Subject: Re: Letter to D. Miscavige From: mayo@lightlink.com (Julie Mayo) Date: 1996/04/20 Message-Id: <4lblqu$dot@light.lightlink.com> Sender: electra@light.lightlink.com Organization: Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway v2.4 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >: Auditing is for pc gain, not political reasons. > My point is, any method or technology that >CAN BE abused by unscrupulous people, WILL BE. Jim, that is exactly the problem, but the solution is not to stop progress nor to stop the invention of new technology, whether it be spiritual or other wise. Perhaps our priorities, world-wide, should be changed so that top of the list is how to deal with unscrupulous people. I believe very strongly in the idea that problems like these can be resolved by "collective intelligence" -- and I think that the INTERNET is providing the means for this. The world as an entity growing more intelligent every day -- the smarter the postings are, the more that the collective intelligence is going to be raised. Netizens probably have already realized this -- but the implications are just beginning to dawm on me. It gives me goose bumps to think of it. And, that is why it is so important to keep freedom on the net. (Hope this doesn't sound *too* American for the British readers...) >misdeeds and etc. And the mere fact that they have been told to someone CAN >result in a sense of relief. And I can have this -- as long as the person to >whom I'm confessing doesn't have a pencil.. Good point. When I joined the Sea Org in 1972, my first job was that of a sec checker in the sec check corps. Our job was to do "missions" to orgs and to sec check the entire staffs. We mostly did Jo'burg sec checks which had questions concerning even the most intimate details of people's sexual lives, to things like, "Have you ever murdered anyone?" We also did sec check lists concerning what people had done wrong as staff members. The Scn theory behind it is that if a person has committed misdeeds - he will feel guilty, and limit his own "reach" or his "personal power" and by confessing his misdeeds, then he will be more able to live up to his potential. For this reason the sec checks made sense to me. (As a technical note I must add that one of the downsides to sec checking is that people tend to blame themselves for things that aren't their fault - -- creating stupidity, and submission, especially to bullies who insist that any criticism of *them* stems from a person's own misdeeds.) The other downside is that you write down embarrassing things the person has done or said, or, in some instances, merely thought about. I stopped doing that and eventually stopped writing things for which the person could get in any kind of trouble. Auditing notes were really intended to keep track of processes done and phenomena observed. Anway, in 1972, because it was "sec checking", and not "auditing", we could reveal secrets the person told us. The staff were told this before the sessions. We were supposed to write a summary of "overts" for security reasons. The information was apparently to be used for evaluation of the orgs--which functions weren't being done that should have been. I had a great deal of trouble with this because I was new on staff and didn't know what staff were supposed to be doing and what they weren't. Most of the time the summaries only consisted of a couple things -- false reporting stats or something like that. Looking back on it, the whole business was pretty yukky, because those summaries did get sent to Flag management. Worse, we thought that we were helping save mankind, (by unburdening people's sins), so that they could reach out more, be spiritually freer, and more personally powerful. It is really quite embarrassing that we didn't realize how these sec checks could be, and probably were, misused. > > While I'm at it, does it not seem passing strange (assuming for the >purposes of this arg that auditing is capable of doing what it's advertised >to do), that, if your goal is to 'clear the planet,' you/your organisation >would worry so much about who was to do it? This is one thing that always >gave me pause, re: scn. What Hubbard was saying was that HE had the ONLY >answer and if you didn't follow his way exactly, reading (expensive) books >sold by him, using (grossly expensive) 'e-meters' sold by him, by people >trained (again, at some expense) by him, ultimate salvation could never be >attained. Good point. I've got a lot to say about that. I'll save for a later post. Julie Mayo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMXk5GaUzTdUDYOWNAQHsfgQAlEAVI9iSsuBHeRG3ylH3GkyKZVEZu3cQ 3hcO5C9kBKCLG0r5Q74NJq1YCzbRUIqbH1GzfylTeeFiPVKIIdlVKETogA0P4Mxv gRc2kQmoMjJGPl77iL/b7SAYhVgyOFikGDpZJEjkeED4xfvkspJfd+gQKk1EDMyD 092+39E+0o4= =PrYF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----