Gadfly
Crusader
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.
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.
Last edited: