More on ARCU versus "truth"

[Gadfly]

While reading and posting on Hoaxter's wonderful "Top 100 Stupid Moments in Scientology" thread, I did some more looking at the notion of ARCU.

Now, while ARC surely does not "equal" understanding in any mathematical or scientific sense, there are relationships between the concepts. It isn't so much that what Hubbard said about ARCU is false, as what he LEFT OUT. Here is some of what he left out.

"Understanding" and "truth" often walk down different roads. Probably more so that not. A few examples will suffice. In the past, which is a treasure trove of crazy agreements that led to crazy understandings, people "agreed" that the world was "flat". It was "real to them". They "understood" that the world was flat. But, hey, big news, IT WAS NOT FLAT. Do I need to provide more examples?

My point is that just because a person or group "agrees with" something, just because a person or group experiences something as "real", and just because a person or group "understands" something does NOT AT ALL mean that it is TRUE. Medieval Christianity is filled with similar examples of where what was accepted, ageed with, real, and understood to be true were largely total nonsense. Many people were tortured and died because of the agreements and understandings of the priests and leaders of the various Inquisitions. The same is true for any dictatorship or oppression that has appeared on Earth. Agreements and understandings are always involved.

Note: When Hubbard uses the term "understanding" far too many ASSUME that he is somehow referring to that high and mighty notion of "harmony among people". But, it is NOT at all related to this idea of "people getting along despite all differences". Agreement is ONLY about NOT having differences and agreeing on the SAME ideas.

I will give one more example, and I leave it to the viewer to honestly ask and answer the question, providing MANY modern examples, "how can an idea be agreed with, be real to someone, and even understood, yet be FALSE and NOT the truth"? In with the example. A group of Muslim terrorists all agree that Allah is "good", and that the "west" is a heathen abomination spitting in the face of their glorious God. It is VERY "real to them" that they will go to "heaven" if they "die in the just cause" of killing a spawn of Satan - an American. They all have the SAME "understandings" about a great many fanatical ideas and notions. And, since they all agree with each other, to such a heightened and extreme degree, they very much LIKE each other (affinity). There are many smiles, laughter and mutual back-slapping after a "successfully completed suicide bombing" (stats are up). They enjoy being "in the same space" as other fanatical Muslims who "agree with them". They enjoy communicating with each other about the same nutty ideas and ideals that they each agree with. The "ARC" is VERY HIGH among them. Isn't that called "theta" in Scientology terms, being in such extreme agreement with others about the same notions? Yet the outcome is death, destruction and evil. :confused2:

The above is an example of ARCU in action. There is no inherent "goodness" in ARCU. That is "dubbed into" the notion.

I purposely chose "negative" examples to display that there is no inherent "positive" value or meaning in ARCU. It is simply a mechanism. It is a mechanism that controllers and manipulators of all sorts, whether they know it or not, USE to change "agreements" and "understandings". Also, people can "understand" anything to be true, and often what they understand to be true, is NOT true at all. People can and do agree with all sorts of nonsense, and thus make it real for themselves.

It is vital to realize that the mechanics of ARCU has NOTHING to do with "truth". While one can agree with truth, can have truth be real, and can understand truth, one can also, and often one does instead agree with lies, falsehoods, delusions, fantasies, fabrications and fictions, has THOSE be real, and "understands" THESE to be "facts".

That is a major problem with Scientology. Hubbard NEVER pointed the above out, yet it is true and vital to a proper understanding of ARCU. One might ask why he left all of that out.

It is true that affinity, reality (as agreement), and communication have something to do with understanding. It is probably impossible to understand something if you NEVER communicate with it or about it. It is probably impossible to understand something if you don't agree with at least the IDEAS about the subject (whether you agree or disagree with them). It seems that one must have some affinity, willingness to be in the same space as, any subject or topic if one is to know anything about it. Also, it is common that people who have the same "reality", who agree with each other, often LIKE each other, and are happy to communicate with each other. Often people who disagree or who hold contrary ideas are kept at a distance or not liked. All of that is readily and easily observable in real life. There IS something to this whole ARCU thing.

In Scientology it becomes a "positive value" to display "uptone" emotions, such as enthusiasm, and to display "high ARC". But it is VERY qualified. It is ONLY acceptable to display uptone emotions about Hubbard and Scientology. It would surely NOT be okay to show positive interest or enthusiasm about psychiatry, any of many other practices, ANY "other intention" as regards Scientology, or exposing the lunacy of the current Scientology dictator. In other words, WHAT any person agrees with, accepts as real, likes, communicates with and "understands" is VERY RESTRICTIVE in Scientology. The concept of ARCU gets loaded with and confused with all this unnecessary and arbitrary Scientology paradigm crap.

In truth a group of protesters outside of an org share an AGREEMENT (reality). They don't like some aspect of Hubbard or the Church of Scientology. They AGREE on that. They like each other and are willing to communicate about similar ideas. They have a shared "understanding" about the faults and flaws of Scientology. ARCU is in action there too. But, in Scientology this notion of ARC gets tied into "theta", where higher levels of affinity and communication are considered "good" and "desirable", BUT ONLY when the affinity is for Scientology ideas and the communication is about Scientology ideas.

The notion of ARCU is actually a sterile concept that can help any person grasp how and why others behave as they do. People tend to behave as they do depending on 1) what they agree with, 2) what they consider to be real, and 3) what they "understand" to be "true". The realms of affinity and communication can be used or ABUSED to "effect" what is agreed with, what is accepted as real, and what is understood to be true.

In my value system, I avoid and discourage any use of communication or phony affinity (love-bombing) to bring about an agreement with LIES. In the end, really, I have no concern at all whether anyone agrees with me. Not outside of purely pragmatic concerns.

For instance, I live on a small mountain, and if you don't learn HOW to properly drive down the hill in snow, you can drive off the side and wreck yourself and the car. I am teaching my daughter how to drive down the hill. In the end, while she probably will agree with what I say and explain, it will be because what I get her to LOOK AT and consider is valid and true. To a degree I "use" ARCU. I got her to walk out and look at the hill. I got her to notice how the road slants toward the inside of the mountain, and that if she ever got into a skid, that she should and MUST steer into the ditch. Yes, she did "agree with me" and she did come to understand what might happen if she didn't (she would drive off the steep side and go down). But, I didn't get her to "agree with ideas". I got her to LOOK at the reality of the situation, and got her to consider the actual true nature of what was there. In the end we agreed on the ideas, but there was "truth" involved as related to observable situations.

I explained the concept of "momentum", and how any moving object will tend to continue along in the same direction unless another force pushes it to do otherwise. Why? Because a fast moving car will tend to drive straight off the side of the cliff on a sharp downward curve, especially if the road is slick with ice or snow. In the end she "agreed" and "understood", but there was SUBSTANCE of TRUTH to the ideas.

So, my point is that ARCU involves simple ideas about how and why any person comes to agree and understand ANYTHING through communication and affinity. The point that is lost to Hubbard and so many Scientologists is that it MATTERS WHETHER WHAT ONE IS GAINING AGREEMENT FOR INVOLVES "TRUTH" OR LIES. Hubbard largely omits the notion of "truth", and stresses ONLY "agreement". That is a recipe for disaster, and that IS Scientology.

Also, "agreement" is a mental act. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what is going on "out there". But to me, agreement needs to and should closely connect to OBSERVATIONS of actual events, situations and things. Otherwise one can agree with any nonsensical fantasy. Agreeing that there is such a thing as a "state of Clear" involves a complete disconnection with observations of actual events, situations and things. Such is true for a great many "ideas" that are "agreed with" in Scientology, such as "your eternity", "clearing the planet", "the nature of SPs", and more. People are agreeing with ideals, vague ideas or fantasies. People come to "believe" and operate with "faith" (belief in things unseen).

Hubbard somewhere defined "truth" in the physical universe as an exact description of time, place, form and event. I like that. It works for me. But then, as one of many out of a nearly infinite reservoir of examples, PR spokesperson Tommy Davis, states that "there is no disconnection in Scientology". That is obviously NOT an accurate description of "time, place, form and event" as regards this practice of disconnection. Thus, Tommy David, in typical well-drilled Scientology manner, intentionally acts to "create and gain agreement with lies". His aim is to create an understanding in the minds of people that does NOT align with actual facts, situations and events. He doesn't care about "truth", he only cares about agreement with whatever "helps the Church".

Hubbard does present fairly cool ideas with both ARCU (though they are NOT equal, are not of equal importance, and are simply "related") and with "truth" as exact TPFE, BUT HE LEAVES THEM SEGREGATED, DISCONNECTED AND OFF BY THEMSELVES.

ARCU should relate to "truth". It doesn't in the world of Scientology. ARCU becomes a tool of manipulation, as a way to "bring about agreement with desired ideas". And, "truth" is almost NEVER mentioned, not in Scientology theory and not in practice, other than in vague exaggerated claims such as "Scientology is the Road to Truth". Otherwise, "truth" takes a very far backseat to "agreement" (with Hubbard). I always disliked that about Hubbard and Scientology. The use of ARCU becomes entirely utilitarian - whatever "helps the cause" is fine, with NO regard for truthfulness. The ends justify the means in Scientology, and with HOW ARCU is applied by the Scientology organization.

"Truth" is not a VALUE of any marked importance in the subject or practices of Scientology.

The highest value in Scientology is the "survival and expansion of the Church of Scientology". Any fact, data or situation that hinders that is considered "bad". Anything that helps that is considered to be "good". That is ALL anyone needs to understand about "Scientology ethics". Lastly, ONLY affinities, communications, agreements and understandings that contribute to the "survival and expansion of the Church of Scientology" are considered valid. And, truth is meaningless and a much lower concern that the "survival and expansion of the Church of Scientology". If lying "helps" then lying it is.

 

[Type4_PTS]

"ARCU becomes a tool of manipulation......"

^^^^^^^^
THIS!


One of, or maybe THE best analytical post I've read on the ARC Triangle and how it can be used to manipulate people.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Next I suppose you will tell me theta has nothing to do with truth either. LOL. I get your point that by use of raising reality and communication you can bring about and "understanding" - agreement really, of whatever you want in a receptive person.

I think that is a valid aspect of arcu, however another equally valid aspect, is that you can have understanding with out agreement or liking, or even communication.

Take your Tommy Davis example, You understand perfectly well what he is doing, you probably abhor it, I doubt you are going to call him up and have a heart to heart about it, and I doubt you have a lot of love for him...

Don't get me wrong, I really like what you wrote, it was an aspect of ARCU I never considered.

Mimsey

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I think you have fallen into the Hubbard trap and are overthinking the whole thing.

ARC does not equal understanding.

If by equal you mean the same value as, then ARC does not equal understanding.

And if by equal you mean leads to or causes then ARC still does not equal understanding.

ARC does not equal understanding anymore then wood, water, and air equal a sailboat.

You are reifying and using these narrow concepts of affinity, reality, and communication in the same manner as Hubbard.

So it seems to me you are still thinking in the Scientology box. Get out of the box.

Get out of Hubbard's paradigm.

It is a no win, spin yourself in, paradigm that cuts off the wider picture.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[RolandRB]

Gadfly, try to pull yourself out of the pit of Hubbo spew. It is all crap that leads to nowhere good.

 

[Gadfly]

I think you have fallen into the Hubbard trap and are overthinking the whole thing.

ARC does not equal understanding.

If by equal you mean the same value as, then ARC does not equal understanding.

And if by equal you mean leads to or causes then ARC still does not equal understanding.

ARC does not equal understanding anymore then wood, water, and air equal a sailboat.

You are reifying and using these narrow concepts of affinity, reality, and communication in the same manner as Hubbard.

So it seems to me you are still thinking in the Scientology box. Get out of the box.

Get out of Hubbard's paradigm.

It is a no win, spin yourself in, paradigm that cuts off the wider picture.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I never said ARC = U. I said they were "related". They are "related". The "actualities" that the words affinity, reality, communication and understanding refer to are "related". From my OP:

"Now, while ARC surely does not "equal" understanding in any mathematical or scientific sense, there are relationships between the concepts".

Why do you repeat three or four times that "ARC" does NOT EQUAL "U", in some apparent attempt to "correct" me, when I clearly said in my post that they are NOT EQUAL? What imaginary thing are you attemting to address and handle? :confused2:

I am very well out of the Scientology/Hubbard box, and have been for a long time. What "seems to you" is entirely incorrect. But, you can keep "seeing it" if you'd like.

My post is/was mainly for that person (lurker) who still "thinks with" some of the Scio ideas. I have an easy ability to pop into the viewpoint of others, adopting their framework of concepts and understandings, and use their word and ideas to make a point. THAT is what I did.

Please don't confuse "when in Rome do like the Romans" with "being a Roman". Okay?

My main point is that Scientology, in theory and in practice, has NO REGARD for "truth". It only cares about "agreement". That is a large contradiction for a group that claims to posses and provide a "road to truth".

 

[Infinite]

. . . My post is/was mainly for that person (lurker) who still "thinks with" some of the Scio ideas. I have an easy ability to pop into the viewpoint of others, adopting their framework of concepts and understandings, and use their word and ideas to make a point. THAT is what I did . . .

Ahhh . . . that makes more sense. I wasn't sure exactly who you were addressing with the OP. I've noticed that using the tech to explain the tech inevitably results in a flimsy argument ripe for dismantling. Yes, affinity, reality, and communication are related to (mis)understanding, but so too are environment, time, art, culture, family, travel, . . . etc, etc, etc. I think the better argument might be that adopting L Ron Hubbard's ARC = U model is so inadequate as to be MORE likely to lead to misunderstanding than understanding. Is that what you were actually saying?

 

[Gadfly]

Next I suppose you will tell me theta has nothing to do with truth either. LOL. I get your point that by use of raising reality and communication you can bring about and "understanding" - agreement really, of whatever you want in a receptive person.

I think that is a valid aspect of arcu, however another equally valid aspect, is that you can have understanding with out agreement or liking, or even communication.

Take your Tommy Davis example, You understand perfectly well what he is doing, you probably abhor it, I doubt you are going to call him up and have a heart to heart about it, and I doubt you have a lot of love for him...

Don't get me wrong, I really like what you wrote, it was an aspect of ARCU I never considered.

Mimsey

I, um, agree completely.

I understand many things that I don't "like".

But, one MUST communicate with the DATA about Tommy, to have any idea of anything about Tommy. I can understand ALL ABOUT Tommy, and while there is no need to "communicate with him" to understand him, I do need to communicate (as perception) with the SUBJECT or FACTS about him to "understand" about him. One can and does communicate with, as an inflow, a great many things. In THAT sense, you cannot know about or grasp anything unless you communicate with something about the thing or subject. Am I wrong? Can ANY understanding exist without communication with the topic or thing, even if only as "perception"? I think not.

I know it sounds droll, but in fact, one MUST be near or close to ANYTHING, in time or space, to be able to known anything about it. If distance is too far, then there is no possibility to perceive or receive communication about that far away thing. THAT is ALL I mean by "affinity". Granted many Scientologists understand it only as "liking". But affinity, to me, to make any sense within the context of "ARC", simply means "willing to be near something". Things you have "high affinity" for you are very willing to be close to. Things one has lower affinity for, one tends to stay away from. Sometimes that translates to "like" or "dislike", but that is not always necessary.

Some people equate "affinity" to "liking". I will give an example to break through that notion. I have no liking for anything about the Spanish Inquisition. But, I can put myself near to "data" and "information", and "study" all about it. I still never at any point "like any of it" in any regard, but I AM willing to be in the same space as the "data" or "subject". The same with Tommy Davis. I have no interest in being anywhere near the moron, but I could and would observe him live or via reports, so as to learn about him and understand him. So, I need not "like" anything about something to learn about it or understand it. THAT is a false idea, that "liking" equals affinity.

Another example. An undercover cop probably has very LOW affinity for the drug dealers he is investigating. Yet, he "gets close", and communicates with them, in person, in real life, as a way to understand them (so as to arrest them). He can build much understanding by "getting close" and paying attention. But, he does NOT have to "like" them or any of it. One can do that about a great many things. So, while it is false to say that one needs to like something to understand it (a mistake made by many Scientologists), it is entirely TRUE that affinity IS very much required where affinity is defined as "degree of willingness to be in the same space as something else".

For instance, I understand a great deal about Scientology, yet I have very little "liking" for so much of the subject and practices. I am sure many of us fall into that category. But, I AM willing to surround myself wit all sorts of "data" about the subject matter. Without communciation with the DATA, and with no willingness to be in the same space as the DATA (affinity), I would not and could not have ANY understanding. I know, some will accuse me of "overthinking" this. I am simply trying to describe how it appears to me.

Also, one surely need not "agree" with the thoughts and actions of some subject to UNDERSTAND the thoughts and actions of some subject. But it does help for me to grasp HOW others "agree with various ideas" if I am to truly understand HOW and WHY others often do what they do. It helps to understand "what is real" to a fanatical Muslim (the "belief system"), what he "agrees with", if you want to UNDERSTAND what makes him tick.

Oh, on "theta", defining it as the "pure spirit" behind all-that-is, it is probably the ONLY "truth" where all else is "created" or "mocked up" by "theta". In non-Scio terms, there is the Unmanifest, which creates all else throughout the Universe. The ONLY unchanging thing is the Invisible Source of All-That-Is. And again, that is a view based on certain existing ideas. I have no idea if this is "true". Though, some may "agree" with the notion. :confused2:

 

[Gadfly]

Ahhh . . . that makes more sense. I wasn't sure exactly who you were addressing with the OP. I've noticed that using the tech to explain the tech inevitably results in a flimsy argument ripe for dismantling. Yes, affinity, reality, and communication are related to (mis)understanding, but so too are environment, time, art, culture, family, travel, . . . etc, etc, etc. I think the better argument might be that adopting L Ron Hubbard's ARC = U model is so inadequate as to be MORE likely to lead to misunderstanding than understanding. Is that what you were actually saying?

I said what I said.

In my own life, I find very little use for ARC as a "tool", because it tends towards manipulation. But, I have used it in dangerous situations, where my life was truly threatened, to quickly bring about a change in the viewpoint of another person to avoid personal harm. In those cases I "manipulated" the other person by applying ARC, consciously and intentionally. Of course, I did it well, so that the potential source of harm to me wasn't "aware" of what I ws doing. If any of them had known that I was "playing them", one or more may have pulled the trigger. :confused2:

I understand things by looking at them closely.

Most surely, and I AGREE WITH YOU TAJ, ARC does NOT EQUAL understanding. Not in any manner. For most people, as a close approximation, people understand (to be true) whatever they agree with (to be true).

Hubbard's notions of ARC and U grossly oversimplies and incorrectly exaggerates the importance of certain aspects of understanding. Also, the largest flaw, to me, is that it places "agreement" so far above other values (i.e truth).

Hubbard seems to have come up with the notion in association with the idea that any person should "control" everythng around him or herself. ARC is a "tool" that can be used to "change viewpoints" and "bring about agreement". I can do that. But for me, I find THAT aim and use very distasteful. It seems to always manifest as "manipulation". I NEVER liked that about the idea, and how so many Scientolgists used the idea. I cannot see many "good" ways to use it, other than for self-defense. Sure, it probably has great uses in "advertising" and "propaganda", but I do not LIKE such practices that aim to MANIPULATE ATTITUDES and VIEWS.

OK, YES, upon a quick look, no doubt, I do NOT "use ARC" to understand people and things. I can't see how thinking with the notion of "ARC" would really help ANY person better understand anything.

The main thing I got out of ARCU is that for most people, their understanding of things is largely determined by what they "agree with". I attach no more significance to it than that. Agreement is the MAIN factor, and sociology often involves itself with studying intensely WHAT past cultures "believed to be true" (or "agreed with"). Examining what people and groups "agree with" is the best way to grasp HOW and WHY they do what they do.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Gadfly,

My point is that ARC=U. or ARCU, or KRC, or anything else using Hubbard's paradigm will only make a conclusion that makes him partly right.

And I say partly right, not because I think he has to be wrong, but because you are accepting his premises when you accept his terminology.

And as long as you accept and use his terminology, while you may get a different conclusion, you still are in Hubbard's paradigm and are accepting his premises.

That is the whole problem with the Freezone, or outties or indies, or whatever anyone chooses to call themselves who still uses Hubbard's paradigm and definitions.

The reason using Hubbard's terminology is accepting his premises because his whole reasoning depends on accepting the previous definition. That is the very trap.

Hubbard's mental trickery is not with vision or hearing, it is with words.

Once you define the terms you exclude thinking outside of those definitions.

That is his trap.

If you want to deconstruct Scientology for lurkers, then deconstruct it.

Don't just re-arrange the binaries while still using his logos.

The Anabaptist Jacques