by Lana M.

There was a recent article published in Australia called “Can we love happiness? Or do we risk more sadness?

Though the idea of constantly striving for something could result in the opposite may seem odd — there are some basic truths that underlying such an article.

If someone has a goal to be rich, the only way to assume that one has that goal is with the decision or postulate that one does not have enough money.

If someone has a goal to be famous, the starting point has to be that one is not known or unimportant in status.

And if someone has the goal to make Scientology go away, it gets even more deeply rooted. With a goal to make people leave Scientology, there is an immediate acknowledgement that there are people who are not leaving and have no desire to leave it. And lastly – efforts to drive people away from Scientology with “bad press” always have the opposite result, with people enquiring and wanting to know more about the subject.

LRH takes up this subject in many ways throughout his research.

Does anyone have an LRH reference that particularly relates to this phenomenon?

16 thoughts on “Opposites

  1. Can’t think of one at the moment, but I LOVE the cartoon image. I can’t stop laughing at it. Goes so well with “we are the Effect of our own Cause.” 😀

  2. Oh, thought of something….there’s the data (I think in FOT) about primary and secondary postulates, about one postulating to quit smoking, but that’s a secondary postulate relying on a prime postulate (“to smoke”) for it’s power, and that it can’t totally nullify or vanquish the prime postulate.

    “PRIME POSTULATE, 1. a postulate may spring from past effort or prime thought. A prime postulate is the decision to change from a state of not beingness to a state of beingness. (AP&A, p. 34)”

  3. Well, not in FOT. But there’s this from The Phoenix Lectures:

    “A primary goal of processing in Scientology is to bring an individual into such thorough communication with the physical universe that he can regain the power and the ability of his own postulates. We discover an individual in an inverted state — that is to say, his considerations have now less value than the wall in front of him. And in processing, for example, in Opening Procedure 8C, we put him into sufficient communication with the wall that’s there in front of him – that he can then see that there is a wall in front of him. And at that
    exact point he has graduated upstairs, you might say, to a cognition of what his postulates have created. He can go on from there and can graduate up to where his considerations again have precedence over mechanics.

    The mechanics are so much in his road, they are such observable barriers, that he has become unacquainted with them.

    Now it would seem as if it shouldn’t be necessary to do this at all. All one would really have to do would be to get an individual simply to change his mind — all of a sudden to have an individual who could change his mind — but that is just not the way it is. It just doesn’t work out that way. The principle here is: get an individual into though communication with something, and then, when he has lost his fear of it, is no longer flinching, to demonstrate to him that he can change his mind about it.

    But unless you get him over his blindness, his unreality about something he’s already agreed to, he is working against himself — he’s fighting his own agreements. He has agreed that there is a wall there so there’s a wall there — and now he’s fighting that agreement, and he’s saying there is no wall there. He is fighting his own postulates, so his own postulates are therefore very weak. Because the wall is there — that’s his own postulate. And now without undoing that postulate, he’s trying to change his mind about it and say “There is no wall there, there is no wall there”. And there is a wall there, all right.

    So this is the state in which we find Man. He has agreed that there is a physical universe, and then having agreed upon it he’s sorry about it and now he wants to change his mind about it but to change his mind about it would make him wrong. An individual who has already said that there is something there, if he now says, without changing the first postulate, that there is now nothing there — of course he has got to make himself wrong before he can be right, and if you’re wrong, your postulates don’t stick. That’s what Man is up against.” LRH

  4. HAPPINESS, is not itself an emotion. It is a word which states a condition, and the anatomy of that condition is interest. Happiness, you could say, is the overcoming of not unknowable obstacles toward a known goal. (8ACC-4, 5410CM06)

    Regarding reversals of fortune in general AKA the 180 degree reverse vector. This is pretty much covered in the PDC lecture What’s Wrong with this Universe.

    I think I’ve got the transcripts parked on one of my hard drives so I’ll have to dig it up sometime.

    Also he discusses this on the lecture relating to the Conditions of Existence where he talks about the practice of “not-is-ness” and how it begets persistence.

    Personally I don’t think striving toward something causes unhappiness and it probably has more to do with the failure to achieve it or having that purpose thwarted that causes unhappiness.

    Anyway I think that the writer of this piece is confused about what happiness really is. As a lot of people are who turn to drugs or “antidepressants” or “Soma” as in Huxley’s Brave New World.

    BTW Governments spend a lot of time keeping their populations “happy” with panem et circenses, corn and games, infotainment, etc to distract the populous from their total incompetence.

    We can see that on a microcosmic basis with all this boosterism at the Church regarding this totally off-policy and off-purpose project known as “Ideal Orgs”.

    Where everyone dresses up like their favorite superhero and they hand out all kinds of statuses to the biggest schmucks 😉

    Not to mention all the raffles, contests and prizes that are a total violation of the policy on that sorta thing.

    Regarding Not-is-ness in general. As we can see Wilson’s “war to end all wars” and the crusade against Nazism or Totalitarianism never really accomplished their stated purpose.

    As we can see by the geometric progression of warfare since WW I and the possibility of a softer and friendlier form of totalitarian state which is less Orwellian and more like what Huxley predicted.

    Personally I think Ron was onto something when he wrote his Working theory back in 1971:


    Which has been confirmed by other researchers since.

    From what I understand by reading William Shire’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich the majority of the German people were very “happy” under Nazism at least that is till the War turned against them especially when all those “nattering nabobs of negativity” locked away in various concentration camps before the beginning of WW II.

    Now a days instead of putting people in concentration camps they have the media marginalize anyone who might point out that things might not be that great.

  5. Hi Lana, i would think at something about the Havingness Scale. In order to really “have” something you need to be able to waste it. I will look for the reference.

    Now I want to also report a win to express the power of Scientology Tech (we dont have a place in the board to write them). The other day, as part of my job, I was consulting an athlete who took part in the Olympic Games. She started to explain me a point that she felt had ruined her life. I started to audit the secondary with R3RA technology while we were sitting at a table. It took two hours but at the end the person had a big cog and the postulate came out. One week later she calls me and tells me “I dont know what really happened that evening but I can tell you that since that moment I stopped being miserable and I felt again happy in my life. My viewpoint about life changed”. Now she is reading FOT and will soon be one of us.

    Scientology wins!!!!

    • WOW, Paolo! Just, WOW! What a fantastic and wonderful win. Thank you so much for sharing it.

      P.S. The reference you may be thinking of/looking for might be The Havingness Scale in 0-8, Book of Basics:


      Responsible for (willing to control)
      Contribute to
      Waste substitute
      Must be confronted
      Must be contributed to

    • Wow Paolo!


      BTW Ron discussing having to waste before one can have as a concept in describing the process Expanded GiTa (Give Take Processing) which I believe can be found in COHA.

    • Excellent, Paolo! That is the way it is done!
      Your action reminds me of a tape on the subject of the CCH’s where Ron tells a story about a time when someone asked him to explain what Scientology is. Instead of “explaining” anything he just said something like, “Well, I’ll show you…….and just started running “GIVE ME THAT HAND”.
      Your action is so much better than explaining. Experiencing the tech is so much more real than any description could ever be.

  6. At the beginning of the Briefing Course, Ron was going over the use of Standard Op Procedure Goals (SOP Goals). He’d found that a person’s goals frequently have to do with solving some long term problem. This is a “hidden standard” as well, the thing that if it changes they know they’ve made a case gain.

    A goal is frequently resolving a problem and a problem is an intention/counter-intention.

    This article, the one referred to in the Opening Piece, is an observation of the manifestations described in the theory of SOP Goals.

    Unraveling the problems associated with goals is a completed study in Scientology. You gotta love that 🙂

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s