1 (compared to axiom 0) 'isn't self-evident
either', that 'it would be hard to find an undisputable axiom
outside of mathematics' , that anything could be considered an
axiom as long as one managed to get others to agree with it, and that
'to understand axiom 0 is to feel what it is like to be an uptone
thetan' - to say all that is not so much an answer but a grand
and convincing demonstration of the writer's ability to beat around
the bush.

One is left with the choice between three possible interpretations:
One, Mr. Hubbard was a bit soft-brained when he called his axioms
'Axioms'; two, Mrs. Mumford graciously padded the job up where
Mr. Hubbard failed to complete it; three, Mr. Shepherd and I have
differing definitions of the term 'axiom'.

The aesthetics of axioms

In my initial article in Ivy 10 I said a few things on the definition
of 'axiom', and I would like to add another bit. As anyone
will know there are two requirements to a good axiomatic system: 1.
that there be no contradiction between the axioms; 2. that they be
complete as well as independent of each other. 'Complete'
means that all valid statements concerning the subject the axioms
refer to, can be derived from them; 'independent' means that
one axiom cannot be derived from another. This latter requirement
reduces the number of axioms to the bare minimum. If both requirements
are kept, the resulting axiomatic system is considered aesthetic.

As long as nobody proves the opposite I should say that Ron's Axioms
fulfill these requirements to a great extent and therefore form an
aesthetic whole.

Now to come along and simply add an axiom because one wants to express
'what it is like to be an uptone thetan' is not only a thoughtless
and unnecessary addition to a well-balanced axiomatic system, it is
as well an open invitation for anyone to add his witticism and thereby
dismantle the wholeness of scientology which is one of its
admirable features. In short, it's an insult to the man who took a
good thirty years of his life to work these Axioms out.

A shade of Crowley

If Dianasis need a motto to write on their banners, then 'theta
is the law etc.' would certainly serve. As a motto, mind you,
not as an addition to Hubbard's axioms. And even then it would demand
an explanation. First: What's meant by 'theta'? Theta as static
or theta as dynamic or both? (See Axioms 44 to 50.) Second: In either
case, how come theta is supposed to be a law? Third: Laws, on the
admin scale, come under the heading of policy. So who made this
Who is expected to abide by it? To what goal, purpose and ideal scene
does it lead up to? Hopefully not to the sort of extremes Crowley's
O.T.O. became infamous for. (Not an unfounded suspicion. After all,
Peter Shepherd favourably compares Dianasis' axiom 0 with Aleister
Crowley's tenet of 'Love is the law, love under will'.)

To summarize: neither Peter Mumford nor Peter Shepherd
answered my question. Both have positive things to say about Crowley.
I think this is remarkable. This impression is even broadened when
I see Gregory Mitchell, another representative of Dianasis, making
the following statement in Ivy 11: 'Part of the force of the
mind comes from habit patterns, recorded at the level of brain'.
This is utterly and truly remarkable! And fancy me honestly and
believing Ron Hubbard when he said that it's the mind and the GE
Entity] recording things, and not the brain. I must be getting out
of touch with 'latest developments', as it seems.

Nevertheless I should like to repeat my questions: What
does Dianasis need an extra axiom 0 for? And in what respect is
inspired by Crowley?

(1)IVy 10, page 11, IVy 11, Page 27; IVy 13 page 31.

Thu Jul 13 18:10:04 EDT 2006