In some researches I have been doing recently on the field of study, I have found what appears to be the basic law on complexity.

In some researches I have been doing recently on the field of study, I have found what appears to be the basic law on complexity.

It is: THE DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF NON CONFRONT.

It is:

Reversing this:

The degree of complexity is proportional to the degree of Non-Confront.

THE DEGREE OF SIMPLICITY IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEGREE OF CONFRONT

Reversing this:

and

The degree of simplicity is proportional to the degree of Confront

THE BASIS OF ABERRATION IS A NON-CONFRONT.

and

To the degree that a being cannot confront he enters substitutes which, accumulating, bring about a complexity.

The basis of aberration is a Non-Confront.

I found this while examining the subject of NAVIGATION in order to teach it and clarify it.

To the degree that a being cannot confront he enters substitutes which, accumulating, bring about a complexity.

I found that Man had based the subject on an incorrect primary assumption. All subjects have as their basis a point of first assumption. In Man’s technology this is usually weak and non-factual which makes his technology very frail and limited. To reform a subject one has to find this primary assumption and improve it. This reforming of technical subjects is of great interest to us because ohr subject Scientology is advanced even beyond the space travel technologies of very high civilizations. Yet it is flanked on all sides by Man’s corny antique technology in the field of physics, chemistry, “mathematics” and so on. This tends to hold us back somewhat. We strained his tech forward to get the E-Meter, the one thing we had to have.In Navigation, man bases the whole subject on the assumption that one can’t confront where he came from or is going or where he is. It assumes he is lost,

I found this while examining the subject of Navigation in order to teach it and clarify it.

This is a basis assumption of non-confront. He can’t directly see where he has been or where he is going at sea — it is so large — so he takes off from a point of no-confront in all his reasoning in the subject.

I found that Man had based the subject on an incorrect primary assumption. All subjects have as their basis a point of first assumption. In Man’s technology this is usually weak and non-factual which makes his technology very frail and limited. To reform a subject one has to find this primary assumption and improve it. This reforming of technical subjects is of great interest to us because our subject Scientology is advanced even beyond the space travel technologies of very high civilizations. Yet it is flanked on all sides by Man’s corny antique technology in the field of physics, chemistry, „mathematics“ and so on. This tends to hold us back somewhat. We strained his tech forward to get the E-Meter, the one thing we had to have.

Therefore he goes into a series of symbols and begins to substitute symbols for symbols. This winds him up in a mass of complexity. One spends 90% of his time in studying this subject trying to find out what symbols the symbols are meant to represent. He says in his texts “G.H.A.” On search we find this means “Greenwich Hour Angle”. On further search we find this means what angle some heavenly body forms when related to Greenwich as Zero. On further search we find the idiocy that the navigator’s clock tells angles in HOURS when all he needs is a clock face giving 360 degrees. This is of course complete nonsense. Why hours, and two sets of 12 at that (midnight to Noon and Noon to midnight) when what he is trying to find out is how many degrees of time have passed. He refers his time to the Sun which, because of the rotations of Earth every 24 hours, appears at an increasing number of degrees from Greenwich England as the day advances.

In Navigation, man bases the whole subject on the assumption that one can’t confront where he came from or is going or where he is. It assumes he is lost.

Because he starts from a no-confront of ship or plane position he then carries no-confront through the whole subject. If a man isn’t lost as he begins to “navigate” he very often is when he finishes!

This is a basis assumption of non-confront. He can’t directly see where he has been or where he is going at sea-it is so large-so he takes off from a point of no-confront in all his reasoning in the subject.

Actually no ship or plane is ever lost as to position. One knows he is on Earth and

Therefore he goes into a series of symbols and begins to substitute symbols for symbols. This winds him up in a mass of complexity. One spends 90% of his time in studying this subject trying to find out what symbols the symbols are meant to represent. He says in his texts „G.H.A.“ On search we find this means „Greenwich Hour Angle“. On further search we find this means what angle some heavenly body forms when related to Greenwich as Zero. On further search we find the idiocy that the navigator’s clock tells angles in hours when all he needs is a clock face giving 360 degrees. This is of course complete nonsense. Why hours, and two sets of 12 at that (midnight to Noon and Noon to midnight) when what he is trying to find out is how many degrees of time have passed. He refers his time to the Sun which, because of the rotations of Earth every 24 hours, appears at an increasing number of degrees from Greenwich England as the day advances.

in what ocean and on what side of what ocean and the subject really should be one which merely lets one CORRECT his position a bit.

Because he starts from a no-confront of ship or plane position he then carries no-confront through the whole subject. If a man isn’t lost as he begins to „navigate“ he very often is when he finishes!

Man in this subject of navigation even scorns direct observation (confront) and calls it “jackass navigation!”

Actually no ship or plane is ever lost as to position. One knows he is on Earth and in what ocean and on what side of what ocean and the subject really should be one which merely lets one correct his position a bit.

In actual fact real navigation is the science of recognition of positions and objects and estimation of relative distances and angles between them.

Man in this subject of navigation even scorns direct observation (confront) and calls it „jackass navigation!“

The subject is made complex because it has become, in Man’s hands, the substitution of symbols for symbols all based on the assumption that he can’t confront his departure, his current spot or his point of arrival.

In actual fact real navigation is the science of recognition of positions and objects and estimation of relative distances and angles between them.

Out of this, with further study in other fields, I found that any complexity stemmed from an initial point of non-confront.

The subject is made complex because it has become, in Man’s hands, the substitution of symbols for symbols all based on the assumption that he can’t confront his departure, his current spot or his point of arrival.

This is why looking at or recognizing the source of an aberration in processing “blows” it, makes it vanish.

Out of this, with further study in other fields, I found that any complexity stemmed from an initial point of non-confront.

Mental mass accumulates in a vast complexity solely because one would not confront something. To take apart a problem requires only to establish what one could not or would not confront.

This is why looking at or recognizing the source of an aberration in processing „blows“ it, makes it vanish.

The basic thing man can’t or won’t confront is evil.

Mental mass accumulates in a vast complexity solely because one would not confront something. To take apart a problem requires only to establish what one could not or would not confront.

These people who always rationalize evil behavior — “He wasn’t feeling well which is why he murdered the policeman”, etc., can be counted on to voice some theetie-weetie (goodie-goodie) justification for somebody’s thoroughly evil conduct. Mr. X wrecks a house and you remark on it and Miss Theetie Weetie will feel compelled to say, “Oh, Mr. X had a poor childhood and he didn’t mean any wrong ....” She can’t confront the simple but evil fact that Mr. X is a complete dog. One feels his hair stand on end when Miss Theetie Weetie does this because one is observing a complete non-confront on the part of Miss Theetie Weetie. She is too unreal to do other than make one feel he has had an ARC Break.

The basic thing man can’t or won’t confront is evil.

One will also find that Miss Theetie Weetie leads a horribly complex life — adjusting her thinking to agree with “air spirits” and leaving her family because there might be mice in the basement

These people who always rationalize evil behavior-“He wasn’t feeling well which is why he murdered the policeman“, etc., can be counted on to voice some theetie-weetie (goodie-goodie) justification for somebody’s thoroughly evil conduct. Mr. X wrecks a house and you remark on it and Miss Theetie Weetie will feel compelled to say, „Oh, Mr. X had a poor childhood and he didn’t mean any wrong……“ She can’t confront the simple but evil fact that Mr. X is a complete dog. One feels his hair stand on end when Miss Theetie Weetie does this because one is observing a complete non-confront on the part of Miss Theetie Weetie. She is too unreal to do other than make one feel he has had an ARC Break.

When no-confront enters, a chain may be set up which leads to total complexity and total unreality.

One will also find that Miss Theetie Weetie leads a horribly complex life-adjust- ing her thinking to agree with „air spirits“ and leaving her family because there might be mice in the basement.

This, in a very complex form we call an “aberrated condition”.

When no-confront enters, a chain may be set up which leads to total complexity and total unreality.

People like that can’t solve even rudimentary problems and act in an aimless and confused way.

This, in a very complex form we call an „aberrated condition“.

To resolve their troubles requires more than education or discipline. It requires processing.

People like that can’t solve even rudimentary problems and act in an aimless and confused way.

Some people are so “complex” that their full aberration does fully not resolve until they attain a high level of OT.

To resolve their troubles requires more than education or discipline. It requires processing.

A large number of people de-aberrate just by the education contained in Scientology as they find in our subject the natural laws of life and seeing (confronting) them, “blow” huge holes in their complexities and aberrations.

Some people are so „complex“ that their full aberration does fully not resolve until they attain a high level of OT.

Therefore the above laws are very important ones as they explain what aberration really is and why processing really works.

A large number of people de-aberrate just by the education contained in Scientology as they find in our subject the natural laws of life and seeing (confronting) them, „blow“ huge holes in their complexities and aberrations.

Aberration is a chain of vias based on a primary non-confront.

Therefore the above laws are very important ones as they explain what aberration really is and why processing really works.

Processing is a series of methods arranged on an increasingly deep scale of bringing the preclear to confront the no-confront sources of his aberrations and leading him to a simple, powerful, effective being.

Aberration is a chain of vias based on a primary non-confront.

Processing is a series of methods arranged on an increasingly deep scale of bringing the preclear to confront the no-confront sources of his aberrations and leading him to a simple, powerful, effective being.