Type = 3 iDate=21/9/65 Volnum=2 Issue=67 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-67 Out Tech    6509C21 SHSpec-67 Out Tech [References: HCOB 13Sep65 "Out Tech and How to Get It In" and HCOB 21Sep65 "Out Tech".] Teachers tend to say that everything is important. We are in a good position to select out the important data from all the data that we have. Someone at the HAS level can't do this. To him, every datum looks as important as every other datum. The guy at the bottom of the ladder is drowning in a sea of data that is unevaluated. This is true both in life and in scientology. The person is already overwhelmed with the confusions of life, which also overwhelm him with data. So he goes on a retreat from the whole thing. The hardest thing a thetan has to do, and "the most important thing that a thetan can recover is his ability to evaluate importances: [to know] what's important and what isn't." The value of administration of processing is a different thing from what is processed. The duplicative question, which is basic to auditing, is "the examination of the mind for the apparent answer to the question; the knocking out, then, of this, that, and the other thing, until the individual can take a look at it and see before him some data that is important." The repetitive process itself is therapeutic. Repetitive processes "permit the individual to examine his mind and environment and, out of it, [to] select the unimportances and importances." The duplicative question is unique to scientology. Other things work because of this duplicative action. Moreover, to find out what is important and unimportant, the person has to find out what is and what isn't. He would get a great clarification of things, because he is being presented with certain vistas of existence and conditions of existence, and he is examining them, and he is taking them in, or he is knocking them out. He is handling existence and reorienting himself. Someone can get things clarified by getting more data about life from study. However, as he does this, he is straightening up his own mind, and his real gain, when the chips are all the way down, largely depends on the auditor. Someone who is drowning in the sea of life gets a repetitive command from an auditor and as-ises various confusions. The PC's statements on the question are handled and as-ised. Those statements are then acknowledged by the auditor, making a full cycle of the situation. Only then can the PC get up to a point where he himself might, all by himself, confront his own mind. Only when he's got his mind straightened out can he really benefit from new data. He's got his own mind 742 and life so mixed up that he has completely forgotten what a mind is all about, and in a large majority of cases, people aren't even aware that they have minds. At best, they think that they are minds, and perhaps that they have souls. Saving oneself seems too egoistical, so one saves one's soul. Man is at effect. He looks for the one-shot clear, or "enlightenment"." It's not that scientology is slow. It's that Man has gone so far down. "But the big gains aren't so much at the top. They are at the bottom -- getting started. These gains are startling. Just getting the idea that there is a road out can be a big win. The individual has had a lot of loses on this line. To him, scientology is like a straw in the ocean. Helped by an auditor, the person can look at himself and life and make more gains. It is a lone ladder, contrary to the general idea and desire for a fast way to the top. The person makes his first real gains on coming to realize that there is a road out. So there is a dependency on: 1. The disseminator. 2. The intro lecturer. 3. The course supervisor. They all perform vital functions, and they can produce more dramatic results than you would ever expect, being used to auditing as the way to get changes. The changes on the chart are made in session, but the biggest mistake you could make would be not teaching scientology and not disseminating. People in society are very confused and distracted. One of the soundest ways to reach them is to talk about communication and telling them that scientology exists and, as their friend, is interested in helping them. You tell a person that if he could communicate to his environment better, he could handle it better. You tell him that if he were to talk to his wife, it would come out better. The only dicey thing there, is that he has been punished, perhaps, for communicating, so it might be difficult along the way. Dissemination and teaching lines can be a bit wobbly, but if the individual makes some gains, he will still do OK. But auditing lines can't afford to be wobbly. When the person gets to auditing, that is where there is no room for shakiness or flubbiness. Now, tech is tech. The comm cycle has to be good. The questions have to be understood by and acceptable to the PC. They must also be answered [and acknowledged]. Up to the point of getting the person in session, it is debatable exactly what the correct technical action (in disseminating to him) is, because you are disseminating into such a confusion: life as it exists. It is still debatable what it is best to lecture to people about. A common denominator is that lecturing about communication is a good idea. But auditing isn't debatable. It works with precision, if it is applied with precision. There must be no GAE's in auditing. There is leeway in dissemination but not in auditing, which must be standard. All troubles in auditing stem from auditor goofs. So don't butter up a nattery PC. Pull his withholds. The ability to observe and tell whether what is being done is right or wrong is harder to do in auditing than in disseminating or in course supervising. The auditor can make tiny mistakes that upset the PC, so that the PC acts up. The casual observer would say that it is a difficult PC, when in fact it was auditor goofs. You have to be a good auditor to observe good and bad auditing. You will get some gain (30% to 40%, of potential) even out of bad auditing 743 just by duplicative questions and by the fact that someone is interested in the PC. However, full gain only comes from precise right auditing. What we mean by "out tech" is "not getting the whole, 100% gains available on every PC," not just obvious goofs. Out tech is what is happening when the fine points of auditing are missing and when what really goes wrong with cases is not understood. When there is out tech, the auditor is, to be sure, sitting there giving the auditing command, but he is making lots of goofs with it. What does it take to make a good auditor? First, we have the GAE's [See HCOB 21Sep65 "Out Tech"]. There are only five GAE's: 1. Can't handle and read the E-meter. He doesn't see reads. He overcompensates when bringing the TA back to Set, giving falsely large amounts of TA action. 2. Doesn't know and can't apply technical data. This used to be "Can't read and apply an HCOB." This also includes non-duplication of CS's and not knowing that you haven't done what you were supposed to have done. 3. Can't get or keep a PC in session. This is very often the case. The PC's attention is on something other than the auditing. You have to be able to see when the PC is not in session, distracted, etc. There is a little body of technology in this area. You have to get the PC's attention by finding out what it is on and as-ising it. Note and find the ARC break, PTP, or missed withhold, and handle it. The auditor who would try to audit a PC whose attention is elsewhere is applying tech to nobody. The most obvious and silly version of this mistake is where no one got the PC an auditor, despite the PC wanting and having paid for auditing. Or the auditor is so wedded to form that when the PC comes in already in session, the auditor carefully takes the PC out of session, in order to start the session! 4. Can't complete an auditing cycle. This accounts for the PC who itsas obsessively. This PC has been prematurely acknowledged in life or in auditing, and this has happened so much that he feels as though he has never been acknowledged. E.g. a kid says, "Mommy, I just had a great idea ... ," whereupon Mommy says, "That's wonderful, dear." Failed acknowledgment and a host of other errors will also give rise to obsessive itsa, such as not asking the question, not acknowledging, Q and A, etc. There are hundreds of ways to stop an auditing cycle. One is not to start one, as when the auditor just doesn't give the command. The auditor can always polish up his comm cycle and make it better, but when it is fouling up the PC, it is grossly out, with Q and A, no question, no ack, etc. 5. Can't complete a repetitive auditing cycle. Auditors used to have immense trouble just asking the same question repetitively. The TR's and Op Pro by Dup were developed to handle this inability in auditors. As an auditing supervisor, these are the things to look for, not aspects of the auditor's case. Don't audit the auditor, as a first action. After you find the GAE, maybe the auditor could be audited, say, on his missed withholds. 744 There are really only four [actually six] things that can be wrong with a PC: 1. The PC is suppressive. A suppressive is someone who doesn't get case gain, because he has continuing overts, not because auditing wasn't applied well. Only about 2 1/2% of PCs are suppressive. It is very hard to get this PC to give up the overts or to be made auditable for real case gain. About the only way in which we can do it is with power processing. Occasionally, someone can be over-audited so far, especially on R6EW, that they thereafter get case gain and will act slightly suppressive. They have to be rehabilitated. But a true suppressive has never had any case gain or TA. He is continually committing little overts, because to him, everyone is an enemy. Each individual is an "everyone" to the SP, who is busy fighting everyone. The SP is a "paranoid" who doesn't change. Institutional cases are all PTS's or SP's. That is why LRH has said, "Don't fool with the insane." He didn't know exactly why, but now we know. The psychiatrist is professionally a PTS. 2. The PC is PTS. The PC who is PTS roller-coasters in auditing. This is the psychiatrists' "manic-depressive" case. He feels good after auditing and then feels bad. The paranoid or catatonic who doesn't change is the suppressive. A PTS doesn't have to see the SP between sessions. He only has to think, "What will Joe think about this?" or "What would Joe say?" The SP could be 10,000 miles away. Ethics officers sometimes have trouble finding the SP, but there is one on the case. The SP speaks in generalities, which puts up a fog, making the SP hard to find. If you audit the PTS and get him better, the SP will do something to destroy him, so it is dangerous to audit him. If you give a PTS too much gain, the SP will either commit suicide or murder him. Most of our troubles have come from auditing PTS's, who then "threaten" the SP, who then incites the PTS and others to cause our problems. You have to find the right SP. Finding him gives a very positive result, not just a tiny change. When you correctly spot the SP in a PTS's case, the PTS lights up like a spotlight. 3. The PC is ARC broken. 4. The PC has a PTP of long duration. This includes hidden standards. 5. The PC has a withhold or a misunderstood word. The misunderstood word is just a withhold of understanding. The PC is withholding himself from the understanding, or vice versa. 6. The PC has continuous withheld overts. This makes the PC a suppressive. The eleven items discussed in this lecture [i.e. 5 GAE's and the 6 things that can be wrong with a PC, given above] are the only things that will act as barriers on a case. "Processes are things that work, if these six things aren't out" with the PC, and when auditors don't have GAE's. If they don't work, one or more of these is why. That is all that drives tech out. A D of P who 745 doesn't look at these barriers to processing can't make anything work. If these [eleven] reasons why processing doesn't work are OK, almost any process will work, unless it is overrun. In other words, the only other reason why a process doesn't work is that it has worked all the way to a result and it is done. Overrun is either a problem or an ARC break. [Hence in fits into the above schema.] If the five GAE's are not present, then, if the case is not progressing, 1-6 are present. You can just assess these six things and find out what is wrong with the case. So these things are the points of out tech. "The whole environment is trying to feed [the CS] different data than these." Analysis of out tech would result in getting tech in, by not allowing GAE's and by detecting and handling the things that are wrong with PCs. A person's case is helped by the fact that, as he advances, he becomes more and more capable of selecting importances. "As you get on up the line, the selection of importances becomes more and more an ability that is easily practiced."  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=14/10/65 Volnum=2 Issue=68 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-68 Briefing to Review Auditors    6510C14 SHSpec-68 Briefing to Review Auditors There are three key data that go out in an org and therefore are essential to be known by the Department of Review, that LRH hasn't been able to teach Tech, Qual or orgs. You will hit them in Review, because no one else will have gotten them: 1. A HIGH TA IS OVERRUN. There is no other reason for a high TA. Review's problem is to find what was overrun and how it was overrun. When someone comes in who has never been audited, and who has never been near another "therapy" or practice, and whose TA is at 5.0, he has still been overrun on something. You just have your work cut out for you in finding it. Don't throw away the datum, the way everyone else has. Using this datum, you are likely to find some interesting things. Say someone went release on Christianity at age six, or on exercise at age twenty, and then went on past that point, doing it some more. Releases don't only happen in scientology. It is likely to be some wisdom or therapy that released him. They are all failed technologies. All past wisdoms may have had technologies that have been alter-ised and lost. We almost went that route by not recognizing the state of release and the phenomenon of the F/N. What has been overrun is not necessarily what the PC was running when the TA went high. You might have overrun some earlier release. It may, for instance, be a restimulation "of an earlier overrun communication release." The PC could have been a problems release and gotten keyed in again on a ruds question. If the HGC or field auditor didn't repair it by asking, as a first question, "What was overrun?", they would never solve it. They would get the wrong overrun. You must find what, exactly, the release was on. Which or what one was it? Get the right when and the right what, and the TA will blow down, and the needle will float. You've got to rehab the right release to get the high TA down . There could be other overruns on the case, too, but there is one that is making the high TA. Get that, and the rehab tech will get it to F/N, quickly or less quickly. 746 2. A ROLLER-COASTER CASE HAS AN SP IN THE VICINITY. The anatomy of the PTS is that of a problem: postulate/counter-postulate. The person's purpose (postulate) has been or is being suppressed (counter-postulate). There is no other source of roller-coaster. An SP gives the PTS a problem. When the PC roller-coasters, he has run into a postulate/counter-postulate situation since his last gain. A PTS really does make trouble for the auditor, the org, and himself. Ethics exists to get tech in. If it is ever used to throw tech out, it is being used suppressively. Search and discovery is used to find the suppressions that a person has had in life. The S and D question is: 1. "What's been your main purpose in life?" 2. "Who opposed it?" This often makes a problems release in minutes. With a PTS or with any problem you want to solve, "find the source of the counter-postulate.... Man gets "solutions' to problems.... He leaves the [two opposed postulates] in place, not knowing the definition of a problem, and then "solves' the resulting collision, as in Dialectical Materialism -- the anatomy of a problem gone mad. "Any idea is the product of two forces," is the backbone of Dialectical Materialism." To solve a problem, look over the whole perimeter of counter-postulates and find what is the source of the problem. If you handle the problem for the PC, often the problem will evaporate for the other person, also. Problems sometimes evaporate in the physical universe when you find the source of the counter-postulate. In ethics, "when you see that the disconnection or the handle ... causes an enormous problem for the [PTS] or for the other person from whom they are disconnecting, you have invariably found the wrong person.... PTS is the manifestation of a postulate/counter-postulate." Find who, when, where, and what. You could list, "What purpose of yours has been thwarted?" You can get a Grade I release with this. Suppressives are now to be lo ated in Review, because ethics has flubbed it too much. PTS's go to ethics after Review to have note made of the fact that they ar PTS and to get a statement made of handle or disconnect. A PTS condition can be caused by a suppressive action, as well as by a suppressive person. For instance, if you overrun a PC past release, the PC goes PTS to the auditor, just as a mechanical action. Self-auditing is a potential hidden source of overrun. You don't declare the auditor an SP. It was a suppressive act, that's all. The definition of PTS is "connected to a suppressive person or action." The action could be inadvertent. So you find the suppressive person. The person may have only been suppressive for five minutes, or he may have been suppressive for a lifetime. Someone could be PTS and overrun. In that case, you must get the suppression off and rehab the process. A suppressive person isn't someone with horns. It is someone who has had a counter-postulate to the PC. A person may occasionally commit suppressive acts, or he may be habitually suppressive. Someone who is routinely suppressive in life, invalidative of scientology, and trying to keep people from getting well is a social menace. He is the subject of ethics. He is the one who gets declared, not the auditor who overran a process from some inadvertent or stupid mistake. 747 When you tell a person the right SP, it is like locating and indicating BPC. You should get a blowdown and GI's. If the PC again roller-coasters, you've got another SP. So there could be several SP's on the case. You don't go looking for all of them at the same time, but [after you find one suppressive] look for another one. If you found all the SP's and suppressive actions in a person's lifetime, he would be a problems release. And if he goes release on problems, he won't go PTS again, unless he goes home and starts self-auditing. He can overrun himself on self-auditing, so be aware of that. 3. THE SOURCE OF OVERTS IS AN EARLIER MISUNDERSTOOD WORD. The source of the overt is the other key datum that has been missed: A misunderstood word causes individuation, which leads to overts. The word that a student is arguing with the course supervisor about is later than the one that the student really misunderstood. Any confusion, stupidity, or upset in study always stems from a misunderstood word earlier than the one he is upset about. It is always earlier! So the source of the overt is in the formula: 1. Something is misunderstood. 2. The person individuates. 3. He commits overts against the misunderstood thing. If what the person thought was the misunderstood was the misunderstood, the problem would have blown. So it is always earlier. This datum is the key datum in the area of study and comprehension of existence. It regulates a person's I.Q. The Review action is to look for the earlier area and the earlier word that was misunderstood. [Cf. Method 1 Word Clearing] You can unburden a few words earlier than where you think the misunderstood word is, then get the misunderstood just before it. You can date the time of the misunderstood. You should ask what subject the PC was in. A person isn't upset with studying. It is only a misunderstood word. It is not case, and it is not the environment. Remember that you are handling fringes on end-words, so don't push all the way back into R6. Just find what was happening before he hit the thing he doesn't understand. So these three data are the only ones that are really important in Review: 1. High TA = overrun . 2. Roller-coaster = PTS = Who is the SP? That question is the source of hang-ups on the track. You must find the counter-postulate and the source of the counter-postulate. 3. Confusion comes from a misunderstood word earlier than the one the person is confused about.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=19/7/66 Volnum=2 Issue=69 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-69 About Rhodesia    6607C19 SHSpec-69 About Rhodesia LRH has just come back from Rhodesia. Around February, 1966, LRH was holding the mock-up [his body] together with sticking plaster. The organization was going fine. Tech was wrapped up. LRH put things on "wait" -- his case, for one thing. He decided to take a vacation. He spent thirty days in Las Palmas. The organization was running fine. Clear No. 1 (John McMasters) was made during February of 1966, while LRH was in Las Palmas. LRH decided to go to South Africa. He wanted to locate an alternate base for OT's, in case of war or political takeover. He couldn't figure 748 out why he couldn't do this. [The reason was that he hadn't defined the purpose of such a base. The purpose was: 1. An alternate base for scientology, in case of war or political takeover. 2. To serve as a base from which to put in ethics on the planet, so tech could go in. 3. To put in economics, so that people can support orgs and the orgs can flourish. See later part of this lecture (p. 749, below).] LRH went to Rhodesia. He conceived of a type of constitution they could use to solve their difficulties. The government liked it. LRH recalled that he had some assets in South Africa. He decided to invest them. He bought a house and learned that he could buy a hotel in the wilderness for 5500 pounds, and did. He bought a farm. He was watching the economics and behavior of the Wog world and getting a kick out of being out there, making friends with tough characters (his usual friends). Rhodesian culture is still Victorian. It is a small civilization in the middle of a howling wilderness. It is more sophisticated than London. Rhodesia has lots of land, minerals, precious metals, and a beautiful climate. It is untouched and could easily be developed. LRH met the governmental high-ups. He was very acceptable to them. He didn't discuss scientology at all. He was examining the Wog world, and he didn't want to un-wog it. He went on TV and radio. He had no authority, but he was solving lots of problems. Each individual Rhodesian would agree with LRH's solutions, but warned him that no other Rhodesian would agree with him, because the solutions were too advanced. LRH went down to his hotel at Lake Kariba. He supplied the hotel with two-ton trucks. Local industry started to use his trucks to transport goods, and the area boomed. LRH started a furniture factory. A colony started to sprout. Just the fact of LRH's being interested in the country and seeing hope for it caused production to rise. Then LRH wondered how he was going to leave, to go back to Saint Hill. He was woven too tightly into the picture, with a staff of nine personal staff and twenty-nine general staff, the pick of the ex-consular domestic staffs. White Rhodesians kept telling LRH how to handle the African. He realized that they didn't know anything about Africans, because they didn't recognize that they were people. They would say, "They are sullen. You've got to watch them." But the reason they are sullen is no acknowledgment, bad 8C, over-expectation, and out-gradient. They were taking people with no experiential background in politics or economics and expecting more of them than they were trained to do. LRH made his staff happy by telling them that they weren't Rhodesians anymore, that they were Americans. They were very spit-and-polish, enthusiastic, and hard-working. So in four months, LRH was very acceptable to both races and even to extreme moderates, as well as to extreme rightest whites. A reporter from the London Daily Mail told the Minister of Information what a bad fellow LRH was. The minister instantly told prime minister Smith what a bad fellow he was. Smith told the cabinet the same story, and the next morning the Rhodesian Front Committee was charging down [to see LRH], when they found out that his visa wasn't going to be extended, because they knew that it was all lies. Smith had been built up as too fair and too honest. His popularity had begun to decline, because he hadn't worked 749 miracles, and because his communication was going out. Then he told the Committee various things, such as, that LRH's business associates were complaining about him. LRH had, in fact, only three business associates, and one of them was there and denied the story. Smith said that LRH had been deported from Australia. But LRH's passport had no record of having entered Australia. He said that LRH was wanted all over and had a criminal record. These people, however, knew that LRH's credit was in the stars all over the world. They saw Smith's feet of clay and walked out. So LRH could leave, covered with laurels. As a result of this expedition, LRH found out that you can't locate a base that you don't know the purpose of. That was why he had trouble locating "OT Base". Now he knows what "OT Base" has to do. It has to put in ethics on a planetary basis, so that tech can be gotten in. As you associate with the public and try to tell them about scientology, you have trouble with the public, because their ethics are out, and for no other reason. One SP in Rhodesia has wrecked the country, and is keeping the whole scene enturbulated. The only real threat to scientology is that an atom war or a political takeover could prevent the organization from going ahead to clear people. In addition to ethics, but less vital than ethics, economics has to be gotten straightened out. Economics is a very simple subject, with very plain laws. It has nothing to do with politics and ideology. Actually, economics exists as a subject, the purpose of which is to get people enough to eat, etc. Man violates the laws of economics all the time for ideological and political purposes. The already existing economic systems of the planet are usable in a modified form, and we need them to improve, in order to allow for an expansion of our organization. There has to be a workable enough economics on the planet so that people can support orgs and the orgs can flourish and expand. A total subsidy of processing doesn't work, because there is no contribution from the PC. People have to contribute to benefit from auditing. So the economic purpose is a secondary purpose of OT Base. Also, ethics is hard to get in on starving people! Ethics is out on earth, and the out ethics prevents easy dissemination. Nearly every human being on this planet that is in trouble, is in trouble because ethics are out. In England, someone stole and sold LRH's research papers, which were then represented as the current practice of scientology -- a very different thing. People are killed in wars because of one SP in the government. The only reason for war is a few SP's. We could go and sort out key SP's in international situations. What we would do about it is something else. Political systems exist only to solve the problem of succession of rulers. Otherwise, everyone could agree on a benevolent monarchy. The answer is, of course, not to have successors. Clear the monarch! But political systems are not concerned with the happiness or productivity of people. The only source of our individual, personal difficulties is not having ethics in, in the society around us. The only reason why you are having difficulty as an individual is not having ethics in, in your immediate environment. We've got to shift gears in our emphasis. We have been getting ethics in on our fellow scientologists with great enthusiasm. Now we are familiar with the system and how it works. We have erred by getting ethics in too 750 heavily on scientologists and too lightly on the environment. It is time to reverse the emphasis. "There isn't any point in getting ethics in on a willing person," just because he is stupid. Doing that just makes the person sullen. Ethics should be directed at willful acts of sabotage. A real SP is not just anyone. He intends to damage you. He is a real nut. He intends to knock you down. He is not just a difficult person. He is a real monster. Upgrade your idea of what an SP is like. SP's amount only to 2.5% of Mankind. Find out if the guy is driving people into sanitariums, strewing social wreckage about, and smashing statistics. We have only had one real SP on staff. Just because a person shows up on an S and D doesn't mean that he is a real SP. Maybe he is just making someone unhappy. Don't fling the title around lightly, within scientology. Outside scientology, don't worry about making a mistake and accusing someone wrongly. Just get ethics in real hard first and correct the mistakes later. We've got to put in ethics fast to prevent disaster. It was great to find that the organization could continue without LRH. It was great to find that you could make more clears. You made No. 22 to celebrate his return. LRH's immediate program is to finish his own clearing. He has found that people don't make it with their grades out. Then he will start OT research. Every time he tries to put together the scope of OT, he has to run off the invalidation. Any statement you can make about OT falls short of the truth.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=21/7/66 Volnum=2 Issue=70 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-70 Dianetic Auditing    6607C21 SHSpec-70 Dianetic Auditing Processes today are so fast that auditors cannot be trained. [See p. 738, above.] LRH wrote a bulletin in April [HCOB 3Apr66 "Dianetic Auditing Course"] which is now going into effect, to handle this situation. If auditors can't audit, no auditing gets done, and no one makes it up the line. Follow the fundamentals. Get your question answered. Don't change the process because the PC goes unconscious. Drills on TR's are not enough, by themselves, to make a smooth auditor. Releases can be made with dianetic auditing. LRH has done it for years. The earliest "clears" were dianetic releases. They were more or less stable, but they were in much better shape than they had been in. Don't go using dianetic auditing in practice (Joke:). Dianetics is practice auditing. However, these processes can heal, though not with uniformity, since the whole reactive mind is the cause of very severe illnesses. The way to make someone well is to make a thetan clear. Therefore clearing is the real "cure" for illness. So don't specialize in dianetic key-outs. But a slower process is needed to give auditors practice at auditing. They must get to where they are used to the comm cycle, can read a meter, get some wins, etc. All the bugs have been ironed out of dianetic auditing. Even turning on visio, which used to be hard, is easy if you get the exact duration of the incident. Teaching someone dianetics gives him very basic fundamentals. HCOB 3Apr66 gives an improvement on old dianetic technique, since it doesn't require repeater technique, etc. [It was a simplified version of dianetics compared to the earlier R3R technique (which was closer to modern dianetic technique). It involved simply locating an incident within the PC's conscious recall and running through it repeatedly until the PC is up to tone 4.0 (cheerful) on it, then taking another incident within the PC's conscious recall and doing the same thing.] 751 The mind is: 1. A literal record of experience, plotted against time, from the earliest moment of aberration until now. + 2. Additional ideas the fellow got about it. + 3. Other things he may have mocked up or created on top of it in mental mass. + 4. Some machines. + 5. Some valences. These make circuits that talk to the PC -- the Arabs' "demons". A circuit is an endowed life object. You can audit any of these, to greater or lesser profit. Mental mass is mass, but the mass of it is very slight, compared to the real object one makes a picture of. For auditing purposes, when you do an S and D, you are not looking for pictures. You are looking for a valence. If you want to change someone's personality graph, audit out some valences. The graph is just a picture of the person's valences. He is hardly there at all. In dianetic auditing, neglect the machines, the valences, and the illusions. The psychiatrist and the psychologist addressed things that the person himself mocked up: his illusions. They only invalidated the illusions without finding why the person was creating them. You are only interested in experience, not illusion. Illusion is a surface manifestation that evaporates when real experience appears. "Illusion is the product of the actual," and if you attack the illusion in dianetic auditing, you prevent the PC from contacting the actual. The actual is so bizarre that humans tend to invalidate it by confusing it with illusion. Thus people are prone to call the actual and illusion both illusion. As with dub-in, newspaper stories are untrue but usually based on a real event. The newspaper is the modern gossip. Newspapers specialize in creating illusions. "News" is a social illusion of an event. If you are running an engram, the PC may start by confronting illusion, then come up to confronting [the incident]. So the "incident" may change as he audits it. A PC's confront gets better as he audits dub-in, and he begins to see the real event. The PC can himself be confused by the change. Don't evaluate for him about the reality of the incident he is running. Just put him through it again. A thetan is a busy little bee. He goes along, making pictures. He clutches them to his thetanish bosom, then wonders why he feels sick. A person isn't aberrated by pleasure, though he can get hung up in a magnitudinous win. Pleasure moments don't run out. Secondaries contain misemotion. Any emotion or misemotion may be contained in a secondary. "The tone scale was plotted from the behavior of secondaries, as they were audited." Any aberrative secondary is based on an engram -- an experience, or a picture, of pain and unconsciousness. This was originally thought to be cellular memory, hence the word, "engram". Whenever someone is hurt, he makes a complete, exact record of what happened, that is fantastically accurate with respect to time. A thetan does not make errors reactively about time. He gets confused analytically about it. The exact date of each incident is recorded but [the incident] is unconfrontable if he can't get [the date]. He records what he can't confront, and that is where he gets engrams and secondaries. 752 The E-meter sees deeper than the PC can, but it doesn't see all the way down. It reads on things that are close to being confronted. It reaches what the PC isn't confronting but could confront. It won't register on the totally unconfrontable. [See Fig. 29] Eventually, the being can confront as much as the meter can see -- when he is clear. You can unflatten things that you have flattened, by continuing to go over them. In running engrams, you should get them down to where there is no more TA action. FIGURE 22: THE E-METER AND CONFRONT A. Start of Auditing: | No read -----------> |- 5 feet | PC confronts life at this level -----------> |- 4 feet | E-meter reads at this level -----------> |- 3 feet | No read -----------> |- 2 feet | No read -----------> |- 1 foot | | "Floor" _______________________________________________ B. After Some Auditing: | No read -----------> |- 5 feet | No read -----------> |- 4 feet | PC confronts life at this level -----------> |- 3 feet | E-meter reads at this level -----------> |- 2 feet | No read -----------> |- 1 foot | | "Floor" _______________________________________________ C. When PC is Clear: | No read -----------> |- 5 feet | No read -----------> |- 4 feet | No read -----------> |- 3 feet | No read -----------> |- 2 feet | No read -----------> |- 1 foot | PC confronts life at this level -----------> | "Floor" _______________________________________________ 753 The aberrative mind -- the mind being approached by dianetic auditing -- is the mind of events. The events are often approachable through locks. What a person knows about is not aberrative. Someone can do a total switch in valence. He can "become" another person, with that person's characteristics. So a PC in a given valence in an incident may see another person in the incident as opposite, who actually represents the PC, in his own valence in the incident. So if you notice a certain trait in the PC, ask the PC who had characteristics opposite to the ones that the PC is manifesting. The PC will spot the person he had switched with, who objected to the characteristics that the PC had before the switch, but that appear opposite to the PC, because the PC is in that person's valence, looking at himself. When you ask the PC this question, the valence will as-is, and the PC will then get a true perception of the other person. In running engrams, the PC may thus go into and out of various valences. A this-lifetime address to the situation is recommended, because the PC might have an infinite number of [incidents to run]. But you can err in dianetic auditing by running too late on the chain. You may be able to stay in this lifetime and key the PC out, but you can't insist on staying in this lifetime. The danger is in: 1. Trying to erase an incident that is getting more solid, because it is too late on the chain. You should go earlier. 2. Not getting the charge off incidents contacted, before going earlier. This is the opposite error. You can hit the incidents too lightly, not get enough charge off, and keep going back too quickly. If you do this, the PC will wind up in a ball, overwhelmed with the charge. He will be all messed up. A PC may, himself, skip several incidents and get himself into the glue. If the latter occurs, just treat that session as an incident and erase it as a lock. This is something we have almost forgotten how to do in scientology. It is quite easy and effective. You can erase anything, if you are good. You can always go through something once, but if it is a chain, watch it about going through it more than once. The whole of dianetic auditing is the tracing of experience. The rules for it are in HCOB 3Apr66, plus this lecture. Additional thoughts: If you get a PC stuck in some lifetime, run out its death. The lives that are especially aberrative are the ones in which the PC almost made it. There is no total bank release at the level of dianetics. There are only releases on particular subjects. The releases you get are by chain, not from a whole class of experience. Total bank releases exist only at scientology Levels 0-V. You can get minus releases from the minus awareness scale. In fact, you can assess the minus levels of the awareness chart and sometimes produce a release just by assessing them and finding where the PC is stuck at. But don't go by an F/N during this procedure. Any dianetic auditing is better than no dianetic auditing. That is still true, although some scientology auditor may knock the PC around. If the PC is groggy at the end of a dianetic session, have him look around and notice things in the room. 754 Audit the PC on locks and/or secondaries, at first. Running secondaries will drop the PC into engrams. Don't try to cure his lumbosis by running out the engram that gave him his lumbosis. Auditing to cure something is giving the PC attention because he's got lumbosis, i.e. rewarding a down statistic. It puts the being at effect, and he will deteriorate as a being. You have the technology of total recovery of the being. If you audit towards that, you will be helping the PC. Audit towards improving the PC's confront and his abilities, not towards curing his illness. His illness is his hidden standard. He is saying, "Cure my medicosis, and I will believe in scientology." Audit the being, not the illness. There is value in dianetic auditing. It solves the problems that Freud was attacking. But compared to scientology, it is nothing. Don't get stuck in the wins that you will have with it. The road out is the road up through the grades. Use dianetic auditing to learn the fundamentals about the human mind and to learn how to audit. Dianetics is not currently for the psychotic, the neurotic, and the sick.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=26/7/66 Volnum=2 Issue=71 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-71 The Classification Chart and Auditing    6607C26 SHSpec-71 The Classification Chart and Auditing Auditing means to listen and compute, and to get a result on a PC, who is a person with aberrations and difficulties. Auditing has to be done in a professional, standard manner. Since the beginning of Wogdom, there has been off-beat activity going on. That is no reason to perpetuate it. "The psychiatrist exists for the good of the society, and to Hell with the patient." Our situation does not compare with earlier mental therapies. We are not even trying for the same result. We are clearing people by erasing reactive minds. Unlike psychotherapies, auditing is not a social criticism. We know the answer to why the PC behaves the way he does. We also know why the wog behaves the way he does. Scientology is a road out that increases the person's abilities, taking him out of his identification of A=A=A. The road has milestones, which we call "grades". There are also levels. On grades, there are certain abilities gained. But these grades are not composed of single points, despite the names given on the Gradation Chart. That is the rough public rendition. It is really not possible to enter the upper grades without having attained the lower grades. Trying to do so results in disasters. The whole track falls between [Grade] V, which enables the PC to confront whole track, and [Grade] VI, but it doesn't necessarily appear in either, though it may. Besides the disasters that occur from an out gradient, other disasters come from not following standard tech. Standard tech is contained only in HCOB's, not in any books. "If I haven't signed it, it isn't true." Some day we will publish then all in consecutive order, all corrected. The main bugbear of someone studying scientology is that he conceives that every time he reads something new, it wipes out the old. This concept is based on the fact that he didn't understand the old material that he had read in the first place. So he doesn't realize that it can be integrated with the new material that has just been issued. Something developed later doesn't replace something developed earlier. The new does not wipe out the old. The old generally correlates well with the new. There are very few corrections. One significant correction is contained in the newly-found fact that you can overrun things. A lot of "old" 755 processes "failed" because they worked so fast that the auditor didn't spot the release point when it occurred. This accounts for the poor results of R2-12, when it went wrong. It works very fast. We didn't know about overrun in those days. With dianetics, you can have one release per chain, so don't try to escape from confronting engrams by "going release". PCs are entitled to make rapid gains and soar on up the line. That doesn't apply to students. Like a great singer, a student has to suffer to be great. He learns what errors can be made by being a PC who gets messed up. Someone who has never been overrun doesn't appreciate why it is undesirable. Getting bad auditing isn't necessarily disastrous. It teaches the student not to give bad auditing. I have been audited by dianetic auditors who were trained in an academy that taught only the "bubble theory". [?] Nothing will help an aberrated being, short of processing. "Standard tech is a very very narrow path, and it's very easy to stray off of its edges." It is bounded on all sides by wrong things to do, in auditing. One wrong thing is to fail to handle PCs while auditing them. You must keep the PC handled, in order to audit him. One way to suppose that you couldn't handle PCs while auditing them is to think that you can't do anything about something which is above a PC's grade. "You can always run an advanced process on a PC as a rudiment, as something to straighten the case out in a hurry." For instance, even though problems = Grade 1, you can always run Level 1 as a rudiment for Level 0. In fact [if the PC has a PTP], you had damn well better. It is not, "I'm sorry. We can't talk about your problems, because that's Grade 1, and you are only working on Grade 0. And at the Problems level, you may run into service facs, e.g. the PC's lumbosis. These can give you a hard time in making a problems release. After all, the reason why the chart is the way it is, is that the "Gradation Chart ... is made up only [at the level of the grades] of those things which you can't audit in the face of, and that is the genus of the chart, ... the real reason why I found the grades, and why.... There are certain things that, if you don't pay attention to them, prevent all progress in auditing and in life. So therefore they must be the keys to aberration. And That's where we got the ... chart." Only these factors have appeared as barriers to case gain, when not handled. "These are the super barriers to the track." 1. PTP's give rise to no TA, no as-ising, inability to concentrate, inability to answer auditing commands, and perhaps some degree of rising TA. 2. Missed withholds and overts cause a nattery, choppy, and mean PC. 3. ARC breaks give the PC a sad effect. 4. Communication problems lead to no communication. Unconsciousness is a communication problem. The CDEI scale can be applied to communication. For instance, O/W must be a higher grade than problems, because a person could confront having problems, when he couldn't confront an overt. Don't think that because someone is a Grade IV release, he will never again have out-ruds of any sort. The product you have is a gross product. The release can last quite awhile or not. It is not gold. It is gilt, and it can tarnish. Sometimes it turns green. It is the temporariness of this state (which is, after all, 756 a state of keyed-out clear) that boobytrapped the whole research line in the field of the mind. There are lower-scale harmonics of everything the thetan can do or be. The state of thetan exterior is what the Buddhists called a Bodhi. It is not a permanent state. However, even though it is not permanent, release should not be underrated. It is accompanied by the experience of overcoming that which the person has been released on, and that improves his ability to confront. Also, a bit of erasure has occurred, which desensitizes the whole thing. So the releases made nowadays are more stable than the releases that were made in 1950. Now, we are approaching release on a gradient, and we know what grade of release we are making. (Always be willing to give the PC a win.) The clear cog is, "I'm mocking it up." Clears follow the rules of life, until they, themselves, have changed their minds about the rules. And when they do that, of course, they are OT's. "Oddly enough, OT processes are upper harmonics of the same things that prevent auditing, only they aren't processes." If you want to audit, you must handle whatever rud is out, when it's out. If the PC at Grade IV isn't talking, he may be a communications release, but you will get nowhere until you get him in comm. Communication is the carrier wave of all processing. "Someone who's a release is less likely to have out-ruds, but these things can still occur." Having the grades doesn't mean that you won't get ARC broken with yourself and with the auditor. If you want a good auditor at Grades VI and VII, become one. There are interim release points on the chart that you are probably neglecting. Someone could get an F/N on a communications process, without being released on every aspect of communication. So he isn't necessarily a communications release. A lot of processes were dropped out of the lineup that shouldn't have been dropped. You will have to use tech from another grade, in running a grade. [At Level 0], you have valence processes as well as the usual comm processes. You have some more complicated comm processes at Grade 1. All along the line, there are lots of processes that someone could be released on. R4H = R2H (Recall an ARC break. Date it. Assess. Indicate BPC.). CCH's were on Grade II. Also ARC processes, plus case remedies. At Level III, you get auditing by lists and overt/ justifications. There are also physical processes, meter dating, and cause and effect processes. Don't ignore grades processes as rudiments. "PCs don't ever object to auditors unless they've got overts on them," no matter how lousy their auditing is. Pull the withhold. A PC audited over an ARC break protests, then screams, then fusses, then gets tired, and then gets sad and sadder. Neglecting rudiments will ruin a case. You will have to use them on all PCs, at one time or another. Don't ever fail to notice out-ruds or fail to put them in when they are out. That, and going non-standard, is the only thing that could bar a person from going clear. 757  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=28/7/66 Volnum=2 Issue=72 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-72 Dianetic Auditing and the Mind    6607C28 SHSpec-72 Dianetic Auditing and the Mind When you are running engrams and secondaries, you are handling the human mind. What the mind was coating was the subject of scientology. It is coating the thetan, in other words: you, like a blob of glup. A person is a static. The subject of the mind has been considerably mucked about and misunderstood. The "engram" came from a theory that LRH developed at George Washington University. Man had no way to explain memory. If memory was a molecular phenomenon, Man has enough storage capacity in the brain to last three months. LRH wrote this up as proof that this isn't how Man remembers. It is difficult to think about a mind, harder than thinking about a brain. Fortunately, the mind doesn't have to understand itself. LRH was there to understand it. You would have to be aware of the fact that an individual is able to create matter, energy, space, and time (in other words: pictures), before you could understand the mind. You don't have to ask or explain where a thetan came from. A thetan just is. This gets us into a discussion of reality. No one has nailed this down, philosophically. In scientology, reality is what is. That is all you need to know about reality itself. A delusion is a reality for one person, out of agreement with others. From these elements, it is possible to figure out why Man is trapped and why he acts and reacts as he does. You can figure this out, once you know the basic definitions. In dianetic processing, you have to know what the mind is. The thetan is a compulsive mocker-upper. He is stupid. That is the one flaw in a thetan. If you can get him over this mad obsession to: 1. Make a picture of everything that happens to him, 2. Then hide it from himself, 3. Then fix it up so it can impinge itself on his existence, you can get him out of the cage. "He dramatizes these pictures, or they enforce computations on him." He does this by dislocating himself in time. The mind is: 1. Pictures that have been made of experiences. 2. Plotted against time. 3. Preserved in energy and mass in the vicinity of the being. 4. When restimulated, they are recreated without his analytical awareness. What is the mind that you are trying to get someone out of. The trick of it all is that "you cannot make a postulate or an intention through this mass called 'the mind'." Whenever you try, the mind is restimulated, so the thetan is not able to handle things or make things by postulate. A thetan's thought cannot go through the barricade of his mockups. When he tries to put forth an intention or postulate, it collides, "Splat!", with whatever engrams are in restimulation. The less creation of his experiences the person has around him, and the less he has around him to be restimulated, the more he can think or project his thoughts, and the bigger he gets. You can delete these experiences and thereby free the being and his intentions and postulates. Dianetic auditing is the activity by which these experiences can be deleted. The PC may be messed up because he is trying to restrain himself from dramatizing. A person has a tendency to repeat, in action, what has happened to him in experience. He tends to replay now something that happened then, out of its time [and place]. The thetan could give himself disabilities to prevent himself from dramatizing. 758 You are dealing with the basic mind. The core of the reactive mind also has this same character, but it is so outrageous and overwhelming that you had better not touch it without the map. In view of the fact that the individual didn't know what happened, he sometimes told himself what happened and got the actual experience overlaid with another experience. This is how you get "too many Julius Caesars". Julius Caesar was pretty suppressive, which made him the winning side or valence. So a lot of people whom he affected and overwhelmed took on his valence. A thetan has trouble remembering, when he is all smashed down in the mind. The effort to remember gets painful, so he would rather not remember. One of his favorite methods of handling the bank is almost as crazy as making the bank in the first place: It is forgetting about it. When you start erasing the mind, the person may be upset at the point where you have erased his circuits and machinery and he hasn't remembered how to do things himself. As far as auditing is concerned, dianetics is play. It is far more than Man could do before but its benefits are far far less than the benefits of scientology auditing. If you tried to erase the mind, picture by picture, you would be at it a long time. Say you have had one pain per year and one major catastrophe every five or ten years. If you added them up over all your lifetimes, you would come up with too many to erase in any reasonable number of hours or years. This is why LRH addressed the thetan, rather than the thetan's mockups. With the grades, one could be clear in a few years, starting from the bottom and not going at a frantic pace. In auditing engrams, there are some phenomena you should be aware of. A chain won't erase if you erase only the late end of it. The only way to solve a problem is to handle the elements it contains. If it contains past lives, you will fail to handle it if you don't handle past lives. If an incident gets heavier and more massy, hit the silk. Go earlier. If a chain has a basic before this lifetime, that is where you will have to go to get it. One of the symptoms of an incident going more solid is the PC bouncing out of it. The PC bounces out of the incident into the lock that he has just made in PT, running through the incident the first time, in this session. This can be manifested as the PC's repeating just what he said the first time. He has learned better than to go near the incident. This is the same mechanism that keeps his bank mocked up in the first place. He can't confront it, so he keeps it in PT. It would erase if he confronted it, but to do so is too painful. You can get this phenomenon if you use the meter to determine what to run. Don't use a meter to locate incidents. If you run what the PC can find, you've got something he can confront. "A man can remember what he can confront," and that is all he is going to remember. If he runs the engram from PT -- all conceptual and not in the incident, it is because the incident is really too much for him to confront. A guy with amnesia is just a guy who is so spooked that he is not willing to remember anything. It is not just bouncers or holders which govern people's ability to move on the track. Someone who is about to be executed is terrified of the future. He will be stuck in the moment before the execution, or he will shoot earlier. Some people thus escape into the past track. Others are only willing to remember what happens after a traumatic experience. 759 It is only running PCs beyond their ability to confront which causes trouble in dianetic auditing. If you run the PC on what he can confront, you won't get into situations for which you need solutions. You could run the PC's chronic emotion. That would be a good project. There is probably a secondary for every engram. So you are likely to drop into engrams while running secondaries. The secondary lies right across the top of the engram. If you try to run loss, you end up running all the incidents on the track. There are also overt chains (the "motivator series"). Each engram has 2000 to 3000 locks. Each secondary also has 2000 to 3000 locks. Chains cross-connect and cross-reference with other chains. It would be impossible to take something that a PC was afraid of and trace it back to all the reasons why he was afraid of it. It will be found to occur in too many chains and locks. The individual's experiential track is important because, when we clear someone, we get a new thing: a being without a bank who has experience. When you find yourself in a trap, it is a good idea to find out what the trap consists of. That is one benefit of engram running. [You will find that] there will be certain points of emphasis, but all thetans have had experience. There are no specialized thetans. If you can't get the PC to run engrams, run breakfast. If that is not confrontable, have him run entering the auditing room. For some people, the flow of time from moment to moment is continuous pain. Don't try to get such individuals to confront heavy stuff.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=2/8/66 Volnum=2 Issue=73 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-73 Suppressives and GAE's    6608C02 SHSpec-73 Suppressives and GAE's Normally, there is no penalty for a crime of omission. In this society, it is being there and communicating that are the crimes that are mostly punished. But there are also crimes of omission. For an auditor, not being there and not communicating are the highest crimes. In the area of tech, we have gone from total change to total no-change. The materials are all there. The road to clear, from raw meat to Grade IV, is very fast. That is something you can have trouble with is an auditor. It is over before you notice. There is a difference between wog and raw meat. A wog isn't even trying. Some processes are dangerously quick, so they are not even in the line-up, because they overrun too easily. R2-12 is one of these. The route is so fast that only GAE's can prevent someone from going. [Watch out! Here come quickie grades!] Every thetan wants out, at least for himself, even the suppressive. A suppressive is a special breed of cat. He is someone with no case gain. The SP knows that he belongs in [the soup], so he is sure that you want to put him in. An SP could be described as "someone who is always totally surrounded by Martians, no matter who you are." As an auditor, he will do nothing but commit GAE's. He won't just commit a few. He won't audit at all. But he will say, "See? I try to audit these guys, and it doesn't work, so it's a worthless fraud." He rewards only down statistics. He goofs up and vilifies every effort to make people better. (The trouble with scientology in South Africa is that they are afraid that LRH will teach it to Africans!) 760 If registrars kept this no-case-gain fact in mind, it would save us lots of trouble. We wouldn't try to audit them. An SP will make no case gain and can't resist bragging about it. The registrar could route them to the ethics officer. Anyone has the right to complain about one auditor, but not about all auditors. As an auditor, the suppressive is only happy when the PC gets worse, and he is sad when the PC gets better. An SP is in a state of constant attack on scientology. He commits overts 24 hours a day. You very seldom find out about it. Another characteristic is that he attacks wrong targets. He attacks those who are trying to help him. He will not complete a cycle of action. If by chance he does complete one, he will reverse it. "At no time during this lecture have I said that all existing governments on the planet today reward down statistics, choose wrong targets, fail to complete cycles of action, or commit continuous overts. I have not said that, and your inference on that subject is your own responsibility!" An SP believes that "you are trying to trick him into letting down his protective mechanisms long enough so that you can "stab him in the back." If, as an auditor, you observe all these things and the PC is getting no case gain, you know that tech is out, because it isn't working. You, as an auditor, can be an ethics officer, if need be. You should know some ethics tech. You have to know how to locate overts that are so unreal that they don't read on a meter. The heads of governments are suppressives. They do commit continuous overts, and they do the other things that SP's do. They would get no case gain if you audited them. Having them in the driver's seat is a dangerous situation. Ethics must be gotten in, not on a police state basis, but on a very narrow, precise basis. The world is also full of PTS people. They are the ones who cause most of the trouble, hence the name. The PC who gets and loses case gain is roller-coastering. He has an SP somewhere on his lines, either directly or by restimulation. Auditing is fast, but it isn't fast enough to overcome the SP. You could take the PTS out of his restimulative environment, audit him up to Grade V, let him go back to the environment, and he would collapse. The reason why the PTS individual roller-coasters is that the suppressive person or valence will try to destroy him if he makes case gain. Therefore, don't audit a PTS. You may kill him. A PTS person could make it, however, [if he made it as far as the clearing course.] Grade VI is the make/break point. At Grade VI, you could barely make it in the presence of an SP. Below this, it is not possible. Another way to handle the PTS individual is to do an S and D to find the suppressive. The S and D is an assessment, not auditing. It is an ethics action. Therefore you can't have GAE's during an assessment, because it is not auditing. You ought to get the ARC break handled by assessment first, before doing an S and D. What can you do for an SP? The only known action that will change an SP is the last power process. He is the real psycho. The only place that it can be done is in an org that has Class VII's who could run it and a registrar who will throw him out when he comes in complaining of no case gain. Because getting him to answer the question could be very difficult. If you did do power on him, his next action would be Grade 0 or lower. But until you have total control of the environment and padded cells, send him to ethics. If it turns out that he has been well audited with no case gain, you are taking your life in your hands to put him in the HGC. 761 An SP got to be one by switching valences. Man is basically good, but he mocks up evil valences and gets into them. An SP is in a false, mocked-up valence, to which he has earlier assigned or postulated evil purposes or actions. Evil is the declaration and postulate that evil can exist, that's all. In the absence of such postulates, Man is good. Scientology would be very dangerous if that were not true. The suppressive first mocked up badness in another, then took on that valence. The suppressive got in the bad valence, committed overts, then was attacked by other beings. He is stuck in that second incident. It is far more real than PT. He is living a nightmare. Anybody has a few of these realer-than-real pictures, but when most of us run into them, we are running back into them. The SP never left. You and I may go back to an incident of trauma, but an SP has never left it. The incident is more real to him than PT. To the SP, all life is the threat of this incident and the personnel in it. All life is this incident, and everyone in PT is one of the attackers. That is all there is to an SP. He continuously commits overts because (he thinks) he is defending himself. You could get in this state only if you had lots of overts before it. This makes the SP choose wrong targets. He can't complete cycles of action, because he is stuck in time. That is why the last power process works. A person commits overts, stacks up the bank until he can't move on the track, then gets the business. Institutions contain few SP. They mostly contain PTS's. Power processes can blast the SP loose [from his stuck point on the track], so that he can then be normally audited. But how can he be audited [on power processing in the first place] by someone who is perceived as an enemy? How can a cop or the Roman Legion audit him? Psychiatrists fail to put in ethics on their own profession. That is LRH's criticism of them. LRH's quarrel with governments and politics is the same. Any system that permits an evil man to rise to power is a bad system. As an auditor, you are only at liberty to handle ethics if you yourself have clean hands, and if you have certainty that it is not your auditing that is the cause of no case gain. You must be satisfied that you don't commit GAE's before you can accurately spot an ethics problem. The difference between a confident and an unconfident auditor is that the unconfident auditor is one who feels that he may be committing GAE's. The benefits of doing TR's are the benefits of the auditing comm cycle itself, apart from the processes used. We know that the tech is not inadequate. If you omit tech or add to tech, it fails to work. There was an additive, until recently. Auditors were quitting when a TA went low, saying that the PC could then only be audited on power. The truth is that a case that is chronically below 2.0 is in chronic apathy and won't really get over it until he gets power processing, but he can get gains on grades. The easy way to know whether it is your error or the PC's condition that is causing auditing problems is to know the five GAE's. Your judgment on an ethics problem depends entirely on your confidence in avoiding GAE's. They are very obvious. You could detect them on a tape of your auditing. Be interested in what is going on with the PC. Observe how he is doing. Getting and keeping a PC in session is under the heading of observing the PC, which depends on a willingness to confront the PC. "[Real] justice can never occur in the absence of an understanding of the human mind. Never." Our justice leaves artificial justice behind it. Justice is only necessary in an aberrated world or area. 762  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=4/8/66 Volnum=2 Issue=74 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-74 Dianetics, Scientology, and Society    6608C04 SHSpec-74 Dianetics, Scientology, and Society Dianetics has an interesting history. It hit like a battering ram, and the planet hasn't recovered from the impact. It got neglected after 1951, but it is the entrance point to what the mind is all about. It gives a superficial explanation of what behavior is all about. It wrapped up the world of mental healing. It is a very junior subject. When it became clear that we were addressing the human spirit, working on his mind seemed of far lesser importance. The backflash against dianetics and scientology is based on the fact that it works and that it is in competition with psychiatry, not that it is a fraud. Not all psychiatrists are really evil. Some are merely caught up in a routine that they can't escape. However, a lot of them are SP's. Those that aren't are pretty PTS. They don't understand what we are doing, nor do we understand what they are doing, because we don't have the same goals as the psychiatrists. On soliciting approval from psychiatrists: "I rarely go around zoos wondering if I am acceptable to the monkeys in the cages." In unsuccessful activities, you get a change of titles, every once in awhile. Mental "healers" keep changing their titles. At present, they are "psychiatrists". In the 1920's, they were "alienists", etc. One reason that they are unsuccessful is that they give all their time to a down statistic and keep getting pulled under. If we were to approach the same area as our major purpose, we would, in order to make it, first have to be very well and successfully established in other fields. The west is a scientific barbarism, not really a civilization, yet. A man has to be pretty civilized, before he can be trusted with much power. Current society has power without gentler social graces to restrain it. People in society are trying to control human behavior by brute force. This is a very crude technology. It is very dicey to put technology out for those who are accustomed to abusing technology. It would only be safe if the technology itself [or learning the technology] produced enough case gain to prevent their abusing it. A tech must be able to work rapidly enough to counteract the tendency to abuse tech. Something peculiar is going to happen. You are taking off from the tremendous technical background of scientology and going back to its immediate entrance background. Of course this is very easy to clarify. It is best not to use dianetics as an entrance point [for dissemination purposes], but to get the person into scientology and then teach him dianetics as a training technique. We are advancing the most powerful psychosomatic technology on the planet as a training technique: As it advances, don't lose sight of scientology. It is great to be able to salvage the body so that you can salvage the being. There is a use for dianetics. But don't put fixing up a body above helping a being. Remember that you are salvaging a being, not his particular peculiarities. You could change someone's peculiarities by finding and running out engrams. If you had an individual with a certain aberration, you could find a chain of engrams to explain it, that, when run, would change his behavior. But there is some more basic reason for his being that way. His more fundamental life has been dedicated to going wrong in that direction, so of course he has accumulated a great number of incidents that demonstrate going wrong in 763 that direction. A scientology technique could release him from this tendency to collect engrams. You had better be sure to go back far enough. For this, you need to have the concept of the spiritual nature of Man. "If you don't accept the spiritual nature of Man, you can't make dianetics work, because it goes back too far." There is a piece of scientology tech that gets him over his tendency to accumulate engrams on a subject: reach and withdraw. With this technique, you can bring the individual up to PT, without bothering to inquire about which mass is causing him to crack up airplanes. This could work for several lifetimes. Scientology is just that much stronger [than dianetics]. It is true that, in one lifetime, several experiences can ruin someone. It is true that as long as the "traumatic shock" is contained in a broken leg, healing can be normal or prolonged. If you ran the incident, even just this lifetime, you would reduce the time of healing from six weeks to two weeks. Use dianetics when injury or illness prevents auditing. Patch the PC up so that you can audit him. In other words, if actual advance of the being is seriously hindered by physical distractions, dianetics is useful as a means of getting rid of them. You might need to run out the PC's efforts to cure the illness. In a short space of time, it blew anyway on the auditing that the PC had had, but there was just a moment when it seemed too overwhelming to permit of actual auditing, so engram running was used to take the edge off." engram running has some use, and one ought to know how to do it. Spectacular things do happen with dianetic auditing. For instance a goiter the size of a large baseball could shrink and disappear in half an hour. The insane can sometimes run engrams and go sane. They are just PTS. They keep wanting to run the incident that the psychiatrist said wasn't true. LRH concluded that being sane or insane has nothing to do with someone's state of case. Many people in institutions have been put there for other causes than insanity. That is one of the things wrong with suspending civil rights because of insanity. Making the able more able may not be as profitable as it could be, but it is much sounder as a basis for organizational and personal repute and growth. If you set up to cure lumbosis, you are standing on a slippery log across a roaring stream, picking up a boulder. You are in an enturbulated area, and it is risky and prone to relapse. It takes a lot of effort, and the auditor generally gets kicked in the teeth. LRH's records tend to show that it doesn't pay to reward the down statistic. It is getting so that government penalizes the up statistic and rewards the down statistic (rioters, welfare cases, etc.). You could probably be very agreeable with society by rewarding the down statistic, e.g. if you helped the retarded, etc. But when you are standing on a slippery log over a raging torrent, you don't lean over to lift a heavy rock out of the stream. [First build a bridge and bolt a derrick on it.] So we are swimming against the stream of society. So we are holding a constant purpose, trying to help our fellow man. Just doing that would get us someplace. The rest of society has been slipping. If we just held constant, we would win. But we are doing more than that. The size of our movement is growing. Everyone connected with it is getting more able as an individual. The 22 clears are just now enrolling on Part I of the OT Course. The first 30 clears are to get it free. So, as society sinks, we are on a rising platform. 764 LRH has received an unofficial statement that if he wanted permanent residence in Rhodesia, he could have it. The FDA thing has been dropped by the government. The lawyers are conferring to see how they can give the seized materials back without getting sued. LRH wasn't allowed to appear at the inquiry in Australia, because they knew that it would make them look silly. We win these things, but no one ever announces the fact in the papers. Scientology looks bad, legally, because the newspapers and other media always report the suits, attacks, and entheta against scientology in banner headlines, and the fact that we always win -- (in court and elsewhere) is never reported. In general, entheta can just be dropped and neglected. This would always be safe for an OT. Further down the line, you must take rapid action. The problem of what you do with what you know is determined by the framework of the society in which you are working. It is not always the same solution. A violinist who went to perform for some lumberjacks would do well to consider his audience, in deciding what to play. Working within the human race, you monitor your use of technology by the society. Dianetics could be a good entrance point in some societies, e.g. atheistic or materialistic ones. It wouldn't be so acceptable in Moslem or Buddhistic scientology, with its approach to Man as a spirit, wouldn't reach them. Your problem in disseminating is just how to tailor your approach to the group that you are addressing. In dissemination, you must present to a person only that part of a gradient of what you know about existence that the fellow doesn't have to protest and argue with to preserve his own integrity. You are trying to sell him what he already knows, down deep. But this is covered with a lot of false information. Somewhere, however, there is an entrance point. Get the other guy to contribute, somewhat, to the conversation, so you can have an agreement. Never give someone false data, just to get agreement. Your force and impact consists of the fact that you speak the truth. Truth is such a fast arrow that it goes through, without the guy knowing what is happening. He may feel that he is under attack. Give the person something he can use, e.g. data or processing. You can select the pieces of scientology that come nearest to his reality. Estimate the guy's position on the tone scale, his problems, his use for scientology data, etc., when disseminating. If you don't reach to the person's reality level, you will make him feel as though you are attacking him. Give people data they can use, or they won't have much use for it. If you do it right, the reaction you will get is, "Gee: Where has this been all my life?" Dianetics has an important role in dissemination. It is the finest dissemination material. Use it. People aren't ready (for example) to hear about scientology's O/W techniques. But don't practice dianetics on people. Let them practice dianetics. The greater truth lies in scientology, but the experience lies in dianetics. It teaches people something about the mind. It gives new auditors practice in auditing. LRH has used meter dating with a newspaper reporter to disseminate. He got the reporter's last accident with the meter and managed to turn on somatics. The statement in the Introduction to Book One that says that any two people can cure up to 70% of people's ills, was put there by Joe Winter, not LRH. 765 You can direct someone's attention to a picture and key out the picture. You could ask, "Has anyone in your family ever had that problem?" and key out the picture, just by getting him to look at it. Or you could ask, "Are you worried? Did you ever know anyone who was worried? Can you see them worrying?, etc." Just seeing his first picture gives a person case gain.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=16/8/66 Volnum=2 Issue=75 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-75 Releases and Clears    6608C16 SHSpec-75 Releases and Clears The problem that we have had with releases is the problem of overrun. We have also had lots of unknown data on the extent of the bank. Buddha made the same mistake: not being aware of the existence of the bank or the mind, 2500 years ago. 10,000 years ago, there was a monk named Dharma. Dharma made the mistake of believing that you didn't have to do anything but become wise. From him comes the basic philosophical assumption that if you become wise, you become free. This is in the woof and warp of today's culture. The idea that an individual can exteriorize and that by doing so he can become free was part of Gautama Siddhartha Buddha's teaching. That hasn't become part of the popular culture yet, so we are slightly ahead of our time. It seems to take 10,000 years for such ideas (e.g. Dharma's idea, given above) to become central to a culture, so Buddha's idea (see above) has 7500 years to go and scientology, on the same time table, has 10,000, minus 16, years to go. In other zones of the universe, the existence of the mind is known. In the Galactic Confederacy, they have a psychotherapy that consists of a recognition of the fact that, at a moment of fatal accident to a thetan, a picture is made. However, they think that it is a location, not a picture. They take a picture of the location where the thetan was hurt and show it to him with a movie clapstick-like thing slapped in front of it. Then the thetan is supposed to follow suit by doing the same thing to his picture, and thus be free of its effects. That is their way of making releases. That therapy is administered to the releases in that society that pass for OT's. They are OT releases. That is the closest other therapy to scientology. Today's concentration on education, universities, etc., is a result of Dharma's ideas on wisdom: the idea that education leads to freedom, that you can't have freedom and ignorance. He had a tough time. 10,000 years ago, Man was more of an animal than he is today, so it was more difficult for Dharma to communicate with them. [It is interesting that education is an outgrowth of a desire for wisdom. Hence scientology is in this mainline. This would be an interesting topic for a lecture or a chapter of a book: the estrangement of wisdom from education.] It was a terrific advance to get the idea of becoming free by becoming wise across to the savages of this planet, 10,000 years ago. This idea is now so widely accepted that the second-largest expenditure of taxes, after the military, is for education. At Dharma's time, there was the knowledge that freedom was attainable, but there was no tech. 7500 years later, Buddha discovered exteriorization. Gautama Siddhartha Buddha first exteriorized under a Bodhi tree. He thought you did it by becoming wise. One of G.S. Buddha's other ideas was that you should be civilized and polite. And Buddhism civilized three quarters of Asia. But exteriorization was not generally doable, to any great degree. The Tibetan Lamas came along later and squirreled, trying to develop an explanation of exteriorization or a technology to accomplish exteriorization. 766 We are the gainers, from this history, to the extent that there is a history and acceptance of the idea that the soul exists. Our gain is that the idea of the soul has been accepted by many for a long time. The idea that there is a soul that goes somewhere after death has dominated Graeco-Roman and Mohammedan thought for 2000 years. Socrates originated this idea, in the present philosophical tradition. There is a verbal tradition about Socrates in Greece, that Socrates held forth for the existence of a personal being or thetan. Buddhism advanced into the West through the Essenes and Christianity. Later, the Nicene Creed developed from the Dead Sea Scrolls. A hundred years after its development, it was advanced by Jesus of Nazareth, "a powerhouse with an already existing philosophy." The Christian church today has to contend with the embarrassing fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Christ and yet contain the New Testament. This is just the advance of Buddhism in the Western world. Christ studied in the East for thirty years. By the time Gautama Siddhartha Buddha's ideas had gone from India through Greece, Spain, Ireland, etc., they were alter-ised to, "Man has a soul, but it is 'over there', and belongs to God, etc." Buddha' thought became unrecognizable. There has never before been a clear, only releases. The most that was achieved by any of these former philosophies was release: 1. Dharma: Release by wisdom. 2. Buddhism: Release by exteriorization. 3. Christianity: Release by repentance and being good. In scientology, we just let Bodhi (i.e. exteriorization) happen. It is not even that significant to us, because we are going for a permanent state. However, if, in the course of auditing someone, he goes exterior, you stop right there. If you go on, you bang him back into his body and into his bank, and he will be ARC broken. A PC exterior is on a harmonic of OT but can't have it. He has had a bunch of losses in the past -- bad experiences, like deaths, associated with exteriorization, and he snaps back in very soon, scared. He is not competent to cope with it. He isn't ready for it. You can take someone who has been insane and have him go totally sane by exteriorizing him. You can also have someone go out, come back in, and never know it. The formula for popping someone out is, "Try not to be three feet back of your head." Buddhism spread like wildfire, because it was such clear-cut truth. In one fell swoop, we have capitalized upon the idea that a man who is improved becomes free. We have brought Buddhism's twenty year effort to exteriorize down to twenty seconds. We have found what kept Dharma's efforts from perfection and what barriered Buddhism, in a culture that only accepts Dharma's idea but not yet Buddha's. Don't be discouraged by failures to get instant acceptance for scientology. But notice also that earlier missionaries had bank and therefore haven't had a pure version of the truth that they were spreading. The Christians civilized things somewhat, but there were too many vias to get very good results with Christianity: from Buddha, through Socrates, through the original form of Christianity, through organized Christianity, through various arguments of Christianity. Buddhism spread faster than Christianity, because Buddha's ideas were closer to those of Dharma. Buddha was capitalizing on Dharma's idea that wisdom would make you free, which was acceptable to his society. It carried the implication that it was possible to be free. Asia knew that there was a possibility of Man becoming free -- a very hard message to get across. 767 "No matter how information is conveyed, if it is conveyed at all, and it is truth, it will take root." So scientology won't really take 10,000 years to get across. It will be more like fifty years, at the outside, given how fast Buddhism civilized Asia and Japan, and given: 1. The result that we can produce. 2. Modern communication. 3. The slightly more barbaric conditions 2500 years ago. "If you take half a century to get scientology around, you are really slow, man! You notice I said, 'you'!" When you first address a being, then, you are capitalizing on the past indoctrination and belief of the being. You must take this into account. The Magna Carta is a direct result on education in Dharma, through the church. The Spanish Civil War of 1936 was also the result of the philosophy of Dharma, because, in the decade just before the war, paperback books were introduced. People read French and English philosophers and got the idea that, now that they knew something, they should be free. They actually resisted freedom though, so it backfired. Where you fail, in disseminating, is where you run into someone who doesn't have this assumption. People have to learn that individuals should be free or educated. A government that skimps on education is either one that hasn't heard of the philosophy of Dharma or one that suppresses this philosophy out of fear. In the West, you are talking to a Christian people who, unfortunately, think of the soul as an owned commodity that they should not play with. They are stunned to think of someone exteriorizing. They are "really not up to the idea of Buddha, [though] they have [gotten the idea of] Dharma." Such people have gone past Dharma but haven't reached Buddha. It is to such people that you are trying to teach scientology. So don't go in over their heads. Fortunately, they do agree with the Gradation Scale of Release. They understand the idea of clear, as someone who doesn't have barriers to his thinking or to freedom of his mind. But they will not understand exteriorization, which is in the realm of OT. So talk about clear, but don't talk about OT. There are many undercuts that you could teach him. Dianetics is not the lowest undercut. Only a relatively enlightened public will accept dianetics. The public will understand the idea of a communication release as a person who gets rid of his barriers to communication. They can get the idea that a person can communicate better, that a person can be released from an inability to communicate. A wog, who can't communicate, will think that communications release is great for stammerers and backwards children, etc. He thinks it's great for others, in short. But he will buy the idea. Likewise with problems. A wog will buy the idea that "Man would be better off if he could handle problems," and so on, up the line. There is a high probability that you will make a connection, somewhere. The idea that wisdom leads to freedom is basic on this chain. It "releases a man from imprisonment by ignorance and that is your first [form of] release. Teach a person that if he learned something, he would be freeer," and he will be "released from the idea that he can't know." This is the earliest stage of release. You would do well to argue with people on the basis of this first premise: the Dharmic fundamental, because Dharma's idea is the direct ancestor of scientology. There is a lower level of release, one you would use in processing animals. It is the idea that an animal could get an idea across to another animal. This is not communication. 768 "You have to know you're in something before you can get out of it." That is the main difficulty with communicating levels of release. And people (Psychologists, etc.) "are not aware of the mind. They see another bloke. They don't see any mind.... So he says there is no such thing as a mind," only a brain, which can be seen. But in fact, the brain is just a sort of neural shock absorber. Looking at scientology as a "philosophy" is agreeable to people. When you put it this way, you are in agreement with the idea that a person can become freer, released from some of his travail, by becoming wiser. So use Dharma in dissemination. Your next level of release that is acceptable to the world at large is that Man is a spiritual being: Buddha's idea. However, don't use this. Wundt, of Leipzig, wiped out Buddha in the West, in 1879, when he introduced the idea that Man was an animal, so it was OK to kill him. This is like the Christian philosophy, advanced in the second or third century AD, that Man was conceived in evil and was evil, so it was perfectly OK to kill, maim, etc. It was [and is] a justification for overts. The Christian has not found out that the psychologist is an atheist. This is partially due to the inarticulateness of the psychologist. The populace thinks that psychology is silly, but suppressives and governments support it because it prevents releasing. SP's support SP subjects and technologies. That is why the government supports psychology and psychiatry. In disseminating, you could say, "You are a Christian, aren't you?" Then he has admitted that he is a spiritual being. Reincarnation was only barred in Christianity in the last few hundred years. The former idea was that guys who hadn't been good enough had to come back and live it all over again. If you can get someone to buy the idea that he is a spiritual being, he is released from a truth that could trap him. Possibly this is where you could introduce the idea of exteriorization, but I don't advise it. Dianetics can give one a release from this one lifetime. That is a terrific release! You have "made" an immortal. The terrible consequences of death go away. You can start with the idea that there is a mind. A, looking at B, doesn't see B's mind, so he doesn't know that B has a mind. He may think that B only has a brain. You have to put across the idea that because this fellow [the fellow that you are talking to] has a mind, that that person has a mind. With dianetics, it would follow that he is immortal. Then he is released from the idea that Man is matter and that he only has one life. Fortunately, people do know that there is such a thing as a mind and mental things. They haven't gotten totally sold on the psychologists' theory that mind = brain. So you can move in and introduce the idea of the mind being composed of pictures. With a little dianetic auditing, the person will realize that he is immortal, and you will have released him from the idea that he is matter. So you should be aware that you can release people just by talking to them, up to a point, but remember: always stop at the "F/N VGI's". Don't try to just communicate the data up the chart. To do so overwhelms people. They have to come to realize it. As you progress up the grade chart, it becomes progressively more impossible to talk them out of what they are sitting in. At Levels VI and VII, it would be fatal. (An ultimate release would be release from the universe.) 769 "When we say 'release' we mean 'freeing'. We can free someone from an idea that entraps him. Ideas are the only real traps and one can get released from them. There are many grades of release below Zero. At Zero and up, we are starting to free someone directly from his reactive mind, treating him as a spiritual being. At Level 0, we are pulling him out of a mass that tells him that he can't communicate. So we have to pull him out of mental masses, as well as out of ideas. At Level VII and up, we don't pull him out of mental mass. We erase it. We turn around and eat the tiger. That is a form of release that we call 'clear'. But this being at this level is still in the universe and associated with the body. There are [therefore] grades of release above clear. Not many people below the level of clear look any higher, though, because clear is a pretty triumphant level. When you get an F/N, shut up, because you have just released the PC from something. You have to know why he got the F/N to get him through Qual [I.e. you have to know what he is released on.] Get this data from the auditing notes, not from the PC. Most stages of release have only relative degrees of stability, but a release never unreleases to the same degree of Stygian darkness that he was in before the release. A clear is someone who has erased the barriers to his postulating freely. He can, at this point, easily postulate a bank, and some have done so, not realizing that that was what they were doing. A clear can postulate a bank and then not realize that he has done so, or that he can simply blow it. We are making dianetic "clears". The trouble we had doing it earlier came only from over-auditing people. Also, don't ever try to teach a guy something that he already knows. It is an overrun. A released person doesn't tend to relapse, but he may run into the next higher level's sticky plaster. They haven't unreleased. They are just enterprising and speculative, and this drives them into the next level. Someone who has been released and comes in the next day with no F/N has just gotten into the next mass that he is going to confront. Releases want others to be released and cleared. But don't release people to make them better for others' sakes. Being released is something that is a reward, not a right.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=18/8/66 Volnum=2 Issue=76 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-76 Study and Intention    6608C18 SHSpec-76 Study and Intention The name of the source becomes identified with the product. Like Kleenex, the name Dharma became identified with the product rather than with the source of the product, so that today, you can't find a correct definition of Dharma anywhere. The word, "Dharma" does not have its original meaning preserved. According to dictionaries, it means: 1. Supreme law. 2. The Caste system of India. 3. Fate. 4. Love. 5. The Way (in Buddhism). 2500 years ago, Gautama Siddhartha said that the Age of Love was to begin in the West in 2500 years. We started the Age of Love by making clears. They talk about love a lot. We are no longer in the Age of Reason, thank God! 770 A student should be aware of his intention in studying. Faulty source may be important in study. A student tends to assume that the source that he is studying from has some validity, but this isn't necessarily the case. In fact, it frequently isn't the case. Difficult exams in universities don't correlate with excellence of graduates, because, for one thing, study is an area that attracts suppressives, like the areas of government or healing. For instance, in navigation, the method used is what is tested in exams. But the fact that you can navigate is all the sea cares about. Textbooks on navigation are often so complex that you have to know all about the subject before you can understand the bock. Many textbooks on the sea are full of nothing but disaster, in great detail. Coast pilots are particularly full of warnings and disasters. You could write any subject up to make it a suppressive subject, [by making it seem too dangerous to practice.] On the other hand, you can not give any cautions about the subject, like leaving out the fact that a wrongly-done S and D that gets the wrong suppressive will make the PC sick, because it restimulates [and bypasses] the right one. The mind has been made too dangerous to study. The writers of textbooks need a knowledge of study materials. "As you study, what do you intend to do with what you are studying?" For what purpose are you studying? Until you clarify that point, you can't study intelligently. The trouble with university education is that students study to pass exams, not to use the materials in practice. That is scholastic or academic study, which isn't worth much. This is why you get failures in practice after certification. If someone studies just for examinations, he doesn't have to know the exact meanings of the words. Thus we get very educated dumbbells. Some subjects are taught suppressively and are therefore ethics subjects. Where a subject is very suppressive, it can be studied for examination, needing only to be memorized and spat back, but it can't be applied, because there was nothing there to be understood. Study gone wild leads to suicides. [Cf. French universities at exam time.] People who are very successful in life are frequently the drop-outs, who realize that university texts are not arranged to let you apply anything. Not a single philosopher except Mills stayed in school. A subject that is written up with a slant or curve is relatively inapplicable too. Economics is a good example. Economics hardly exists in its simple purity anymore. Similarly, psychoanalysis has no relation to Freud anymore. Scientology is studied along the same lines that it was researched on. It has no curve to it. If anything is inapplicable, you will soon run into it.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=23/8/66 Volnum=2 Issue=77 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-77 Organization    6608C23 SHSpec-77 Organization A business org pattern wouldn't fit a scientology org because business orgs have never isolated the principles of organization. In a scientology org, you are handling life as a commodity, and you are handling life with a vessel made out of life. This is like trying to pour water into a pitcher made of water. In this situation, you will find out every frailty in an organization. But one law businesses have not violated: Any organization is better than no organization. 771 Individuals as such, operating together, will fall apart when they collide with an organized group. Brilliant leadership can only go so far. It needs execution. Otherwise it fails. An organization will normally win, unless it is confronted with a superior organization. An organization consists of a group of individuals with a common goal or purpose. There will never be an org that is perfect, because it is composed of individuals who are to a greater or lesser degree informed of the rules and in agreement with the purpose. An organization must, to some degree, consist of sentient, irreducible individuals. It must depend on the individuals. For instance, literacy is a prerequisite for democracy. England does better than some other democracies because it has a high level of education. Individuals in the U.S. have so many and varying prejudices that none can really take hold. It also has a high level of education. Therefore it is the richest country in the world. Business management in the U.S. is very tight. In spite of bad leadership that will eventually cause trouble, the U.S. is doing well. Organization also has drawbacks: 1. Limited power of choice of the individual. 2. An organization often swallows up the talents and potential contributions of the individual. 3. It often plays Hobb with the very principles that it is trying to forward. 4. Wrongly led, an organization becomes a machine that goes straight over the cliff to destruction. But the plus points prevail over the out-points. Organizations endure better than individuals. On the whole track, orgs best survived when led by keyed-out OT' . You would think that these individuals would be unorganizable because of their differences of opinion. Yes. They do have differences of opinions. But they still realize that it is better to be organized than not. They also recognize the liabilities of orgs. Higher posts shift a lot in OT organizations. The OT's are a minority group in charge of fantastic majorities. An individual who puts together an organization without knowing how to do it makes a mess. Law of Organization: A large organization is composed of groups, and a small organization is composed of individuals. When a large org is composed of individuals the individual gets devalued. You get a lack of comparability [between the individual and the group of which he is a member]. Therefore, the individual feels oppressed. "The people vs. John Jones" makes a paranoid. Therefore, the ideal form of organization is individuals composed into sub-groups. If you try to produce a group that is all composed of individuals and expand it, it goes all to [pieces]. An org will remain a small group as long as it is composed of individuals. Income tax is a violation of this principle, because the individual must report to the government once a year. Thus, quite apart from the economics of income tax [e.g. penalizing up stats], this will make the country grow smaller. Each person can be jumped on by the government without a buffer. You must cut out the situation of having an organization vs. an individual, and stick to the situation of the organization vs. a group. 772 A group does have an optimum size. Seven or eight subordinates is a lot. If a person had only two subordinates, he would loaf. So the optimum is somewhere between two and eight. So we can say that five is optimal. A big group, then, would be ten and a small group would be two or three. By the time you are getting up into a group of seven or eight, it is best to split things up into two groups. The members of each section look to their section leader. [This also means that an executive spends one sixth of his time consulting with higher management and five sixths of his time dealing with his five subordinates.] A director only looks to his section leaders, and an [Executive] Secretary only looks to directors. A danger condition would consist of an [Exec] Sec giving orders to section leaders, bypassing the director. When this happens, the org will get smaller. You could move this organizational scheme out to where the org could contain the population of the planet. Size means nothing if you know this law of organization. Therefore you need an expandable and a contractable system. The lowest number in a group should be five to six people. Two people isn't really a group; it is a pair. When the state breaks down the family as a group, the church, etc., the state shrinks. When a manager becomes overworked, his area won't expand. Therefore, if you want to expand, make sure your manager isn't overworked. You can't have a section that is independent of other sections. If you try to have such a section, it will float free and collapse. It must have service and communication connections with the rest of the group. There are seven divisions on the Org Board. The Org Board is a cylinder, a circle. To show this fact, we put the seventh division in front of Div 1. You enter the org board at the first department of the first division. The org board is organized to impel a particle from the first division on out through the back door. Any particle entered early will shunt late. Div 7 doesn't necessarily catch what is ejected at Div 6, so there is a way out of the org board. If you violate the position of anything on this chart, you cut your throat. The order of departments was found by trial and error. Earlier on, we got into trouble because we tried to put Origin or Construction in Dept. 9 [now (1976) the Department of Records, Assets, and Materials, in Div 3.] It belonged at Origin, so construction had to be back towards source. If something is mis-positioned on the board, it will be non-functional and will cease to work. The order of the divisions is: 1. HCO. You have to start with communications. 2. Dissem. Dissemination is necessary with the communication. You must tell people what you are going to make. 3. Organization Division (Treasury). This is the division that organizes the MEST for the assembly of products. 4. Tech. This division has to do with production. 5. Qual. This division deals with correction or adjustment. 6. Distribution. This division is to get rid of the product. This is also a sales division. When they are busy getting rid of the product, they are also making new customers that enter at Div. 1. [7. Executive. The first department would be the office of the E.D. or general manager.] 773 The problem in an organization is one of succession, but if you get management, you don't need succession. The LRH comm approves anything that is not against policy, that the ED wants to do. The U.S. should have the Office of George Washington. Each department should have less than or equal to five sections, or it should be written up again. Then you get subsections, units, subunits, etc.. The org board is a flow chart. An other primary law of management, the fast-flow system of management: Don't inspect before it goes wrong. This just holds up the activities of the organization and puts in arbitraries. You don't run an organization by being super-nervous. You let something happen. Then you act. Don't put in permanent preventers. Let the flow go. An organization must produce something. Everyone must have a stat. The org pattern would do for a government. It is far more socialistic than socialism and far more communistic than communism. Socialism and communism are relatively conservative in comparison. You would introduce individual companies into your organization as service or production units. The reason why divisions are in units of three departments is that you have the head of the division representing the thetan, and the three departments representing the mind, body, and product, respectively.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=25/8/66 Volnum=2 Issue=78 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-78 The Anti-Social Personality    6608C25 SHSpec-78 The Anti-Social Personality [Reference: HCOB 27Sep66 or Introduction to Scientology Ethics, pp. 9-14 "The Anti-Social Personality"] LRH has made a complete list of the characteristics of a suppressive person. The purpose of ethics is to get technology in. Ethics doesn't intend social betterment. It only intends to ensure case advance by getting suppressives out of the environment. An auditor must know about this, so that he can recognize and handle PTS and suppressive PCs. This ability to recognize and handle can prevent an auditor from having loses and invalidating himself when an SP doesn't make case gain. When PCs rollercoaster, don't blame the past auditor or the HGC. Blame the SP. A PC who is critical of an auditor has a missed withhold from that auditor. The PC who goes on nattering about the thousands of hours of auditing that he has received, with no gain is another matter. You can be too propitiative towards people, whereupon you can't help them anymore. You exert no control and don't give effective help. LRH never owed scientology to anyone. One of the earliest techniques for controlling PCs, taken from early dianetics, was to walk out on a PC who refused to be controlled, with the R-factor that the session would resume when the PC decided to follow the auditor's directions. At that point, LRH hadn't run into failed psychoanalytic cases and people who had been roughed up by psychotherapy. There were a lot of these people in the first Foundation. They were generally PTS or SP's. These cases are much harder to handle with auditing than criminals. The SP on the case may be nowhere near the PTS individual or the trouble that the PTS causes. 774 In early dianetics, a PC who got better and then crashed was said to have been "on a manic". A person who is "manic" and then gets depressed, however, has just run into an SP and has gone PTS. "There is no such thing as a 'manic'.... It's just that psychiatrists hate people in that condition, and so they promptly cave them in.... The guy says, 'Wow! At last I realize that I can be sane,' and 'Isn't the world wonderful?' [The psychiatrist says,] 'Ohmigawd! You're in a manic. We've got to give you eighteen extra shocks, [or pills,] etc.'" The psychiatrist says that euphoria is very bad. this explains away a person's getting better. And this will be used by SP's against you, as an argument against scientology. The only reason for cave-in or roller-coaster is an SP!! Joe Winter's overt was making a deal with the publisher of Book One to write a book to get the M.D.'s into dianetics: A Doctor Looks at Dianetics. He claimed that dianetics was an art, a a "knack" that couldn't be taught. This led to a complete squirrel non-standard tech being spread all over the place, with no results. "I couldn't hold in tech, because I: 1. Didn't have control of it, and 2. Didn't have ethics." Until ethics was gotten in, in organizations, it was impossible to keep tech in and working fully, because there was no way to hold the line and no way to get the suppressives off tech lines. An auditor who doesn't recognize ethics-type cases, i.e. SP's and PTS's, is setting himself up for loses and for eventually quitting auditing. There is such a thing as a case who doesn't have a wall there, only a picture of a wall. The universe for such a person is a very flimsy mockup, consisting of dub-in. You can run contact processes on such a person [CCH's] and he will come back into contact with the wall that you and I see. Occasionally, he will be startled, while doing objective processes, to see the wall getting shaky and disappearing. You may think that you are making him OT, but you aren't, because the wall is still there for you. If he were OT, it wouldn't be. He will realize that his mocked-up wall is not the wall that is there. This individual doesn't have to be an SP, to have mockups in place of walls. For the SP, people -- every one of us -- are mockups, too. We aren't there. God knows what is there, in the Place where we are standing. A paranoid is a mild version of this. An SP is not a paranoid. A paranoid just thinks people are against him. An SP is a person who is "surrounded by identities which others don't see." The paranoid may see purely imaginary people, who aren't there at all. The SP "creates" his enemies out of the real "whole cloth" of you and me. He doesn't see his enemies unless another real person is there to be turned into a pink alligator, a crazed Indian, or the priests of the Spanish Inquisition. What is really there in the SP's universe is something else, other than people, something very threatening and dangerous. Yet, mostly, this person looks totally sane. He doesn't hallucinate. [He is just delusional.] He is stuck on the track: really stuck. He has never moved beyond the stuck point on the track. An SP doesn't make case gain, because a person needs to have at least a concept of motion on the time track to get from one end of an engram to the other. The SP can't run an engram, because he is stuck in a past moment in time and can't move through through the successive moments of the engram. You or I might have had an incident there for a long time without noticing it. But the SP has had the world there for a long time and hasn't noticed it! 775 The anti-social personality has been looked at before, but it has never been fully described in earlier therapies. We call such a person a suppressive, because that is a more explicit and accurate term. These are the qualities of the suppressive: 1. We speaks only in generalities. He is always talking about "they" and "everybody". This effects PTS's, so they echo it. But somebody told the PTS. Newspapers speak of "850 Dead on Holiday", but they neglect to state that 85 million people were on holiday. That makes it all look sort of dangerous. Governments, likewise, govern "the people" or "the masses", not the individuals who are actually there. This is where the sweeping generality comes in. 2. He deals in bad news continually and exclusively. He is critically hostile. He never relays good news, but may twist good news to bad. Bad news will be relayed and worsened. A very SP person is so batty, that when he moves up in the world, he makes this the norm. 3. He alters any communication. He never duplicates. (Cf. the game of "Telephone".) 4. He doesn't respond to treatment, reform, or psychotherapy. The really bad SP won't come anywhere near an auditing chair. "The one thing this fellow can not do is confront his own mind." The SP feels that he would go totally insane if he had to take one tiny little look at his mind. That is why the SP goes mad at the idea of getting people to look at their own minds. An SP is afraid that if he deals with the mind even slightly, those spooks will move slightly. SP's cannot be reasoned with on the subject of the mind. Your crime is that you have almost made them confront something that they don't dare confront. And you have almost exposed them, because they are not under good control, and if they love control, they will be put away. 5. He is surrounded by others in one or another state of ruin and cave-in (PTS's). Around such a person we find associates who are cowed, ill, failing, or not succeeding, if not actually driven insane. When you try to treat these associates, they don't keep their gains. 6. He habitually selects the wrong target. This is not conscious. It is not just getting mad at the boss because somebody is mad at you. It is very reactive, in the SP. For instance psychiatrists wreck people and SP's in governments attack us. There is a complete dissociation. It is "Bill failed at college, so therefore we should go on a diet," not "Bill failed at college. Therefore we shouldn't send his brother, Pete." Because the SP attacks the wrong target, he doesn't succeed very will on a job. This is a saving grace. 7. He doesn't complete cycles of action. If he finds out that he has completed one, he has to redo it. He mustn't arrive, and he doesn't arrive, because his time sense is loused up. He doesn't have the idea of consecutive events. 776 8. He will often confess to alarming crimes, with no sense of guilt or personal responsibility whatsoever. He doesn't know that there is a difference between good and bad behavior. 9. He supports and approves of only destructive, downstat, and criminal groups and attacks constructive ones. 10. He approves of destructive actions and disapproves of good actions. He says, "It is probably a good thing that we had the war, because ... " 11. Helping others is an activity that drives him nearly berserk. However, activities that destroy in the name of help are closely supported. The idea is to get rid everybody or to make them all miserable. 12. He has a bad sense of property. He thinks that the idea that people own things is a pretense, made up to fool people. Nothing is ever really owned, to the SP. "Delusions of grandeur" and desires to dominate have nothing to do with suppressiveness. The concept of one's own importance does not have any bearing, here. An SP may or may not have the feeling of being very important, as may a non-SP. There is nothing wrong with dominance. This is not the same as suppression. It is what a person does with dominance that counts. An auditor's skill depends on his recognition of the situation in which he finds himself auditing. When you manage to isolate a series of characteristics that give you a certain expectancy, knowledge of this data becomes valuable. If you can see several characteristics on an SP in a person, you can predict the rest and unload. This is an ethics case. An auditor should know that there could be more than one SP on the case. He should locate the other SP(s), if the first S and D doesn't get permanent results, even though it was well done. You could do a successful S and D and, at a much later date, the PC could find another SP and roller-coaster from that.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=1/9/66 Volnum=2 Issue=79 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-79 Gradients and ARC    6609C01 SHSpec-79 Gradients and ARC LRH coaches with the intention of making his student sound and look like an auditor. Coaching is a happy medium between so many flunks that the student quite and so few that he turns into a lousy auditor. Any coaching can be improved. It is easy to coach if you know what the TR you are working on is supposed to do. The reason for security measures with upper-level materials is because you have to judge the ferocity of the material against the power of the individual that you are giving it to. The only thing wrong with 1950 dianetics was that people were thrown in over their heads. The clearing and OT materials look "So what?" when one has finished them, but not before. If you skip a half a page or glance ahead accidentally while running them, you will get sick. The gradient approach has been a primary and regulating factor in all of scientology. It is a new idea, as an overall idea. A thetan, in particular, responds very well to this approach. He responds better than a body does. You can do a gradient that is too shallow or too steep for your PC if you don't correctly judge his reality level confront, etc." just a little bit tough all the way" is best, but not so tough that you get failures. It should just be hard work. There are PCs to whom everything is automatic. 777 They have no "trouble" on some process, because they don't perceive the things in the process. They have no reality. In CCH's, there are people who will go through it with no change at all. They are aberrated as coots. There is no reality to it. They don't have to confront doing the process, because they aren't doing it. At person with no reality on lions or tigers can walk though a cage with lions and tigers in it. You must estimate the degree of a person's aberration to draw up an estimate of what gradient to apply to it. If you can't make, e.g., a Grade 0 Release, either: 1. The PC is already a Grade 0 Release. or 2. Grade 0 is completely over his head. It is obvious which of these two things is the case, if you know what you are looking for. You can undercut it, if you need to, by raising other corners of the ARC triangle. For instance, if the PC doesn't go release on Grade 0, you could audit the PC on various processes to raise A and R. For instance, dianetic auditing (e.g. lock scanning) words as an undercut . This works even on the insane. There doesn't have to be anybody else there but the auditor. [I.e. the auditor runs the bank.]. Usually it is R that you raise. Affinity occurs in the process of doing this. You still have to estimate correctly what the PC can run. If the PC is in a desperate condition, don't do something desperate. An early entrance point is mimicry. Doing mimicry on someone makes you real to them. It is a low level of communication, but it works very well, especially as a point to at ack, with someone who doesn't attain Grade 0 Release. If you imitate a little kid, or if you communicate with him, he will like you. He will pick you out in a roomful of people, not because he knows you, but because you are real to him. Below Grade 0, i.e. if comm is really out or is very difficult, you approach with reality as the entry point on the ARC triangle. So you could use mimicry. However, if you validate insanity too long, you will stick the PC in a win for his insane behavior. But you can't invalidate him either. Say the guy complains of spiders all over the wall and himself. Don't invalidate him. Pick out the real reality in what he said ("wall" or "me". To Hell with the spiders.), and focus on that. And don't agree about the spiders. That is a lie, and basically he knows it, so he will know that you are crazy if you agree about the spiders. Ask, "What kind of a wall wouldn't spiders be on?" or "What kind of a wall do spiders like best?" or "Who would you have to be, not to have spiders on you?", and you will shift his reality. You could get clever with raising reality. LRH did, in the late forties. Unfortunately, lots of therapies sprang from his ran various things. In 1949, "every time I audited anybody while [others were] watching, it became a school of psychotherapy, because they couldn't integrate it.... So it, ill by itself, became an approach, like Gestalt Therapy. They didn't have the basic data: gradient scales, ARC triangle, etc. They just copied one thing used in one case." The error was made, that because this was successful as an entrance point with one individual, the same gradient had to be used on all individuals. For instance, if the PC has policemen on his front porch, he at least has a porch. Now, the chances are that he has all porches identified A=A=A. If you can introduce [differentiation] amongst porches, you get an increase in reality and an improved state of case. But the squirrels would be stuck in asking the PC about walls or -- worse -- spiders, not realizing that in this case, the proper entrance point would be "porch", a 778 point of mutual reality. You would get the PC to differentiate between porches and drop the A=A=A. The squirrel never cognited on what LRH was doing. He thought that LRH had a "knack". "Mathematics is in kindergarten on this planet." People on this planet don't understand symbolic mathematics. Symbolic math is not doing algebra with symbols. "It is solving a vast number of non-numerical variables by the use of comparisons, similarities, identities, and differences.... And ... you can't write it down." You mustn't follow the lead of math in applying "the suppressive generality of a number to the specific entity [e.g. an apple, a person, etc.] which is being calculated." Two plus two does not equal and never will equal four. You have to specify "Two what?" When you answer,"what" non-specifically, you have an insanity. Man's math is insane. "Zero" is a wild variable. You must specify "Zero of what?" "In what interesting universe is this zero of nothing?" So every time a formula involves zero, as in nuclear physics, it is a guess which, in fact, is based on experiment, and not on mathematical prediction. These guys really don't know what they are doing in higher math. Logic, ultimately, "depends on you and your concept of reality." Math is actually a low-grade expression of A, R, and C. A, R, and C add up to understanding. Mathematicians, along with others, in denying that you (a being) exist, has dropped out that which uses the math and understands it. "Mathematics cannot exist without live interpretation." It is always you who asks the question and you who receives the answer. If there are no live beings to understand, there is no mathematics. Math could be defined as a method of memory, devised by a living being to make inanimate objects or other things appear to think or act. You will be able to be as much at cause over the whole thing as you are OT, because the more livingness you exert, the more logical you can be about it. You will be as good, logically, as you are clear. Eventually, you can run up to a point where you don't need mathematics. One of the baffling things about dianetics and scientology is the question, "How did he figure it all out?" There are lots of formulas. But it is an old line, one LRH is very familiar with. "It's a simple matter of ARC, ... of potential understanding. You can't stand back and hate men and ... find out any R about them. You can't have a total unreality about men -- sitting in some ivory tower someplace ... -- [and hope to get understanding of or reality on Man]. And communication: You can't go about it being careful of what you say and [by being afraid to] hear. Anybody who is easily offended had better never go into the business of understanding, because it winds up only with prejudice.... This, of course, explains ... somebody who's terribly offended by scientology. He's so offended by what he hears [shut down communication], he can't understand anything in the first place." The first requisite on studying life is to be alive, not dead or disciplined or approved of. "In wogs, death really gets people together to approve something, as in, Don't speak ill of the dead." "Therefore, the basis of all scientologic and dianetic research has been understanding." There was no mystery involved, just ARC, plus no fear of saying things or looking at things. "Awareness depends on how alive you are. I'm not trying to say I'm more alive than others. I just am!" 779 Reality goes lower -- further South -- than communication, and affinity goes lower in reach than reality. This sounds odd, but it is observationally true. Insane people with a very low reality can yet feel enough affection to go sane because I asked them to. Education doesn't work in the absence of A, R, and C. A, R, and C are the three pins on which you adjust any auditing session and how you select what you do. All auditing sessions go by gradients. There is no need to depart from what is laid out (in the grade chart) in auditing. But what about the zone between the org and the world around you? It is a problem in: 1. Gradients. 2. A, R, and C. For instance, there are two ways to handle intrafamilial relations: 1. Individual processing on a gradient. This is the best way. It is very senior to education. [When ethics is used to get tech in,] it is used to force (the family members to act in such a way that tech can go in]. It is not to give advice. 2. A, R, and C. This is limited if no one is present to understand. If they don't understand, they won't even start [the process of getting into better ARC]. This is the problem, here. We keep looking for some marvellous solution to any individual or organizational problem. Just realize that "there's no solution at any time superior to the ability of the person asking for it to understand. "There is no math that would help figure it out." Mathematics is as Good as it can be employed with understanding and as good as the understanding of who asks and who receives the answer.... The answer to becoming better at mathematics is [to] became clearer. The answer to any problem is to become more alive and more capable of understanding. That is the answer which pays off." How do you do this? You Get processed, and you process people. You are not in a position in society to reform society educationally. You can't educationally inform the public. All you can say is that there is a way. The world's reality on communication is extremely faint. What they are using the communication media for is a total malicious waste. The newspaper is the modern gossip. A, R, and C in the world today is not good. Higher-level data from scientology is totally out-R. So what can a clear, 0T, or release do? He can remember A, R, and C in disseminating. And he can just be. Don't let affinity overwhelm the reality. Get the affinity and the reality In. Don't kid yourself. You can feel on affinity and get a reality. Never allow others to cut you back from communication. Then you will understand. Understanding washes away everything. Understanding is a universal solvent. "Communication ... is always within the reality of the person who can hear it." So your communication must be within the reality of the individual. You err when you tell people Any more than they need to know: namely, that there is a way out. If you tell them more, you bedazzle their understanding. An 0T could overwhelm a guy. He could put him in awe or in a religious frenzy. But the OT is actually putting the other person in a complete unreality is he does this. The more vulnerable a person is, the less capable of understanding he is, and vice versa. "At this particular time, our power exceeds our understanding," though not by much, and this won't continue to be true. So we get into a crisis situation: "Do we get so tired of them we just overwhump them, or do we stay true to our own beliefs and, continuing to suffer the slings and arrows that are thrown at us, still go along in a high state of ARC?" There is no real argument. The answer is the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics. 780 So the question is beginning to come up, "What are we going to do with this planet?" The only mathematics that will solve this question and the question of how to protect people at lower levels of awareness is the mathematics of ARC and the Axioms. We have to be gingerly, because those on the way up the bridge need protection. The power of scientology will inevitably be used for the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics. The question is how to minimize the casualties along the way. But LRH doesn't have any canned answers about what we will do with the planet. He has a plan for keeping scientologists from being wiped out in a cataclysm. We are at a crossroads as our power increases. We have been very forbearing. We have to rely on good sense and on keeping our reality from degenerating to where it no longer matters what happens to the little guys. Every religious organization of the past has flunked this test. I hope we don't. Luckily ARC increases as one goes up the levels towards OT.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=8/9/66 Volnum=2 Issue=80 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-80 States of Identity    6609C08 SHSpec-80 States of Identity Apparently, there is a boundary, beyond which you don't have thetans; you have endowment of a form with life: the little things that wiggle. For instance the amoeba or the cell is endowed. An OT comes along and says, "Let there be chicken!" He leaves a puddle of theta to animate it. this is the concept of how bodies are built. There is some truth in the idea that talking to flowers makes them grow better. 'Way back someplace, the thetan probably did something like this. The "green thumb" phenomenon is perhaps a lower-scale harmonic of this. There do seem to be people with a green thetan. Other natural abilities of thetans sometimes get preserved in or by individuals in an out-of-control state. So you get telekinesis, telepathy, child geniuses, etc. Jung had trouble with "poltergeists". Actually, he was subject to a form of below-awareness telekinesis. Some skills that are on automatic will temporarily vanish in the course of clearing. Suddenly you find that you can't do it anymore. But when it comes back, it is you doing it, instead of a machine or something. Jung went into only one past life -- that of the English Druids. Anything wrong with a thetan is a lower harmonic of that he can do, higher up on the scale. When that goes wrong, his ability on it goes into an inversion or goes out of his control and still happens in his vicinity, as with Jung, and puzzles him. It is just a little facet of his ability that has been brought down with him and not yet eaten up. Boy wonders tend to fold up because they don't know that they are doing it. It is not under their control. The musical child prodigy has probably been a good musician in the near past. As you go upscale, you tend to lose circuits. If we exempt endowed states of wiggle, we can find out how far down [in the fifth dynamic] a thetan can go. The answer is: someplace in the insect or animal kingdom. Above that, you get thetans; below that, wiggle. Sometimes you run into a horse who is a thetan, and sometimes you run into one that isn't. Or a bee who was and a bee who wasn't. When nothing much is required of an animal or insect, you can get survival as just a piece of automatic machinery, unchanging in habit pattern, etc. It is a shadow of a thetan because a thetan made it. You occasionally find vegetables in the human race: [bodies without thetans]. Maybe sometimes some thetan picks up the body and it changes spectacularly. 781 A body can survive, although not well, without a thetan. When it has been totally guided by a thetan and the thetan leaves, the body isn't on any automatic functioning, and it won't do well. Also, if a thetan caves a body in, the body won't do well. A body will only get as good as you take away what is caving the body in. Most mammalian bodies live six times as long as it takes them to grow up. Thus Man's lifespan should go to 110-120 years. The reason why it doesn't is that the human body is driven by a thetan. An aberrated thetan causes a sick body. A thetan with a service fac is quite capable of keeping a body from getting well. As a society becomes more aberrated, it becomes more sick. One form of endowed life may destroy another form. So it shouldn't upset you that you can cure up the thetan and the body doesn't get well. There are a variety of illnesses that a body suffers from because it is being messed up by a thetan who, with his intention and aberration, is influencing his physical body. That body will get as well as you relieve the aberration of the thetan in those sectors where the thetan is causing the body to get sick. Therefore, don't assume that all that is wrong with the body is the mind. But, in addition to the effects of the thetan on the body, there is also a different seement of illness, caused by endowed life units that are designedly contrary to the body's life units, e.g. disease germs, [parasites, worms, etc.]. Then there is physical injury. If you hit a body with a battering ram, it doesn't matter what state the thetan is in. The body is going to go, "Splash!" If a body is badly Guided, it is smashed often. So you can reduce this category of bodily ills by fixing up the thetan so that he has fewer accidents. However, some accident is pretty inevitable in an uncleared environment. Another factor is the repairing ability of the being. If one were really upscale as a thetan, he could patch up or repair the body directly, or he could mock up a new one: Lower Scale Manifestation: The thetan stops knocking the body about. Upper Scale Manifestation: The thetan can put the body back together again. So there are three sectors of attack on a body: 1. Endowed life attacking the endowed life of the body. 2. Aberration of the thetan influencing the body. 3. [Mechanical damage to the body. This would include chemical damage (poisons, lack of air, etc.).] And there are three basic means of cure: 1. The thetan can repair the body directly. 2. You can use beneficial endowed life units (as in antibiotics) to help the body. 3. You can repair the body mechanically, as with surgery. Here, you can repair damage [or misplaced parts -- e.g. from faulty construction of the body] or cut out endowed life forms [infected tissue or cancerous tissue] that attack the endowed life of the body. [Chemical repair could be in this category also, e.g. antidotes, oxygen, water, etc.] Therefore, to assume that you can cure everything with auditing is as silly as to assume that you can cure fear of spiders by means of neurosurgery. Beings do tend to an "allness", a cure-all propensity. "As long as you are not able to endow matter with life, you have to settle for what you've got." You have to live with the body you've got, or do without one. So you have to decade whether 782 you are looking at: 1. Endowed life forms countering each other. 2. Pure mechanical injury. 3. Something the thetan is doing to the body. You are better off in the last sphere. The first two need to be handled in an emergency, but the thetan is quite capable of preventing a body from recovering, e.g. with a service fac. So auditing can act as a before or after adjunct to the handling of (1) or (2), above. You could make a thetan less susceptible to (1) or (2), and you could come along after the fact and speed up healing, to the degree that the thetan was preventing it from happening. Your only mistake is to run the incident while it is still going on. Treat it first. And don't get into an allness about auditing and its healing effects. The mechanism of miracles, using religious relics or tokens, e.g. a saint's knuckle bone, is a restimulation of the curative abilities of a thetan, if they existed. That is, the thetan's idea of his own power is restimulated by demonstrating that there is power somewhere. nut this is a mental Intervention. Faith healing restores, momentarily, a thetan's OT ability to do something with the body. It has drawbacks, since every now and then, when a body was endowed by thetan A, when thetan B comes along and puts some life into it, it will get sicker. Some faith healers have not lost the ability to endow life or change the life endowment of a body. You can look around the eyes and get the stars that you can see surrounding them. These are little gold balls. Throw them away and put in your own, and you can get sicker. Bodies don't like having their anchor points messed around with or exchanged. To complete the experiment, throw your gold balls away and get the other ones back. There are many things that Man didn't know about beingness or life. Therefore he made fantastic mistakes. Don't make these mistakes. Recognize Man's limitations relative to this. Recognize also that they are not your limitations, but that they are Man's. Therefore, you need an understanding of states of beingness. A caved-in thetan is on a reverse. He is totally the unknowing effect of his own cause. Anything he can do is being done, but he is not doing it. He has lost some of his ability to have even that happen. He is totally gone. So estimate how far down he can go. He can go down to being the effect of the effect of the effect, etc. of himself. But this is 'way beyond his reality, so don't expect him to got any reality on how he is doing it. When you get a body animated by a thetan, as opposed to having a body that is merely endowed, you go into a fringe that is well below being oneself or being conscious. One is sort of automatically awake, automatically existing, with no responsibility for being alive, awake, or existing. Just below that, you get unconsciousness. Below where he has a clue that he is conscious, you are getting down to the lower dregs [of thetanhood] and the upper strata of the human race. The thetan conceives that he is a body: endowed life and no more. He is a removed something. He is an identity, a body. He can be picked up rapidly from there to the state of Grade 0 release: quite a distance. A Grade 0 release is less the effect of causes, but he is not up to causative alertness. He is awake or groggy on an effect basis. As he improves, he gets to be less the effect. both of his own cause and of others' cause. 783 A guy who is really low down on cause is the effect of anything that occurs anywhere. He worries about "train wrecks 8000 miles away." He could go downscale from that point, so that he doesn't worry anymore, because he doesn't exist and isn't worth anything, so it doesn't matter what he is the effect of. He can go down below that into faith: "I have an automatic regulator of my destiny, so I don't have to be alert or be concerned about anything, because something somewhere is taking care of me." This isn't necessarily connected with a religion. People will mock this state up for themselves, without even knowing that they are doing it. At this point, the thetan is totally irresponsible. Going downscale from there, he goes into a sort of numbness -- a further release from responsibility. Below this, he is subject to any number of automaticities, which, if triggered, would produce a total, certifiable insanity. The majority of the human face is about a quarter of an inch above that. That is why many people don't listen to you. Their state of beingness isn't up to it. You must keep the above in mind when asking a wog to look at responsibility. An individual, asked to look at his mind as a cause or an effect, can get into such anxiety, instead of looking into himself, that he goes frenziedly mad. Say that we were in an arena. Someone let in a tiger, and you said to Joe, "Jump over the railing and deal with the tiger." He would think that you were joking at first, but if you tried to force him over the railing, you would have a fighting, screaming person on your hands, who would be liable to say most anything. So it is with the SP, when you get him to look at his mind, e.g. to look at breakfast. SP's aren't trying to disprove scientology. There is no doubt in their minds that you could make them do things, and the thought terrifies them. The SP thinks that you are likely to drive him mad. SP's think that they are public benefactors who are discrediting scientology so that people won't have to look at their minds. An SP is below being able to be the effect of anything, even an automaticity. So when you bring him upscale, the first thing he has to confront, that he might possibly be the effect of, is the mind, and he goes, "Sting!" He goes a bit insane. SP's are below the level of Insanity. [So they have to come up through a band of insanity. Cf. R.D. Laing's idea that the path to sanity is through insanity.] They are below the level of being the effect of anything, good or bad. Any effect is bad, so they have to be an automatic thing [cause] that has an automatic effect. Actually, they are a and A'ing with an endowed self. Your presence, however, can bring them upscale. You can be up to the point where your ability to endow is on automatic, and you get guys twitching around you. When you get to OT, that comes under control. There has [always] been a way up and a road out, but it hasn't been pursued, because philosophers are thoughtful types. They are noted for being reasonable and getting themselves martyred. But few stand up strongly when the firing squad marches down the street. Voltaire got reasonable. A breakthrough like this isn't a scholarly affair. It has to be done with a "Here goes nothing!" attitude. To follow up on scientology, a person would either have to be very reassured in a very quiet environment for a considerable period of time, if the person was pretty bad off, i.e." normal". He would have to be calmed down before he could confront something. The percent of people who can confront is the upper one percent of the planet. When you have the ability to confront, it is possible that you could exert enough influence on the environment ("possible" is a horrible understatement) to calm it down to a point where he could confront and disenturbulate it enough to make gains. 784 To handle the insane, you go down to what he can confront: being still in a still environment, with no one worrying him, with one solid, stable object. You could let him disenturbulate in this environment. The psychotic "doesn't have engrams that make him insane.... He is insane because his ability to confront the environment in his immediate vicinity is so low that he could never possibly take his mind off [his environment] long enough [to look at his mind. It is] too dangerous. Just as your super [SP] screams when you tell him to confront his mind, the psychotic screams when you tell him to confront the environment." Hence, a quiet environment is the only "cure" for insanity. "Insanity is a study of environments. It's not a study of the mind." There is no reason to audit the insane at all. When the environment is very safe and the individual is no longer actively insane, then, on a very light gradient, you could get him to confront the mind. Scientology's problem is not the problem of making one OT. If clears have trouble communicating with wogs, OT's have even more trouble. You could endow a crippled boy's leg with life and heal it. This would be OK, unless you tried to explain what happened. Possibly, he would come upscale to faith, but he would be more likely to go into terror than into faith. Your main line is the improvement of the being who is willing to be improved. Doing this, you will get enough improved beings to handle the problems in society that must be handled to snap the society out of being insane. You don't want to lift people up by faith, though, but by hope: the hope that maybe some day they could do something about it. First, you give him the hope that you can do something for him or about it, then that he can do something about himself and "it". Then the small hopes materialize. States of beingness that Man will recognize do include saints, gods, miracle men, and messiahs -- all sorts of beings. Because Man is familiar with Superman, Batman, etc., he tends to attribute these characteristics to anything that is a step forward for Man. In the past, they would have attributed the characteristics of saints to scientologists. In Greek society, it would have been the characteristics of gods. Man is capable of conceiving of such beings, as long as they are unreal and exterior. They are OK if looked at through a holy book or something. "What Man can conceive and what Man can confront are two different things." A Catholic priest professes a belief in supernatural phenomena, but what would he do it Christ's hand suddenly appeared, disembodied, and started turning the pages of his breviary? "Similarly, what a being can conceive he can become and what he can confront being" -- there is a gap between these two things. We need further definition to distinguish clears and OT's. A clear has lost the matter, energy, space, and time connected with a thing called "the mind". He is not an all-knowing being. He moves up through becoming cause over the matter, energy, space, and time of his mind. An OT is a being who is knowing and willing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space, and time. That definition doesn't say, "a mind". "Life" includes endowed cells, not only or necessarily other thetans. The OT may or may not be able to handle another thetan, but he can handle this commodity called "life". So there is a big gap between clear and OT. A clear makes a not-too-aberrated human being almost fly into pieces. This happens to a minority of people, but it does give an element of fear connected with clears. You are making people confront something 785 that is somehow a little bit within their ken. You will not find them tracing the source of it. It isn't bad for them. If they sat around long enough, they would run out all the pictures. A clear puts "normal people at effect, without trying to do a thing. He just has a sufficient zone of beingness, that what falls into that zone ... is liable to be ... as-ised ... or go into some sort of action." Sometimes people fear clears a little and don't quite know why they feel that way. They don't necessarily associate the feeling with the clear. Even a Grade IV release can be so much calmer and more at cause than the environment, that his presence can be therapeutic. So, as you come downscale to a Grade IV release, they stand out rather remarkably, and they are still a little bit out of reach. As you go downscale from there, you get [a person who is] more able to disseminate, because he more closely matches the reality level of the rest of the environment. As you go down the release stages, you get closer and closer to an ability to influence another without causing a mess, directly, immediately, understandably, and without restimulation. The bridge stays in, as a gradient for dissemination. Even the Book One clear was looked upon with considerable awe. A Bodhi is probably below a dianetic release. It is stable for from two seconds to two years. But Buddhism's promise to make a Bodhi was enough to civilize three fourths of Asia. Having moved out of the reality of wogs, the scientologist tends to compare himself with other scientologists. He is unaware of his state of beingness until he is surrounded by wogs. That makes him somewhat unhappy in the company of wogs. As you go up towards clear, this is less true. If you go out in the wog world as a clear, they don't spot you as source. You tend to produce certain phenomena. You give the impression of being in command even when you don't do anything to command. People will say, "I have to concentrate to talk to you," or "You have such a command of the situation," when nothing is being commanded. You don't bother to use this. Mainly, life becomes easier. The pity of these states of beingness is that there is a limit to what one being can do for another. You can do a lot, but you can't live another's life for him. What you can do is: 1. Provide a safe environment. 2. Show a way, a methodology. 3. Provide for the ethical application or administration of methodology. 4. Give advice. 5. Pervade the environment with calmness. 6. Mock up a new leg for a crippled boy. But that is the limit. The rest is up to the other guy. Unless you lead the person to increase his own beingness, he will never arrive. This is the point that has been missed in all prior attempts to better Man. The only "miraculous intervention" there is or ever will be, comes from the person himself. He must overcome the terror of becoming the effect. He must be led upwards by an unenturbulated environment to destimulate enough so that he can put his own feet on the road out and walk. You can help him only with those first steps. Helping the individual is the only way to help humanity out. 786  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=1/11/66 Volnum=2 Issue=81 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-81 Government and Organization    6611C01 SHSpec-81 Government and Organization A good government is in the realm of invention at this point. Man is so afraid of a bad turn in a benign monarchy that he can't have one. He is afraid of an SP getting into power. Also, a benign monarch can't wear all of his hats. What makes a government bad is that it gets an SP into it. One SP breeds others, as an SP wants other SP's around him. Generals that advocate wars of attrition are SP's. They are just trying to knock off as many troops as possible. The best military training is to do the most in the least time at the least expense, and to keep your own people from being banged up. The objective is to win. That is the proper conduct of war. You also want to inflict the least possible damage to the enemy, because you will have to put the enemy back together again if you win. This is a proper war. But the last four wars were wars of attrition. All governments consist of a body of beings against the individual. The better a government is, the less against the individual and the more for the individual it is. Total suppression exists where the government is everything and the individual is nothing. The opposite extreme can be equally suppressive: Anarchy, where the individual is everything and the government is nothing. In an anarchy, any bum or suppressive is totally at liberty to knock anyone on the head. There is no perfect government. The individual is as close as you will get to a perfect entity. Why do you need a government? Because any organization can win over individuals. We thetans got to where we are today because we didn't organize as a body of thetans. Instead, we let the bad guys organize into a body to get us. This is the only big omission on the track. OT's didn't handle it on their own feet. Any group of organized humanoids can defeat any OT. However, this requires that one know something about the laws of organization. Without an organization, the individual would have to maintain constant vigilance, because he only has to lose one battle to lose everything. You want an org that is minimally restrictive and maximally effective. In a benign monarchy, the individual doesn't have to have much say, because everything is taken care of. When you turn over the government to a group, however, confidence in the government is shaken and the individual must have a say. Of course you don't let individuals make all the decisions. This would lead to a clown government. No individuals can all know enough to be meaningfully involved in every little thing. There never has been a democracy. The Greeks never had a democracy. Just fifty landowners formed a senate. The senators didn't even represent anyone. Therefore, it was not even a republic. Republicanism is a mean between the extremes. If you make proper qualifications necessary for the holding of office, e.g. that a person not be below Grade IV, that person and other similar ones, forming a senate, being specialists in the issues at stake, could be sufficiently informed and have enough time to think about it to actually govern. So if scientology took over, you would have a republican government. After you have chosen the governor, he is free to govern, without any "Yak! Yak!", unless some weighty issue comes up for a referendum, e.g. a change in the status quo or in the form of government. 787 England's failure to allow the American colonies representation in Parliament was an error in tech that caused a rift. When a group feels that it can't be heard, it ARC breaks. This is the sort of ARC break that always precedes a war. Hitler said something that wasn't acknowledged, and vice versa. So thirty million men were killed. In emergency situations, a benign monarch is the best system. There is no time to consult anyone anyway. But in time, a benign monarch gets tired and overworked, and he can't acknowledge everybody who speaks. So, unless he gets backed up by a representative body, you get a dissolution of the organization. The nominal head of the organization should be out of the way, except in an emergency, while the country is run by a representative body corporate. Such a body has great liabilities. There is a lack of total responsibility [to the constituents], so individuals in the group don't think fast enough. Therefore it is best not to have a generalized body corporate running the government. It must be specific in its representation, unlike the pattern of a board of directors. Each member of a board of directors nebulously represents "the stockholders". However, here, there is cross-representation. This generality goes into suppression. If "the people" are represented, then they could [logically] only be represented by one person. That is why a benign monarchy works. There is no cross-representation. But as soon as the monarch gets a body of advisors, that doesn't represent the people. More than one representative would have to represent exact segments of the population. When too many people are represented by one person, the distance becomes too great, and the people feel unrepresented. But if they can communicate with their representative and get action, they feel that their governmental hat is well taken care of, so they can relax. The U.S. has two senators per state. This violates the above principle of representation. Electoral districts, however, do have direct representation. There is a further representation in state government, which can receive [certain] orders from the federal government. The U.S. government, however, has no representative in Colorado. It only has covert agencies there. The Colorado state assembly cannot address the U.S. Government. There is no direct line from the state assembly to the U.S. assembly or the Senate. Before you can have a governmental system [that is any good], you have to have the tech of scientology to detect and improve abilities in people and ethics tech to detect suppressives. You also need the communication formula, ARC triangle, ARC break tech, etc. If the people have a senator, why have a representative? The outcome is that the individual states and the U.S. government are in violent conflict. Hence the Civil War. When these comm lines don't exist, an individual goes into apathy. You get a dictatorship of "the people" vs. the individual. Or you get a situation where every man is the dictator. Representation can be pretty big, because not everyone appeals at once. But if everyone does appeal at once, then the representative had better do something fast. War is caused by incompetent government, which causes a breakdown in the comm line between a [constituent] group and the society that surrounds it. The society that surrounds it may be so incompetently governed that the inner group has to be nearly perfect to work its way forward. Scientology has this quality. We also keep trying to be better, at least whenever there is a down statistic. 788 In scientology, there are lots of built-in safeguards in the system, so there is no immediate need for elective representation In the future, elections will be required, when scientology gets bigger. Then exact representation will occur. No junior governing body may be given orders by any senior governing body, in which it is not represented. Conversely, very senior governing bodies should not give orders to junior governing bodies, from which they do not have a representative. That ensures a two-way communication situation. The Advisory Council. The International Advisory Council would be made up of representatives of continental parts of the world and executives who represent types of divisions of orgs. It would have about fifteen members. Rule: No one may initiate a motion unless that motion has been formed into an issuable directive. If a person wants a policy letter framed, he must write it up. Rule: The chairman is given the power of absolute veto, unless three quarters of those present vote to continue discussion or voting. This will prevent endless hobby-horsing. A proposal could be referred for special study elsewhere, to be brought up later. This way, point of origin of policy letters is stated, since that person wrote up the policy letter before it was passed. Members of the International Advisory Council represent the continental Advisory Councils, but they also represent all orgs on that continent. Therefore, someone from part of that continental area who feels that he is being done in, or something, could write to his representative in the international body. As the system expands out, the individual would find out that he had a representative in his local continental body. A member of the ad council, on majority signatures, can get an urgent directive out on short notice, provided a B. of I. is convened later to determine if it was the right action. Unless a policy change occurs, an ad council directive is only in effect for a year, unless a policy letter is issued. The purpose of this rule is to prevent arbitrary laws from being arbitrarily introduced needlessly. The advisory council has representatives from five continental areas plus one from St. Hill and a divisional organizer [for each division]. He represents every divisional secretary of that division in the whole world. His job is to compile all the materials and specifications. It is too much work for such a person to do this and hold another hat at the same time. So if a person can't get books, for instance, he would write the Div 2 divisional organizer. If the stat of the divisional organizer is down, he would get into being an authority. He can get militant in the ad council. The ad council can then issue what the divisional organizer has already written up in advance. It is issued on the flash color of that division, and it applies only to that division. The Divisional organizer is not operating those orgs, so he does not act as a bypass of the OES of those orgs. Conversely, we will have the St. Hill or WW representative in continental ad councils. LRH comm can also serve this purpose. He has no authority, but he can be talked to, and he can explain what WW is doing. Every divisional secretary in orgs becomes a member of the ad council [for that org]. The LRH comm is also on that org's ad council, to represent HCO. Thus we get an eight-man ad council. Sooner or later, we will need a representative of the ad council in each of the divisions [of the org]. With a continental org that has three other orgs plus itself, you get four ad councils, composed of secretaries and exec secs. Thus, you get a ten-man ad council, [composed of the seven divisional heads, plus the LRH Comm, plus the OES plus the HAS.] Each junior org would have to have a representative in the senior org. We are dealing with basic ethics and organizational tech. It really helps to have all beings in the org cross-policed by stats. Stats don't ever "happen". They are always made, and you have got to find out what is making them. In a downstat situation, the errors are always gross. The greatest source of downstats is: no personnel on the-post at all. If you get a stuck flow going on for too long, with no return flow, you get an apathy on the other end. [Cf. the S.O. 1 Line] People want to talk to LRH to find out if he is there. It is to get the back-flow going. The main problem is in the relationship between the individual and the corporate body. A corporate body that can't act swiftly will cause a lot of upset. A situation where any citizen can clobber the corporate body is equally suppressive, because that person will also clobber other individuals. The problem is to set up something that resolves the relationship between the corporate body and the individual. 1. The individual must be able to get justice from the corporate body. 2. He is entitled to bright management. 3. The corporate body can expect contribution and compliance from the individual. All it takes to make an organization is to avoid violating these. When you get the consent of the people and respect for the government, the thing will go on and on. On other planets, Empire selection of governors was based on state of case. When you put in a government, put in a review of that government. This happened to some extent in the U.S. with amendments to the constitution, but no one reported back to the original body that created the government. A governed people who do not understand the theories or postulates of the government or the laws, can be pretty dismayed and confused. They are afraid that the relationship between the government and the individual will not be safeguarded. They may even be represented and don't know it.  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=29/11/66 Volnum=2 Issue=82 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-82 "OT" and "Clear" Defined    6611C29 SHSpec-82 "OT" and "Clear" Defined A majority of scientology's major executives are now clear. LRH noticed that the statistics of divisions were in roughly the same range as the case state of their heads. We have tried to put together a scientology dictionary. It requires work from LRH to make sure that the definitions are complete. He will take students' requests on cards and define the words. OT: Operating Thetan. "Operating" means "Manipulating, handling". You operate a car, etc. Also, oneself can operate; one is operative. "Thetan" is from the Greek letter, theta, traditionally used to mean thought. The letter "n" is added to "theta" to make the noun, "thetan". We mean by "thetan" "A life unit ... a being. An individual who is alive and who is capable of thinking [and being] -- a spirit inhabiting the body." In Greek times, theta was the thought in a person, as opposed to his body. The thetan inhabits the "clay" and moves it around. To that degree, anyone who can move is operating as a thetan. But "OT" means someone who "can operate without 790 a body.... A being who is cause over thought life, matter energy, space and time." Someone who is being cause is being "a source of action or impulse," as in cause-distance-effect. This state is quite different from the state of clear. It is someone who can operate without the encumbrances of the common clay. There are degrees of operation. Wog. A "common, everyday garden-variety humanoid.... He 'is' a body. [He] doesn't know he's there," etc. He isn't there as a spirit at all. He is not operating as a thetan. The term comes from "Worthy Oriental Gentleman", from the days of the British in Egypt. A humanoid is one who has human characteristics, by which we do not mean that he is human in his treatment of things. He isn't. It is simply that he is a body. He isn't there as a spirit at all. He will develop a philosophy that says that everything is matter, including the self. Wog is not the bottom end of the scale, which would include psychotic, neurotic, catatonic, etc. This would be someone who didn't even know that he was MEST. OT isn't the top end of the scale, either. At the top, you would have a harmonic of the wog: "a thetan who didn't have to operate ... at all," in an almost unattainable absolute, outside of MEST altogether, so he would be serene, calm, and dissociated with the physical universe -- not in the time-stream. Someone at the bottom of the scale is the effect of everything. He has to cause everything and can cause nothing. Someone at the top would be potentially able to cause everything, but wouldn't have to. But this is a no-game condition, and thetans are idiotic enough to like to have a game going. A PTP exists when one has to do something about something. When audited thoroughly, a person is no longer affected by the problem. Similarly, in Serenity, one doesn't have to do anything about it. But one of the native characteristics of a thetan is messing around. He gets bored at Tone 40. So just below 40.0, you get OT. At the beginning of the universe, the thetan was potentially omniscient and omnipotent, but he had no experience and knew nothing. He was pretty stupid. When you put someone back to the state of OT, you are putting somebody back who is different from anyone else on the track. He is operating with experience. When we say, "OT", we mean "clear OT". A released OT is someone who is exterior and feeling great; feeling powerful. For just plain OT, we can just call it "exterior". There has hitherto never been anything but a released OT. There are two parallel lines:. 1. How much is someone out of his bank? and 2. How much less bank does he have? Using techniques developed in 1952, you can bang nearly anyone out of his head. He then exhibits the characteristics of a being who is not influenced by a body. This state can last a third of a second, or it can last three hundred years. It will make someone sane who is insane, but since one has aberrations as a being, not just as a body, exteriorizing doesn't get rid of all his aberrations. Gautama Siddhartha was exteriorizing people in 523 B.C., making a state called "Bodhi". We can make a Bodhi (a Buddha) in thirty seconds. The Lamas in Tibet developed practices to assist exteriorization. When the Lamas couldn't exteriorize people, they redefined "Bodhi" to mean someone who was calm, refined, serene and had benign conduct. It is the mental mass that prevents exteriorization. This mass is a composite of the thetan's own pictures and aberrations that pins him to the body. Some people are harder to exteriorize than others. 791 It is the mental mass called "the mind", with its pictures and masses, that prevents some people from exteriorizing. A thetan exterior is simply outside a body. This happens inevitably at death. It is only the worry about getting a body that makes a thetan unhappy. An operating thetan is a thetan exterior who can have, but doesn't have to have, a body, in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space, and time. Nirvana was added to Buddhistic doctrine at a later date. The original idea was just to get away from the continual cycle of rebirth. There is no goal to operate in Buddhism, however. Someone who is a thetan exterior but not clear or OT may be in very bad shape. He may barely be able to get to a maternity ward. He has no power of choice over what body he gets. Etc. And sometimes, a thetan suddenly regains his OT abilities, without knowing how he did it. This is quite rare. It frightens observers. Suleiman, in The Arabian Nights, produced a big scare about thetans. [LRH describes the embarrassment of the thetan in a battle, who hasn't noticed that his body has been killed, and who just keeps hewing away at the enemy on the battlements, until he notices that what he thinks is his sword goes through the enemy without touching them. Then he looks down in the mud and sees his old body.] A very aberrated OT could exist. He might accidentally discover that he can move MEST, make sound, etc. He is liable to do most anything, because he is operating automatically. He is not able to control these manifestations. E.g. he may produce poltergeist phenomena. This would be a released OT. Those beings can be upset. This is a higher-scale wog amongst thetans. It is also possible to be exterior, knowingly, but unable to move anything or cause things. One eventually gets tired of this and wants a new body. Previous released OT's had no one with whom to associate. A person who went thetan exterior had no hope of anything else. He had a shut track. Therefore the game of being a body became functional. Actually, an OT could mock up a body out of whole cloth. How else do you have a body? An OT like the above, with or without the ability to move objects, is not a clear OT. He is a released OT, since he doesn't understand his state or what he is doing. But the scientology definition of OT is clear OT. "A clear OT knows what [he has done and what he] is doing.... He is a clear who can operate like Billy-O." CLEAR "A thetan without a bank," in or out of a body. The source of the bank, the being himself. He is making himself the unknowing and unwilling effect of his own bank. He is causing himself to receive, unwillingly and unknowingly, the effect of his own bank. The person compulsively makes up pictures. When he is bad off, all he's got is a blanked-out picture, a black mass that covers up the picture, or pressure that crowds the picture into oblivion. [The Black Five.] Below that, you get random pictures that flick by on automatic. The word, "bank" is taken from electronic computer terminology, meaning a card system, a file system. The machine pulls out certain data cards and puts them into operation or computation in the machine, so that the machine can solve problems. The bank-bound thetan is peculiarly affected by and operates on banks. "There is no such thing as a crazy thetan. There is a thetan who is mocking up craziness that he is the effect of." Otherwise, there would be no hope. You can ask a guy with a fixed picture or a chronic picture, "What part of that could you be responsible for?" This is a good process for the guy who doesn't know that he has a mind. Someone can be so not-ised 792 that he isn't aware that he has a mind. The level of not believing in a mind is below the level of not being able to see the mind, or pictures. Above being able to see the mind is not having one. "All [mental] masses do is not furnish you with data as they seem to do but charge the area of the data up, so that you can't directly recall it, and you get hit ... by the picture [or mass], and you think the picture is giving you the data. So therefore you 'mustn't get rid of the picture,' because if you got rid of the picture, then you 'wouldn't have the data.' ... This is silly, because if you didn't have the picture, then you could recall it all," without consequences. A clear doesn't have a mind, in that he is not the effect of this picture mechanism. But the clear still has the MEST universe around, and he still uses a body that isn't very strong and is made of cells that aren't invulnerable. So the fact that a person is clear doesn't say that he won't get sick, because there are such things as bacteria and viruses, and the body has finite strength. It is idiotic to measure a clear by his health. When a clear exteriorizes, he may be a clear exterior, unable to talk, etc., like a baby having to learn to walk. The state is stable, since he has no bank to snap him in again. When a person is clear, he can more easily become exterior. [There are 140 clears as of this date, according to LRH.] Getting someone from clear to OT is a job of proofing him up, so that even if he mocked up a bank, he wouldn't be the effect of it. A cleared OT is a proofed-up being who won't hit the banana peel. You could probably fix up a clear exterior so he would go exterior to the physical universe. You could use a command like, "Try not to be outside the physical universe." This would make him exterior from the universe, but that would be unstable until he was no longer at effect relatively to the physical universe. He would be unstable, since he is still the effect of MEST, life, and thought. But a person who can be at cause over something is not necessarily at total effect of it. That doesn't mean, however, that he has nothing to do with it. Because you can fix a car is no reason why you can't enjoy one. Our adversary is the complexity of the "wisdom" of the ages, suppressed and combined to keep people from doing it. It takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to face this sort of thing. There is nothing mild about the way course supervisors continue [to do their job]. There is "probably a greater distance between clear and OT than between wog and clear." A clear OT is "a walking miracle who ... comprehends the miracle." So knowing and willing cause is part of the definition of OT. It is not an accidental or automatic state. You get to a point where you can turn automaticities on and off. Doing it on an unknowing basis is far inferior. "If this crosses up your own reality in any way, shape, or form, by all means don't [change] your own reality. Just run your auditing question!" 793  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=6/12/66 Volnum=2 Issue=83 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-83 Scientology Definitions [Part] II    6612C06 SHSpec-83 Scientology Definitions [Part] II For the first time in known history, there is ethics. You can't lie to do people in [and get away with it, in scientology]. People who protest ethics say, "Who determines who is suppressive?" That is easy. Suppressives have definite characteristics. This universe got formed and is going to pieces on suppression. "An organized minority is all that has been making this universe a mess." It could have been a good universe. But ethics would have had to go in early. And because thetans were acting as individuals and suppression was organized, all we have to do is reverse it, so that thetans, without forgoing independence, can organize the other side just a little bit. We are eventually going to become an organized majority. We already have numerical superiority. Also, they can't think straight. We have no overt intentions towards suppressives. We are just trying to go about our business. But "you yourself should not ... go out of your way to obtain amusement by the torturing of SP's simply because their valence is there to slip into. "The mocking up of suns is far more fun." But when you do it, do a good job!" ANALYTICAL MIND This could be "anything that a thetan set up, which collected data and used it to resolve problems." The basic purpose of the "mind" is "the resolution of problems relating to survival. Now if a thetan does this, you could say he is a mind.... An analytical mind cannot exist independent of a thetan." Man has been so caved in, on the subject of the reactive mind, which he knew not wot of, of which he was not aware, that he now discredits the whole idea of a mind. He says, "I'll just do it all myself." REACTIVE MIND A reactive mind is "an unwanted, unknowing series of computations which bring about an effect on the individual and those around him." It contains things like the computation, "All horses sleep in beds." It is an obsessive stratum of unknown, unseen, uninspected data that is forcing solutions, unknown and unsuspected, on the person. It is a sub-awareness activity. An analytical mind could be of use to an operating thetan. It could exist if it was a knowing and willing mechanism. For instance, much of dianetics and scientology was resolved by the construction of philosophical machines: something you would draw up which would give some data that you could then combine with some other data and get some answer. But you are setting down and lining up the data. You are just "doing a think which is recorded ... so that you can knowingly observe a relationship of data and get an answer.... So an analytical mind [is] a knowing and willing resolution of problems related to survival." This can get you in trouble, when it is of lasting duration, when it is set up to run forever without inspection and observation. An analytical mind cannot exist without inspection and observation. An astronomical computer being operated by a competent scientist could be likened to the analytical mind. But without inspection and observation, an analytical mind would become reactive. The reactive mind is like the opposite of the analytical mind. It is like a computer that, uninspected, picks up the data to resolve problems that had not been suspected, and turns out answers that, uninspected, then by law become a total effect upon a population. [I.e., to avoid reactivity, you must retain the option of total monitoring.] A total circuit, like an automatic elevator, may still be analytical if it can be inspected. 794 The human body falls into the class of machines that operate without understanding. Such a machine, where a thetan does not know how or why it operates, is reactive. The fellow who is there doesn't know when it is going to get sick or quit. The body line is running uninspected, and it is aberrative. It has reactions and effects upon the thetan that he cannot predict. It is an aberrative machine because it is running uninspected. It has no instruction book. This is a major omission. Beware of buying bodies without directions in them! So willingness and inspection is what makes the difference between the analytical and the reactive minds. The difference between dianetics and scientology is that one [scientology] increases the awareness of the thetan and the other [dianetics] just erases the bank. The trouble you run into in disseminating comes from people's lack of awareness of the reactive mind. You have to show it to them. If you handle a person's reactive mind directly, you get the situation where the person was not aware that he had lumbosis and is not now aware that it is gone. The way you handle a reactive mind is to increase the thetan's awareness of it so he can control it. It ceases to be reactive. When you are talking about the analytical and the reactive mind, you are talking about the awareness level of the individual. Only the reactive mind is opposed to the thetan. The analytical mind is "a mind that is temporarily set up, willingly and knowingly, to assist in the resolution of problems. Problems inevitably relate to survival. And anything he's set up to do this of which he was aware and which was inspected [would be included under the rubric of 'analytical mind']." A committee set up to get data and to coordinate the activities of another area or body -- of a factory or something like that -- would be the mind of that factory, even though they are thetans doing it. In fact, they would have to be thetans doing it, for it to be analytical. One of the reasons why you should know policy is that otherwise the solutions and combinations, unknown to you, make it have an effect on you, because it is somewhat reactive. If policy isn't inspected and reformed to meet the condition of operation, it too would become a reactive mind, as with U.S. government law. From the point of view of the society, scientology is a somewhat reactive mind, to the degree that they are not aware of our existence or our effect. If scientology had evil intentions, it would be very easy to operate on a sub-rosa level. However, it would be bad for the planet, on the whole. It is hard anyway for society, at its low awareness level, to be aware of scientology. It is likewise hard for them to be aware of a thetan. A thetan should probably go by the rule, "Never explain." Don't feel that you need to explain your motives to others, when you don't intend to hide them. Their level of awareness of you is already so low that explaining won't help at all. After all, they can't tell your motives! Be as obvious, plain, and straightforward as you like, but "if the ordinary evidences which lie around them don't justify your actions, then there's no sense in explaining it to the person who's challenging them.... He wouldn't be able to understand them anyway." Any analytical mind can become a reactive mind. So setting up an analytical mind is always dangerous, to some degree. 795 POWER The amount of force that can be applied in a unit of time. [Actually, the physical definition states that power is the amount of work that can be accomplished in a unit of time.] Power has the connotation of being potential, unlike force, which is actual. Power doesn't necessarily mean the use of force. Power is not exerted, whereas force tends to be. Therefore a person is powerful when he is able to use force, not when he is or isn't using force. But if he is forceful, he is using force right now. The smarter a person gets, the less he employs force to get others to change their opinions, etc. IMPLANT "Unwilling, unknowing receipt of a think." An implant is "an intentional wreck of somebody's ability to make pictures, perceive, and remember. It's intentional! ... An intentional installation of fixed ideas contra-survival to the thetan." In an implant, someone is intentionally giving the thetan perceptions and ideas. All hypnotism is, is a restimulation of past implants. ENGRAM "Those perceptions unknowingly contained in the force, duress, pain, and unconsciousness of an incident." This is not the same as an implant [because it is not necessarily intentional, for one thing]. Intent is the difference. The person makes a mental image picture by his reaction to an experience. He goes, "Out! Stop it!" In the process of doing this, "he's made a sort of a stuck wave," because he didn't prevent it. And just as you would make an embossed impression of something, he embosses the environment. If you were to press your hand against a brick for a split second, you would have a picture of the brick, and, a moment or so later, you would have the indentations of the brick, because you pushed something at the brick. Similarly, if you pull on a rope, you make an impression. [This would be analogous to a secondary.] The thetan pushes back against what is pushing him, or he pulls in against what is leaving him. It is at the point where he resisted the motion most that he gets stuck. A thetan can make and exert energy. When he tries to fend something off [or hold something in], he pushes [or pulls] back against something. He gets a picture of the moment when his resistance was great. That could be an engram, [secondary, lock,] or implant. PROBLEM Intention / counter-intention, goal / counter-goal, or purpose / counter-purpose. GOALS PROBLEM MASS The GPM is so named, because "when there are two intentions counter-opposed, [one] has a problem [and the opposed forces or goals] tend to produce mass. The Russians' statement of this is Dialectic Materialism -- that all ideas are born out of the meeting of two forces. [That is] backwards. When two ideas [oppose each other] they create force.... That shows you where they are on the [tone] scale: If you hit a guy hard enough, he'll think." [GPM's consist of pairs of opposing ideas.] Two opposing ideas produce a mass. "The thetan cannot as-is either side." Hence, the mass remains. The mass of a GPM is mental energy mass, but it can be in the physical universe, too. PAN-DETERMINISM and SELF-DETERMINISM Pan-determinism is the ability to see or as-is both sides [of a conflict or problem]. If "one is totally pan-determined, he has no mental mass, because he's seen both sides of everything. He can see two ideas at once, even though they are opposed." Self-determinism is laudable, because it is rare. But it is not as good as pan-determinism. If a guy justifies what he does, you know immediately that he is self-determined, not pan-determined. This is the quickest test there is. A wholly reactive person "will oppose any idea put to him." 796 A conservative or reactionary tends to be against everything you propose. So if you give him his own ideas, you give him a problem, because his first impulse is to be against them. [Cf. symptom prescription and the Interpersonalists.] This is such a horrible thing to do that it is normally looked upon as fightin' words, like, "You think you're pretty good, don't you?" You have made the guy resist his own ideas. The above type of person is on a lower-scale mockery of pan-determinism. He can carry out a raging argument with a second person that doesn't say a word the whole time, like, "Well, you're going to say.... And you think.... But ... !" There is no ability of a thetan that doesn't have a lower-scale mockery or exaggeration. EMOTION "A response by a wavelength affecting as individual or another, which produces a sensation and a state of mind." INTENTION Something which one wishes or intends to do. It is an impulse towards something. It is "an idea that one is going to accomplish something.... He means to do it." AFFINITY Affinity "has nothing to do with [emotion]. It's the ability to occupy the space of or be like or similar to, or to express a willingness to be something." "I like you," means "I would just as soon be you. I would just as soon occupy your space." When two individuals don't like each other, they won't occupy each other's space or viewpoint. They don't want to be like the other person, etc. A dissimilarity must exist. When this becomes sufficiently strong, a person "enforcedly becomes like the other fellow," which is an overwhelm. HOME UNIVERSE "The universe a thetan made for himself." Here we find the Rock, which we audited for and assessed out, meaning a shape of something on which we could then run a process. We had, in the past, a theory that it was the first object on the track that the fellow had made. We would run five-way help on it and make a fast, stable release of a very high order. RELIGION Religion "means, basically, the search for truth." DED-DEDEX A deduced something or other. "It means that the overt-motivator sequence went backwards. A ded-dedex is the overt-motivator sequence wrong-way to. So that you hit Joe, and then he hits you. That's a ded-dedex. The original connotation was [that] although it went this way, you had it figured out that he must have hit you first, so you invented something that he did to you to motivate your hitting him. It's a phony overt-motivator sequence." It is what a guy does to justify an unmotivated overt. "It means, 'The overt act explained.'" The fact of having hit someone without provocation plus a means of explaining having hit him is the ded-dedex. After you commit the first action, you invent something to explain it. [Ded-dedex -- Deed-deed explained.] SOMATIC MIND This idea was "added to the First Book by Donald H. Rogers, [John W. Campbell, and the publisher]." I found it in the glossary, so there it is. It's "the mind that runs the body, independent of" [the body and the reactive mind.] It is a physical coordination switchboard system. In view of the fact that we don't know how it runs, we really have no business declaring the existence of a mind that we don't really know about. (The early introduction to DMSMH -- with the part about the wheel and the arch -- describes the book. Its first line was written by Walter Winchell and the rest was written by the publisher. 797 ANCHOR POINT Something the thetan put out to make space. BUTTERED ALL OVER THE UNIVERSE "Very badly disoriented and dispersed." When someone in this case condition is asked to spot spots where he is (An improper process. The proper process is to have him spot spots where he is not.), he will point all over the universe. This is the reaction of this very dispersed case to this question, from which this term is taken. He will think that he is everywhere. It is an "I'm over there" case. Perhaps this condition comes from leaving anchor points all over the place and appearing in one or another of these points. TIGER DRILL "One of the drills ... that ... has been adequately discussed in bulletins." It uses "tiger" as a non-reactive word. [See pp. 295-295a. above.] COMPUTATION To figure out. 2 x 2 = 4. COMPUTING PSYCHOSIS "One who, from his psychosis, figure-figures. He's inconstant in his conduct. He's computive.... He's got ... crazy explanation.... He's obsessively solving a problem that doesn't exist." DRAMATIZING PSYCHOTIC "One patterned action which is insane [and which the person] runs over and over.... When he is] not doing that particular [action, the dramatizing psychotic is remarkably sane. [He is consistent in his conduct.]" ARBITRARY "Something introduced into the situation without regard to the data of the situation. 'Arbitrary' means 'stand alone'." Someone says, "X must be done," or "X is true." If that is introduced without observation, without any refutation [of what was there previously], into a formula, situation, admin action, of line, it will cause a ripple. This ripple then needs to be solved, so someone else will introduce an arbitrary solution to the introduced arbitrary. "It leads to further arbitraries being introduced to handle resultant outnesses." This is the "stuck five [held down five]" phenomenon. An urgent action may be an arbitrary, as in the tech of handling an urgent directive [See p. 785, above.]. This must be replaced by something based on observed fact. It is only in force until data can be gotten. An example of an arbitrary would be an education that a boy never understood, like an education without a purpose. HARMONICS Any wavelength action or scale has reverberations, up and down, by doubles or halves. "In the field of art, it means 'agreement with'.... In scientology, ... upper harmonics [refers to] well-off cases.' In scientology, it means a similarity or repetition of something at a higher or lower point on a scale. A lower harmonic is a lower similarity which is nutty, related to a higher harmonic. This is "based on the tendency of a wavelength to repeat itself.... The lower you go in terms of awareness, the more weird the repetition is.... In music, it means a co-action or similar action," like resonating strings. For instance, a lower harmonic of figuring out a math table is doodling. It is a similar action but less aware. Therefore harmonics apply to the awareness scale. The term "lower-scale mockery" expresses the idea of harmonics more usefully, for our purposes. Ridicule is based on this. You can feel that your ideas are crazy, even if they are not, if you hear them expressed or "mocked", by a nut or a "true believer". [Like a caricature.] I was trying to figure out what to do with the org. I was trying to figure out what England would do by trying to figure out what she should do to straighten things out politically. I was trying to figure out which way this was going to go, to figure out if I should expand the organization or whether to enter dollars into the country or hold them out. And I ran into a guy outside the door, who said that he was Disraeli and was going to help England. 798  L. Ron Hubbard   Type = 3 iDate=13/12/66 Volnum=2 Issue=84 Rev=0 rDate=0/0/0 Addition=0 aDate=0/0/0 aRev=0 arDate=0/0/0  SHSpec-84 Scientology Definitions -- [Part] III    6612C13 SHSpec-84 Scientology Definitions -- [Part] III Scientology is an extension of the work of Gautama Siddhartha, 2500 years ago. Gautama sought to end the cycle of death and rebirth, by showing an individual that he was a spirit, not dependent on bodies. We accomplished his goal of exteriorizing people more successfully in 1952, but the wisdom of Buddhism was enough to civilize three-fourths of Asia. It is the oldest and biggest religion on this planet. It predates Christianity by 500 years. "Probably the shreds of [Buddhism came] into the Middle East with [the] silk and spice merchants, [who, following Alexander's ventures to India in about 333 B.C., discovered that there was a Europe and] made a trade contact with Europe. This sparked a religious revival. "Buddha predicted that in 2500 years, the entire job would be finished in the West. That's in the Pali Canons. Well, we finished it.... Buddha never pretended to be other than just a man," and his movement, the first international religious movement, was open to anyone. Buddhism "has moved, ... in its technology, not one inch further than it was pushed in Tibet, until 1952," when we started exteriorizing people. "The essence of religion [is the fact that] Man is a spiritual being." All religions hold this in common, but "only in Buddhism was this ever proven." Any forward push like Buddhism runs into SP's who are afraid that if you got better, you might knock them off or at least stop their games. "The basic goal of psychiatry today is to wipe out religion. They say, 'Anyone who is religious is psychotic.'" If they succeed in knocking out our church, they will go after bigger ones. This is "really all that it's all about. As long as religion brings solace to Man, ... as long as churches stand, in any way, for the spiritual freedom of Man, psychiatry will not really be able to progress." Therefore, psychiatry should not be allowed to wipe out a small church, and then go on to a bigger church, and a bigger church, and so take it all over. The government "has no right ... to comment upon religious beliefs or practice.... They are telling us that we must not do something we are not doing." We are not treating the sick and the insane. There is no law against increasing people's ability or intelligence, and that is all that we are doing. "Psychiatry is demanding its right to kill or maim any human being, after it states that he's crazy.... If they can do that, they can control the planet, politically." But they will fail, because they can't complete a cycle of action or choose a right target. There is no law against making people better or more intelligent. Also, when someone tries to cut a pure theta line, it tends to blow up against him. "Our victory was the victory of the individual over 'Fate' and the universe.... If we win, everybody wins." Crushing the opposition on the way up is hardly worth doing. INVERSION "It should go one way, and it goes the other [way]. It inverts. It collapses in on itself downward.... When a person is introverted, ... he would look in on himself.... It's a reverse scale.... As one factor progresses, the other factor degresses.... It goes backwards." EXTERIORIZATION "An action which I have just described ... as the history of Buddhism." A thetan walks out of or exists out of a body. Exteriorization is "the action of moving out of a body." Psychiatrists boobytrap this by claiming "that insane people can exteriorize." In fact, if they do exteriorize, they are sane while they are exterior. [See p. , above.] 799 INTERIORIZATION People who are interiorized. "Interiorization is not the reverse of this. [It] means 'going into it too fixedly and becoming part of it', [not just 'going into your head']. You could interiorize into work [or into] most anything." Exteriorization means the spirit moving out of the body. RESTIMULATION "The reactivation of an existing incident.... Some approximation of the original incident causes it to go into play.... There is a point where it was restimulated.... The restimulation is usually unknown to the person. If it were known, ... he would immediately recover.... Unknown, ... it tends to have an effect upon the [person].... By picking up restimulations, you can knock out of action sn engram, without running it." It is as though the engram sat over in locker A, undisturbed and not troubling the person. Then one day, he passes a truck, and the engram drops out of locker A, and the person doesn't know what it is. So he becomes the effect of it. If you picked up the moment of its restimulation, it would drop back into locker A and cease to trouble the person. "It is upon this fact that the whole subject of releasing depends." The erasure that occurs is the erasure of these points of restimulation. DESTIMULATION "'Destimulate' means to take away the restimulation. [It] does not mean the erasure of the original incident." It is the knocking out of the point of restimulation. GENETIC ENTITY Cytology, the study of cells, conceives of an endless stream of protoplasm passing through time, with branch tracks that are bodies. Your current body is supposed to have originated from a sea of ammonia. By the process of reproduction, it is supposed to have dome down to PT. If that were the case, then somewhere along the line, a blueprint for a body would have had to enter the line. In the days of dianetics, a good way to account for past lives was to say that they were incidents on the GE line. [Cf. A History of Man.] The Darwinian theory is an explanation of this unending stream of protoplasm. We find that this theory doesn't actually hold good. Man is a spiritual being. You should be able to find the blueprint in the body. We used to think that it showed up on the E-meter. Actually it doesn't. Only you do. FIRST OVERT This "would be the first ... on a chain of overts." If a guy has an impulse to commit a given overt, you could trace back down the chain to the first one, and, theoretically, he would blow the impulse. [Cf. expanded dianetics.] But "you should not try to process a specific type of aberration.... It's quite fatal, ... because, in the first place, it's an eval for the case." Also, it is a condemnatory, negative-type process. It doesn't validate the person at all. You don't validate the person by finding his nasty habits and trying to process them." The percentiles of successes when specific aberrations are ... addressed ... is too low. [This procedure is-] not successful, because [you are not validating] what's right with the person.... You don't have to find out what's wrong with a person ... to make him right." You just get the guy to be able to communicate. Then you get him to look at his problems, and you find out that he has been resolving them by committing overts. You get him over doing this. Then you find that he is very ARC broken with life, and you get him over that. Then he gets to where he discovers that he has a great "solution" to everything, "and every time he has a bad break, he goes and lies down and is a horse, or something." But we are not interested in his solutions, and "we're not treating him for that reason.... All of these things are simply increasing the abilities of a spirit, not 'healing' what's wrong with it." 800 ENTRANCE POINT TO THIS UNIVERSE Classified information. Many times on the time track, one has been told that he just entered this universe. It is a big swindle. OT ACTIVITIES "Those programs conducted by OT's to assist scientology." ANCHOR POINTS (Gold Balls) A body is constructed in a space framework. You can see these things. At least, some people can. When a person has dark hollows under his eyes, it is all the little gold balls grouped together under the eyes that have caved in and gone black. If you could shift the gold ball framework of the body, you could probably bend joints backwards, etc. Every once in awhile, somebody's face is out of shape, or something, and you get him to pick up the gold ball and put it back where it belongs, or something. Or you get him to put a bunch of balls out there to remedy his havingness of that particular ball. This is anchor point processing, from 'way back when. All of a sudden, instead of lying against his face, the gold ball goes back where it belongs, and the PC reasserts his sense of balance. His face will actually change shape. This has to do with the structure of bodies and what the space is, in which the body is formed. It is apparently one of the ways in which bodies are mocked up. "I wouldn't look for them, if I were you. It's rather fraught with disaster, in some cases." Gold balls are used in mocking up the body in space. FIRST AND SECOND POSTULATE If you find the first postulate that was made, relating to a certain situation, you can ignore the second postulate. About 1952, LRH tried to make an end-all of this. He looked for the first postulate that one ever made, on the track. [See pp. 14-15, above, on the first and second postulates.] We now find that "it's not necessary to have that." ENERGY "A potential of motion or power." The modern physics definition is that energy is small waves flowing. It is a force or a flow, or a potential force or flow from something to something, or ability to accomplish work, or to accomplish movement. A rather doubtful idea that we are taught to believe is that if something moves from point A to point B: 1. You need energy. 2. You develop energy. If you [really] know about the system of energy, you won't need huge amounts of energy to move particles. If a person really understands something, he can do remarkable things with it. Modern physics hasn't done that well with rocketry. It is not very efficient. So energy is potential or actual motion or force. FLOW Progress of particles, impulses, or waves from point A to point B, or in any direction. There is a direction to it, which rather outlaws the idea of a dispersal. A dispersal is not a flow. A flow has the connotation of being somewhat directional. If something flowing off a mountain is getting wider and wider, it can cease to be a flow and become a flood. Energy is a flow of particles, waves, etc., in some direction. A flow is a limited and directional progress of particles through space. THOUGHT Not to be confused with life and the spirit. A thought is a "spaceless, positionless product of a thetan, containing meaning." The Greeks confused it with life. The original mistake is in the word, "theta". For the Greeks, "theta" meant life or thought. Thought is not life and it is not a spirit. LAMBDA Life, in the dianetic axioms [Dianetic Axiom 11]. It is an unused symbol, today. 801 NOTHING This "implies that the thing is, but is being 'not-ed'. You couldn't not-is something that wasn't, in the first place.... It's an assertion against fact." COUNTER-EMOTION "The emotion which greets the emotion." It is point A exerting an emotion against point B. Emotion is normally something that has flow, wavelength, and meaning mixed up with it. "Any emotion could counter any emotion." So counter-emotion means any emotion that is countering an existing emotion. When you take apart the emotion in a bank, you can pick out the emotion and counter-emotion. A counter-emotion is the emotion that is used to meet a situation and which does meet it. Counter-emotion is an interesting study. It is related to politics and control of humans. For instance, the counter-emotion to Hitler's rage, in Germany, was enthusiasm. The advertising field is also very interested in counter-emotion. The advertising exec comes up against it, because he tries to counter want with an emotion. But want isn't an emotion, so there is no counter-emotion. [So you have to know what emotion could create a desire for the product and counter that.] MEMORY AND RECALL There is "no difference between these two terms that's significant to the auditor.... Recall, however, implies that you bring it up to present and look at it. It has that connotation, whereas "memory" has the connotation that you simply knew it had happened. [So the two terms have] two different connotations." But they are very easily interchanged, because a person doesn't have to bring things up to PT when he is clear. He doesn't do this any longer. There are a lot of things that he doesn't bring up to PT to recall them. He can recall them in detail and tell you exactly where they are, without having them brought up into the present to review. To that extent, the modern clear is far in advance of the Book One definition of clear. "The reason one can't recall is totally contained in the fact that his memory is totally surrounded by mass which prevents him from recalling." If you got rid of all the mass of the mind, you wouldn't have anything to recall. Correct? Actually, it doesn't work that way at all. When you get the mass off, recall is easy. It is undue duress in the incident that prevents recall. So the individual gets a picture of the incident to read it, because he can't enter the incident where it is. The mental energy you used in bailing out of a lions' cage would prevent you from remembering that you had been in the lions' cage. Therefore, "amnesia" is the situation where a person is "protecting himself" from so many dangers on the track that the mass prevents penetration, because the part of the track for which he has amnesia is so heavily charged. CONFIDENCE "An expression of trust." Degree of trust. Inflation is an expression of no confidence in the government. Money is a symbolized idea that goes bad when confidence in the issuer drops. That is why they put pictures of kings and presidents, etc., on money. They try to associate [money and its issuer]. Trust (and distrust) is composed of past experience. "Total trust is looked on as total idiocy, but it is the only condition under which you can exist." We didn't arrive through suspicion! CERTAINTY "The degree of willingness to accept the awareness of an isness." It is a very conditional thing, since, in the first place, it is questionable whether any mass has mass. A scientologist does not start out from, "Where did the wall come from?", but just from, "Is the wall there?" And if it is there, the scientologist can have certainty on it. It is possible to generate uncertainty by asking, "What is?" Brainwashing is the trick of mixing up 802 certainties. To unconfuse someone, it is only necessary to have him regain some certainties. A person ARC breaks if his certainties get shifted. An education can be made hypnotic by qualifying everything, so that it becomes a sort of generality, and definitely an uncertainty. GENERALITY "Any unspecific statement ... tends towards a generality. It's the substitution of a plural for a singular, or ... a greater for a lesser." This may or may not be intentional. Dispersed people talk in generalities. Classifying anything comes under this heading. For instance, it is not really "boys". It is "boy, boy, boy, etc." [Cf. Korzybski's General Semantics.] Classifying is necessary, but it is very dangerous. Classifications occur in the bank. "They" is always one person. You will always find out exactly who "they" is, on a meter. The generality is the primary tool of the SP. It is used to prevent reach, as in "Everything is all covered with germs, Johnny!" SUPPRESS To squash. To sit on. To make smaller. To refuse to let reach. To make uncertain about his reaching. To render (liquefy by heating) or lessen in any way possible, by any means possible, to the harm of the person and the fancied protection of the suppressor. The SP often expresses generalities to the suppressed person, thus surrounding him with generalities. The invention of "germs" was a bit suppressive. The suppressive uses tricks and mechanisms to prevent reach. POSTULATE To generate or think a concept. A concept is a think, a thought. To postulate implies a requirement that something goes, stops, turns white, goes blue, or remains blue. Or that it is something, or that it isn't something. Or that some action is going to take place, etc. A postulate implies conditions and actions, rather than just plain thinks. A postulate is associated more with intention than it is with a thought. It has a dynamic connotation. HAVINGNESS The feeling that one owns or possesses. It is possible to wear a coat without having a coat. Mere possession does not make havingness. CONFRONTING "Ability to front up to." "Confronting" is derived from "with-fronting". So there is a dim connotation that if you confront the door, the door is confronting you. Co-action is implied, but this does not actually exist, in our meaning of the word. Confront is the ability of the individual "to face up [to], look at, stand up to, stand in front of, be near, see, visualize, or otherwise perceive, something." By extension, if you can't confront something, you can't handle it. Thetans have been steam-rolled by confronting. Total confronting is not the total answer. There are times to stand up and glare, and there are times not to. When a person can selectively confront or not confront anything, then, of course, he has total power. These do go together. When a thetan doesn't want to confront something, he tends to mask it, to turn away from it, and it tends to make him an effect. If he can't make an effect on it, it can make an effect on him. However, in fact, to stand in front of an automobile going 60 MPH and to let it run over you, just to demonstrate that you are not afraid of confronting it is assininity. If you ask a person whether he can confront an automobile going 60 MPH and he comm lags, you know that he is down into an obsessive confront and feels that there is some sense in your asking him to do it. He has the idea that there is something wrong with him if he won't go and do this. Willful and knowing 803 confronting or willingness to conceive the idea of or to confront or not to confront -- these concepts are all contained in the single idea of confronting. If you felt that you had to be able to stand up to anything, that would be "to confess that you couldn't stop anything from occurring." I'm willing to confront putting my arm out to an automobile traveling 60 MPH and having it stop. To that extent, I am willing to confront. This is not conditional confronting. "What are the conditions under which you would be willing to confront this?" is not a fair question. No one wants to lead a life of ruin, though some have made it into a virtue [e.g. the Stoics]. It is a philosophical booby trap. They persuade people that they should be willing to live a life as dope-addicts, bums, and in total ruin, in order to demonstrate that they can confront this kind of life. That is suppression. It has precious little to do with sanity. But it is a terrific process, in that the individual will come up to finding out what he is obsessively confronting, as well as what he is willing to confront and what he doesn't have to confront. One thing he might find out is that he doesn't have to go on confronting forever. In fact, he is quite tired of standing there. [So a desire to have a challenge concerning existence only relates to being willing to engage in a larger game.] As the power to confront or not arises selectively, an individual's self-determinism arises accordingly. Very often, a thetan who never likes to be moving explains the fact that he got run over by X, by saying that he was perfectly willing to confront it. He is happy that he got run over by X, because now he has had such an experience. He says, "Well, it was a good experience, but I never want to do it again." When a person can control things, he can selectively confront. When he loses that ability, he says, "Well, at least I can confront it." The thought that you can't do anything about anything is very humanoid and deadly. There is suppression at work, if a person gets the idea that because he has the ability to confront anything, he must therefore confront everything. This is an invalidation of his ability to control and change undesirable aspects of the environment. This is SP talk. It is very different from being willing to confront anything. It is only when you lose the ability to handle a situation that you justify your inability by the thought that you can confront the disaster that thereby ensues. "We've run out of time. I leave you confronting your sins. Thank you."  L. Ron Hubbard