About all I did was to demo it / draw it and I understood it as he wrote it. To me it makes sense.
I get that yours is a subjective interpretation and I do not doubt that, for you, it makes sense. However, we are talking about Axioms . . .
axiom
ax·i·om [ak-see-uhm]
noun
1 - a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2 - a universally accepted principle or rule.
3 - Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
. . . and, as such, they should require no explanation for anyone who encounters them (i.e: when an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results) and they can be easily verified. If we were talking about something else, say, "Articles of Faith", for example, I would be happy to consider the possibilities you suggest. But we're not. We're discussing the Scientology Axioms and your earlier statement . . .
. . . You can't prove (yet) that the factors are wrong. Or the axioms - man could be a spirit - a thetan, a naught, a prime mover unmoved, a potential, a cause, not located in space or time, or a 'unit" of theta coexisting with other theta, while considering that it is not co-existing but is located in the mest U . . .
. . . we haven't yet got to The Factors but we are progessing well on proving The Axioms to be false.
And as for the lack of distance = no communication, well I don't agree. It is just instantaneous. If you know your own identity, why can't you be in the same space as another being and communicate with them? Distance is a bit arbitrary anyway.
A static, meaning having no location in space or time, is what you would be if you aren't of this universe but created it. He does say static has a specialized meaning on one of the tapes - it's not at an equilibrium, it exists without outside influence.
You've skipped over the part where I pointed out that the Axioms mention only "static" in the singular and not more than one as you asserted above, (and also the "no wavelength" aspect, which I'll come to shortly). Accordingly, in what way is distance arbitrary? The only arbitrary aspect inserted, at this stage, is your conjecture that there are more than one "static". Further, communication cannot be instantaneous. (cf: Theory of Relativity - communication travelling faster than the speed of light goes backwards) In terms of what is ordinarily understood as "communication", then, again, time is required for that to happen. This is because communication requires meaning, meaning requires context, and, in turn, context requires sequence and, obviously, sequence requires time. It seems that in order to understand the Axioms you have had to defy the law of physics and dub in an imaginary scenario which extends well beyond the bounds of a "self evident truth".
The L Ron Hubbard Law of Commotion make its obvious that he would have said something contrary in other "scripture". I've read/heard various L Ron Hubbard dribble about the "static" and even the creation of the mest universe. Incident One, for example, is mentioned as part of the Xenu stuff and, IIRC, is described as the moment a thetan comes into the physical universe for the first time.
My wife told me of a time (pre Scientology) when she stepped outside of space and time. You just are. There's nothing there. It was blackness. It's what you would have if you stopped creating reality.
If you decide what he says is greek, it will be. If you work at it, it can be understood. Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Far be if from me to cast doubt upon your wife's experiences and her interpretation of them. I will just point out that for darkness to be perceived then wavelengths would have to exist which, of course, has nothing to do with Axiom One which specifically precludes that possibility.
So, just to recap, here's Axiom One . . .
AXIOM # 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
. . . what is "self evident" about that and how can this "static" postulate and perceive in the absence of any means to postulate and perceive nor indeed anything to actually postulate or percieve? Surely, even from a straight out common sense perspective, the statement, as an "axiom", is invalid.
