Summary of Scientology
Part/Chapter IIe
5th part of chapter entitled

(Editor's note) Well, we have come to the end of chapter 2 which is called "The Understanding of Understanding". I am very curious to know (and pass onto fellow readers) whether you feel you have any increase in your understanding of understanding. Press the green button later and I will pass your message onto all Books Weekly readers who are on ACE. If you're not on ACE and want to get on just send an email of any sort to the following address:
Thank you, Ant.


Affinity is essentially the willingness and ability to share a viewpoint or any number of viewpoints, i.e., to co-exist. It is also the consideration that an interchange of communication and reality can occur. To the degree that this can occur, affinity exists. Affinity, then, can be considered as an attitude which makes communication and, therefore, reality possible. Affinity is an attitude of willingness to duplicate through communication. As defined earlier, affinity is the relative distance and willingness to obtain similarity (duplication) of the two ends of a communication line. In Understanding, communication is the means, reality is the result, and affinity is the attitude that a sharing of communication and reality is possible. There is actually a scale of attitudes which comprise a gradient scale of affinity. This scale of attitudes is known in Scientology as the Know-to-Mystery scale, and where the individual is on this affinity scale determines his potential degree of understanding. Nonetheless, affinity is the attitude one holds which determines that reality can be shared or understood through communication.

For example, if John was standing on a hill looking at a sunset through some trees, he might want Mary to share his particular view and so he might ask her to step over and see the sunset from the same viewpoint. If she did, even though it was at a slightly different time, she would then be able to share his reality of the sunset to a much greater degree than if he merely described it to her. Her duplication would be a better one by having actually looked from the same viewpoint. If John didn't want her to see that view, then their communication about it would be more limited, and so would their mutual understanding be limited. Further, if Mary refused to move over, and look, her attitude of unwillingness to share his viewpoint would make mutual understanding of John's viewpoint less complete. The closer one's attitude approaches a complete willingness to co-exist and to share, the greater will be his ability to understand and toe understood. If John and Mary could actually look at the sunset from the same exact viewpoint at the same time they would have a very high degree of shared comprehension.

A person who has affinity is willing to share the ideas, beliefs or the beingness of another person, of other persons, or of anything toward which he has affinity. He is willing to duplicate that viewpoint or let it duplicate his. There are degrees of affinity and again this can be seen in the Know-to-Mystery Scale which will be described. Two people who have mutual affinity are quite willing to communicate and to share each other's reality and they are possibly able to create new realities.

The concept of affinity implies that the greatest degree of affinity there could be would be the occupation of the same space, a total co-beingness in which each would still retain the knowingness of his own individuality. People are capable of assuming other viewpoints, of sharing them and of understanding them, but this would not happen unless there was first the attitude of willingness which would permit it to occur. One can assume any viewpoint or number of viewpoints, if one is willing to do so and is willing to share viewpoints. If one says, " I can only have this viewpoint," then his ability to understand is limited to that viewpoint and the only people who can communicate with him are those who have the same viewpoint. If he is the only person with that particular viewpoint he certainly will not have very much communication. He will be " the only one " from his viewpoint which means that he will not be willing to let anyone share his view-point and he will not be willing to share the 'viewpoint of anyone else. This could be quite a problem. As an example, many captains of naval vessels feel that no one else on their ship can really appreciate their position, and the only ones with whom they can really share their problems are other ship captains. Even then because the other captains have different ships there is some failure to duplicate, so complete understanding is rare. A person who considers he is the only one goes out of communication to some degree with everyone. However, as he can be willing to let his viewpoint be shared as he can share other viewpoints, he will then be understood and he will be more understanding from the communication which follows this willingness.

Affinity is basically an attitude from which co-existence can be produced through communication which, in turn, can create the interchange and duplication of reality.

Axiom twenty-five of Scientology states :

AFFINITY is the scale of attitude which falls away from the coexistence of Static, through the interpositions of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close proximity, but mystery.

This is further qualified : " By the practice of Is-ness (beingness) and Not-is-ness (refusal to be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication through Looking-ness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness and so through to not-nowingness (Mystery). Until the point of mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know-to-Mystery scale."

A person at the top of this scale knows that he can identify at will with any viewpoint or number of viewpoints and yet retain the knowingness of his own existence. He can assume any viewpoint or number of viewpoints as he wishes, and he can also not be them as he desires; that is, he can willingly exteriorize from any assumed viewpoint. He can postulate a condition of no-distance. The very able person is willing and able, as himself, to share any space, any time, any object, any idea, any opinion, and any viewpoint that can be considered or imagined. He is also able to not share them, as he desires.

If a person assumed the viewpoint of a block of wood, he would then be the block of wood so completely that he would know fully what it was like to be a block of wood. He would have complete communication with it and a complete sharing of the block's reality; his understanding of the block of wood would be complete. He would, nonetheless, retain his own beingness as well and would also be able to stop being the block of wood whenever he wished. However, as the result of his shared reality, he would subsequently better understand the viewpoint of a block of wood.

If he assumed the viewpoint of a cat, he would then be the cat so completely that he would know fully what it was like to be a cat. He would know its feelings, tastes, memories, and other perceptions. He would certainly understand the cat completely and know the what, and how, and why of the cat. Again, he would still retain the knowledge of his own beingness and could exteriorize from the cat's viewpoint when he wished.

A person at the knowing level of the affinity scale would have the attitude that he could assume any viewpoint or number of viewpoints and, to the degree that he could, he would fully know and understand those viewpoints. Whether the viewpoint was that of another person, the moon, a butterfly, a rock, an ocean or whatever, the knowing person would be willing to share these viewpoints and would be able to easily understand them. Because he did understand them so completely, he would, if he so desired, certainly be able to do more with them as himself. In a way, the good motion picture is an example of this. When one identifies with one of the people in the film, he becomes that person and more fully appreciates his troubles, his sorrows, his joys and his triumphs. And, of course, when the picture has ended one again becomes himself. One has identified with the character in the film knowingly (or perhaps unknowingly) and through having done so understands him better. If one did this with a friend one might then be able to act in a more understanding manner toward him or her as a result of having looked through his or her eyes or viewpoint.

At Knowing, a person is capable of being or imagining-being any viewpoint because there is no distance and he is that viewpoint. Communication and reality are simultaneous because they have no distance to travel. Because the person is being the viewpoint, he does not require any system of knowing. By simply occupying the same space as the assumed viewpoint or viewpoints he knows without the need of any system. Full understanding is the result because there is a complete sharing of communication and reality.

The affinity scale now drops to Looking (or perception). At this point, the person considers and makes true for himself that he has to see (or perceive) in order to know. One can certainly understand that if a person must look at something in order to know about it that there is distance between himself and that which he perceives. Consequently, there is not a sharing of the same viewpoint or space simply because he is not being it, he is looking at it instead from another viewpoint. As distance enters into communication, the duplication becomes less complete. When John and Mary can be (or at least imagine being) the cat, they can then fully understand it when they have to look at the cat in order to know, their understanding will be correspondingly less because their duplication will not be as accurate or complete. Further, as John looks from the viewpoint of his body and Mary looks from the viewpoint of her body at the cat, there is even less duplication. Looking, then, requires the flow and interchange of communication in order to bring about better duplication and reality about that which is perceived.

Looking and the remaining attitudes of the Know-to-Mystery Scales are systems of Knowing. Knowing at the top of the scale requires no system because it is Knowing, Being and Understanding. Moreover, at Knowing the individual knows, but when he drops to looking he postulates (or decides) that he does not know and therefore, he must look in order to know. Unknownness is the attitude that one cannot (sharingly) duplicate something in its own space and, thereby understand it. When a person has to look in order to know, he must first assume that he does not know. Because there is always distance between the looker and that which he looks at, there inevitably is some incompleteness of duplication no matter how good communication is.

If a person assumes that he can only view the world from the middle of his head, that he can only have the viewpoint of his body, then he is not likely to ever rise higher on the scale than looking. As a body, one must perceive in order to know, and this is what happens if one thinks he can only view life from his body. If he can at least imagine being other viewpoints, then he can begin to know without looking. Furthermore, if he can really assume viewpoints at will, he can know without looking. As soon as one considers that, " I'm only human," and that, " I've got to be myself," then he is stuck with one viewpoint, that of his body. As he limits himself by saying, " I can only have the viewpoint of my body," he then must use a system in order to know and, therefore, becomes compelled to look in order to know, or to drop even further down on the scale of attitudes. A person can become so stuck below knowing that he even has a difficult time imagining that it is possible to know without a system and this is the result of having become so dependant on whatever system he uses. Below Knowing, the individual identifies more and more with some specific viewpoint which he then convinces himself and others that he is, and that he can be no other. He loses even the conception that he can share viewpoints simultaneously, and so lacks complete understanding through his unwillingness and inability to do so. The further down the scale he goes the more he identifies with a solid viewpoint, like a body, and so the less capable he becomes of achieving complete understanding.

As the person falls from looking, he falls to emotion. The full scale of emotion is described in the chapter on the tone scale. Essentially, emotion is an attempt to duplicate or be duplicated through the high level energy of emotion. The flow of Looking has become inadequate, so the individual tries to make his duplication more real with a heavier flow of particles across the communication line. For instance, John has not looked at Mary's new hat, so Mary then resorts to emotion in order to get him to know. She enthusiastically says : " John, look at my new hat ! " He is so engrossed in his book that he fails to answer her. So, then she drops down the emotional scale and uses even heavier particles of communication, those of anger. " John, will you please put down that book and tell me how you like my new hat ! " He's still very interested in finishing his book so he mutters, " In a minute, dear ". Mary still wants John to share her new reality and hasn't been able to get him to look even through her anger, so now she drops to an even heavier particle flow of emotion to grief or apathy or, possibly, at the extreme, to pretended death.

As one is at the emotional level of the scale, he is even more solidly identified with the viewpoint from which he is creating the emotion. He might even be at the point where he considers (compulsively) that  he and the viewpoint are the emotion. (" I am angry ! ") When the person drops to Looking, distance and some energy become requisite to communication and reality; when he drops to Emotion in order to achieve shared reality then more energy is required. And even though science has not yet built an accurate machine to measure the flows of emotions which people radiate, they are as real and even more solid than radio waves and X-Rays. A Being at knowing has no mass. As it drops to Looking it acquires, for instance, the mass of a body in order to perceive and, thereby, know. As it fails to achieve shared reality through Looking, it decides that communication will become more convincing if heavier flows are used. Because two masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time in this universe, this is a basic error which leads to less and less duplication. The person considers himself less and less a being without mass, and considers himself an increasingly single viewpoint which must attempt to share reality through the communication of particles which he makes more and more solid in his attempt to achieve a convincing degree of understanding as he drops on the scale. So, he falls from knowing to looking, and then to emotion which is the consideration of affinity that reality can be shared through feeling.

It might be mentioned here that love and the feeling of liking are at the emotional level of affinity. Affinity is more than just the feeling of love. It is the whole scale of attitudes mentioned here. If one looked at a rainbow and said that yellow was the whole rainbow and failed to notice the other colours, he would be missing a great deal. Similarly, when a person considers the feeling of love or of liking to be all of affinity, he is also missing a great deal. Feeling involves a flow of emotion. A flow of emotion implies distance and that an occupation of the same space by two beings is not possible. If two beings did occupy the same space then they would not require looking or emotion since they would know and have full understanding without distance or the flow of energy being necessary.

When a person fails to achieve duplication through the communication of emotion, he drops to effort. The flow of particles in effort is even heavier than at emotion and the person considers that it is even more impossible to attain understanding. Effort includes all types of action. For instance, having failed to get John to know about her new hat through emotion, Mary could throw the hat at John. The communication particle of the hat might be convincing and real enough so that John might then look. The communication particles at the effort level are even more tangible to a body than emotion. At this point, the being has become even more identified with a body and now considers that duplication can only occur through action. Emotions are above his understanding; only actions are convincingly communicative to achieve understanding. The achievement of understanding must now occur over a distance with the use of. even more energy to move the particles of communication across it. The individual now considers himself to be even more solid a viewpoint (as the body, for example) and so is less able to duplicate the particles because he is identified with one viewpoint, one mass and he cannot then be the particles, much less be the other viewpoint which has originated them.

At Effort, the being uses the particles of action as a system of knowing. For example John could have looked at his dog and, through looking communicated the idea that it should leave. If the dog didn't leave, he could then throw emotional particles at it in order to make the dog duplicate his communication. If he then failed, he could then drop to effort and throw something at the dog, or physically carry him out. This would be materially more convincing. A person who compulsively required action in order to know about anything would be confined to a much smaller degree of ability to understand than the person higher on the scale. He would be more solidly identified as a something, a mass, and again, because two masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time, his ability to duplicate would depend on communication involving action. He has become even more an " only one " and more dependent on the mass he has become identified with in order to know.

As effort fails to bring understanding, the individual then falls to a lower harmonic of effort. He begins to " try " instead of doing. He puts much more energy into his sent or received communications than is necessary and, as a result, there is even less duplication. For instance, if John's dog, a Great Dane, failed to move when John started to push him out, then John might begin to exert more effort to move him. That is, he would " try " to move the dog. If he succeeded, then action would be a useful level of understanding. If he failed to move the dog after having tried, he would then probably fall down to the next level of the scale: Thinking.

Thinking is the level at which the person considers that he must think or " figure out " in order to know. He doesn't feel that action or anything else should be undertaken unless it is carefully thought out first. At this point, the person enters even more of a communication lag into living. Thinking doesn't involve much external communication. The person who has become thoroughly identified as a mass, such as a body, or a brain, or whatever, sits in this viewpoint attempting to work out some means of achieving duplication. He can't be the other person and the other person cannot be him and that communication must be carefully thought out in advance. Thinking is the internalized communication of a single viewpoint which considers that duplication cannot occur through the transfer of communications across a distance. It can additionally be the consideration that certain very carefully thought-out communications can bring about understanding. At this point, John sits thinking about how to make the dog move, but does nothing, and nothing except thinking happens in terms of the understanding John wants the dog to have. Too often, the thinker just sits and thinks and that's all that ever happens. He gets so internalized into an attempt to duplicate from a single, solid viewpoint (the consideration that he must think in order to know) that he gets eternally trapped in a labyrinth of internally convincing communications. A person who obsessively thinks is very rarely capable of moving to a higher level of affinity; he is so busy " figuring " out what things really mean that he becomes fixed. His attention is internally fixed to the point where he does little communication outward and receives little incoming communication. In a sense, it would be like a person trying to " figure out " what the earth looked like if he was eternally tied to a pole in the middle of the Sahara Desert and had never been anywhere else, nor communicated with anyone else, and considered that he could not perceive except from that viewpoint. His understanding would certainly be limited, particularly if he could not even look, or emote, or act, even from the pole. He might figure for a long time indeed, but his ability to duplicate would be so small that his understanding of the earth would be very limited indeed.

If John thought about the dog long enough and even thinking failed to work, he might stop considering the dog itself and would condense his thinking into symbols and thereby consider a representation of the dog instead of the dog itself. He might consider a picture of the dog, or a memory of him, or a word or any other symbol, or anything which represented the actual dog. And so John would drop to the next level of the scale: Symbolizing. As the person reaches thinkingness and then symbolizing, he considers that he cannot even duplicate across a distance and so uses even more energy and mass internally in order to know. At the level of symbolizing, he cannot even duplicate the dog; he creates something which represents the dog and so even less duplication exists. For example, communicating with a picture of a steak is much less satisfactory than communicating with a real steak if one wishes to appreciate the reality of a steak.

Symbols are only a representation of the real thing: To read about processing is never as real as experiencing it. To read about any experience never has the same degree of reality as the experience itself. In fact, the effectiveness of symbols is only as useful as the user has had experiences which approach duplication of that which the symbol represents.

Generally, in the sense so far expressed, a symbol is a representation of the original. There is a larger usage in Scientology where a symbol is defined as anything which has mass, meaning and mobility. In this way, a mass can be representative of beingness as, for example, with a body. A body is, a mass which is given meaning and, while living, has varying degrees of mobility, and so can be considered a symbol of life. At symbolizing the individual is assigning meaning and mobility to masses; he tends to attempt duplication of the masses rather than the beingness which they represent.

In the extreme sense, John might start drawing pictures of the dog in an attempt to work out some means of understanding the dog or of being understood by the dog. He might possibly try to make his own body feel like he thinks the dog's body may feel rather than going over to be the dog.

Symbolizing, like the other levels of the Affinity Scale, is a system of knowing. Mathematics, language, and pictures are symbols which have the communication of knowledge as their intention. They are only representations of reality, not reality itself, other than the reality they have in the form which they themselves have. A picture may be on a piece of paper and so the paper is materially real though the picture of the ham on the paper is only a representation of a materially real ham.

There is an old cliche to the effect that a picture is worth a thousand words and there is some truth in this, although both pictures and words are symbols. If this is so, however, then a direct experience, in terms of reality, is worth a thousand pictures. When symbols are used, duplication of communication is less than at higher levels of the scale and so the resultant reality is less. This does not necessarily imply that symbols are not an effective means of communication yet, in terms of the Affinity Scale, they are fairly low.

A person at symbols is so identified as a mass himself that he considers that he must use representations of reality as his means of communication, as his system of knowing, because, for some reason, he considers the direct experience impossible. He may consider that the person he is communicating with cannot directly experience looking, emotion, effort, or thinking. He then uses symbols as a means of getting the other person to know; that is, to duplicate his reality by using an abstraction of real experience which they hold in common. Actually, when John tells the dog to " go ", he and the dog have probably had the previously mutual experience of John telling the dog to " go " and then carrying him out each time until the dog now recognizes the symbol as a command. The word, " Go," is an agreed-upon abstraction representing the reality of leaving. Even dogs are capable of learning (agreeing upon) the meaning of a limited number of symbols; and, so the dog, hearing the command, " Go," might do so then.

When a person is obsessively symbolizing, he is busy making abstractions of reality rather than having anything to do with direct experience. He is so identified with a mass to which he has given a lot of meaning that he does not feel capable of communicating as direct experience because he is the mass. He is very busily being " John Jones, a body ". If the body cannot experience something and he is being the body, then he can only communicate through symbols. Or, if those to whom he is communicating consider themselves bodies and they cannot directly experience his reality, then he must use symbols which they may be able, to some degree, to duplicate to create some approximation of his actual experience. At this level, a person considers that he can only have the viewpoint of a single mass and, further, that it is not possible to share any other viewpoint or mass except through the approximate and relatively vague duplication of symbols.

A person at symbols may also consider himself as a symbol. If asked where he is from, he will say he is from " New York ". In other words, he is not orienting himself. He is a symbol which can be located by an orientation point called New York. He may consider himself to be the body in which case he will locate himself by its location or by the location of things relative to it.

Below symbols is the level of Eatingness. A body is a symbol; the way to keep it alive and to keep it duplicating within itself is to feed it other symbols of livingness : food, water and minerals. Because the individual attaches to these things the meanings he himself creates, they duplicate in his body the livingness he desires. He considers that food, water and minerals will give life to his body, and so they do. This is seen in an exaggerated form where certain primitive tribes assign qualities to various parts of animals. The lion's heart will make one brave, and it will if the person has sufficient conviction that it can do so.

Most men think that food, water and minerals are necessary to life and, because they have sufficient conviction they make it so. How does one duplicate the components of the body? By giving it those symbols called food, water and minerals, the mass of which most closely duplicate the symbol called a body. A body is only a symbol of life, not life itself. Talk to a corpse if there is any doubt about this. However, the person at eating now considers himself the symbol and is quite identified with it. Because he wishes the symbol to survive, he feeds it symbols of duplicatable mass. Eating is an attempt to duplicate mass with mass.

Further, at this level, the individual has usually lost sight of the fact that he, as himself, is capable of creating duplicates, energy, and life. He considers that the symbol (the body) gets its life from outside sources, so he must eat in order to survive as the symbol.

When he thinks that the life of the symbol is limited in length because he cannot eat or because it will wear out, he then drops to the Sex level of the affinity scale. He attempts to create further symbols by duplicating the mass through pro-creation. If one starves cattle, they will breed more prolifically; if they themselves cannot survive, they will then attempt to create a generation which will survive. The same can be said of man. In areas where food is scarce, the birth rate is inevitably higher than elsewhere. India and China are age-old examples of this.

Sex is also a system of knowing; it is an attempt to create reality by the duplication of living mass. One interesting factor is that a man's body and a woman's body are physically dissimilar and so there is never perfect duplication of the two masses, yet there is the feeling that it can be achieved. As a result, they keep on trying to create duplication through the communication of sex. Further, because the two bodies (symbols) cannot occupy the same space at the same time no matter how much they try, there is an incomplete reality of sharingness. Consequently, the greatest sharingness that sex can achieve is the production of another similar body (symbol) which was created from the reality of a comman experience. Sometimes, when two people are not totally identified as the bodies they use, they momentarily co-exist and share their viewpoints as beings during the sexual act. When a person can be only a body, sex is an incomplete communication because duplication is virtually impossible between two dissimilar bodies which cannot be in the same space no matter how close together they can be. When the person can share his viewpoint as a being with the other person then the experience is much more satisfactory.

Nonetheless, a person at Sex on the Scale of Affinity is attempting to insure the continuance of similar symbols. He is attempting to create a duplicate (a reality) through the creation of a mass similar to himself. Again, at this point, the person has identified himself as the mass of the body and can insure the survival of this reality through the creation of similar masses.

When a person falls below Sex, he then goes into the Mystery Band. The cycle of mystery goes from something predictable, to something unpredictable, finally to confusion, ending in mystery. Mystery is Unknownness. It includes forgetfulness, unconsciousness, death, blackness, occlusion and other undesirable states. At Mystery, something unpredictable happens to the individual. He fails to duplicate it and he becomes confused. Unless he does duplicate it, he then is mystified and just doesn't know. He will then obsessively interiorize into the unknownness and considers everything to be a mystery.

Mystery is also a system of knowing. People tend to interiorize into a mystery. If a person sees something mysterious, he tries to find out what it is. For example, if a man is injured on the street, a crowd of people quickly gather. Those who see the crowd cannot see what is happening; it is a mystery. The greater majority of people then get involved in finding out what happened. They interiorize into the mystery. Theatres quite often get people to interiorize into them by advertising a " mystery " preview. The public eagerly buys mystery novels particularly when combined with brutal sex. A person is not usually satisfied until he has solved the mystery. That is, he remains fixed in it until he has duplicated its reality through communication and thereby understands it. One can attract a lot of attention by having mysterious qualities and he will continue to gain attention if people cannot penetrate the mystery; i.e. if they cannot duplicate its reality. Certain motion picture actors have combined sex with mystery and have been very popular.

An example of the previously mentioned cycle of mystery is the man who is very peacefully walking down the road. He suddenly is hit on the head. He has not predicted this and, for a moment, he is stunned and confused. If he doesn't immediately spot what hit him and doesn't immediately know where it came from, he will be mystified until he finds out. He'll say, "What hit me? " Mystery proceeds from unpredictability to some degree of confusion ending in unknownness.

Because the person is identified with a mass even more thoroughly at the mystery level, he has a difficult time identifying himself with any other mass easily and so duplication is even less possible than before. If he is rendered unconscious and wakes up somewhere else, his first response is generally, "cWhere am I (meaning the body)? " If he has been hit hard enough, he might not even be able to identify himself as the body or as the personality of John Jones and so has amnesia, or unknownness of self (meaning, in this case, the identity associated with the body). At the bottom ranges of mystery. the individual has even lost his identity as a symbol, yet remains in close proximity with it trying to solve whatever unknownness exists. So, even at Mystery, there is still an attempt to communicate and to understand.

This is only a very brief description of the Know-to-Mystery Scale. It is a scale of attitudes held by the individual which determine his ability to communicate and to share reality; to understand and to be understood. The less he considers himself to be a symbol, the more capable he will be of understanding, and the more able he will be to communicate his reality to others wherever they are on the scale. An able person would be able to use all levels of the scale. Any individual will be found somewhere on it. A better understanding of the scale can be gained through other publications, a knowledge of the Axioms of Scientology, and through one's ability to achieve knowingness on all levels of affinity. To be at any particular level of the scale is not necessarily bad. If one is obsessively or unknowingly stuck on any one level, however, his ability to make himself understood to others, and to understand them and himself will be limited to that level of affinity. Processing can change this if one so desires.

Understanding is composed of Affinity, Reality and Communication, or as it is usually referred to in Scientology, A R C. The affinity one has determines his ability to communicate his reality, and determines his ability to receive communication and thereby know the reality of others. As any part of A R C can be improved, the other parts tend to improve. As any part tends to decrease, then the other parts tend to deteriorate and create less understanding. Scientology attempts to increase the individual's ability to have affinity, to communicate and to create and share reality. It can be said also that Scientology thereby attempts to increase the Understanding, and the Knowingness and the Beingness of the individual.

To illustrate the decrease of understanding by a change in one of the factors of A R C , here is an example. John is trying to tell Mary something and a jet aircraft swoops over his house. The noise is so great that Mary cannot hear him and so cannot receive his communication and cannot duplicate his thought. Until John can again be heard, she will not be able to understand him. Another example is where John disagrees with Mary (refuses to duplicate). She says, " I hate you (refusal to have affinity with John) " and disappears in the bedroom locking the room behind her. (Refusal to communicate). This would create misunderstanding until communication in some form between John and Mary got them to change their minds and thereby re-establish A R C. For instance, John and Mary might not talk to each other for two days. Then Mary might bump John (communication) and say " I'm sorry ". (Also communication). John might say, " That's all right," rather grudgingly (agreement to accept communication). Before too long they would then re-establish their usual level of mutual understanding and possibly laugh over their misunderstanding. Any change in Communication will bring about a corresponding change in Reality and Affinity. Any change in Affinity will bring about a corresponding change in Reality and Communication. Any change in Reality will bring about a corresponding change in Affinity and Communication. The degree of understanding a person has can be altered by a change in A R C, and to increase understanding one would then increase Affinity, Reality, Communication or any part thereof. Communication is generally the easiest corner of the triangle to change; a person who understands and can use his understanding of communication can bring about a higher degree of understanding in virtually any situation. When in doubt, Communicate! Whenever or wherever misunderstanding exists there is not enough communication, so keep communication going (remembering to get the others to communicate, too) and understanding cannot help but be achieved!

Do send a comment for publication to members. 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.  [How is your understanding of understanding now?]
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 saying what you think might interest him/her.
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:
[Here there should have been a picture of Antony at his high stool looking down superciliously at you.]

All best wishes, Antony.

Here should have been a painting of a church surrounded by trees. Get to see it by clicking the link at the very top of this letter.
Church IoW  by Leonard Dunn
P.S. I was out to listen to a lecture on Lyngby in the 1950s, when the communal area was beginning to change from large farming area with a little intensive industrial area mostly round the station to its present state of being almost entirely residential — all factories gone. The house we were in for the lecture and slide show and the area around it was formally owned by a Danish general and I stumbled upon his grave while taking a rambling walk home as follows.

When my present body dies (I'm putting it off a few years) I don't intend to have any type of memorial or grave. Ideally I would like my dead body to be collected together with the rest of the burnable rubbish, taken to a place called "Vestforbrændning" (western burning place) and used for the municipal fjernvarm (municipal heating) which sends heat underground to a large area, converting it on the way to central heating systems. This struck a bit of a chord with me. The top bit (second line) uses the word "forgængelige" which means perishable, "in this grave rests the perishable of" him and his wife.

I like it, if one has to have such a monument. At the end of the last sentence spoils it a bit: let them rest in peace! Nothing of me is going to rest in peace; I'm already planning my next lives.
I wandered around a bit afterwards got amongst other things the following picture, part of the general's garden. Another part used to be let out by the Kommune used as a nursery (in Danish they call it a "planteskole", rather quaint I think. For the last few years Kommune has been unable to rent it out, so it has gone to waste will be in the course of time turned into a open recreational area (unfortunately backing onto Lyngby bypass, which goes through the middle of the town alongside the railway).
When I came to the main road through the Lyngby (not the bypass) I ran into this at the older of the two mills.
A fiskehejre (English = Heron). This fellow is waiting patiently for a fish to come through. When I first came to Lyngby in 1976 you would NEVER see this. A little further up the river we have a lake with a sort of swampy area with a couple of paths through the wooded swampy area. One day I was running at the far end of it, and I heard a screech. In the far distance I saw a fiskehejre flying away apparently frightened.

Now they sit patiently waiting on the stream at various points, and only fly away when you approach them. This was taken from the road bridge a few metres away and he couldn't care less about the presence of me, traffic and so forth.

Why the difference? At great trouble and expense the local councils cleaned out the poisons in the stream and lake complex upstream from us. Sounds good!

I guess also more fish came back. At any rate I see people fishing.

The downside is that about six months ago notices appeared by the side of the lake warning people not to eat fish caught in the lake. Apparently a new pollutant, name I've forgotten, has appeared.

Please enjoy this weekend . If you would like to do so there is a button below (I will see if I can inventing a bizarre colour for it). Press on that to get a email ready to send to us all with an appropriate subject/ topic already in place.

Thank you for your appreciative (or not) viewing of this week's Books Weekly.
Comment on Subject of Photographs in Books Weekly
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