Sunday, October 02, 2011

Scientology Logic and Political Solutions

Although "logic" is a very important subject, the tools and methods you can use to come up with logical conclusions and solutions are not well defined. If you don't believe me then just wade through the Wikipedia article on "Logic" and afterwards try to apply something from it to your everyday life to come up with a decision. Good luck.

This lack of tools for logical reasoning is manifested all over our society, but one of the most obvious places is in the field of government. Sadly this is a field where logic is most needed and where it is apparently least used.

The recently concluded war over the debt ceiling was a horrible example of this and almost every day we see others.

I'm not going to attempt to solve the country's financial problems in this article, but I will attempt to help you understand, a little better, the type of logic being used.

In Scientology we have practical and workable descriptions of Logic and we have many tools that are easy to use when you need to come up with logical solutions.

In observing the back-and-forth up on Capitol Hill and in the White House here is what immediately comes to mind for me: They are working on "Two-valued Logic".

So, what is that?

Back in the middle of last century, when he was trying to figure out what made man tick, L. Ron Hubbard had to first work out what was "logic". One of the first things he did was describe the evolution of logic:
"Ancient Times: One-Valued Logic. Exists as the logic of 2/3 world's population today as 'Fatalism'. No Decision. All action based on "The Will of Fate." No Right - No Wrong.

Dark Ages: Two-Valued Logic. Absolute Right or Wrong. Wrong. Right.

Present: Three-Valued Logic. In general use, 1949. Wrong. Maybe. Right."

Two-Valued Logic is the sort of logic sports fans use: "My team is good. The other team sucks."

Three-Valued Logic is used in computers: The smallest value a computer deals with is 1 (right), 0 (wrong) or no-value (maybe).

If you are willing to cast aside your political biases for a moment and just look at what is, then I think you will see that the main method of logic being used in attempting to solve the country's problems is mostly Two-Valued Logic: If you are a Republican then what your side says is right and what the Democrats say is wrong. If you are a Democrat then what your side says is right and what the Republicans say is wrong.

This is the method of logic that was used in the Dark Ages and so the solutions coming out of Washington are of the quality you'd expect from a pitched battle in the muddy fields of Medieval Europe.

Some in Washington have managed to rise to the level of Three-Valued Logic: "Maybe some of the suggestions from the other side aren't all wrong." But that's about as high as it gets.

The sort of logic they should be using was first described by L. Ron Hubbard in a 1950 lecture and is called "Infinity-Valued Logic". This type of logic has "degrees of right" and "degrees of wrong". "Absolute Right or Wrong Unobtainable."

He described this more fully in a set of rules of logic called "The Logics". In one of these rules he said:
"Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.

This is the tool of infinity-valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below center would be more and more wrong, approaching infinite wrongness. ... Any datum has only relative truth. ... Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth."

So "suggestion A" for solving some political crisis is not "right" or "wrong" but is relatively right or wrong. If right is 10 and wrong is 1 then maybe it scores at 6. Maybe "suggestion B" gets a score of 7. If we rate all suggestions and then take the top 10 perhaps a workable solution acceptable to both sides could be derived.

This is how thinking should be done and how solutions should be derived.

One can only hope that at some time in the future our government will catch up with the rest of us and move out of the Dark Ages when it comes to the method of logic it uses.


turbotad said...

Could not agree more. I wrote a related post a while ago on single-valued logic being the will of god, and that same extrapolation does indeed apply to politics.

At least there are countries worse-off than our own, that as opposed to using 2 or 3-valued logic, use only single-value logic and say that what they are doing just IS and IS the will of [insert deity here - i.e. Kim Jong-Il] and is not to even be evaluated logically.

Which then does make it rough when one tries to evaluate potential solutions for our nation's problems, when they're slotted into buckets instead of evaluated on a scale of rightness such that common grounds can actually be reached.

ludovico said...

I recommend a study of Propositional Logic and later the Predicate Calculus (has nothing to do with Newton's calculus). Schaum's Outlines of Logic is excellent for review and self-study.

You will learn to construct a logical argument according to well-defined rules. Yes, it is 2-valued to begin with, but that is how it all begins, and you will find all the rules that even mathematicians use to construct their 'proofs'.
Later, you can study the Probability Calculus which allows those in-between values which you find lacking.

Grahame said...


Thanks for the suggestions.

I have found the Scientology Logics to be simple and practical for use in solving the problems of everyday life. I use them all the time.

Ludovico said...

I find the Scientology Axioms very uplifting -- I love them. Now the test of a good axiom is whether it generates new theorems. Has anyone ever found such theorems?
I have thought of trying to create some myself.

Grahame said...


As I said in reply to your comment on the post Scientology Beliefs, everything mentioned in that article is derived from the Scientology Axioms. In fact everything in Scientology comes from the axioms. They are the fundamentals that underlie the entire religion.

If you want a better understanding of them so you can see how Scientology is derived from the axioms then I suggest reading the book Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought which should give you a better insight into this.

ludovico said...

I've read most of Ron's books many times. I was interested in an origination from you.

Grahame said...


An Axiom is a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true:

A theorem is a general proposition not self-evident but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths.

Both definitions are from The New Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Axiom 9: Change is the primary manifestation of time

Theorem: If you want something to continue to exist you have to keep changing it.

Example: There were many books published in 1811 yet if you hunt on the Internet for them you will find only a handful mentioned and even fewer that you could easily get a copy of. The one that you can very easily get a copy of is "Sense and Sensibility" by Jane Austen. Why? Yes, it's a good story but let's look at it in terms of change: The book has been printed and reprinted and re-reprinted and made into plays and several movies and several TV mini-series and ebooks. The books that you can't find even a mention of were printed in 1811 and never reprinted. There was no further change associated with them and therefore they did not persist in time and so they ceased to exist.

Example: A live person moves about. Their heart beats, the blood flows, the nerve impulses shoot around, their muscles move. There is constant change going on. They persist in time and therefore continue to exist.

A dead person does not move about. Their heart doesn't beat, the blood doesn't flow, there are no nerve impulses, There is no muscular movement. The body just lies there. There is no change going on. They do not persist in time and so they no longer exist.

Further theorem: If you have a business and you want it to continue to exist then you must introduce constant change into the business.

Example: You must have customers coming in, products being made and distributed, new versions of existing products being made, et., etc.

I hope that's an acceptable example of a couple of theorems derived from the Scientology Axioms.