By Lana M
I was in the Sea Org for 17 years, leaving in 2005. In that time, the technology of Group Dianetics was not applied — and instead I observed that group engrams were run in, not out.
As a third dynamic technology, we have the capacity to repair a group, when it has run into an emergency situation and had to take urgent actions.
When catastrophes occur, when unexpected disasters happen, when people are removed from post, when heads roll, when policy is implemented in a crisis — the group must later go back and review (thoroughly and carefully), what occurred and sort out what was correct, and what was needs to be remedied.
Why the heck is this not done?
How is it that the group, as a group, has not insisted that basic technology is applied to keep it running right — or it is assumed that that is already being done by others, “at the top”?
I for one, always assumed that others were handling it. Boy did I have that wrong!
I know of many major “incidents” (engrams) at International Management between the 90’s and 2005 that have to be sorted out at some stage. One of these was the IAS event of 1994. Another was the Golden Age of Tech (in 1995) and the New Era of Management (in 1996) and then Golden Age of Tech for OTs (in 1997). And of course there was the removal of all of International Management and the implementation of “The Hole” in 1998/9.
I am sure there have been more since then — particularly with the Ideal Org program being rammed down everyones throats.
And before that, in the early 80’s, there were some significant engrams that were never revisited, yet policy from that time period has become all that most staff members have known. There was the Guardian Office criminal activities (and the jailing of MSH). There was the Mission Holders Conference. There was more.
Just a few of the policies implemented as a result of group emergencies include:
- Sea Org members who have children must be sent to a “small and failing org”;
- Freeloader debts were changed from a set small sum to a calculating every course and auditing they receive and then handing them a bill totally tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on departing staff;
- Mission Holder ‘packages” were implemented that come at vast cost and with a bunch of arbitraries that have killed the Mission Network;
I am firmly of the view that resolving the current situation with this off-the-rails Corporate Scientology church, must include, at some point, going back to every one of the engrams and sorting them out, with an honest review and with no vested interest or fixed ideas.
It means locating arbitraries, locating the consequently implemented policy that was based on a Wrong Why – and getting these cancelled.
How do we do that, when the vast majority of people who were involved in past incidents are no longer within the group (either deceased, ex-Scientologist, off-lines, or simply disappeared)?
There has been no Evaluator Corps on post since the late 90’s — so all Why’s found since that time, are from Miscavige directly, who has been part and parcel of every group engram since the mid 70’s at least.
At least since 1988, all significant Int levels evaluations were ordered/approved/modified by the same individual.
The point of this article is not to go on about Miscavige– but more to look at the fact that we, as a group and community, must have resolve to:
a) As possible, dig in and sort out engrams for the group, from the past, and
b) Make sure that future engrams in our own community are taken up and fully reviewed for consequent arbitraries and wrong policy.
And we need to do this in a way that the information is recorded and made public, for all now and into the future, to be able to review. Us communicating about specific incidents and then having that information buried in the archives of a blog is not going to suffice. We need to get smart about how we can do this, and make the information constantly available.
Maybe this is where the Scientology history project comes in?
“The toughness and resilience of the ideals, ethic and rationale of a group – that is to say, the group itself – is enormous and should not be underestimated in any degree.
“Any group can embark on the most arduous enterprises which would seem fraught with all possibilities of creating moments of pain; but so long as it is understood that whenever an emergency status occurs and a selected member of the group issues arbitrary orders to take care of emergency situations, and that this issuance of orders must be scouted down in an effort to find the engram and the engram run, the group can then under no circumstances suffer any enduring harm save only whatever harm may have been done in the actual conflict itself, and this harm would not be to ideals and ethics but would be to individuals and MEST in the group.” Dianetics Auditor Bulletin Volume 1, Number 7, 7 January 1951 GROUP DIANETICS