By Bernie Wimbush
We read in the paper of some old veteran being attacked in his or her own home and robbed of a few cents by a bunch of teenagers, and it’s so easy to call for a good flogging, bring back the cane and that today’s youth are all bad. Wasn’t it Socrates who made the derogatory comments about ‘today’s’ youth a couple of thousand years ago? And so nothing has changed.
In the early history of Australia we were a convict colony. Good old mother England didn’t know what to do with all the naughty girls and boys (and adults) so sent them to Australia. Studies were done of these poor wretches and it was discovered that no amount of floggings, solitary confinements or hard labour made one iota of difference. What was discovered was that if a convict was taught a trade from which he could earn a living he or she didn’t offend again.
Reminds me of a process whereby the handling of a continuous overt was to find the problem the being was trying to solve and fix that.
When we are trying to survive we are going to run into situations we don’t know how to solve and sometimes we get it wrong. Isn’t the definition of an overt related to non-optimum solutions across the dynamics — and isn’t this subject about mistakes rather than bad people?
In British law there was a principle of “The rule of Thumb.” This allowed a husband to beat his wife providing the stick was no thicker than his thumb (I really can’t see that working with my wife) — and this was not deemed to be an overt back then. Can’t see that this basic principle is going to improve a situation any. Perhaps if there had been more emphasis on communication?
I have heard much about how in the current world of Scientology you walk a fine line of being good, or being bad. Particularly if you are a staff member or Sea Org member. You do your best to do what is right, to get out your products, to do what is wanted, but for whatever reason, things don’t go well and you are in trouble. And then it seems that there are endless levels of punishment for someone who not complied, or done something determined to be wrong. Public are put under a Non-Enturbulation order. Staff have been exported across the world (separated from family and friends), never to be posted as an executive, never to be on technical lines (ie train as an auditor), never to be permitted onto the OT levels, placed in “the Hole” for years at the Int base, and/or declared a Suppressive Person and excommunicated.
In auditing we find an overt and handle it. That is the end of it. The PC will forget about it in a few days if not immediately, will he not? And once it is gone — why does it still have significance to any other person?
I have heard of PCs being sent to Ethics for correction after an overt has been handled in session. Why would you do that if the overt has already been handled and as-is’ed? And even if there was a physical universe handling to follow up on the overt found — why would then also be accompanied with lower conditions, justice actions and other limitations or restrictions placed on the person?
And then you have the principle of the Service Facsimile – and if you tell someone they are wrong they will justify their actions and insist on their rightness, and then do it again.
Isn’t the truth that crime and overts result from illogical ideas in the mind, held in place by mental charge? And isn’t auditing what fixes that?
As LRH states — “who would punish when he could salvage?”