from International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 15 - January 1994
See Home Page at http://www.ivymag.org
...the Dianasis debate - 7
Britta Burtles, England
When I first read this Axiom 0 - 'Theta is the law and that
is all the law there is' - I thought it was an April fool's
joke. I followed the debate while still being amused and still waiting
for someone to come forth and admit to having pulled our leg. Now
I have decided to add my 'penny worth' of thoughts - maybe
even to lay some ghosts to rest.
To start with, I agree with Peter Mumford who says in IVy 12
something like - the more understanding, the more simple and
is the data. I accept that this 'axiom' is a simple, if a
trifle pompous sentence.
There is nothing wrong with that, is there! Or is there? I asked
What does this 'simple' sentence mean? - and I answered:
'I don't know'. So I said, like Ulrich in IVy 13, I
must have an MU somewhere, better look it up.
Theta Equals Law?
The Tech dictionary says 'Theta' means 'thought, life
force, the spirit etc ...' According to the New World Dictionary
'law' means ...- wowee - there are 15 to 20 different
definitions for law. So there goes simplicity! And yet, that axiom
simply says: 'theta ... is all the law there is.'
Does that mean the dictionary is wrong? Or does it mean all existing
laws are theta? If that is what it means, how about those laws which
have been scrapped and those which in future will be improved? Are
they theta and then stopped being theta, or are they for always theta?
- Or, if theta is all the law, can we get rid of every country's
written laws? Are they superfluous? And what does this 'law'
tell us? How does it function? LRH says, theta has laws. See
his Science of Survival, chapter 6: 'The Basic Laws
Peter Shepherd takes 5 pages to explain and justify the existence
of that 'axiom'. Does that imply simplicity? His article is
an interesting if rather inflated maze. After reading it, I was
nearer understanding axiom 0. But then, maybe the significance of
that 0 is in fact what it says - 0. I still feel someone is pulling
my leg and is having a giggle behind my back.
However, let's take it seriously for a moment and try to understand
it: I come back to the 15 definitions of 'law': Which of these
applies here? Your guess is as good as mine. However, to move the
debate on, I shall pick some and 'try them for size'. The
dictionary says 'law' means 'rules of conduct, commandments,
instinct, the police' etc. If we combine one definition of 'theta'
with one of 'law' we get something like 'thought is the
rule of conduct' or 'the spirit is instinct' or 'life
force is commandments', etc. The mind boggles!
An Unfamiliar Language
Unfortunately, looking up words did not help. The sentence, despite
its simplicity, makes even less sense now. It's like saying 'a
banana is a sausage', which is not only a lie, but also an
of two items which are totally different. As far as I am concerned
a banana can only be a banana. One can, however, describe what a
is and/or does and/or has, with at least a few words to make oneself
Obviously, that 'axiom' means something in the Dianasis language,
or nobody would have bothered to tell us about it. So I came to
the conclusion that in Dianasese both words must mean something
As I see it, words taken from two familiar 'languages' have
been combined into a third, unfamiliar language.
Although I think anybody can consider whatever they will, I find it
half amusing and half sad, that the relevant meanings of 'theta'
and 'law' in Dianasese have not been given to us at the same
time as this confusing and as yet meaningless sentence. Maybe it means
something very deep, but we have been denied that meaning and thus
its potential value, because the definitions of the words were not
Words are some of our most important tools to create understanding
between each other. In this case, I consider, these tools have been
used irresponsibly, or they would not have resulted in the confusion,
unreality and continuing debate.
The Mystery Sandwich
When Ulrich asked 'Why axiom 0?', Peter Mumford cryptically
answered 'Because it's there.' What is there - this axiom
0? It has only been there since Irene Mumford put it there. So this
is not a logical answer. Or 'theta'? Yes, that is there. So
it would have been perfectly sufficient to say 'Theta is there'
instead of identifying it with something from a totally different
category. Or 'the law' is there? Which one of the thousands
Peter Mumford's answer to Ulrich's question 'Why Axiom 0?'
is a really muddled, slapdash and careless no-answer.
I am getting more and more convinced someone is having us on, and
is getting fun out of watching us fall headlong into the jokey trap,
the mystery sandwich. We went for the bait - hook, line and
sinker - and are now trying to solve the riddle. Result: a nice
Anybody can churn out such 'axioms' by the dozen: Take two
'big' sounding words denoting two different categories and
combine them with any variation of be, do or have. Recently over
my husband Jim practiced it, and had a ball 'axiomising'.
Here are some samples of his 'revelations', his 'reverse
vector axioms': Axiom minus 1: 'Eternity lasts forever and
is the only eternity there is.' Axiom minus 2: 'That which
has not been created does not exist.' Axiom minus 3: 'Before
words, there were no words.' Axiom minus 4: 'I am who I am
and that is all I am.'Axiom minus 5: 'That which is not
the same cannot be equal.' And so on, ad infinitum.
I am all for further research and more insights, visions and
in line with LRH who said at the end of DMSMH: 'For God's
sake, get busy and build a better bridge.' But to take a little
pompous and meaningless sentence, call it an axiom and try to link
it with LRH's complete axiom system in order to hoist oneself onto
the same level as LRH, is in my view pathetic.
The Little Game
However, let us look at it from another viewpoint and say: Leave them
their little game. Don't take it so seriously. They are obviously
enjoying it. Maybe nobody wanted to confuse us. It's just that
some people have difficulties recognising differences. They can't
help it. Maybe Irene Mumford thought she was giving the world a pearl
of wisdom. And here we go, spoiling it for them by picking up the
flunk, the misuse of words. Maybe they have never heard of LRH's
Study Tech (or perhaps they have redefined or redesigned it).
Ulrich put up a good argument in both of his articles and I admire
him for that. I specially like the part under sub-heading 'The
Aesthetics of Axioms.' But, isn't he wasting energy? What's the
point? If some people call a sentence axiom 0, as far as I am
they are welcome to it. Maybe one day we will get their other axioms
to look at as well?
LRH said: 'The Axioms are designed to delineate what human beings
are doing.' (From his essay: Thetan, Motion and Implosions.)
This so called axiom 0 has nothing to do with the Axioms LRH left
us, so let's not pretend or assume it has. There is Scientology and
there is Dianasis. Scientology has its Axiom system. Dianasis has
an axiom 0; the next one is maybe under development?
Irene Mumford probably meant well. Maybe she believed she could
LRH's work. Who cares! I don't mind. She isn't doing any harm. She
is gone. May she rest in peace. We are fortunate enough
to have LRH's Axioms in their full and glorious meaning, sense and
On second thoughts: We can also step back a bit from the whole debate
and look at it this way:
We are all in the business of helping Mankind to improve and
a better universe. Each of us contributes to that end within our
in different ways. I agree with Peter Mumford when he said: 'Where
it produces TA action and beneficial change, Dianasis is of use.'
'Many roads lead to Rome.' Whoever gets onto a cul-de-sac
or worse, will eventually notice, turn round and find the right road.
In the meantime, let us reach across, shake their hands and say: 'Have
a good journey' and 'See you there.'
Fri Jul 21 18:51:35 EDT 2006