See Home Page at http://www.ivymag.org

...the Dianasis debate(1) - 8

By Frank Gordon, USA

- An Onlooker's View(2)

What is this debate about?

In brief, Ulrich of Germany fires the opening shot in IVy 10.

He considers the Scientology and Dianetic axiomatic system to be

sufficient,

and questions any need for an additional Axiom 0 (with hints that

the Great Beast, Aleister Crowley may have been a bad influence.)

Peter Shepherd of England in IVy 11 replies that Axiom 0 'is

a statement of Dianasis approach,' (which doesn't satisfy Ulrich)

and goes on to give an excellent exposition of the Dianasis view.

How I See This:

Hubbard stated that Dianetics and Scientology were not invented

systems,

but descriptions of those basic agreements underlying this universe

(correct me if I'm wrong, Otto). Not any universe, but this one.

Ulrich considers this sufficient. Shepherd does not.

Mathematicians and their Universes.

Mathematicians can create something called Universes of Discourse,

with a set of rules (axioms, postulates, etc,) governing their

behaviour. There is an implied axiom in back of this activity,

however,

which we can call an Axiom 0.

Axiom 0: A mathematician can create any Universe of Discourse he

pleases, and within that Universe, his word is law(3),and that is the

only

law there is.

Higher Level or Meta-Axioms:

This new axiom is not within the system, but above it; and concerns

the choices available to its creator and to what degree he can 'run

things in his Universe of Discourse'. It could be called a meta-axiom.

An everyday parallel is the parental response, 'Because I say

so,' to a child's, 'Why, Mommy?'

Similarly, Irene Mumford's Axiom 0: Theta is the law, and that is

all the law there is.

This axiom emphasizes that theta still has choices. Yes, we have a

MEST universe, and Hubbard has laid out its underlying assumptions,

but this isn't the only possible one.

The Key Issue:

So what is the key disagreement or issue(4)?

Ulrich in IVy 10 asserts that Hubbard's present axiomatic system

is sufficient and all that is needed; with some ad hominem(5)material

comparing Irene to Crowley.

Shepherd in IVy 11, speaking for Dianasis, denies that the

present axioms are sufficient. A Meta-axiom (he doesn't call it that)

is needed: an assertion of the freedom and ability of theta to change

these present underlying agreements and therefore the nature and

quality

of the present MEST Universe (or portions of it, as in 'the secret

garden' concept.)

At least I think that is what they are arguing about. Anyone?

(1)See IVy 10, page 11; IVy 11, page 27; IVy 12, page 31; IVy 13,

page 11, and previous pages.

(2)Trying to act as a clarifying and reconciling 3rd party.

(3)Blackstone has

an interesting definition of law in his Commentaries on the Laws

of England: Law is a manifestation of will.

(4)'issue'(in pleading and practice): a single, certain, and material

point

deduced by the allegations and pleadings of the parties, which is

affirmed on the

one side and denied on the other. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th

Edition.?

(5)'ad hominem'appealing to prejudice and attacking the motives and

character of one's opponent. Editorial note: Thank you for introducing

me to this big word, Frank. Though ad hominem in the mag can be fun

to read at times, I rather feel it has a negative influence on the

main goals of the mag, which is in the direction of getting the tech

and philosphy Ron relayed to us used widely and improved. So could

we have a little less of it, authors? By all means be funny, but in

more positive ways. Ant

Fri Jul 21 18:55:06 EDT 2006