SOME FORERUNNERS of "TOTOLOGY"

SOME FORERUNNERS of "TOTOLOGY"
By HARDIN WALSH
N SCIENTOLOGY—or, more properly, in Totology -- we have a concept that God, or
Brahma, or the Total Being, is you, and
that each one of us, as beings, is part
of Totality. In other words, you are a
divine, immortal being, and we are playing
the game of living in a very elaborate
electronic device known as a body.

The part of you that is aware knows with
certainty—with total awareness -- that part
of Totality, or Total Awareness, which you
have available at this time. So we have a
certain amount of awareness, but we have
tremendous areas of unawareness. If you are
Totality, you would be everywhere and you
would be all things and you would know. You
would be totally aware. This is observable
data, which you can discover thru processes
we have available. As Totality, you can expand your awareness and discover that you
can be other than, in a body; that you are
other places; that the problem of awareness
is actually the problem of focusing the
attention. We merely have an agreement that
we can only focus our attention with our
eyes, but we can discover that we are units
of thinkingness, or you might say, "Supreme
Intelligence".

As spirits who cannot die, we have lived
many lifetimes of many experiences. Various
and assorted people in these lifetimes have
become authorities who set up categories of
thinkingness that have affected us tremendously. The Master Jesus had a profound
effect upon society -- or, rather, the books
written about Him did. And people even before that. Such a_one is Aristotle, one of
the students of Plato, whom we discussed
last month.

Now, Aristotle probably is considered
today to be the greatest thinker (at least,
the one who did a tremendous amount of
writing) on this planet. He established
thinking into symbological form, and in doing sa, caused an impact upon society from
which we have not yet recovered.

Just how was this accomplished? How did
we get ourselves into this state of tremendous unawareness?
To begin, Plato earlier had given a definition of God as "A state of Being who
lives immortally by means of Himself alone
-- the Eternal Essence -- the cause of His own
goodness". You'll notice this is pretty
exact. It's all-inclusive.

But let's investigate Aristotle's definition: "He is the first mover, the best of
things, an unmovable substance, separate
from sensible things". Listen to that --
"separate from sensible things. Void of
corporeal quantity, without parts -- and indivisible".

Here was a man who was head of the leading school of thought at that time, the Lyceum. He was financed by Alexander, the
local conqueror. I believe he gave him 800
talents, about $4,000,000 today - - a lot of
gold. With this, Aristotle was able to
maintain quite an establishment -- with many
:.

RS "),N`, s
4(01e A,
By JOANNA and HARD 11

what have th philosophers of the past contributed
to the advanced thinking of today? In this series of
articles, taken from the taped lectures of Hardin and
Joanna wal rh in Los Angeles, they point out how the
"runr,pt of Totality', as they teach it today, is not
entirely n.a —except in application.—The EDITOR.
clerks and scribes, or people who wrote for
him -- and he dictated tremendous writings on
practically every subject extant.

It seems to me that spiritually, the
greatest thing he did to separate the awareness of spiritual things from God was to
say that God was separate from sensible
things. This contributed to the separateness most of us have today that God is over
there somewhere and we are over here, and
we can never quite reach Him, we can never
communicate with Him -- and only on Sundays
does somebody talk about Him. It's only
after we die that we're going to have anything to do with Him. This apparently started back there when Aristotle lived, from
384 to 322 B.C.

Naturally there are many writings - - tremendous libraries full of them in the Fast
and China -- but for the Western world, Aristotle seems to be the basis on which education and thinkingness has been built for
the last 2500 years.

What did he do on thinkingness that was
so profound? He invented what is known as
the syllogism, and this is a very interesting gadget of thinkingness. It is based on
the idea that any two premises of a similar
nature that are equal or have a similar
content can cause you to arrive at a conclusion. This became the formal means of'
debate, of comparative logic and reason. He
set the pattern and it's been used ever
since. Oxford and Cambridge require that
all their students memorize all these patterns that he set up. The entire English
race for the last 300 years—at least, the
thinking part of it -- has been set in these
patterns, and this came to America.

The syllogism has some peculiar qualities. You start out with two positive factors and you wind up with a positive answer; if you start out with one negative
factor you get a negative answer. "All men
make mistakes" is a major., all-inclusive
premise, and "I made a mistake". From this
you might come to the conclusion, "I will
always make mistakes". You can see that
this type of reasoning might be rather devastating.

What he did to thinkingness is something
else—but practically the same thing. In
other words, two things which are equal to
each other are equal to a third conclusion.
Like, "Trees have no locomotion, and an oak
is a tree; therefore, an oak has no locomotion". This would be a logical sequence of
events -- a positive statement that would be
logical and reasonable.

But logic and reason could be handled in