This article may receive a bit of protest, possibly even vehement denial from some quarters. I'm rearranging many people's stable data here, and some may not like it one bit. But it has to be done, to clean up the subject a little. So please bear with me and hear me out...
In the earlier article "The Three Part Cycle (triangle) of Damned Near Everything" I mentioned in passing that the triangles we know from studying Scientology -- ARC, KRC, etc -- are really manifestations of two different actions. Part of the time we are seeing them act as a form of the MEST universe cycle AS-ISNESS, ALTER-ISNESS, NOT-ISNESS, -- and part of the time as the theta cycle of AS-ISNESS, ALTER-ISNESS, then followed by another AS-ISNESS. In Scientology these two cycles have sometimes been lumped together, with less than perfect results. So let's start with...
START-CHANGE-STOP. Quite simply the Co$ materials fail at times to properly distinguish between "stop" as not-is, and "stop" as an as-isness which causes a vanishing of the item. A vanishing of an item isn't a stop, it's a restart. "Stop" as a third postulate, force, etc should never be confused with as-isness. Remember that as-isness of this sort is a duplication by Static.
BE-DO-HAVE. It bothered me when I wrote the first triangles article that there were "havingness" processes used to make people better. It bothered me because I knew with great certainty that 3rd column actions were anathema to clearing. In an email message to some friends I wrote:
As you recall from my articles, I had noticed that the Co$ triangles had
collapsed together the MEST universe cycle of "as-is, alter-is, not-is" with
its theta eqivalent of "as-is, alter-is, as-is."
What was bothering me was that I had determined that all MEST triangle third
column actions -- ALL OF THEM! -- were highly aberrative, and were the direct
cause of the descending spiral of thetans. I had determined that NO third
column actions were useable for processing and clearing, only first column
actions, and second column actions which lead to first column results were
But that superficially conflicted with Hubbard's havingness
remedies!!!!!!!!!! "HAVE" is in the third column of the BE, DO, HAVE
triangle. How could this be????
I was all prepared to grind my face off resolving that conflict... then you
Jurgen [Kluft] come along and blithely write:
"- Havingness, the ability to have something or someone
in your space just as it is, without the CDEI on reach
And I immediately spot that the definition of havingness there is actually a
definition of "BE", not "HAVE." Note the key first column phrases: "in your
space" (same space is affinity) and "just as it is" (as-is).
After I wrote the above I came across a clear view of the subject of "have" which LRH had in 1952 in lecture 12 of the PDC:
"His havingness, his terrific havingness, is a substitute for having any space. 'Cause havingness is the bottom of the scale and space is the top of the scale, and when a man's got to have, he's telling you he has no space. His space is condensing, and condensed space and that sort of thing is objects."
The resolution of this apparent conflict comes in realizing that the third leg of any triangle resolves to either the top or bottom of the scale. Therefore LRH's havingness processes are aimed at taking a PC whose space is collapsed into having objects, and opening it up into having space.
ARC. To recap from that earlier article, AFFINITY is closest to the original postulates and beingnesses and is a lower manifestation of AS-ISNESS. COMMUNICATION is a specialized type of ALTER-ISNESS. REALITY is under the third column of NOT-ISNESS. But there's two ways to define "reality" here, and that's where the confusion has arisen.
1. One type of "reality" is agreement. Agreement is quite aberrative! In fact, if you want to help a processee, get him to disagree causatively with reality. Agreement feels like enforcement and coercion. It makes one feel heavier. The anatomy of this action is: NOT-IS.
2. The other sort of "reality" is where you exchange communication with others in order to uncover what exists from under its layers of NOT-IS, and reveal the ISNESS which is the exact ALTER-IS of the original AS-ISNESS. This feels like discovery. It makes one feel lighter. The anatomy of this action is a return to AS-IS.
See? Two different actions. Two different triangles. Scientology assumed the second without noticing the first! And the first two legs of each triangle are the same: AFFINITY, COMMUNICATION. Only the third is different. (Please note that the triangle should properly be sequenced ACR, not ARC.)
KRC. To recap from that earlier article, KNOW is closest to the original postulates and beingnesses and is a lower manifestation of START. CONTROL is a type of CHANGE. RESPONSIBLE is under the third column of STOP. But there's two ways to define "responsible" here, and that's where the confusion has arisen. (Gee, that sounded just like the first paragraph under ARC didn't it?)
1. One type of "responsibility" always degrades through blame into solidity. This is because in the MEST universe, responsibility is NOT-IS.
2. The other sort of "responsibility" consists of knowing and becoming to a state of near AS-ISNESS. This is the theta cycle of AS-IS, ALTER-IS, AS-IS at work. This is true total responsibility.
KRC is not actually the triangle of creation. In fact it's not even a properly laid out triangle because it is not a true cycle of action. I realize this goes against most scios' indoctination, but it happens to be true...
KNOW is at tone +110 on the expanded tone scale.
RESPONSIBLE is just below Death around tone 0 to -1 or so.
CONTROL is tone -1.5.
KNOW is much higher than the other two, and frankly most people attempting to use this triangle get sucked into the effort band activity of the lower two corners. When that happens they substitute THINK (tone -3) for KNOW (that is the know activity of that band) and the activity takes on the nightmarish behavior of that sub-death band: owning bodies, punishing bodies, blame, shame, etc.
Just to leave no ends dangling: Hubbard did find the triangle of creation, he just didn't recognize it as such. The triangle of creation is:
NOT (or UN)-IS
...which IS a cycle of action. He had it in the 50's when he gave the Phoenix lectures, and didn't quite put it all together. Please notice that the above three are VERBS, while the fourth item he talks about in the lectures, ISNESS, is a NOUN. Consider that carefully. (hint: a true cycle consists of only verbs, though sometimes expressed otherwise in some triangles when looking at the results)
The Co$ staffers, and apparently LRH himself had these two different KRC actions collapsed into one another. How else can you account for the tendency of the church to attempt to make their staff, especially Sea Org members, be "responsible" using heavy force and no affinity? How else to account for LRH screaming at people to obtain compliance, and ordering them thrown over the side of a ship if they performed less than perfectly? Force is NOT-IS. Affinity is AS-IS.
If one knew this and wished to get a staffer to be perfectly responsible for his/her post, then a first column action would be indicated. On the KRC triangle the theta "responsible" equals a return to "know" (KNOW, CHANGE, KNOW), so the staffer would be trained to know the post in order to control it perfectly (not optimally damn it!), and therefore be RESPONSIBLE as CAUSE. Quite a difference between the two actions.
It's exactly as different as the difference between AS-IS and NOT-IS. Apparently Hubbard never recovered a certain prime postulate we all made which creates the opposite of theta, then equates them to each other. This equating of the top with the bottom is the cause of all our scales like Know to Mystery and the Tone Scale. If the postulate is not recovered then the opposition dichotomies remain collapsed into one another in a way very similar to collapsed GPM terminals -- only this item runs far deeper into a thetan's past. (This may need processes to be created to handle it.) Apparently: first we created the separation, then we collapsed it by equating the opposites to one another. This made a is/not-is conflict which persists quite well!
Underlying this phenomena is the fact that at the very high level on the tone scale just below the top, the anatomy of these triangles are that:
AFFINITY, START, BE and KNOW echo AS-ISNESS, which is a first postulate.
COMMUNICATION, CHANGE, DO and CONTROL echo ALTER-ISNESS, which is a second postulate made to obtain persistence.
REALITY, STOP, HAVE and RESPONSIBILITY if done as a return to theta resolve to the original postulate and obtain an AS-ISNESS. But in the MEST universe they instead represent a third (or more) postulate which ignores the persisting isness (which is the ALTER-IS atop the AS-IS) and attempts to force an new isness without having confronted what already exists. The third postulate creates a NOT-ISNESS.
Please differentiate between these from now on, okay?
back to index