Some years ago, when I was on the Life Orientation Course, I had to work out my hat in life. I puzzled over it for some time, as the hats that were being pushed off on Sea Org members at that time (and probably still to this day) were choosing between the hat of “Sea Org member” or the post they are on.
I went against the grain and worked out my own hat. It was “to bring people to a point of cause so they can help themselves and help others”. Probably more of a purpose than a hat – but for me it was succinct and made sense. It gave me something that fit, no matter what “post” I was on, and it has become even more appropriate since leaving the Sea Org and Corporate Scientology. My own intention has always been not so much about enhancing my own case status and training – but to be able to provide assistance to others.
That is why the below is one of my favourite LRH lectures. Reading it again it again made me smile — so I include a portion of it here for all to use and enjoy:
“Let’s embark upon a simple therapy. This is a therapy at Scientology Zero. Don’t read the newspapers for two weeks and see if you don’t feel better. Of course, he doesn’t read the newspapers for two weeks, of course, he’ll feel better. He’ll say, fine. Now read it for a week, and you’ll feel — find you’ll feel — at the end of that week, why, you’ll find you feel worse. And after that time make up your mind whether or not you ought to pay any attention to the newspapers.
“You could actually tell him … And here, by the way, you have the little junior cousin or the little gene that grows into all of the Havingness Processes later when properly placed in this position, see. Just tell him to look around the environment and find something that isn’t a threat to him. If he ever gets too upset or confused, why, just start looking around his environment and find something that isn’t being a threat to him. That’s a magic process, by the way, and that is very smoothly worded. That is far, far more sophisticated in upper-level Scientology than it looks.
“You could actually find what sort of a threat he was experiencing at Level Two, and run that as a Havingness Process on a negative. See, he’s very worried that things are going to fall on him. So you could dream it up on the basis of „Well, look around here and find something that isn’t going to fall on you,“ you see. And he would eventually, gradually, with great comm lag, find one thing someplace. And you must make him find the one thing, you see, that isn’t going to fall on him. He feels much better. And he even has a lesser gain than that. He realizes, if he-if he just ran it to cognition, that he has thought that everything was going to fall on him. That’s the cognition. He’s already told you this, see. But he now knows it by inspecting the environment.
“ This — under the heading of this, in processing, is old “Take a walk.“ You feel bad, go take a walk, and look at things as you walk. Well, of course, this is a forward progress into the environment. And the reason that works, I can tell you now, is the person finds out that the environment is not threatening. This is a whole positive education on the negative threat. You understand what I mean? Positive education. Because he goes around and looks and see if something is doing this to him. And of course if he finds out, it’s a negative threat.
“This fellow is all in a sweat on the subject of the Chinese situation. Well, of course, you could ARC break somebody and chop him up with this thing too, by just negating and not-ising the whole situation. You could say to him, “Well, what threat have the Chinese ever been to you anyhow, that you’re so worried about?“ Now, he has to protest and justify his own thinking. He has to get himself all tangled up trying to prove he’s right and you’re wrong. So of course, that has no workability at all. But this is true. But this you could do.
“Now, in an upper-level process you’d run a repetitive process-something like “Well, what event have you heard about that hasn’t affected you much?“ You could run that as a repetitive process and you’d get big gain.
“But your effort at Scientology Zero is somehow or other to get the individual to inspect the environment and find out that there is some slight greater security in it. That’s all. That doesn’t sound like much, but then I’m just dumping it on your head-a complete wagonload of work on the subject of Scientology Zero. I can give you the principles which I have just given you, and those principles are very short and sweet. And out of those principles you have to work with any individual as he walks up, because he’s got a different environment than every other individual that walks up. So you-can’t tell you too many processes to run with this individual. You see what I mean? I mean, he’s going to come up and he’s going to tell you he’s worried about different things. I can only give you the principles by which you could get him to not worry about them quite so much. But it has nothing to do with talking to him, it isn’t up to itsa at all. It all runs on the single auditing command, “Look. Don’t worry.“ “Look and find out if the environment is as threatening as it appears to be.“ This is your single auditing approach to the thing.
“Individual is very worried. He’s sitting at his desk and so on. Papers are piling in. Everything seems to be going up in a high uproar, and he just feels completely overwhelmed. Well, he himself ought to be able to look at the papers on his desk. They’re the source of the threat, aren’t they’? And find something about them that isn’t a threat. The threat, of course, will balance out in the discovery. That would be an action. That’s a sort of “Take a walk while sitting at the desk,“ see?
“Person feels like everybody is hostile in the environment to them. Just say, “Well, now, you find-find something people say or do around here that isn’t hostile to you.“ All on the gradient, you see. “Find-is there one person in the organization who isn’t actively hostile to you? Is there anything said today that wasn’t directly and immediately hostile to you?“ This could also be played in the direction of exaggeration. But you get into mental things and so forth. You get into mental responses when you go in this direction and move up in levels. So you know what I mean by that; you can get the exaggeration of it: Get the idea of a Chinese in every corner shooting at you with tong hatchets, you know? You can do all kinds of wild things and an auditor extrapolating and auditing somebody and so forth, would undoubtedly go hog wild with it. Perfectly all right. Let him go do so.
“I was running a process the other day-just on this basis; just on readying up this material for Scientology Zero-and it was on the basis of “Look around here and find something that isn’t trying to exteriorize you.“ Pc didn’t find anything. But had the cognition that she thought things were. And was very happy about that. Did find two answers, both the same answer. “Me. I’m not trying to exteriorize me.“ You see this? Almost any inspection that you give it is a valuable inspection-almost any inspection.
“For instance, one of you, right now, sitting still or minding your own business or all by yourself, could just think over, carefully … It’s a very bad thing to get into “What things in the environment do threaten me?“ Now, I’m not-ha-ha!-I don’t advise you to go off in that particular line, you see? But sit down and figure out if there’s anything that isn’t a threat to you. A fellow who has a PTP or something like that usually can’t get his mind disentangled from it very far. But “Is there anything around that isn’t pushing this PTP at me?“-that’s an interesting question. Sometimes takes you a few minutes to get the thing answered.
“The guy who has just lost his girl-he just lost his girl, and he feels the horrible sadness and loss, and so forth, it imparts to everything. Actually, everything in the environment will talk to him about this girl. You possibly have had similar experience here. Somebody just-you think of somebody’s name and so on, you can remember a time when there was a moment or a few moments or a period of time in which it was impossible for you to look around and not be reminded of this person. Just uhhnn! That was a personless environment. When one’s concentration has been very, very heavy on an individual or a person, it is sometimes almost heroically difficult to not associate everything with that person.
“Well, the trick is to find something, of course, that isn’t reminding you of that person. You might have to search a long way. This is how to recover from a love affair. This is a little bonus. Could have used it myself a few times in the last few trillennia. But the situation is in actual fact a simple one. The individual has identified everything in the environment with his unrest. Everything in the environment has become identified with the threatening things in the environment. And the individual can’t pull his attention off of these things. But by indicating things in the environment, even quite simply, and by directing anybody’s attention to things which are not so connected, making the individual find things which are not actively reminding one, you get a differentiation going where an identification existed before. And where differentiation exists, intelligence and judgment can return. Intelligence and judgment cannot exist in the face of an identification, but can exist in the face of a differentiation. So this opens the door pretty wide.
“Now, the funny part of this is that an individual, oddly enough, usually finds data more workable, that he can work on others, than data which is being worked on him, unless he also has the opportunity to work it upon others. You’ll find this as a truth when teaching PE Courses or even small groups of people or even an individual; that if you give him something he can use to help others … It’s an interesting commentary on the actual character of man. Man is basically good: If you can give him things which will help him help others, he’ll be far more interested than if you’re simply giving him things which help him.
“And therefore, in PEs and that sort of thing, and in teaching the individual or in any booklets laying out this material and so forth, your supplementary advice in the matter should always go on the basis of “Who are you trying to help?“ “Who are you trying to help find that their environment is not as dangerous as they think it is?“ This is so true that many of the questions you get in a PE are from an individual-are the hypothetical question which is in reverse to the doctor’s question. The doctor’s patients are always asking them for a friend. “A friend has this trouble and what would be your advice that I could give my friend?“ when it’s the person himself that has this trouble, you see. The medico’s always running into this that way.
“Well, a Scientologist always runs into it-not being in the same profession and a more honest one, which is quite different, quite different. And in actual fact the individual will ask for himself because he wants it to help somebody else.”
LRH Lecture: SHSCB360, 10 December 1963 Scientology Zero