How Well Is Scientology Defined?
Published in the Dark of the Moon -- 6 to 12 moons a year -- at 207 N. Washington, Enid, Okla.
Copyright, 1954, by A. Hart
Editor: The Rev. Mr. Dr. ALPHIA OMEGA HART, D.Scn., F.Scn., B.Scn., D.D., H.C.A., H.D.A.
Publisher: AGNES JOHNSON HART, HCA, WFE., SEC., H.Kpr., ETC.
POLICY -- Don't take it so damn' seriously.
NOTE -- We reserve the right to change our minds from issue to issue -- or even from Page 1 to Page 2, if we desire.
Subscription Price: $2 a year. No trade-ins or refunds, even if you don't like it, or we quit sending it.
Advertising Rates: $1 a column inch, if you twist our arm; double that if you don't.
Vol. 1, No. 5 September, 1954
HOW WELL IS SCIENTOLOGY DEFINED?
"Scientology," L. Ron Hubbard has said repeatedly, "is the science of knowing how to know". And parrot-like every writer since has repeated this original definition.
The science of knowing how to know what?
Apparently, that depends on whose universe is being used as a point of reference -- your own, the other fellows', or the MEST universe.
There is a MEST universes because we -- far back on the Time Track -- agreed there would be, and by now, it's pretty much the same for all of us, depending on our place on the Tone Scale.
We know the earth isn't solid that a bar of iron is merely mocked-up atoms whirling about in mocked-up points of dimension. Yet, despite our "knowing how to know", we can be as badly bruised by bumping into this bar of iron as the person who "knows" that "there ain't no space in a bar of iron -- it's solid".
Our own universe is the certainty we have at any given moment, which is the result of training, environment, immediate stimuli, and the trillions of years of experience behind us. Much of that experience is occluded to us, yet the postulates and decisions we've made along the Track and apparently forgotten have much to do with what we think we should know.
Maybe the key to why Scientologists can't do all they should be able to do is hidden in the broadness of this definition of Scientology itself. If Scientology is actually KNOWING HOW TO KNOW, what would happen if any one of us ever should become a Scientologist?
There probably are a thousand -- more or less -- adherents to Scientology in the world, yet no two of them can reach complete agreement on the subject of Scientology. Mr. Hubbard said -- in lectures before the June Congress in Phoenix -- that he was amazed at the stupidity of the Clinical Course students -- yet he had carefully selected from applicants for the course some of the best auditors in Scientology. In other words, these auditors, with three to four years' training behind them, neither KNEW nor did they know HOW TO KNOW.
Most of us have experienced violent shifts in viewpoint over periods of time -- sometimes years or maybe within days or minutes. We are positive in our convictions. Today, if we remember or are told of our convictions of yesterday, we shrug it off, or invalidate it as a mirage.
When do you know? And what do you have to know to know that what you now know is what you should know? If John Jones KNOWS that "God is in his heaven and all's right with the world", and Henry Smith KNOWS that "God" is a mere mock-up we use to control, or to escape responsibility for our own actions, which one KNOWS? You'll