Summary of Scientology
Part/Chapter IId
4th part of chapter entitled

This is another front cover — the green and gold books. For some years it was the fashion for the Scientology books to come out in green and gold (as they called it). Green and gold were regarded as "Scientology colours" and the new meters made in England in about 1958 were called the "Green and Gold Meters" — meters made in the USA at the same time were a different shape and different colour. And if I remember rightly, Pubs Org used to sell green and gold scarves. [Ant voluminous historical note.]


For centuries, philosophers have pondered and repondered the nature of reality. In Scientology, agreement is considered the essence of reality. As defined earlier, reality is the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved between cause and effect. That which is real is only real because it is agreed upon. As a person agrees to something, it becomes real to him; as he disagrees it becomes to some degree unreal.

There are essentially three kinds of reality; one's own, that of the physical universe, and the individual reality of every other separate individual. These constitute the " three universes ". The agreement to perceive is an agreement which makes possible reality. That which one perceives he mechanically agrees with in the sense that by perceiving he is agreeing to its existence. The reader should understand that a person does not have to say to himself verbally " I agree " that such and such exists, even though this is also a way to create reality. No, by sitting on a very perceptible chair, he is agreeing to its reality even though he does not say " I am sitting on a chair ". Perception in itself is the agreement which enforces mechanical agreement that whatever is perceived is real. Scientology was unknown several years ago; now many people agree that Scientology exists, is real. Through communication, people have come to agree that the subject is real. Any profession to exist as a reality must have the agreement on the part of people that it does exist. The profession of the ministry is not very real to cows or to monkeys or to the Amazonian headhunter as for example in the case of several missionaries who were recently murdered.

The agreement that something exists makes it real, makes it enduring, makes it have persistence. In the days of Christ there was no Christian Church. But the agreement of many people made the Church a reality and, as it became more real, it reflected this reality in building and material objects quite tangible to normal body senses. In other words, Christianity was first an idea which became increasingly real in a very material way as people agreed to its existence. Reality has its origin in ideas or Considerations (as defined earlier). Words were probably thoughts to begin with until someone made noises and those noises were agreed upon to have certain meanings. As reality about words developed, they gained even more tangible reality in terms of a written language, and today, there are massive libraries to contain books. Agreement creates reality and as things become increasingly agreed upon they become increasingly more tangibly solid; the danger in agreement is that a person tends to identify with the agreement and if it is a solid reality, he also tends to become more solid. If a man agrees sufficiently that he should drink orange juice every morning this eventually is as strong a reality to him as the reality that the earth exists.

Societies are essentially realities brought about by agreement. The Constitution of the United States is a set of agreements which has created a very real nation today; further, each year this government gains more and more mass in the form of buildings, forests, people who work for it, etc. So it becomes an increasingly solid reality.

Morals, ethics, mores, and fashions are also realities brought about by agreement. For example, the Roman Citizen of the early Christian era felt that a person should be free to worship as many gods as he wished. This was very real to Romans who resented Christian insistence that they should worship only one God. Eventually, there were more who agreed that only one God should be worshipped and so Christianity became the dominant reality of Rome and subsequently, Italy. It is interesting to note that as the Roman empire became less a reality, the Christian Empire grew and acquired the mass which had formerly belonged to Rome. If one visits Rome today he will see that many of the massive buildings represented by the Church are on the Roman pattern, and some research will disclose that many of the actual stones of the various Churches actually come from Roman edifices. This is in no way intended as a criticism of the Roman Catholic Church but is merely an example of how agreement brings about reality which becomes more and more real in terms of mass.

If a young man agrees with himself that he wants to be a lawyer he then proceeds to make this a reality by taking a course which is the agreed upon way to become a lawyer. When he graduates he then is admitted to the bar, which is a further agreement that he is now a lawyer which members of his own profession make real by their agreementto admit him. As he meets people, they also agree he is a lawyer and, in time, this becomes quite real. If he is a successful lawyer, he usually will acquire more mass in the form of houses, cars, office equipment and so forth. Greater agreement will increase thereby the reality he is a lawyer. If he should one day walk down the street and said that he was a fine surgeon to fellow lawyers, he either would be thought to be joking or to have become suddenly insane. Generally, when people do not agree they are considered wrong, insane or stupid. The penalty for disagreement through the history of man has often been extreme, if not fatal. The early American Puritans, who actually went to America to gain religious freedom, were so strict in their own set of agreements that they would not permit anyone who disagreed to live among them. The Spanish Inquisition is another example of punishment administered to those who disagreed with the then current set of beliefs (agreements). In the Victorian era, any woman who publicly showed her legs was punished by ostracism and rejection because she was out of agreement with the then popular reality. In the more feudal days of England, no man dared disagree openly, with the King if he wished to remain free and alive. These are all forms of reality brought about by agreement.

The individual can have his own personal reality which is not subject to the laws of the material universe. He is free to imagine anything, such as living for ten years without eating, or levitating, and he can by self-agreement make the mental picture or mockup very real to him. However, the operating set of material universe agreements which constitute physical reality would be ordinarily very difficult for him to change sufficiently to make this privately imagined reality come true. In Scientology, when a person imagines something that is not demonstrable to others and yet is real to the one person this is called an "Actuality ".

For example, an architect can imagine the shape and design of a house. Until he translates his thought form into some symbol such as drawings or written specifications or the building of the house itself, this remains only an Actuality. When he communicates the idea to others and they agree, it then becomes to some degree a Reality. When the house is built, his original Actuality becomes even more of a Reality.

Endless speculation and argument could be created about the nature of reality in the physical universe. For the moment, it will be stated that the material universe of matter, energy, space and time is an existing set of agreements perceived by the human body, which is also composed of matter, energy, space and which exists in time. Consistent material universe agreements are called physical laws. The material universe which we all share is a reality composed of longstanding agreements. How these came about and the mechanics of their perpetuation are matters too theoretical and complex for this volume. For now, it will be sufficient to assume that the physical universe exists to our own personal perception of it.

The individual has his own private universe, which usually includes his perception of the material universe and the perception of the universes of other individuals. These are the three universes mentioned by L. Ron Hubbard : one's own universe; the material universe; the universes of all other individuals and life forms. Insofar as the individual's own universe is concerned, the reality of the material universe and the reality of other people's universes are as real to him as he perceives and agrees to them. For practical purposes, that which a person does not perceive does not exist as a reality for that individual.

Between the three universes there is a continuing interchange and this makes possible social reality. Any culture is comprised of a set of agreements which are real to the people within that culture and which are perpetuated to insure its survival. As the culture grows, some of the agreements are gradually changed to meet current conditions. A country which does not do this has, to say the least, much difficulty. Likewise, a person who is unable to change his agreements and who further insists that no one else change his agreements will also have difficulty. In fact, this quite often occurs with old people. They still cling to the reality, set of agreements about life, which they held as young people. The younger generation, which has been going to pot for at least 5,000 years, has a differing set of agreements more in accord with present time. Therefore, there is a difference of reality between generations. People do not usually change their agreements about life easily because their reality proved successful in that they survived by having it and they cannot realise that there might be any differing sets of agreements which could be at least equally workable. This phenomena of doggedly held realities is often seen in immigrants from Europe who settle in a new country. They tend to group together and continue the reality which they had at home and, to some degree, they do not survive as well as they might if they adapted their realities to fit their new country. It often takes two or three generations until the reality of the new nation is expressed and agreed upon by the descendants. The Chinese who settled in the United States usually took several generations to become " Americanized ". Of course, the cycle was a vicious one because they felt insecure and tended to remain in agreement and communication with that which was familiar and so did not reach out into their new society. The people in the new society tended not to communicate with them because they were so different, a failure which was a mutual failure. It was only when the children of both groups attended the same school that communication began to create an even newer reality and the Chinese of the younger generation became adept at handling two quite different social realities.

People who have grown up in isolated farming communities are quite often surprised and sometimes badly shaken by the fact that people in varying nations have completely different- realities; it is at first almost incomprehensible that "people really think like that ". For instance, there are still many nations where polygamy is the cultural norm because it is very thoroughly agreed upon and so is a reality. Anyone living in these nations who was monogamous would have a differing reality and so would be part of what is ordinarily called a minority group. The Negroes in the United States are also an example of a minority group who are out of agreement with the larger reality primarily because they do not duplicate the physical colouring of the majority of people. As indicated earlier, reality is the degree of agreement or duplication, between cause and effect. It can be seen, then, that as there is not duplication even on a gross physical level there is then some difference of reality.

Because realities differ greatly from individual to individual, and from group to group, and from nation to nation, and because this is a world of rapid communication and transportation, it is extremely important for the individual to be able to tolerate, to create and to handle differing realities. He should be able to maintain his own reality and yet not so grimly that he stays out of communication with those realities which differ. The individual should be able at will to agree or to change his agreements or to not agree. In other words, he should be able to willingly change his mind or to not change his mind as necessary. Yet this should be on a conscious, rational level and not a compulsive, unknowing need to cling to his childhood or his homeland. As a person cannot agree with the realities around him, he is out of communication and misunderstanding will exist and so he survives less well. A person who insists that his is the only reality and who tries to make the physical universe and other people's realities conform to his, will constantly create failure for himself and will be an unhappy and possibly neurotic individual. He fears that if he is willing to let other realities exist that he will be less real and that he must become like the others. Yet this is not true, because a person can maintain his own reality and still understand and appreciate other realities. Unfortunately, people are taught to be intolerant of differing ideas and that there is only one way . . . theirs. This brings about disagreement, lack of duplication and therefore misunderstanding continues. Astronomers hold differing realities about whether the physical universe is remaining constant, expanding, or contracting. Each has his own pet theory, which is mainly only theory, and, as a result of each busily defending his own pet theory, the science of astronomy in some respects is not a science at all.

One can observe that as a person's perceptions begin to fail he functions less well in the material universe. For instance, when a person goes blind he needs to develop his other perceptions and he requires outside assistance more than the person who can see. He has, in essence, gone out of agreement with the physical universe and it is less real to him in some ways. This does not mean that it has ceased to exist which he would discover when he walked into a wall, but it has become less real to him in some ways because he cannot perceive and duplicate it. In the same way, when a person refuses to perceive or to acknowledge the realities of others, they become less real to him and he is less capable of handling them even though they still continue to exist. In fact, they can quite likely do even more which he won't like and cannot do much about because he will not communicate with them.

Agreement creates reality and reality is created through communication. As a person can perceive and communicate, he can also build realities, destroy realities or maintain them. As a person's ability to. perceive, to communicate, to agree or to not agree is improved he becomes a happier, more able individual.

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. 
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:
This little extra bit is for readers receiving Books Weekly (the bit of digital paper you're looking at now) because they're on the Books Weekly mailing list but are not on the associated ACE chat list. There are about 25 people on ACE and about 70 on Books Weekly.

If you are on Books Weekly (a subscriber) you are eligible to come on ACE. Just send an email to the following address:
If you send it from the same address as you got this, then you don't need to do anything else (no need to explain or supplicate).

On ACE (Ants' Communication Exchange) you will be able to:
a. receive messages sent by other ACE members (either as a daily batch or as they are sent),
b. originate or reply to messages sent by other ACE members.

It's as easy as that — the aim of setting up was to encourage positive communication and relieve me of the job of passing your messages on so I can get on with other things.


Arising out of a small discussion about Jack Horner, an ACE member highly recommended what Horner had said/written which appeared in two articles in International Viewpoints (IVy) about Service Facsimiles.

I have extracted part of the first one, and you can see it here following:

Service Facsimiles, Part 1

by Jack Horner

[This article has been adapted from copyrighted lectures given by Jack Horner to students of Dianology on February 24 and May 28, 1970, in Los Angeles, California.]

A SERVICE FACSIMILE is an automatically asserted rightness, an automatically asserted pro-survival condition or mechanic. It operates on a stimulus-response reactive basis. Instead of you looking and conceiving of or creating a solution to a problem right now, spontaneously, knowingly, consciously and instantaneously, this machine does it for you. It is an automatic safe solution. It is a machine that keeps you from having to think or confront. It does it for you.

It is usually intended as a total solution, the only safe solution, to take care of all circumstances like this one. "I will always react this way". It doesn't say that, but that's the way it works. It is essentially an offense-defense mechanism. It is intended to keep you from confronting directly, and to keep people from confronting you directly, and it's supposed to serve as a method of handling the environment without you having to think about it. It's a reaction-without-thought-or-inspection mechanism. It is also an excuse for failure. It is furthermore a way of justifying your own existence and continuing to survive.

The thing about the service facsimile that makes it so tough is that it is often very reasonable in itself, but it's a self-determined aberration. The most difficult aberration to handle is the self-determined aberration. That is, decisions, postulates, opinions, decisions and intentions about the future made in a conscious state. These are consciously and analytically made and they are reinforced reactively. You get a tangle-up of the analytical and the reactive minds going simultaneously as a result of a conscious decision. So the service facsimile as such is a very hot little item.

Survival and rightness

One of the more important considerations of being human is a need to survive, and among the values of survival are being right and winning at whatever you're doing. You get into competitive things. The rightest guy wins. So you get into a tremendous desire and need to be right, and a need to win.

I'm sure you're aware that right and wrong, or good and bad, are considerations, and that they're basically irrelevant to a being. But once he's involved in a game, and is interested in or involved with the survival of a form, like a body, then certain things make that form persist better. Those things are considered right, and other things are considered wrong, and also therefore good and bad. It is important to be right in terms of surviving, to do the things which assist or add to your survival, if your goal is to survive.

People get very determined to be right because that's the way to survive. When it gets down to some sort of an only solution as the way to survive, the only-solution factor really makes the service facsimile solid because not only is it in itself a stuck effort to be right, but it keys in the whole GPM mechanism. It keys in anywhere between 30 to 150 thousand years of time track with a similar type of computation. This is what makes it so rough.

People do what they're doing because it's right, and that's the way to survive. Whatever a person's doing, no matter how idiotic it seems to you, for him or her at that moment, that's the way to survive. The thing about the service facsimile is that it's a compulsive effort and it's an only solution.

On the defensive

When you put somebody on the defensive, they are then demonstrating one of their service facsimiles. When you invalidate or evaluate for somebody, they then demonstrate at least one of their operating service facsimiles. Now I don't recommend this procedure, but I suppose if you really wanted to find somebody's service facsimile, you could push their buttons and make them defend themselves. Then you could say, "There, that's your service facsimile!" You could have a little bit of difficulty auditing them after that. You would possibly have to handle an ARC break! But this is a characteristic of the service facsimile. When people are put on the defensive they try to show their rightness.

We have to find what a person has done to aberrate himself. Now it's pretty blunt and direct to say, All right, what have you done to make life 'unbearable for others'? By asking him the question, it will put him on the defensive and key in the service facsimile so now you're not auditing the guy, you're fighting the service facsimile. And when these things key in, they key in so instantaneously that the guy doesn't realize he's dramatizing one, or being it. The service facsimile has become an automaticity, and whenever that button gets pushed, the guy still automatically defends himself that way.

You usually know you've got a service facsimile when the tone arm that normally sits at 3 suddenly goes to 4, or maybe it goes from 2 to 3 . If you get a rising tone arm, which is a non-confront on the part of the individual, the automaticity of the service facsimile is doing the confronting for him. When that solution is operable, the guy isn't. He isn't confronting. He's confronting as a service facsimile, or from behind one. It's a substitute for his being there. It solves the problem for him. It handles the situation. It defends him against all comers. In that sense, he's not directly participating and confronting. And he's not even aware of it. If he were aware of it, it would blow, and the tone arm would come down. Sometimes all you have to do is get the right wording of the thing and that will essentially blow the service facsimile. Then you only have to spend a little bit of time running some more questions just to make sure the automaticity is off.

Getting sick

One of the things that happens is a kid says, "I don't want to go to school today. I'm sick". His mother says, "You're not sick. Go to school". He doesn't want to be considered a liar, so next time he really gets sick, and it works. He gets to stay home and it shows he was right. Then the next time he tries it, it doesn't work; even though he gets sick, they make him go to school anyway. Then when he tries it again, his mother says, "You're going to school". He thinks, "I'll show her". Now he must have it work for him. This is when he uses his engrams. He pulls in birth, his tonsillectomy, or whatever engrams he's got that conveniently make him ill.

So he gets sick and that makes mother really wrong, doesn't it? He gets to stay home from school, and from then on anytime he doesn't want to go to school he gets sick. But now the mechanism's gone out of control and is on automatic so that whenever he wants to get out of something, he gets sick. He just thinks of not wanting to go to school and he gets a temperature. But he's the one who set it up in the first place. He set it up, he failed with it, and then reinforced it, and put it on automatic. That's one of the ways a service facsimile is brought about. And he doesn't have any control over it after that. It worked, and it failed to work, and it became an automaticity.

Locating service facsimiles

The hard thing to do, because it is not essentially a mechanical process, is to locate a service facsimile. The difficult thing about locating service facsimiles is that you've got to be there. The auditor has to do it. It is not primarily an assessment action. You can't punch the right buttons and have the preclear pop up with his service facsimile. The auditor has to intelligently look for it. We have assessment questions to help locate the service facsimile, but the auditor has to be right with it, and really thinking about how it might work.

If the guy you're auditing is in a state of release he doesn't have any service facsimiles in operation. You deliberately have to go after the service facsimiles he has that aren't keyed in at the moment, find them, and have him become aware of them. Just talking about proving yourself right, or making others wrong, can restimulate a service facsimile. The tricky part is, and this is where your TRs are important, is to key this thing in, which makes the guy automatically defend himself, without making him defend himself against you, the auditor. That's why your ARC has to be very high in this kind of a thing. Because if the guy's going to  defend himself he's not going to let anything get to him, including you. So you push the button, and he's now defending himself.

We want to find out what a guy's done in this lifetime in terms of rightness. You're looking for what a guy's done that was survival or right. And it was very survival, very right at the time. It was probably a very, very sane thing, at the time. But then for some reason or another, somewhere along the line, he had to defend it. He had to enforce it. He had to insist on the rightness of his computation with such intensity that it even became enforced upon him, and became automatic. And whenever it's challenged, it defends. And he being it, he defends, because he's identified with the mechanism.

Do, have, and be to be right

How do you find one of the damn things? We have a mechanical means of locating them for most practical purposes. There's a list of questions, beginning with, "In this lifetime is there anything you've done to prove yourself right?" You list all the things he's done to prove himself right. And don't let him tell you he's never done anything to prove himself right. He went through school, didn't he? He sure as hell did something somewhere to prove himself right.

Then you ask, "In this lifetime is there anything you've had, to prove yourself right?" This could be sickness, or a certain car, or a cigarette. Some people smoke because it's a way of being right. It's proving their parents wrong, for instance. Having cigarettes, or having a certain haircut. They've had long hair in order to prove themselves right. Or having short hair to prove themselves right. It's something they have.

The next question is "something he's been in order to prove himself right". This may be being an engineer, or being a dentist, or being a dancer, or being pregnant, or being stubborn, or being determined, or being intelligent, being superior. All various states of beingness, or types of beingness, in order to prove himself right. The more you deal with these things as an auditor, the more you'll discover the multitudinous things people can dream up in order to prove themselves right.

Now don't sit there like a machine, repeating the question mechanically. No, you say some thing like, "The question is, in this lifetime is there anything you've done to prove yourself right? Is there anything you could have done where there was an effort, or feeling that you wanted to prove yourself right, where you wanted to show them?" You have to get the idea of what you're after across to the preclear. Make sure he really understands the question and what you're after. The words in themselves don't always convey it.

"I'll show you!"

The essence of the service facsimile, one important part of the flavor, is "I'll show you". It's an attitude. The guy doesn't necessarily think to himself, "I'll show them". He feels it. But "I'll show them", is a verbalization of the attitude that goes with service facsimiles. "I'll show them, if it's the last thing I do!" These are the things you're after. When a life source or a being says, "I'll show them", there's no time tag on it. L. Ron Hubbard put it very well when he said, "A being never gives up. He only suppresses". He's not smart enough to just cease creating the goal. He suppresses it. The effort to prove is another very important characteristic of the service facsimile. "I'll show you" is one element of it, proof is another.

Take this example of a service facsimile: "I'll be exactly what he says I'm going to be and do it to such a degree that he'll feel sorry for having suggested it". That's a classic example of the service facsimile because it shows the other guy how stupid and wrong he is. The service facsimile par excellence is one that results in everybody writhing at your feet and suffering from what they did to you, but you showed them how wrong they were!

Anything you can think of, if the guy's got to prove it, it's a service facsimile. You use a service facsimile to show how much better you are than other people. Having knowledge in order to show how superior you are. Having status in order to show how superior you are, having a certificate. Being an auditor. Having no service facs.

The service facsimile may not have been a verbal consideration in the first place. It may not have been thought out in words; it was an attitude. You've got to find a set of words that closely approximate the attitude. Then it's  .........
And that, my fellow theta beings, is all you're going to get. The following are the links to the two issues of IVy (International Viewpoints) which contain both of the articles taken from Jack Horner's lectures on the Service Fac: and, if you want to join ACE, send an email (content irrelevant, no need to write anything) to the following address:

Come and join the happy gang and contribute to the to joying task of communicating and receive a theta driven pat on the back from me — but hold on tight I can't properly control my theta power yet when I get excited.

Should you wish to comment on this Service FAC question (regardless of whether you are on ACE or not) press this button to get a stamped and addressed e-mail.
[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
Early morning in my office (bedroom) with the sun streaming in.
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