We had a fascinating discussion about being true to yourself and being protective of your creativity and your willingness to help others. You will note that I gave the date as 10/6/18 instead of the correct date of 10/7/18.

This video may help some of you deal with situations that have been resisting resolution.

You can see the Video Recording of this webinar: A SIMPLE WAY OF APPLYING SRT AXIOM #1 TO LIFE. Use this link: https://vimeo.com/294042749/71b689e84d

The first thing you will notice is that I gave the date as 10/6/18 instead of the correct date of 10/7/18.

At the end of the webinar, we engage in a free form bit of spiritual healing. Listen to this closely as it is similar to many of the more difficult healing situations we deal with. The solution was not obvious, but you will see that we reached a point where the body part felt better.

Keith Scott-MumbyGotta challenge the word axiom, David. It’s a scino MU we all got stuffed with. Hubbard did NOT write 57 axioms. He didn’t come up with even one! An axiom is a self-evident truth. It stares you in the face.

Your axiom 1, alas, is not an axiom, it’s more of a starting point! So I would suggest PROPOSITION #1. The starting proposition from which all else flows. I’m not saying your maxim isn’t true. It may be! But it’s not really an axiom, if I may say so.

Love Keith

DavidPost authorKeith,

Hubbard did not invent axioms. The term stands on its own and this is the way I use it:

AXIOM – dictionary definition

A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true

Axiom One: If you are not enthusiastic, you are being affected by unhappy spiritual entities.

We have found that the only people who cannot grasp this as an axiom are unable to understand the role that spiritual beings play in our lives.

KeithNOT AN AXIOM DAVID.

A proposition. It’s not self-evident.

It’s a stated principle (may be correct

but that’s not the definition of an axiom).

Quantum effects take place at the biological

level is not an axiom. It happens to be true

(most of us think) but it is far, far from self-

evident.

DavidPost authorI see your delight at playing with words and realize that simple observation of causes and effects does not satisfy your need for closure.

SRT is all about looking and knowing. We know without any doubt whatsoever that we are affected by the emotions of our spiritual companions.

When we raise or lower the tone level of our spiritual companions,

we affect our own tone level and our ability to be, do, and have.

SRT Axiom One explains this phenomenon and its invariability.

Its self-evidence is not in question.

SRT Axiom One even explains your efforts to reinterpret what SRT Axiom One is.

Cheers!

Chuck StewartHaving thought about this exact subject for many years I am going to butt in here and give my opinion. Words, and how we use them are indeed important. An axiom is exactly how you defined it. It can also be thought of as an irreducible truth which has no exceptions. The axioms of algebra are an example since they are the defined rules of the game and can have no exceptions. The rules of life can be more complex, however. Perhaps that itself is axiomatic. Before I go on I will say that this is not a quibble about your Axiom One. Whether there are exceptions to it I don’t know. It is hard to imagine one so I accept it as a ‘workable’ truth.

My problem goes back to Scientology and Ron’s use of the term “axiom”. We owe him a debt of gratitude and should grant him his genius and perseverance. But he was no god. Far from it. How any mortal man could believe himself capable of codifying the rules of the creation into the form of “axioms” and presenting them to the world is beyond me. Whether his axioms are axiomatic may or not be true but I believe some are totally wrong. Something presented as an axiom must be so obvious that it cannot be questioned so I can only assume that is how he intended it. Do practicing Scientologist question Hubbard’s axioms? No, they do not and they cannot. That can be a drawback of using the term axiom even rigorously.

I noted that Keith failed to define “proposition”. Which is “something offered for consideration or acceptance “. Well, clearly axiom one is not being presented as a proposal for consideration. It is stated as an actual, provable fact. Just from this I assume Keith is speaking as an outsider, not a practitioner of SRT. If he is not experienced in SRT then he cannot accept axiom one as an axiom and will consider it a “proposition” for him to consider. Which is fine for him but he then denies the possibility of the axiomatic nature of the statement. The result is argument over semantics and goes nowhere. Can’t fix that. So, my purpose here is only to advise caution when using the term ‘axiom. You can’t just be certain. You have to be right.

DavidPost authorChuck, I like your reasoning. Since I am right by reason that I “invented” SRT, I will go further and say that SRT Axiom One does not apply if you do not understand spiritual behavior.

For someone like Keith who has a different understanding of what a spirit is and what a personality is there is no basis for evaluating Axiom One. It might as well be written in Aramic. There is no reason to take SRT Axiom One as seriously as MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN.

I could have expressed it as an equation. IF YOU ARE HAPPY = YOUR ENTITIES ARE HAPPY

That is all that SRT Axiom One means.