There appears to me to be a lack of differentiation made, either by lack of data, or possibly false data or in some cases, a purposeful obfuscation and clouding of issues, on the true nature of Policy as expressed in Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letters.
For whatever reason the confusions exist or are spread, the actual stable data relative to Policy itself, are expressed and are the stable data. Of course, ANY stable data (and as described in Policy itself, based squarely on Axiom 54 of the Scientology Axioms) are subject to review. If they aren’t then they have the possibility of becoming an idée fixe preventing a present time view of things and a sane response to things viewed.
All manner of “stimulus-response” can occur when robotic actions, “automaticities” are the order of the day. Idiotic interpretations or applications can make a dog’s breakfast of things. I’ve seen it personally, and witnessed the idiocies and idiots, that sitting atop a pyramid of “power” would order and execute some of the stupidest things one could imagine, all the while claiming to be acting as high-priests of knowledge on what Hubbard really meant or wanted, since they were privy to his “advices”, and had that hidden data line. Or worse, they just plain couldn’t see the failures in their wake, or the destruction in their path, deaf, dumb and blind by their own lies and dishonesties.
I’m reminded of Data Series 11, THE SITUATION, and paraphrasing it, that it can be rough when some people with lots of authority, whether by position or popularity, get mired into situations, don’t seem to be able to accurately label, isolate or correctly identify or target and bat madly at unimportant dust motes and/or each other, and just mire in more deeply.
This can be so far a departure from rationality that those with fixed ideas and madness can defy the most accurate solutions. But THAT is just part of the situation, isn’t it.
LRH actually says in one of the basic policies on communications and policy:
16. Differentiate amongst purposes, subpurposes, senior policy, routine policy, directives, momentary orders and advice. All policy does not have equal value. Policy can’t exist down to the details of getting it into effect. That requires orders and advice. The policy of “Get the job done!” is very senior to a policy relating to the expenditure of ballpoints. A martinet is only one who insists on following policy down to idiot level, using policy for how to shine shoes or bite fingernails.
Further, he says:
25…Almost all current trouble is occurring because of departures from policy yesterday or from causes never before experienced by the group. Policy is group experience. Followed, the group advances. Abandoned, the group falls away. Only Scientologists dare become fiends about following policy for only Scientologists know enough to erase it when it no longer applies. But drop a policy as if one were letting go the only piece of wood in the ocean-once gone there may be no rescue to hand. To demand that unimportant “policy” be followed slavishly or to use it to balk org purposes is another way of dying. For it makes people fight major policy and fighting that they have disasters.
LRH sums it up beautifully here:
“ A group is only a collection of different people without policy to agree upon. For policies are the points of agreement which make the group into a True Group and an irresistible force. Using policy intelligently is the only way a group can ever advance. No policy at all or noncompliance with major policy is the basis of every upset that will be reported to you whether the fact is stated or not. Purposes and major policy are very safe roads. Leaving them leads to too many quicksand pits for anyone to be mild about departures from policy.”
All quotes excerpted from HCO PL 13 March 1965, Issue II, THE COMM-MEMBER SYSTEM, Comm Policies Section.