individual ethics

By Nickname

Many would argue that what has happened with Corporate Scientology in the last 30 years, was the failure of Scientologists to grasp the meaning of life, as it were. The reasons for this are most probably in the failure to understand Scientology a) as a religion, and b) as a science.

It is a science with axioms, data, and methodologies by which an individual may raise their awareness and increase their potential to find truth, or the Creator, or Cause, or God – and establish true meaning in his life as an eternal, spiritual, being.

Scientology is at once a science, and it is at once the most pure religion ever in that it does not interpose itself at all between the individual and his beliefs in God, and in his own self. Scientology establishes a pathway along which, by travelling it, of his own volition, the individual may find his own values and beliefs.

It is not hard to have a sense of the Mystical Oneness and the integration of all. LRH’s great genius was in differentiation, of identifying the parts, labelling them, and reassembling them into tangible coherence. He opened Pandora’s Box, inspected all the plagues, evils, horrors, treacheries, and foibles of Man, then reassembled all the parts into a huge puzzle, rightly named it a church, and left it behind for us to figure out. He even figured out a way to charge money for it.

Scientology as a science has no ethics. It is completely inert, as regards ethics. It prescribes exactly nothing. It does not even attempt to define “the good,” or to draw distinctions between beauty and ugliness. Hubbard did an exact and masterful job in specifying precisely the parameters of the science as a science. There is no ethical leadership in the science at all.

Scientology as a religion does not moralize, and does not “ethicize.” It does not prescribe worship, nor call upon belief. But it does contain an extremely robust methodology by which an individual may develop his own morals, and beyond that, his own ethics.

Ethics is a category higher than morals, as morals are merely agreed upon and vary widely across cultures, while ethics take a deeper and more permanent form.

Ethics bridges directly into religion if ever there was one, and is the direct accord of the individual with God, and consequently with himself. In opening that door of potential for the individual, Scientology is the purest religion ever to walk. Indeed, it is immaculate.

So … one has a science by definition utterly vacant of any ethics, and a religion which studiously prescribes no ethics.

But people want to be led!

Man wants a direction given, wants the company and comfort of agreement!

All but the First and Eighth Dynamics scream agreement! Leadership, control! There is something about life that compels others. Within the context of Scientology, which seeks to help the individual establish his own self-determinism, the wish to be led, to be given direction, to be given orders, and to have the comforts of agreements, is counter-purpose to Scientology!

Hubbard was no dummy, and capitalized on this counter-purpose wish to have a ring in one’s nose and be a member of “The Club.” (Some may insert “The Sea Org” there.) He wished to accomplish the goal of making Scientology as widely available as possible to individuals, and so prescribed “the growth of the organization.” This was one very, very smart cookie, Hubbard, and he was possessed of a truly remarkable sense of humor.

People have mistaken this “growth of the organization” for their own personal definition of “the good.” The catch phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics” became the “ethics” of the organization.

But the phrase “the greatest good” begs the question. It comes from Jeremy Bentham, a convenient English philosopher of whom you may not have heard great mention. That phrase “the greatest good” does not define “the good.” The phrase “the greatest good for the greatest number of Dynamics” does not define “the good” as anything other than “more people aware of Scientology and the growth of the organization.” Those are the “ethics” of the organization, but not the ethics of any individual.

In fact no organization has ethics.

This is a difficult point to get across.

The Nazi “war machine” was a beautiful organization. They damn near beat the Allies. But the Allies mounted a dedicated war effort and constructed a more formidable organization of their own. The differences between the two organizations may be studied in the abstract, but the differences between who won, and who lost, can only be resolved in the ethics of the individual soldiers, and in those of the men and women who supported them. In stark terms, it is that “only the individual exists” to either populate an organization, or a science, or a religion, or a society; and only an individual is capable of this quality we call “ethics”.

To accept that, one must see through the desire to be led, and the palliative comfort of agreements. Without an individual, first, there can be no agreement of any kind, and it is the individual’s own ethics which determine what he will and will not agree to.

10 thoughts on “Individual ethics

  1. Awesome post indeed, Nickname, and I feel most privileged to have read it. Also, great distinctions drawn around the often confusing topic of ethics. If I may just add, that the first ( 1 – 10 ) AXIOMS of Scientology, permit the actual duplication and thus the understanding, of the role of “ethics”, when playing among the extended “viewpoints,”( via “dimension points,) in the game/s we have agreed to play, called — “life.”

  2. Thank you. If I understand your comment, you expressed what seems to be a prevailing view amongst Scientologists, that the first ten axioms of Scientology somehow give some structure to ethics? I think that prevailing view may have led to the Co$ we have today, an organization of individuals which exactly mirrors the science in having absolutely no ethics whatsoever, by definition. I can see how one’s ethics affect everything one does, but I don’t see at all how the first ten axioms are instructive in defining ethics (??).

    Maybe people see axiom of Scn 10 “The highest purpose in this universe is the creation of an effect,” are impressed with “the highest purpose” and see the nice, round, number “10” and take it as a “sign” or something. There are 58 axioms of Scn, 194 axioms of Dianetics.

    Nuclear physics creates many effects, but does the science itself define its ethics? A suppressive personality creates many effects, but how is that ethics? I.e. you have means to create effects, the question is, what effects do you wish to create?

    You can establish a wonderfully functional organization to accomplish an effect which is destructive. You can make an error, and not achieve the desired result. The idea of an admin scale is to coordinate things. Admin scales all fit together, and themselves coordinate as Programs, Projects, and Orders (those are admin scales themselves). The high end or senior admin scale is what establishes ethics. Just to “create an effect” is an axiom of the science, the methodology, the logic of cause and effect in the abstract. Maybe someone could say that I wreck what I may have had to say by adding a humorous twist at the end of it which detracts from the principle thought, but I also have a point that life is, when done right, fun, and there is in fact a right and a wrong, and the right turns out to be ethically fun and coordinates with everything like poetry in motion. The right and wrong is not limited just to the logic of how to accomplish something one sets out to do. Scn nails the logic, the science, exactly. The senior admin scale, the direction, the ethics, is up to the individual to realize, and believe me, there is a right and a wrong there, too.

    Fusion is a wonderful source of energy, a spectacular effect, with a lot of science involved, but do you want it on your dinner plate?

  3. I believe Ron actually did define “good” as “that which increases survival”.
    The evaluation of and decisions about what is the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” is a very individual thing which depends upon what is part of an individual’s personal dynamics, as well as their own observations about what is surviving and what is not.

  4. Espiritu –

    “That which increases survival” begs the question, “What is survival?” How is one to define that?

    I apologize if I sound like I’m preaching, but I’m excited about ethics. I know it goes far and has great rewards. I’m trying to communicate that, and I think some people are skeptical about “e-t-h-i-c-s.”.

    The greatest good is subject to individual interpretation, but only to a certain extent. For so very many different individuals, there are very many common aspects to it. Aristotle approached the definition of “the good” in Nicomachean Ethics, and pointed toward “happiness”. It is not just happenstance that LRH cited Aristotle as one of the great thinkers who contributed his wisdom to the body of data in Scientology. Nor, I think, is it just a Freudian slip that “Happiness Rundown” and “The Way to Happiness” and “perhaps happiness” appear in Scientology.

    But “happiness” is still vague. We know the experience we have had which we call happiness, but do we know the limits? Do we know the happiness another defines for themselves? Have we experienced that, to compare with our own? What produces happiness? Scn does have a definition there (tech dictionary) and not surprisingly, it is in terms of goals (accomplishment, or production)..

    Ethics is about production. Production is defined with an admin scale. That’s one way. An org board may also be used for greater precision. Aristotle also talked all about production, and specified various levels of both production and of satisfaction. The higher levels of both involve knowledge, philosophy, insight – and one would hope, teaching, because Aristotle actively taught. He had an academy full of avid students.

    IMO it is a disservice to speak of Aristotle’s conclusions. Reading Aristotle and following his logic is as valuable an education as his conclusions are, if not more so. The first paragraph of Book One of Nicomachean Ethics is all about production in the world. LRH came along and defined an admin scale.

    Aristotle focused on personal production, of oneself as an individual, of building character and substance.

    What I derive is that while admin scales may vary widely from movie star to engineer to astronaut to auditor, all have elements in common, and at higher levels, all have the same goals. To answer, “What is survival?” both for oneself and across Dynamics, one must put together and integrate admin scales, right down to the one for the next words one speaks. It does all come down to an individual comm cycle. That comm cycle is our ONLY contact with another or others.

    Failing to put together and structure one’s own ethics leads to nowhere, and one can easily be led astray. For example: “The greatest good is to sacrifice your puny little insignificant first Dynamic, and your second, for the greater good of the third Dynamic, the church!” (That is NOT good ethics.)

    Good ethics, on the positive side, have no limit. Good ethics give you real strength.

    My argument isn’t with Scn or Scn tech at all. My argument is precisely supportive that the axioms of Scientology are the axioms of Scientology, a science. Those do not define good, nor the ethics of the individual. The tech is there to use to define one’s ethics, but it must be used. It makes for a much happier and more rational life.

  5. Wow Nickname, you sure have given a tremendous package of thought to my post, and certainly brought much additional data to the topic of ‘ethics.’ Clearly, you do indeed have enormous passion and excitement connected to the subject, as you expressed at length and your extensive knowledge here is unquestionable.

    If you’ll permit me, I’m going to cut to the chase here.

    As you are no doubt aware, Scn axioms 1-10 align with the formulation of The Factors. The capabilities of the thetan encompass ALL viewpoints possible in the infinite panorama of games called ‘life.’ All the dichotomies that make up the binary directions to go in: good/bad, survive/destroy, right/wrong, etc,etc

    Survive/destroy (succumb), are most often precipitated by postulates. eg. prime postulate — TO BE. followed by a counter postulate — NOT TO BE. As in “I want to BE rich” and following on from a series of transgressions, in attaining that goal, getting caught, prosecuted and put in jail, then deciding. “I didn’t want to BE rich anyway!” (Remember, this scenario was created by Axiom 1, actuating the abilities of Axiom 2,(postulates) utilizing the creations of Axiom 3 (energy)- money, (space)- my mansion, (form)- rich man, (time)-extended holidays! To Axiom 4 (space is a viewpoint of dimension) I’m on top of the financial pyramid and can see all my willing slaves supporting me from below. Now axiom 5 (energy consists of postulated particles in space) – I just click my fingers, and make thing happen! Axiom 6 (objects consist of grouped particles and solids.) – Check out my work FORCE! Axiom 7 (time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist) – Hey, I WILL own all of this someday, and nobody is going to stop me! Axiom 8. (The apparency of time is the change of particles in space.) The furrows and tell tale bad indicators starting to show on the face of our erstwhile “rich man.” Axiom 9. (change is the primary manifestation of time) Uh oh, there’s 5 police cars outside my door!
    Axiom 10. (the highest purpose in this universe is the creation of an effect) — karma! — sitting inside a jail cell!

    Ethics??? If only he’d really read and understood Axioms 1-10 🙂

    • Oh, and of course, I should have mentioned, UNdesired effects, or consequences, (karma) all source back to Axiom 1- (“cause”) and thus on to Axiom 2, (including “considerations,” which are then subject to “re”- consideration) and thus begin the genesis of “ethics” (another consideration ) as being the best promoter of “survival.” ( yet ANOTHER consideration ) —( Hmm, if I treat others the way I wish to be treated, with honesty, integrity, & consideration, perhaps this will best assist our joint survival too! ) (considerations.)
      —– essentially, all covered in Axiom 2
      —–Axioms 3-9 cover the the considerations of MEST.
      —–Axiom 10 covers the action of “cause” (Axiom 1) upon another “cause/s,” universe/s and/or MEST.

      Thus, Nickname, Axioms 1-10 work for me, especially as I see every single one of us exercising Axiom 2, without exception 🙂

  6. Thank you for explaining that, elaborating on it. I believe I understand what you’re saying now. Both The Factors and axioms of Scientology have a thetan or thetans as their subject, and there are certainly common capabilities described in each. I think in your second reply where you wrote “Axiom 1-(“cause”)” you may have meant Factor 1, but that’s OK, I get your meaning. The problem I’m trying to address is that Scientology is stunningly over most people’s heads in a big way, and there is no gradient, really, to the data in Scn 0-8. You either print it or you do not. But there is no question that this is NOT something one can simply read in the bathtub. I’ve seen guys with IQ’s over 150 dismiss it offhand, without looking at it. It misses their withholds, shakes their stable data, and they don’t want to touch it. Differential and integral calculus are much easier, but it still take some study just to get what “differential” and “integral” mean, really – it’s math. I thought one day I’d read one of Einstein’s books on the Limited Field Theory. It’s all equations. I mean, literally, this book had more equations than it had text. It was like “Xx(yz)[(xc2)(v/dpl2)-(hmv)^(358mc)] therefore we see that [(mm26*vz)[(zz24x)/v)-(v/m)]/(o)] …” etc., with radicals and summations and differential and integral signs all over the freaking place. I didn’t even try. In the meantime, Hubbard redefined the physical universe and physicists looking at wave-particle phenomena and quarks or whatever are just beginning to come around to the idea that maybe what everything is relative to is, in brief, “us.” Jim Logan knows a lot about this.

    My view of The Factors is that they describe the origins of a thetan and the dwindling spiral. A stunning account of a very long time. The axioms of Scientology, I take as the foundations of Scientology, what the science is built on, per the definition of “axiom,” and those certainly go well beyond ten. But there really is no excuse for failing to differentiate between “ethics” and “justice.” Some people want to go OT and haven’t learned to read yet. I’m trying to address the subject of ethics from a very functional, very simple view that it is the BE-DO-HAVE of life and living, and covers all one’s existing admin scales. Yes, that requires going to the basics. I mean, c’mon – Aristotle was hardly anything less than a very profound man, as well as being very sociable and successful, and he took ten books (what we might call chapters, with numbered subchapters) to discuss ethics (it’s about 200 pages). He was one guy who was capable of considering across an enormous scope.

    All I’m trying to do is knock out all these idee fixee I see in Scns, and point to the actual ethics tech. The way you manage your kitchen is a whole set of admin scales, and they all interrelate and are interdependent. The way you manage your kitchen interrelates with all other aspects (admin scales) of your life. The quality and consistency of those reflect the quality and consistency of your ethics. Scientology vastly expands the scope of ethics. That expansion requires some study (not a lot) and some auditing, and some training in auditing technology. The study of the ethics part of it has been overlooked.

    So, addressing your conclusions: talking about some of the basics of a thetan is, I think, important in covering all of the activities a thetan engages in, whether immediate (like jobs producing income) or the very basics of postulates and particles. An accurate description of functions and interactions is essential, to describe the use of those abilities. A thetan can indeed fail to accomplish what he set out to do, and those instances can be repaired, probably all along the Grade Chart, using the data of Scientology – by ethical auditors who know how to use it. A False Purpose Rundown is probably one such action, but there are others.

  7. “…the wish to be led, to be given direction, to be given orders, and to have the comforts of agreements, is counter-purpose to Scientology!”

    I’ve heard this opinion expressed over and over in the Field, and it is utterly incorrect. Any group, to function as a team, must have leaders and followers at various levels. And any leader within such a group, at any level, does the followers a disservice by failing to provide them with proper direction, orders, etc. Followers have a right to demand such things. And an obligation to follow such reasonable directions and orders. This is a matter of “control”, the “C” in KRC. There is bad control and good control. But there is nothing contrary to Scientology in good control. There isn’t even a paradox here if you try to cast this over into self-determinism, other-determinism and pan-determinism. A pan-determined being can demand and follow orders and direction. Only a being obsessively self-determined, or afflicted with a large amount case on the subject of “control” would find this difficult.

  8. What is ethics? (Read chapter one of the 2007 Intro to Scn Ethics, look it up in the tech dictionary, together with “ethical conduct.” “When one is ethical or “has his ethics in” it by his own determination and is done by himself.” (HCOB 15 Nov 72 II) Get a five star checkout.)
    Who determines the ethics for any group? On what basis? What is a Condition of Doubt? Why would that exist?

    Marx and Lenin argued very effectively, stressed leadership of the communal will, the importance of the group, the overthrow of the elites, and communism under its strong leadership and broad, widespread, majority agreement led to more deaths than WW I and WW II and Korea and Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

    What is the difference between reason and agreement? In your reply, what is “proper”? “Reasonable?” Who determines this? On what basis?

    Good control and bad control differ in form, not in direction.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s