Copy
Saturdays Lesson
Part 17
Axiom 58 to page 175
[There should have been a picture here: the front page title and bookmark.]

Axiom 58. Intelligence and judgement are measured by the ability to evaluate relative importances.

Corollary: the ability to evaluate importances and un-importances is the highest faculty of logic.

Corollary: identification is a monotone assignment of importance.

Corollary: identification is the inability to evaluate differences in time, location, form, composition or importance.

What is important and unimportant depends on one’s goals. But this axiom is not simply a matter of increasing IQ in order to win a game or impress others; it is about how to increase having fun and develop spirit of play in The Game of Life. Identification diminishes the number of options one can self-determinedly choose between, while differentiation and gradients of importance open up a cornucopia of possibilities.

One can have too few data or a plus randomity (excess) of data or options, of course, (Axiom 54), but differentiation and relative importance can be a solution to both plus and minus randomity: Differentiation can help one to become aware of differences that make it possible to pose new or better problems, thus increasing randomity, while relative importance can weed out useless data from the few important facts thus simplifying matters.

In the same manner one can spot reactively identified data such as unrealities, engram chains etc. that make life too complicated and at the same time more dreary or monotonous. They come into existence when distinct data have been identified into a synthetic solid, which can only be re-differentiated by auditing or rational analysis. Aberrated data are false data that increase randomity by covering up the details by not-is-ness, thus making life appear simpler and more confrontable, while in reality it is poorly understood and less manageable. Auditing decreases randomity by making life simpler and more understandable by jettisoning useless baggage and seeing things in the right perspective (Cf. Axiom 24).

Aberrations are based on automatic identification. It appears to make no difference whether one chooses A, A or A, while in fact they are A, B and C. Judged by A = A = A: The job-interviewer has a haircut like my uncle’s, so the job will make me sick and I shouldn’t take it. By becoming able to discriminate, our pressed down sevens disappear and we become more able to understand that haircut is an unimportant factor, and one can understand the present situation better and act intelligently.

Excessive differentiation just makes things more complex and increases randomity. In itself it has limited survival value. We may do well in Trivial Pursuit or Jeopardy because we know a host of data, but are these important data which help us improve our existence on all dynamics? That’s where importance comes into the picture. Differentiation in matters that concern our existence creates complexity, but because these data are used in practice one gains experience, and the initial complexity – which is mechanical – is replaced by understanding (Axiom 24). Many of your everyday activities, which you perform with great ease, have taken years to learn – walking, reading, brushing your teeth etc. - and of course this also applies to any specialized abilities which you have truly mastered later in life. But you may still be somewhat stuck with subjects you didn’t like in school, for instance, and this may well be because you “learned” more facts than you could digest and use.

As we solve problems in life it gradually takes more ambitious goals or more complicated problems to spark our interest; brushing your teeth may be important but it’s not much of a game in itself. Obviously, the challenge has to remain within optimum randomity, and so the richness and variety experienced in life is determined by both the ability to tolerate confusion and by the quality of one’s stable data (Axiom 54). But as one’s abilities improve, so does the fun and this results from greater differentiation and less A = A = A.

Several processes develop differentiation. SOP 8 Step V had “Differentiation in present time” where the pc would look at two similar objects, e.g. two legs of a chair, two girls etc., and find differences between them. A couple of processes are directly aimed at the development of differentiation of values i.e. importance. R2-63 asks the pc what he could accept and what he could reject. A version of it is run on Grade 3. There’s a confront process: “What could you confront?” / “What would you rather not confront” (HCOB 6 October 1960: Thirty-six new presessions; Presession II, Technical Bulletins IV, page 156). Such processes help the pc to become aware of his values and differences between objects and so become more intelligent in aligning his actions to his dynamics. They work by making the pc look at things – be interested – and find differences between things thus counteracting the tendency to identification and monotonous assignment of importance.

A good general reference for the above comments on this axiom is: 9th American Advanced Clinical Course Lecture #13: Havingness and communication formulas; 541223.

That something is important means that it can make a big difference for the achievement of one’s goals or one’s playing. The presence or absence of it, the execution or non-execution of an important action, can make the difference between win or lose, fun or misery. Importance can only be understood in relationship to a goal and one’s opinions about what constitutes good or bad playing (Axiom 31). Something is important if it aligns (or misaligns) a lot of data to existence on the dynamics and to one’s personal viewpoint in the game (Logics 10-12, quoted under Axiom 53).

An essential quality of a player is the ability to make good choices – good from his viewpoint – and it is impossible to do so without the ability to evaluate importances and unimportances. The fun lies in making a difference in the game, i.e. in participating. And whether we are aware of it or not, the principles of logic – i.e. rational thinking based on an understanding of conditions and the roles of the players involved – is the method by which we become more able to mediate between the intentions of the thetan and the facts of the game: its playground, the rules and the other players.

According to the Fundamental Axioms of Dianetics (DMSMH), the analytical mind thinks in differences and similarities while the reactive mind thinks in identities.

In order to recognize what an object is, i.e. to categorize or classify it – e.g. as a cow or a bear, a troll or a tree stump, we need to see not only its similarity to other cows etc. but also what makes it different from a bear. You can milk a cow but not teach it to ride a bicycle; a tree stump won’t attack you and you might not want to sit on a troll. The reactive mind is characterized by identification which is to say fitting all the things that are identified into the same category. If you identify, you may try to milk the bear. Bear or cow, what’s the difference?

In the PDC Lectures Ron mentions a third mind: the associative mind. It’s the mind that finds similarities but it doesn’t identify two similar things. It’s really a part of the analytical mind, but some people overly specialize in it, and if one does, everything reminds one of a lot of other things. A cow is like a bull and cowboys herd cows and there are a lot of movies about cowboys but I prefer the stage etc. etc. Differences are perceived by the associative mind but disregarded because no goal makes one thing more important than another. Although a person depending on associative logic doesn’t identify (confuse) things, neither does he make distinctions between their importance or their relevance. Here we find the person who is always reminded of something that has some relation to what you are talking about, but it’s usually off the point. He’s probably good at Trivial Pursuit, but he isn’t going anywhere in life.

Such a person may be totally “adapted” to the way things are. He is likely to have a conservative outlook and to trust others to create his work and society for him. This is a manifestation of Axiom 29, considering that others created everything. At long last the person who depends on this winds up in decay and death unless he gets a purpose and formulates problems that give difference of importance to things associated. The associative mind does have a valuable function, after all: It presents data that might be important but leaves it to the thetan to decide which to pick.

Life is dependent on creating something new and different. Originality and creativeness is found in the realm of Q1: The common denominator of life is the ability to self-determinedly create and place matter and energy in space and time. If a person wants to live he has to be able to create or co-create life. This ability is what makes him different from MEST.

We might loosely summarize this by saying that associative thinking helps a person by providing data of potential value in understanding the game, the relations within it and its consistencies. Purpose and differentiation enables the thetan to select and use the meaningful data and thus recognize himself as a thetan, a self-determined being who is different from MEST and can control his role in the game by “... volition and potential independence of action ...”; independence being the key word here (cited from Factor 12; cited also under Axiom 51). He is not just re-acting all the time - he is making things go his way.

Judgment and intelligence are very useful in life indeed. But they are not enough. Effort is directed force and it should be directed toward creating life on all dynamics which is the default goal of life (Logic 11), as seen from the individual’s personal role and viewpoint (Logic 12) (both cited under Axiom 53).

Very appropriately, this last of The Axioms of Scientology harks back to the two last of The Fundamental Axioms of Dianetics from DMSMH.

The second last of these defines an individual’s potential value, PV, while the last defines an individual’s worth, which manifests when his PV is applied to the dynamics.

In the second last we have:


PV = I x Dx

I” is intelligence. “D” is dynamic, i.e. life force or life energy manifested as the urge to exist on the dynamics. A value for the exponent “x” in Dx, was never determined, but was, supposedly, a natural number (2, 3, 4....), and D to the power of x meant that D is to be multiplied with itself x times. The point of having this exponent there is that a person’s Potential Value grows faster if the person’s life energy is increased than if his intelligence is increased. One’s life improves faster if one becomes more active and energetic, than if one becomes smarter - although that helps a lot, too.

To illustrate the formula by example, let’s assume that I = 2, D = 2 and x = 3 We have the general formula:

PV = I x Dx

Inserting our chosen values to show what this is all about, we get:

PV = 2x23
 

And so

PV = 2 x (2 x 2 x 2) = 2 x 8 = 16

The person has a Potential Value of 16.

Now suppose we audit the person and increase his Intelligence by a factor of 2, we get:

PV = (2 x 2) x (2 x 2 x 2)

or

PV = 4 x 8 = 32

That’s a good increase, the PV is doubled. But suppose instead that we didn’t increase his intelligence – it’s 2 again – but the Dynamic increases, again by a factor of 2, and we get:

PV = 2 x (2 x 2)3
 

getting

PV = 2 x 43

and

PV = 2 x (4 x 4 x 4)

and

PV = 2 x 64 = 128

In the first case, where we just inserted the values in the general formula, we got Potential Value before auditing = 16. When we doubled the pc’s Intelligence we got his Potential Value = 32, i.e. twice as big; but if instead we doubled his dynamic we got his Potential Value = 128, or eight times as big.

128 is four times as much as 32, so we find, in this example, that if we can double a pc’s life force the result is 4 times bigger than if we double his intelligence. So it pays off better to focus on increasing a pc’s life force, his energy and zest for life, rather than on his intelligence – which would in reality also increase because it would be exercised by his more dynamic life. It’s not really a question of either/or.

The numbers in the examples are arbitrarily chosen to illustrate the math of the formula; they have no other practical import except conveying the general idea of the formula: It pays better to get a pc more active in life than to make him brighter.

Ron states that this formula is only hypothetical, but it is nevertheless based on empirical observation that strongly suggest that it’s more worthwhile to focus on a pc’s life force than on his intelligence. A related discovery in the wog world is that emotional intelligence correlates better with success in life than scholastic intelligence, which is what an IQ test measures. Once again: Communication with life is more useful than communicating with an academic subject in school – unless the subject is applied in life.

As a matter of fact Ron later changed the formula a bit, substituting A(bility): for I(ntelligence):

A = Ability to think, includes intelligence and training, experience and data stored in the mind. It is not just a structural potential of the brain, but “the actual capability of the experienced and stored mind”.

Jan 1951, Article in Astounding Science Fiction: Dianometry – Your Ability and State of Mind

Technical Bulletins, volume I, page 77
[Ant notes: I didn't realise Ron had published in Astounding Science Fiction an article after the DMSMH was issued so I'll probably publish it as a Saturday Books Weekly]

The final axiom in DMSMH stresses that the above formula states only the potential value. If this potential is to be fully utilized on the dynamics the effort must be unaberrated, otherwise it may lead to destruction:

The worth of an individual is computed in terms of the alignment, on any dynamic, of his potential value with optimum survival along that dynamic. A high PV may, by reversed vector, result in a negative worth as in some severely aberrated persons. A high PV on any dynamic assures a high worth only in the unaberrated person.

Aberration is eliminated by auditing, of course.

As an additional factor, efforts can be unsuccessful because one has insufficient information - pieces of the puzzle may be missing. “Plus or minus randomity” translates as “aberration”. Both aberration and missing information can cause confusion, as touched upon in Axiom 54.

So we come back to intelligence again. Intelligence cannot compute unless it has data. It needs to compare data, find data that align other data while keeping the thetan’s personal view of the dynamics in mind. And intelligence – “Ability to think” – would also include ability to spot that data are missing and discover what they are.

We need the ability to see differences and similarities between data and their relevance to our goals and games in order to act wisely.

The thetan is the player; the Axioms of Scientology are rules of The Game of Life.

I wish you a good Game of Life!

Link to Commentory on Axioms STUDY Section
Do send a comment for publication to members (including Nomen Nescis). Click on the button below.  Your email program will present you with an email ready to send, and all you have to do is to add your comment to it. 
Click or press here to send a comment or question.
If you have a friend or friendly acquaintance who might be interested in this press the following button and fill in the form with a little explanatory message to your friend or acquaintance.
Forward this email to a friend
Books Weekly email archive (20 most recent items)
Books Weekly Members' Area
Books Weekly Members' Introductions ------ If your introduction is missing contact: ant.phillips@post8.tele.dk
(picture of Antony]
Church IoW  by Leonard Dunn
Ant: a selfie
But that's CHEATING!
Copyright © 2022 Antology (Antony Phillips), All rights reserved.


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp