By Jim Logan
“LOGIC 5. A DEFINITION OF TERMS IS NECESSARY TO THE ALIGNMENT, STATEMENT AND RESOLUTION OF SUPPOSITIONS, OBSERVATIONS, PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS AND THEIR COMMUNICATION.
“DEFINITION – DESCRIPTIVE DEFINITION: ONE WHICH CLASSIFIES BY CHARACTERISTICS, BY DESCRIBING EXISTING STATES OF BEING.
“DEFINITION – DIFFERENTIATIVE DEFINITION: ONE WHICH COMPARES UNLIKENESS TO EXISTING STATES OF BEING OR NOT BEING.
“DEFINITION – ASSOCIATIVE DEFINITION: ONE WHICH DECLARES LIKENESS TO EXISTING STATES OF BEING OR NOT BEING.
“DEFINITION – ACTION DEFINITION: ONE WHICH DELINEATES CAUSE AND POTENTIAL CHANGE OF STATE OF BEING BY CAUSE OF EXISTENCE, INEXISTENCE, ACTION, INACTION, PURPOSE OR LACK OF PURPOSE.” LRH
One of the key means that the subject of Scientology provides, to enable a person to understand and handle their Dynamics, their life and the situations and scenes they face daily, is the definition of things. These definitions are done according to the above points of logic and rational thought. So-called “labels” have a value in assisting a person to not only add clarity to circumstances, but provide also a method of dealing with those circumstances. In other words, it isn’t a mere “classification”, not mere predjudicial “judgmentalism”, or the calling out and assigning to the status of “x”, but a means to resolution. An “Action Definition”.
A cogent example of this idea of not only defining some state of existence, but providing with that, a means of solving it to a more survival oriented state, is the definition of “psychosis” from CS Series 22.
This Action Definition was arrived at, finally, in 1970 but has a long record of research into the one paragraph that encapsulates the area, saying so much in that one clear statement.
Here’s the definition: “INSANITY IS THE OVERT OR COVERT BUT ALWAYS COMPLEX AND CONTINUOUS DETERMINATION TO HARM OR DESTROY.” LRH
This definition is further stated in the rest of the issue, CS Series 22, and alludes to a body of work, arising from the very beginnings of the subject and carrying on through to means and methods of dealing with the topic all the way up through to the highest levels of techniques.
Professional Auditor’s Bulletin 13 On Human Behavior gave a list of characteristics, descriptives of conduct of some being who is wrapped up in an evil purpose that has become generalized. That being is dramatizing “psychosis” in greater or lesser degrees.
In 1965 the term Suppressive Person was introduced as a descriptive of what a person wrapped up in evil purposes, continual determinations to destroy, does to others – they “suppress”.
Along with the introduction of the Logic 5 definition of “Suppressive Person went one of the traits of this type of case condition, which involves “calculated” acts to suppress. Intentional acts, aimed at a furtherance of the determination to destroy. Not just “acts”, but determined acts, in a dramatization of a purpose. ” (Refer to the policy introducing the term HCO PL 7 March 1965, Issue I, Suppressive Acts)
Also, introduced and defined was a state of being entangled with such a person, the “SP”, that of Potential Trouble Source (PTS). This is a person with a problem, again defined fully in the material of Scientology and the action definition of PTS. It’s someone caught up in the push-pull of an intention directed at them of destruction and them fighting it off, resisting it, having an apparently unresolved problem with the person that is antagonistic to them.
Search and Discovery as a technology to find accurately “the” SP in the PTS’s life was developed right along with the definitions. One such method of S&D is Type S (for “stop”) which in itself is an action definition and clarification of not only PTS, but the SP case itself. Here is the statement in HCOB 13 January 1968, S&Ds:
“Who or what are you trying to stop?”
“This works on all cases to a greater or lesser degree. It is particularly useful on a case that is giving a great deal of trouble, gets small reads or is rather suppressive. This should work on the insane also as the point where a thetan becomes insane is the point where he begins to generally stop things. I looked for years for the exact point where a thetan ceased to be
sane and became insane on any given subject and fmally found that it was the exact moment he became dedicated to trying to stop whatever it was.” LRH
As well, in the same period of time the Power Processes were developed and they too are applicable to the SP case as a resolution of the condition, along with various other points of procedure to assist the being with the identity they’ve become.
In 1969, on 2 August, another HCOB was issued, LX Lists, which also address this SP case, from the angle of shifting out of the identity/valence, and back to being simply themselves. The “SP” is after all, out of valence into something that is in fact no one. He views life from a point that isn’t his own, he looks “from” a valence, not “at” the valence. LX Lists resolve how come a being is so charged up he can’t view as himself.
NO being is innately an “SP”.
NO being is innately determined to destroy.
This assumption point of Scientology is a key basic for a vast amount of technology.
There is NO being that is “evil”. Evil is a valence. A dreamt up character that is assumed, and is able to be shed to leave the fundamental nature of the being, that is basically good. (See taped lecture, The Antiquity of Auditing from October 55 for the most basic description of this fallacy of an “evil” being.)
There are many techniques developed to resolve these two states of being, PTS and SP. Grade I addresses problems thoroughly for example. There is the full study of what PTS is for a person who finds themselves manifesting that condition which is then followed by various handlings, from the simple to more involved.
Now, what about “psychosis” and that definition finally, succinctly stated in CS Series 22?
Well that, in its single sentence, isolates the most fundamental source of insanity, from just one area in a life of say “bonko about lizards” to the full blown generalized effort to stop, to destroy all over the place that a thoroughgoing actual Suppressive Person will dramatize.
Even a person who experiences the acute manifestations of a “break”, when they are sufficiently destimulated with quiet, rest and a safe environment, and the most accessible BPC handled, can be taken to the root of the trouble and have it de-rooted, applying CS Series 22.
At the bottom of the effort to “solve” the problem of survival that a person faces, the confusion they can’t escape and cannot tolerate, the threat to an identity they’ve taken on in the game of survive is the “solution” – destroy.
Whether on the gradient scale of “getting even” with the Suppressive valence (HCO PL 5 April 1965, Issue I, Handling the Suppressive Person, the Basis of Insanity, “They seek to “get even” with the suppressive person and often exhibit the same symptoms temporarily.”), or way over on the side of 2.5%, it is all a “solution” and that solution is destruction, “stop”.
In that definition from CS Series 22 is the answer to it – find the incident, the prior confusing situation, that the person “solved” with the evil purpose, and there you have the resolution of the actual issue.
That’s from some area a person continually cannot seem to handle, through the guy who flashes at the bus stop scaring the patrons, all the way up to some peckerwood torturing babies.
Scientology not only correctly identifies by definition, it provides the solution, by definition that doesn’t just end up in the next malady. A full conceptual understanding of its terms and the skill of handling them goes along with any “label”. It is only lack of understanding of its terms, the full word clearing to conceptual understanding of these terms, that results in glib “judgments” with no further attention to resolution and recovery of innate beingness.
As it states in Words, Misunderstood, Goofs, HCOB 10 March 1965, “There’s no hope for it mate”, you’ll have to actually clear and understand Scientology’s terms if you ever want to apply them and factually resolve issues heretofore mysterious.
Lastly, from Axiom 54; a tolerance of confusion, and a stable datum on which to align it are both part and parcel of a sane handling of some area. It is the intolerance of confusion that forces a stable datum into fixed mode, that one must try and hold off that intolerable confusion with, that underlies a vast amount of aberration.
Definitions provide a means to tolerate and align confusions to the result of freedom of choice over one’s Dynamics.
And a better game, in my estimation 🙂
P.S. I heartily recommend two tapes; Axiom 53: The Axiom of the Stable Datum from 55 and The Prior Confusion from 61.