From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Wed Mar 17 17:10:04 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 18 Mar 1999 00:10:04 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 35/35 SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT 9TH ACC
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to
	<squirrel-admin@echelon.alias.net>. The message sender's identity
	is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Message-ID: <7f2b99713f779b6565ff4ca2adb18f58@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 764
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:690379 alt.clearing.technology:76253

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 35/35

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet
are allowed to have their old testament regardless of any
Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************


9TH ACC CONTENTS

December 1954 to January 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Based on the solution to entrappment cassette version.

F# = File number (** = not available)
O# = Original Number (according to the master list posted by Pilot)
REN = As renumbered in the Solution to Entrappment cassettes

F# O#  REN  DATE  TITLE

01  1   1  Dec  6 Introduction to 9th ACC: Havingness
02  2   2  Dec  7 The Essence of Auditing, Know to Mystery Scale
03  3   3  Dec  8 Rundown on Six Basics
04  4   4  Dec  9 Communication Formula
05  5   5  Dec 10 The Practice of Dianetics and Scientology
06  6   6  Dec 13 Conduct of the Auditor
07  7   7  Dec 14 Mechanics of Communication
08  8   8  Dec 15 Havingness
09  9   9  Dec 16 Pan-determinism and One-way Flows
10  9A 10  Dec 17 Hist. & Dev. of Processes: Games & Limitations in Games
11  9B 10A Dec 17 History and Development of Processes: Q&A Period
12 10  11  Dec 20 Games (Fighting)
13 11  12  Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part I
14 11A 12A Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part II
15 12  13  Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing
16 12A 13A Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing: Question and Answer Period
17 13  14  Dec 23 Havingness and Communication Formulas
** 13A --  Dec 23 After Lecture Comments   
18 14  15  Dec 24 Pan-determinism
19 14A 15A Dec 24 Pan-determinism: Question and Answer Period
20 15  16  Dec 27 Training New People
** 15A --  Dec 27 Curiosa from Dianetics 55!
21 16  17  Jan  3 Auditing Requirements, Differences
22 16A 18  Jan  4 Time
** 16AA -  Jan  4 Q&A Period
23 17  19  Jan  5 Auditing at Optimum
24 18  20  Jan  6 Exteriorization
25 19  21  Jan  7 Elementary Material: Know to Mystery Scale
26 20  22  Jan 10 Education: Goals in Society -- Adult Education
27 21  23  Jan 11 Fundamentals of Auditing
** 21A --  Jan 11 Auditors' Conference
28 22  24  Jan 12 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part I
29 23  25  Jan 13 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part II
30 24  26  Jan 14 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part III
31 25  27  Jan 17 Auditing Demonstration: Six Basics in Action
** 25A --  Jan 17 Auditors' Conference
32 26  28  Jan 18 Auditing Demonstration: Spotting Spots
** 26A --  Jan 18 Auditors' Conference
33 27  29  Jan 19 Auditing Demonstration: Exteriorization
34 28  30  Jan 20 Background Music to Living
35 29  31  Jan 21 Axioms: Laws of Consideration -- What an Axiom Is

Note that 6 of the 9 discussion periods (Q&A periods, Auditors'
Conferences, etc.) were omitted from the cassettes, leaving us
with only 35 files instead of the 41 that were recorded.  It is
also possible that material was edited out of the lectures which
are available.  If anyone has a set of the original reels, please
post any missing material.

========================

9ACC file 34/35

9th ACC 28 (30) - AXIOMS: LAWS OF CONSIDERATION- WHAT AN AXIOM IS

Transcript of Lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC29     -     
5501C21 Renumbered 31 for "The Solution To Entrapment"
cassettes 

AXIOMS: LAWS OF CONSIDERATION- WHAT AN AXIOM IS

A lecture given on 21 January 1955


Okay. Let's take up a - let's take up an aspect of
Scientology you may not have tripped across. I am going to
make this a very short, simple, quiet dissertation - an
aspect of Scientology that you may not have thought of in
connection with the Axioms.

The Axioms are agreed upon considerations. They are agreed
upon considerations. They are the central considerations
which have been agreed upon. They are considerations. 

A self-evident truth is the dictionary definition of an
axiom. No definition could be further from the truth. In
the first place, a truth can not be self-evident because it
is a static. Anytime a static presents itself visibly to
your view, let me know.

So, therefore, there is no "self-evidency" in any truth. We
follow? This is not a self-evident truth, it never has been
and never will be. However, there are self-evident
agreements! And that is what an axiom is.

Now, although these Axioms, getting agreed upon and
solidified, are basically considerations, they will not
maintain themselves forever and aye as solid truths. You
can change your mind about the Axioms. You can run an axiom
long enough so that you can change your mind about it.
Where does this leave it as a self-evident truth?

This is true of the axioms of geometry, physics, the
various laws of physics, the laws of chemistry and so on.
It just happens that people got into a mechanical
spin-spin-spin of always agreeing upon this point, and so
we got a self-evident truth.

Now, those fifty Axioms which comprise Scientology are not
a dream up of "This would be real nice" and so forth. They
happen to be the fifty points (forty-nine really, one is
repeated) which became solidly enough agreed upon and were
little enough admired so that they persisted. You get the
idea? They were sufficiently agreed upon and little enough
acknowledged that they became persistent. And these are
the central points of agreement on the whole track from
which then derives the activity and behavior of all solid
masses, of all spaces and perforce, then thetans.

This is an interesting thing. If you wish to feel as though
there is no point from which to start, I dare you to
assimilate this datum: Everything is a consideration. As ye
consider it so it be, providing you agree upon it enough
and nobody acknowledges it. Now, the task of getting a
consideration to persist is a very difficult one, but it
could be done mechanically in many ways. The way it is
being done mechanically is not to acknowledge it. You get
the idea?

Now, how do you get a no-acknowledgment of one of these
(quote) "self-evident" considerations? Huh? How do you get
a persistency?

We get in a "everybody knows that" frame of mind. "Well,
therefore when somebody says it, this is just stupid, so
everybody knows that, so nobody acknowledges it." Have you
got that? Huh?

Let's say you walk into this room and you say, "This room
is warm," and you know, nobody turns around and looks at
you and says, "That's right." They say, "Sure it's warm,
you stupe." That kind of a feeling they get about the thing
and they don't answer you.

You come in and you - let's get worse than that - and you say,
"You know, I am wearing clothes." Well, you might get a few
people that will do a double-take and check over whether or
not you are wearing clothes or not, and you may have
somebody with enough joje de vivre that will suddenly look
at you and say, "Yeah, so you are.' You know, just as a
gag. But the truth of the matter is those things which you
announce that everybody knows usually go unacknowledged.

If you came in and made a vast dissertation upon the fact
that an apple when dropped to the floor falls to the
floor - everybody knows this! Newton probably had one of the
grimmest times you ever heard of trying to convince people
that there was more significance in this than he had first
noted. That there was something around which was causing
this. So when you go through the subject of physics (you
notice I didn't say "science" of physics), that could - that
body of considerations which have been agreed upon and not
acknowledged called physics, why you get yourself a
fascinating thing. I mean, nobody goes through a physics
textbook and starts acknowledging all of these things, you
know. "They're true," so, of course, everybody accepts
that. You get the idea?

Now, that's how something like an axiom or a physical law
or a natural law gets codified. Somebody invents it and for
awhile everybody carefully doesn't acknowledge it, so it
persists, you see. And - somebody invents it, just that,
whole cloth, somebody invents the fact that an apple is
going to fall to the floor. And he goes around insisting
this is the case and other people don't acknowledge it and
don't acknowledge it and don't acknowledge it and don't
acknowledge it and don't acknowledge it and all of a
sudden their apples start falling to the floor too. Up to
that time they didn't! Isn't this curious?

It tells you that there very well might be a hundred
thousand axioms, only there aren't. You might as well have
had lots of other considerations that weren't acknowledged
that everybody agreed upon, but we didn't have.

Why does this small set - why does this small set then occupy
such an important position? It is just this: that nobody
ever acknowledged these things and so you've got a
universe. And the others, sometimes they did and sometimes
they didn't. And they are physical peculiarities or mental
peculiarities.

A fellow considers that every time he does something - every
time he does something for somebody, they immediately put
on their hat. Well, this is a perfectly valid
consideration, just as valid as, "when you drop an apple it
will fall to the floor." "Every time I do something for
somebody he puts on his hat." Do you get the idea? All
right. Why isn't it an axiom?

"Every time I get married, I get divorced." Movie star
observation, consideration. Nobody acknowledges this. It
becomes a law for her! And because it isn't a law for
everybody we consider that aberrated. You see that? She's
carrying along, then, a lot of peculiar laws. But she is
carrying them after the fact of that which is not
acknowledged becomes solid - after the fact!

We could have a whole universe built on this set of axioms:
That which is acknowledged becomes solid; and you would get
a reverse universe to this one so that every time you said,
"Okay" to somebody, he weighed more. Do you get the idea?
That would be their considerations. Well, those aren't the
considerations of this universe.

What we are studying here in the two-way cycle of
communication, with this cycle is a fascinating thing. It
isn't fascinating because we invented it, but because we
managed to dredge it up as the background of solidity; it's
the background of solidity.

First they enter into this pattern, you see, they enter
into this pattern of communication and the next thing you
know, what have they got? They've got "no acknowledge, it
becomes solid."

Now, get this please. There is no slightest liability in
disobeying any of the Axioms of Scientology or physics as
far as an actual living thing is concerned. There is a
liability to his form; there is a liability to masses, to
spaces, to energies. But no single living thing beyond what
(quote) "pain" (unquote) he might suffer because of loss or
damage, no single living thing is going to suffer. The live
unit, the thetan, is not going to suffer but the masses
will. The energies, the spaces are liable to alter and
twist. Now, you see this?      

So any axiom is so far from a self-evident truth - that's in
any science - it's so far from a self-evident truth that it
could be disobeyed with impunity so far as life is concerned.

People go around laying down laws, it makes a game, but
these are the rules of the game. After you come off of a
football field, unless you are daffy, you don't feel that
if you were to touch another player or hold somebody's arm
from crossing the street, that an umpire is going to walk
up and penalize you, you see - holding. We don't carry the
inhibitions of football off onto the city street unless
we're batty. Battiness is carrying the rules of football
off onto the city street. You've up and played yourself a
game, you quit playing the game, you keep on playing the
game but there's no longer any other - no teams and no
playing field, but you go on playing this game. See?

Well, this tells you immediately that if you ran the Axioms
long enough as a process on people and made them repeat the
Axiom over and over and consider it over and over and each
time carefully acknowledged what they were saying, you
know, each time they repeated it over and over, you said,
"Uh-huh, all right." And then you said, "No, a little bit
of alteration there, it goes this way." And then they
acknowledged the fact that you have just said it and then
they said it and you said it and you said it and they said
it. And you acknowledged each other back and forth and
answered up right away and went on. The first thing you
know the individual will wind up, as you may have, in a
frame of mind about one of these Axioms, "What do you know,
that - that's just an idea! Nothing connected with it at all!
It's just an idea. It's merely a consideration."

Did any of you get that about any of the Axioms?

Audience: Yeah. 

Did you?

Audience: Yeah. That's just an idea!

One of the more obvious ways to strip somebody out of the
universe would simply to run this process. You would just
knock this universe as far as they were concerned to
flinders if you continued on with all fifty Axioms as nice
as you please and got them to memorize them, each time
carefully acknowledging the fact that they had just
repeated it. Do you follow me?

Now, you're still operating, however, below the level of
the laws of communication. Remember, those are
considerations too. All right. Now, let's take an example
of that. Just think to yourself now, think to yourself
this: "People ought to answer me when I talk to them." Got
that now? Think that. 

All right. Well, all right. 

All right, think that again: "People ought to answer me when I
talk to them." 

Well, mm-mm, mm, all right. All right. 

Let's think that again: "People ought to answer me when I talk to
them." 

Okay. Mm-mm. Right. Mm-mm. Right. Okay. 

Now, let's think that again: "People ought to answer me when 
I talk to them." 

Well, all right! Mm-mm. Okay. All right. 

You get the idea? Isn't that horrible? Did anybody get a momentary
feeling like this is a piece of nonsense? 

Female voice: Yeah. 

Huh? Huh?

Female voice: I got dizzy. 

You got dizzy? No kidding.

Female voice: I did! 

Is that so? Now, all right, think this thing to yourself now. 
Think this thing to yourself "I ought to answer up when I am
spoken to." 

Well, all right. That's right. Hm-mm. Okay. 

All right, think that again: "I ought to answer up when I'm
spoken to."

Well, that's right. Yep. Hm-mm. Okay. Good. 

All right, think that again.

Uh-huh. That's right. That's right. 

Okay, think that again.

Uh-huh. That's so, that's so. Just so. Hm-mm. 

All right, think that again. 

Well, that's right. Uh-huh. Just so. Uh-huh. 

All right, think it again. Well, okay. Uh-huh. Just
so. That's right. Mm-mm. Is anybody getting a sensation
like "maybe under some circumstances I might not have to?"

Audience: Hm-mm.

All right, so the communication formula itself then, is a
process, isn't it? It's a basic consideration. And if the
communication formula will solve all other laws, then the
processing of the communication formula itself ought to
blow your preclear into next week. You get this now?

Female voice: Gee! 

So the most agreed upon thing which you've got is your 
communication formula and the answer to this is, is because 
it works case after case after case after case. So, it must 
therefore be that this case is composited on the basis of 
this communication formula. Right?

So, what about running out the communication formula as a
process? I have just given you an example.

I will give you another one of the processes which of
course are self-evident now that you know the formula again.

Has anybody ever got a deja vu with this whereby he's
thought, you know, "I've been here before"?

All right. Now, let's take the communication formula. "I've
done all the talking, he ought to talk." 

Yes sir, that's right.

All right, now think that again: "I've done all the
talking, he ought to talk." 

Yes, sir.

Now, let's get - let's get that again. "I've done all the
talking, now he ought to talk." 

Yes, sir! Absolutely! 

All right, let's take it again. 

Yes, sir. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

All right, let's think that again. "I've done all the talking, 
now he ought to talk." 

Okay. Yes sir. Absolutely. Absolutely. All right! All right. 

Now let's reverse it. "He's done all the talking, now I ought
to talk." 

Yes sir. All right. 

Let's do that again. "He's done all the talking, I ought to 
talk." 

Yes sir. Absolutely. All right. 

Let's do that again. 

Uh-huh. Just so. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

All right, let's try it again: "He's done all the talking, now
I ought to talk." 

Okay. Just so. Absolutely. Right down the groove. Uh-huh. That's 
how it is. 

Okay, what's the matter?

Did anybody get a headache or anything? 

Audience: Wang, scoot, boom, skreek. 

All right, let's go to the reverse of this now. Let's go to 
the reverse of this now. "I've done all the talking, now he 
ought to talk." 

Yes sir. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

All right, let's do that one again. 

Okay. Absolutely. Yep. Got it? Getting it? All right. 

Now, let's turn it around the other way again. "He's
done all the talking, now I ought to talk." 

Yes sir. That's so. That's absolutely right. You bet. All right. 

Now, how are you coming? It's pretty groggy isn't it? 

Female voice: It hits like a - . 

Feels like a what? 

Female voice: To me, it hits your head hard. 

Yep. All right. Now, just get the idea "There ought to be 
communication." 

Yes sir. Absolutely. All right, let's try that again. "There 
ought to be communication." 

Yes sir. Absolutely. Okay.

All right, now let's get that again. "There ought to be
communication." 

Yes sir. That's true. Yes sir. Absolutely.

All right, let's try it again. "There ought to be
communication." 

Yes sir. That's right. That's right. 

There ought to be communication. 

Okay. What happens as you do that? Murder? 

Female voice: Well, all these "alls" "0ughts" and "mosts" 
put terrible pressure on somehow. 

Uh-huh.

Female voice: So, oooh. 

And that's true. 

Female voice: It's wonderful. 

All right, these are basically a consideration. We'd have to 
run it until it were very evident to ourselves that this is a 
consideration, wouldn't we, if you haven't recognized it clearly, 
if it hasn't come through as a bolt from the blue. 

Now, let's get this one: "There ought to be communication to me." 

Yes, sir. Absolutely. That's right. 

Now, let's get it again. 

Male voice: It's almost a button on havingness. 

All right, now let's get that again. "There ought to be communication 
to me." 

Yes sir. Absolutely. All right. 

Now let's get that again. 

Absolutely. That's correct. That's correct. 

All right, let's get it again. 

Yes sir. Yes sir. 100 percent. 

All right, now let's get it again. 

Uh-huh. That's right. There ought to be. 

All right, now let's get it again. "There ought to me." That's 
what you are supposed to think now. Come on. 

Yes sir. You are so right. 

All right, now I am not going to acknowledge this, this time. 

All right, think it again. 

Think it again. 

Think it again. 

Think it again. 

Think it again. 

Think it again.

Think it again. 

Think it again. 

Okay, how is that, huh?

Female voice: That fast, it leads to an explosion. 

Yes sir.

Female voice: There will be no guessing there. 

All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. 
All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. That's
right, there should be communication to you, I agree with
you. That's right. That's correct. That ought to be and so
forth. 

Now, the fact that you need the communication formula still 
demonstrates to you that you haven't flipped the central 
consideration yet. Right? Huh? You see this?
 
This is not necessarily a very fast process because you
have been thinking this one for a long time! 

But there is the centermost, key process of existence. It's
simply getting the guy to get the central portion ideas of
the two-way communication formula, and get him to get
those ideas and then you acknowledge them and you answer
them. And you just get him to get the idea and you
acknowledge. You get him to get the idea and you
acknowledge. Sooner or later he is going to blow through
and he will say, "Communication? I wonder why I have to
have communication? Well, I guess there is a good and
adequate reason."

Now, the fact of the matter is the whole idea of two-ness
is again a consideration - that we have to have two. In view
of the fact that the thetan is an individual, he gets
caught between the fact that this universe demands two and
that he is one. And he gets caught between these two things
so that he can be hung up and put into a dwindling spiral.
And the top most mechanism of being trapped is: "I have to
be two - I have to be one."

All right. So you think now, "Now, you know I have to be
two." 

Yes sir, that's right. 

All right, let's do that again. 

Yes, sir. How true, how true. 

All right, now let's think that again. 

How true. That's absolutely right. Yes sir. 

All right, let's think that again. "I have to be two."

That's right. Absolutely correct. Absolutely correct. 

Let's think it again. "I have to be two." 

Yep, that's correct. That's right.

All right, now, let's alter that now. "I have to be one." 
"I have to be one. Think that. 

Yes sir, that's right. 

Okay, think it again. 

Yes sir. That's correct. 

All right, now think it again. 

Yes sir. Absolutely correct. 

Well, let's think it again. 

How right you are. How right you are. That's right. 

All right, now let's think it again. 

Yes, sir. Mm-mm. You're right. 

All right, now let's think again "I have to be one." 

That's correct. That's correct. 

That's right, you have to be one. 

All right, now let's think it again. 

Yes, sir, that's correct. That's correct. 

All right, now let's think "I have to be two."

Yes, sir. That's right. 

All right, now think again "I have to be two." 

You betcha. That's right. All right. 

Now, let's think it again. "I have to be two." 

Yes sir. Yes sir. Too true. 

All right, now let's think it again. 

Yep. Yep. That's right. That's right. All right. 

All right, what's the matter? Is it completely knocking you 
out? 

All right, now let's think it again. "I have to be two." 

Yes sir. Yes sir. That's right. All right. 

Now let's think it again. "I have to be one." 

Yep. Uh-huh. That's right. 

All right, let's think it again. "I have to be one." 

Yes sir, that's true. That's true. 

All right, let's think it again. "I have to be one." 

Yes sir. That's true. That's right. That's right.
Absolutely right. You're correct. All right. 

Let's think it again. 

Yes sir. Right. All right. 

Now let's think "I have to have somebody to talk to." 

That's right. You're so right. 

All right, now let's think that again. "I have to
have somebody to talk to." 

Yes sir. That's correct. That's correct. 

All right, now let's think that again. 

You are so right. You are so right. You are absolutely right. 
You do have to have. That's true. That's right. You are so right.
Okay, you're so right. 

All right, now again. "I have to have somebody to talk to." 

Yes sir. That's correct. That's correct. That's absolutely correct. 
That's right. That's okay. You're so right. 

All right, now let's think of that again: "I have to have somebody 
to talk to." 

Right. You're correct. All right. 

Now, let me point out something to you, let me point opt something 
to you. Have you ever had somebody to talk to when you said to 
yourself, "I have to have somebody to talk to"? 

Audience: Nope. No. 

There is a central button. There is the central button right 
there. That's a never acknowledged statement. Have you got it?

Audience: Yes. 

That statement is not acknowledged. All right, now, that's about 
all there is to it. Did you get that last one? "I have to have 
somebody to talk to," then was never acknowledged, was it? So, 
after you had bought a communication formula it had to hang up, 
didn't it. It definitely had to hang up. These things are considerations.
They can be processed as such. And you have got one of the - 
one of the most interesting processes of Scientology.

That's all. 

Thank you.

(end of lecture)

(end of 9th ACC)








