Home

not a victim

By Jim Logan

In the lecture series of the 6th London Advanced Clinical Course, LRH developed a process “From where could you communicate to…” a selected terminal, body part, etc.

At the same time he developed a process called S2 (“Process S2. It’s named after an English-brand weed-killer.” HCOB 14 July 59.)

The command for S2 is “From where could you communicate to a victim?” He states at the end of the 14 July 59 HCOB, in the P.S. “And what is flat on that?? Why, to regain the ability to communicate without reservation, of course. It’s a one-shot OT. LRH.

(For the theory of this process please see the taped lecture Clearing: Communication Processes – Specific, 3 June 59, in the 6th London ACC.)

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, HCOB 18 July 59:

“We have a whole world full of ‘victims.’

“That’s enough.

“We don’t have to be victims ourselves. It’s a scarcity we don’t have to remedy.

“New definition: A Scientologist  — one who is not a victim.”

 

81 thoughts on “Not a victim

  1. Jim,

    Thanks for the data.

    S-2 is quite a powerful process.

    Another reason I began to disdain many so called “Independents” was their tendency to always play the victim which got boring after a while.

    In fact I used to call ESMB “victim central” 😉

    And thinking to myself that they should either flatten or be run on S-2.

  2. Yes, yes, yes!!!!!! No more victims puhleeeeese!! We have a whole victim movement out here and it is crazy!

    I have found that auditing really handles the charge of what has been done to one. I t is so much more fun to be at cause!!

    • I totally agree Ingrid.

      However their are people who seem to enjoy being totally effect and blaming others for the condition they are in.

      I think they think that it’s the only game in town.

      Personally I’ve come to the realization that their many efforts to destroy the Church under the guise of “reforming” the Church and “stopping” ( Ron discuses the effort to stop in a Talk to Ethics Officers) the abuses while maligning the subject and its Founder are basically suppressive acts.

      Nothing wrong with seeking to actually reform the Church if correctly targeted or creating a safe point where standard tech at least can be applied which I believe is MS 2’s objective but there is a lot wrong in my opinion is the A=A=A= that the so called “Indies” are involved in by playing “victim”.

      • Robin,
        There are rightnesses and wrongnesses in life. Some things are hard to experience easily. All too often the lack of compassion and empathy and a no-sympathy to others, who are having a tough time with something, is a point where “you victim” becomes a Ser Fac and gets nothing positive accomplished.

        My intention in posting the above wasn’t to belittle or minimize difficult situations people encounter. It wasn’t to use the material as some sort of blanket indication to various and sundry others.

        Like the actual data on the area, from AP&A and these tapes in the 6th London ACC and the HCOBs of the time period, the intention is to get to a basic truth, that the being can be cause and has the power of choice over things.

        Thetans invented the idea of “victim”. We’ve played this one hard over ages. There are nasty things done on all Flows, to, from, across et al. What I’m trying to get across is that there is a way out of this long since dead end of only Effect.

        • Right exactly.

          This is why we have 4 flows.

          Also there are lot of horrible things done by certain individuals by others for no reason. Torture, Racism and Genocide come to mind.

          However there are those who as we both know like to play the role of professional victim.

          These are the ones who I really have no empathy or sympathy for.

          • Chris,
            That’s it exactly – the willingness to duplicate a comm, whatever it is, from a light flitter to a right down dirty cannonball – that’s the difference between a person able and a “victim”.

            Hauling around all that “done to me” which is resisted is a whole bunch o’ baggage. Loads one down and subject to flows and MEST and all kinda ook.

            “Victim” is a charged word and subject. Perhaps “unwilling receipt point” and the following assignment of blame, shame and regret is an easier pill to swallow.

            Either way, to recover freedom to communicate fully and be able to as-is with ARCU, one has to get up through and past this grade.

      • RV:

        Playing the victim is great fun if done in jest. My wife and I do it to each other all the time, laughing all the way. Back in the “free thetan” days (before this universe) the victim game was a fun way to pass the time. Someone would make something they were very proud of, and you’d come along and change its color or goof around with it in some way, and the creator would play victim, knowing all the while they could easily undo what had been done. It was a great source of humorous interchange.

        But what you describe is an entirely different phenomenon. It is either like or actually is a service fac. And there is a lot of it in today’s world. My stable datum is, if it doesn’t resolve rather easily, it’s being held in place, and that normally means “service fac”.

        Paul

    • Ingrid,
      I think this material is much like the material in Advanced Procedure and Axioms, from 51. When LRH put that book out, including the idea of self-determined use of engrams, the theory of Full Responsibility, et al, there was a definite effect on those that embraced the motivator engrams of earlier days.

      “Victim” is quite a game amongst a lot of beings. It’s havingness, all that stuff that happened TO them, the drama of it, the whole nine yards, clutched to their bosom, the topic of chats, and oh so much of this culture.

      It seems a bit unpalatable to some to find they can actually be cause over what ails them, and are in fact. It seems to be pretty mean and nassy to suggest they may have some role in their condition, and can get up and above all that gooey, yummy, drippy, effect.

      “Not a victim” is a game spoiler.

      • “When LRH put that book out, including the idea of self-determined use of engrams, the theory of Full Responsibility, et al, there was a definite effect on those that embraced the motivator engrams of earlier days.”

        Probably that and the definitely the possibility of Past Lives wasn’t too popular with the Board of Directors for the original HDRF.

        Of course you can get too extreme in other direction as well.

        Probably why the Ol’man wrote the HCOB on the Overt Motivator Sequence in ’69.

        Though it doesn’t change the fact that those who are continually motivated by their motivators probably maybe as in likely have a few overts 😉

      • “Unpalatable to some”. Yup, one reason the concept of Jesus dying for “our” sins is so popular.

        From HCOB 23 Dec 1959:

        “If the definition of operating thetan is knowing and willing cause over all dynamics then we can see at once that responsibility must go hand in hand with making an operating thetan.

        One cannot as-is acts for which one is taking no responsibility, but for which one is really responsible.

        The reason one gets amnesia on his past lives or even denies their existence lies with responsibility. He or she is unwilling to take responsibility for having been this or that other identity. This keys in in present time and closes one down every time one stops taking responsibility for one’s fellows. Fighting ‘other identities’ in present time one ceases to be responsible for other identities. Therefore those he has had in the past become ‘other people’ and one dramatizes his own past identities because he cannot take responsibility for them.

        When one falls away from responsibility on the various dynamics he can then become less and less able to influence those dynamics and therefore becomes a victim of them. One must have done to other dynamics those things which other dynamics now seem to have the power to do to him. Therefore one can be injured. One can lose control. One can become in fact a zero of influence and a vacuum for trouble.” LRH

        Ron also talks about the Bridge being a Responsibility Scale in the lecture on the Classification and Awareness Chart, which makes sense and why one would have ethical and responsible OTs – IF one travels both sides of the Bridge (and IMO, the Admin side too). One’s case level can get pegged by one’s training or lack of it and we see this in all the fooforah that goes on in the field and in the CoS as well. The nice part about it, though, is that it can all be put right for the being with the proper tech applied standardly to their case. And that tech could be Admin tech, Ethics tech, or Tech tech. Thus, application of correct tech becomes the compassion that is needed to help other beings out. Even an SP declare can be compassionate, if done for the right reason, with good intention, and it is a right item for the being.

        Bottom line, though, Jim, as you point out, is that one needs to move off the false valence of “victim” in order to live again. 😉

        • “‘Unpalatable to some’. Yup, one reason the concept of Jesus dying for “our” sins is so popular.”

          Interesting point Chris.

          Though I will say many Christians do at least take responsibility for the fact that they may have transgressed.

          Or at least as in other religions try to lead moral and just lives while the new technocratic religions like psychiatry and psychology spawned by a lot of unstable and unproven “scientific” theories have done nothing more than led people further into the muck of total irresponsibility.

          Take the mantra that one is a product of their environment which is disproven continually by the many who seem to rise above it.

          Or the ever popular serial killers are made by a bad childhood or whatever.

          Contradicted by countless case histories.

          But ya know why let a few facts get in the way of a beautiful theory 😉

          • IMO, it all comes out of the same stables, or pigpen. All have the same genesis. Just some are more nicely covered/coloured. 😉

            • True,

              But also true that some philosophies or schools of thought are worse than others.

              Take for instance Psychiatry which has diverse practitioners like at its Apex people like the late Dr. Thomas Szasz and the bottom like D E Cameron.

              Same with the intolerant religious right who want to create an American Theocracy despite what the Constitution says.

              • Same could be said about many of the religions. In my opinion – from a pulled-back broad perspective – they are all cut from the same cloth. All are traps; all designed to enslave and control and minimize thetans. All have the same origin. And Ron lumps them together – “priests and psychs on the whole track”.

                (Disclaimer: This is a generality I know, but by “they” I mean those methodologies, systems or practices that seek to enslave, control and make nothing out of beings.)

                • Chris,

                  The Pain and Sex HCOB the one the Anti Scientology cult is using to “prove” that Ron had a total jihad against psyches yet as I was ‘splaining to Mike’s new ally Alan Stansfield AKA Alanzo before Mike jumped in with two left feet to defend his sorry ass that Ron says “priests and psychs on the whole track”.

                  Yet as we all know or should know Ron was very supportive of the late Dr. Thomas Szasz and other psychiatrists who were involved in the Anti Psychiatry movement.

                  In fact before CCHR was turned into a circus there were various GO Directives that were written by Ron urging CCHR personnel to help make The Myth of Mental Illness and Manufacture of Madness best sellers and make Thomas Szasz into an OL in the field of psychiatry.

                  Also there is a RED to get psychiatrists who weren’t APA members involved with Dianetics back in the late ’60’s.

                  Not exactly the type of actions you’d expect from someone who was T totally anti-psyche.

                  Religion.

                  Well as you know from doing the Ministers Course that part of it is doing a comparative study of the key religions on this planet. I doubt if the Ol’man thought they were anathema to spiritual freedom or freedom in general that he would include a study of them on the check sheet.

                  The fact is that you can use any mental or spiritual technology suppressively including Scientology. As he mentions in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course about the hidden use of Scientology.

                  By the way I’ve noticed that some our friends in the intelligence community using Scientology concepts in various PsyOps. Fortunately they don’t have a total grasp of the subject and have a tendency to fix things that aren’t broken.

                  The Remote Viewing program is a perfect example.

                  With several Scientologists involved in the Program they were getting spectacular results. What they called “Eight Martini Results” which was about 80% then the DIA took it over and allowed a bunch of New Age types and so called “psychics” who were really con artists to take over and their results crashed to below 25%.

                  Funny how that goes but anyway back to the subject at hand. Again Ron says “priests and psychs on the whole track”.

                  Obviously they were the ones involved in laying in the original implants but from what I understand in listening to RJ 67 they are dearly departed.

                  But the damage they caused on the *whole track* still remains.

                  Personally I don’t think any religion on Earth was designed to entrap and enslave. They have been used that way by unscrupulous individuals true but they weren’t designed that way.

                  In fact when Ron did a study of the decline of the current civilization he came up with the key factor that it was a lack of religion that was responsible for the decline which is the reason he came up with the Volunteer Ministers Course.

                  Personally I prefer a society that has some kind of spiritual beliefs then one with none at all like this technological barbarism we currently have surrounding us.

                  Regarding psychiatry. There are good psychiatrists. I’ve met a few. Some of them who were also Scientologists who we used to turn psychotic cases over to.

                  Also I’ve known one or two Roman Catholic Priests who were also Scientologists and I don’t think these were the same guys Ron was talking about when he was talking about “psyches and priests on the whole track”.

                • CB:

                  Generality though it may be, Ron still made the point more than once that religion is a big control game. That is not to say that there aren’t sincere, moral practitioners of every religion. But the game itself is rigged. Heaven and hell are perfect examples of the “weenie” and the “anti-weenie”.

                  Psychology is quite obviously a control game and has been since long before Wundt. Which is why, unfortunately for some here in the Field who advocate it, it would be quite impossible to merge or alloy psychology with Scientology.

                  Paul

                  • Paul,

                    I don’t totally agree that psychology was always a control game since it means “study of the spirit” and going back to St. Thomas Aquinas that is basically what it was.

                    In fact Ron says that Scientology is that branch of Psychology that deals with the human spirit or something to that effect.

                    I’ll dig up the exact quote if you wish.

                    Besides most psychologists I know aren’t really interested in controlling anyone. They are more interested in study of certain mental phenomena so that they can classify it in some way.

                    Really nothing but spectators. A pretty harmless bunch for the most part who con the Government into giving them money for all these so called “studies”.

                    Psychiatrists, like anyone else. There are good ones and bad ones. The bad ones sign up with the CIA and the APA and work on various Mind Control projects or use barbaric “therapies” like lobotomies, transorbital leucotomies, drugs and/ or electric shock.

                    A real suppressive bunch for sure.

                    The good ones fight against these abuses and promote non-invasive cognitive methods, mega vitamin treatments and proper medical attention.

                    Please let’s not get into this A=A=A that the Church is currently involved in about Psychiatry or Psychology.

                    I suggest reading the article An Essay on Authoritarianism.

                    Regarding the concept of Heaven and Hell. The fact is that it was not originally part of Christian doctrine until after the Nicene Council. Most Christianity before that was gnostic.

                    It like other religions was perverted into a control mechanism but it didn’t start out that way.

        • CB:

          “The reason one gets amnesia on his past lives or even denies their existence lies with responsibility. He or she is unwilling to take responsibility for having been this or that other identity.”

          I always considered this quite an OT datum. As I recall, there was or is an OT level whose EP was defined partly as “Freedom from whole track amnesia…”.

          Paul

          • I believe that was/is OT VIII, Paul. And yes, I agree with you on it being an OT datum. In fact, IMO, that whole HCOB is OT and by it alone one could work out a path to freedom.

            • C&S,

              True if a being could take responsibility for his entire existence then he wouldn’t have amnesia but the fact is that running O/W exclusively will not handle this factor.

              Why?

              Because it was tried.

              See the HCOB on the Nature of a Being.

              Also more research was done later than this and is covered in the following HCOB:

              HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
              HCO BULLETIN OF 24 AUGUST AD 13
              SCIENTOLOGY FOUR
              ROUTINE 3N
              THE TRAIN GPMs
              THE MARCAB BETWEEN LIVES IMPLANTS

              But basically it is simply restimulated charge on the early track that presses toward PT and shoves the pc into the screen implant. Therefore if you just restimulate and do not run early track GPMs when found, eventually you will find your pc crushed up against recent times and in these Between Lives screens (if life and these screen incidents have not already done it).

              This is the secret of the amnesia:

              *Restimulate enough early track charge and do not discharge it and the being will have amnesia on the whole track.*

              Which is why you have different levels of address which does include O/W but other levels as well.

              Ron also says in:

              HCO BULLETIN OF 31 AUGUST 1974
              URGENT
              C/S Series 93
              NEW GRADE CHART

              GRADE II

              Some orgs specialize in Grade II, especially on org staff. The pc is always getting Integrity Processing or his O/Ws pulled on so and so.
              If you look on the Grade Chart you will find Withholds and Overts are Grade
              TWO.
              Below Grade TWO lies Grade I (Problems) and Grade Zero (Communications). And below that is Dianetics and at the bottom end of Dianetics is the Drug Handling.
              Now how do you expect a fellow who has unhandled drugs (or omitted drug items because of “no interest”) to even know (no Grade 0) that other people are around or that (Grade I) he is caved in with problems he’s never cognited on?
              And he’s supposed to have enough responsibility to answer up on Grade II? With real overts and withholds?
              This does not mean you must never Sec Check. It does mean that Sec Checks are no substitute for auditing or guarantee of innocence.
              Grades are Grades and the Grade Chart sequence is correct.

              Which was the main beef I had with James Marchand and his method of “C/Sing”.

              He was always constantly trying to get the PC’s Grade II in by having practically every PC who came across his plate at ASHO Sec Checked on something or other.

              Personally I’m not invalidating O/W tech but there is a place for it on the Grade Chart.

              • Quite familiar with those references, RV. One would, of course, use the appropriate tech at the appropriate time, not just at Grade II, for example.

                Re James, he was one of the best training C/Ses I’ve audited under. And I never found him to be hobby-horsing sec checks or Grade II processes. And while I had good luck with pretty well all my C/Ses, the team of Red, James and Harold was unique and they were a powerhouse At ASHO. The three of them. So please, no need to put “quotation marks” around his C/Sing.

                    • Obviously your experience is different from mine.

                      Once I went over his head and sent a folder to Barb Rubio the Senior C/S because I totally disagreed with his programing of a case.

                      Anyway James spent some time in cramming and you could say there might have been some unhandled ruds on the cycle 😉

                      So I’ll admit that there might have been some friction between us.

                    • Yup, I could see that. Anyway, C/S Series 1 covers what to do if you don’t agree with a C/Ses C/S or program. And that’s why people like Dorothy and Harold and Steve (i.e. Qual and Cramming) were so vital. Re Rubio, I never liked her, from a personal perspective; I never had her as a C/S. I thought the world of Red, though.

                    • Liked Barb was her FESer on the WUS Flubcatch line and she was our C/S for the CCRD Pilot.

                      Worked with Red when he was RTC Rep on Project Squirrel.

                      Harold and I were good friends and was a font of New Yorker jokes. 🙂

                      I miss him.

                      One of the funniest moments is when he listed New Yorker as a case phenomenon. He had me in stitches 🙂

                    • “One of the funniest moments is when he listed New Yorker as a case phenomenon.”

                      Yeh, he did the same to us when we were doing our internships. I think I did maybe 5 or 6 internships with him and Red, James, Chari, and yeh, Barb Senior C/Sed a couple for Chari I audited.

      • JL:

        Indeed, there are whole groups and sectors devoted to playing the victim. They often band together in groups. And you’ll find that the problems they speak of never get resolved. Ultimately, it’s because the groups themselves, instead of truly seeking solutions, actively eschew solutions and work to perpetuate the problems. For if the problems were resolved, there would be no more reason for the groups to exist. And even groups have a survival impulse. It’s quite a perverted and low-toned game.

        Paul

  3. Thanks Jim, After seeing your mention of the above lecture series in the last posting I ordered it on ebay. I was looking for my next study cycle and can’t wait to get it.

    • Tom,
      The series takes you from setting up a PE Foundation(Personnel Efficiency) and HAS Course and Co-Audit, all the way up through Clearing techniques in the last lectures.

      The theory behind the stuff coming up in the early 60s is there. Plus what lays under all the way up through the OT Grades, including stuff that finds its way back, in those upper levels.

  4. The definitions of a Why include that it must be something within one’s sphere of control. I have met more than one person who just couldn’t get this concept applied to their life. The above seems to be an answer: Charge around the item “victim” preventing understanding and application.
    Thanks!

    • Good point Worsel, the fact that a real Why is something one can do something about within one’s sphere of control.

      Willing cause and willing effect are necessary for any comm. The introduction of the idea of “victim” entails the Overt and Motivator. It’s an old, old game. Shop worn. Done to the nth degree and then some.

      With Scientology we have the route back to willing cause and willing effect, and the fundamental truth that a thetan can’t be hurt. Not really. Can’t kill a Static.

      The invitation to a new type of game is possible when one gets over this whole mechanic of Overt-Motivator/victim.

      In the meantime, a gradient rise in responsibility is workable until the being can recognize their own state is their own, and they can change it. A much better place to be, at least I sure find it that way.

      Boot straps, up.

    • Worsel, I remember one fellow who was refunding for $30,000 at ASHO when I was on my Class VI internship. James Marchand and Red Van Dyk decided this was a great way to make me into a pro sec checker. LOL. Anyway, we had to work backwards from where he was, slowly getting him up to the point of seeing how he could be responsible for his effects, and he came up to Cause, didn’t refund but instead bought his SHSBC. So I think you made a great point here in that the being has to be able to control it within their sphere; otherwise, one just ends up “chanting” some mantra at them. As you indicate, removing the correct charge will bring this about. Again, good point.

      • Chris,
        Another really valid point here: a good, well-intentioned, and well done Confessional should help a being recognize the truth of their own ability to cause/effect.

        It isn’t “look what you did, you dirty dog”. It is a chance to clean up an area and regain the ability to reach and do. It makes it possible to be able to clearly think and accomplish.

        An ethics blind spot is just that, a person doesn’t see in an area. So an auditor helps them recover their ability to view it.

        If we weren’t basically good, this wouldn’t fly. But we are.

        We don’t have to be victimized, unless of course we’re playing a game, and if it becomes unknowing, then we’re adverse effect and it’s no fun, no mo’.

        • The problem is Jim that Sec Checks tend to be overrun and over done and eventually the PC tends to feel after a while that he’s being made guilty.

          Like any process that produces at times spectacular results C/Ses and auditors in my opinion get stuck in a win of some kind.

          This is where you get all these cool and groovy trends in an HGC.

          Not just on Sec Checking but on other areas of the Tech where one can get spectacular results.

          I remember for a while there was a trend to putting in every body’s Int (whether they’d gone ext in auditing or not 😉 ) then there was one to correct everybody’s list even though the only listing some PC’s had ever done was a Grocery list maybe.

          Also when the FPRD came out that was all LA Org specialized in for a while. It was like the old Xdn trend that went earlier where practically everybody and their dog was either being set up for or on Xdn.

          Again not to invalidate the tech because I think one of the best actions I’d ever had and which helped me with my training was an Auditors Confessional.

          Anyway that’s the way I see it.

          • “Now that’s just no good, see, breaking down withholds just endlessly, endlessly, endlessly. You have to break down compulsive, obsessive withholds and overts. You have to break down this automatic structure to clear a case all the way and make an OT! You have to take those overts and withholds which are out of the control of the individual and put them back into the control of the individual. You’re breaking down overts and withholds to reestablish responsibility and the ability to do and to withhold. These are abilities. And if you just broke them down endlessly and never put them back again, never restored the individual’s ability to withhold, you, of course, would have just an irresponsible mass of junk. Scientology and Scientologists would not be a Third Dynamic, they’d be a mob.”
            lecture of 6 January 1960, Identity

            • Good quote Worsel,

              He also talks about the mechanism behind O/W on the Briefing Course as well.

              I think this one is from the Washington DC Lectures. I believe.

              But yeah I’ve seen the above dramatized before. Where the person is in total propitiation on the subject of O/W and is always writing up O/Ws.

              Too bad we don’t have the original HCOB on O/W Write Ups before it was “revised” by those squirrels in RTRC but I remember the original being far different from the later so called “revisions” which to me seemed kinda PRish with all kindsa wild claims connected to it on how it would make the halt walk and the blind see or whatever. Whereas the original was just a simple statement of how it is done if asked to do one as part of a Danger Condition.

              Fortunately it’s harder to “revise” a lecture though it has been done with the later recordings of the PDCs by omitting certain sections.

              Anyway there is also a lot of data of why one would run O/W in the earlier HCOBs then later Sec Checking which is something different and mainly used for the Org’s security as the name suggests.

              Probably a good reason why everybody should do the SHSBC. So they can see how and why the Tech was developed.

              • Robin, I’ve only seen the 2 Mar 1984R issue of the O/W Write-up HCOB. In it it seems pretty straight-forward, no mention of the halt walking or blind seeing again. It did state this as the EP, which seems bland enough:

                “In doing an O/W write-up a person writes up his overts and withholds until he is satisfied that they are complete. The person will feel very good about it and experience relief. One would not engage in carrying on an O/W write-up past this point.”

                The only points I’d take immediate issue with would be the didactic manner of telling how they should be written up (i.e., the form), and the requirement for an end ruds check, which seems to violate the EP above.

                So what you talking ’bout, Willis?

                • I’m talkin’ about the original HCOB as compared to the later revisions which is a plural Holmes 😉

                  That one was not as egregious as the later ones.

                  However as you say about its “didactic manner” there was of that in the original.

                  Like I said I wish I had an actual copy of it.

                  • Well, the original was 2 Mar 1984, so someone in the field probably has it. The revision date was 24 April 1990. I wasn’t aware of any revision after that until I left at the end of 1996. Was there on in the 2000s? I’d like to get a copy of that and do a comparison. However, I’ve never heard of another revision after the 1990 one. Let me know if you find the original – or the later revisions.

                    • Roger that Ol’ buddy.

                      I tried digging it up some time back but I’ll try again.

                      BTW the HCOB was revised in ’96 again then later in the 2000’s so there are several revisions.

                    • I’m sure someone’s got it. Anyway, the ’84 issue isn’t bad at all. Good enough to work with. Too bad to hear of the later revisions. I can just imagine why.

                    • Sure, if you’re into imagining. It was like that with the crows this morning as I fed them some gnocchi and they wanted some sauce with it. lol

                    • Really I couldn’t imagine what they were thinking on some of these so called “revisions” except maybe how to reinvent the wheel or something.

                      I remember way back when I was auditing at AO their latest revision of the 40 had running e purps narrative.

                      At which point they lost any credibility as far as I was concerned.

                      BTW I still see Dan defending GAT as a good idea and that squirrelly definition of the 2nd Dynamic which excludes sex and children.

                      Anyway needless to say the revisions to OW Write Ups get worse and worse over the years.

                    • I agree with you re Dan and GAT; I won’t get into my views on it here. But I will also say, I did finally find the reference where Ron himself says the 2nd dynamic would encompass creativity, such as sex, etc. When I have time, I’ll find it for you, but this datum did come from the old man.

                    • There’s that reference on complexity and confront, not to mention Story of a Static, and the ones on when they can’t get results from what they think (ital) is standard tech, they can be counted on to squirrel. OT VIII was revised 3 times. So is it LRH’s? I doubt it. But it’s what is being used. Grades processes get revised. Policies, tech, etc. Like you said, Robin, best one gets trained as an auditor and audits so they can tell the difference.

                    • That and it also helps if you know the verbal tech checklist in the HCOB How to Defeat Verbal Tech.

                      Also I think a lot of these so called “revisions” may be connected to a stat of some kind. The problem being that the stat doesn’t align with the Admin Scale.

                      Remember as well that the original name of the unit was Tech Compilations which was later changed to include “research” as if Ron would ever turn his research hat over to anyone.

                    • True, but that specifically deals with verbal tech, although it could be used on revisions I guess. But having a thorough and in-depth understanding of LRH and Scientology is probably the best defence.

                      Re it being based on some stat, I kinda doubt that. I think the references I mentioned as well as the one you did on Nature of a Being kind of explain it, not to mention KSW and various Grade IV and XDN tapes and issues. 😉

                      I think the “Research” in RTRC was not his tech research hat, but researching for lost tech and compiling it. That’s what I got out of it when it was originally formed and they sent around some info sheet on it.

                    • “I think the “Research” in RTRC was not his tech research hat, but researching for lost tech and compiling it. That’s what I got out of it when it was originally formed and they sent around some info sheet on it.”

                      Even so using the word “research” is problematic. See the definition:

                      the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions: we are fighting meningitis by raising money for medical research.
                      • (researches) acts or periods of investigation and study: his pathological researches were included in official reports.
                      • [ as modifier ] engaged in or intended for use in investigation and discovery: a research student | a research paper.
                      verb || [ with obj. ]
                      investigate systematically: she has spent the last five years researching her people’s history | [ no obj. ] : the team has been researching into flora and fauna.
                      • discover facts by investigation for use in (a book, program, etc.): I was in New York researching my novel | (as adj., with submodifier researched) : this is a well-researched and readable account.

                      Particularly the first definition:

                      the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions

                      “Compilation”exclusively would have been more appropriate since the research had already been done. No “new conclusions” need apply.

                      Personally I’m suspicious of all this “new tech” they keep finding that was allegedly “lost”.

                      I’m sure if the Ol’man felt it was important enough to release he would have released it immediately.

                      The only exception being advanced levels which according to Ron are in note form.

                      Regarding the verbal tech list. It asks if whatever written order, policy or HCOB was altered from the original and whether those doing it had the authority or know how to make such changes.

                      I’d say that in many cases neither would apply unless there was an actual order written by Ron to make such changes. Not some questionable Scientology Policy Directive telling us such orders exist.

                      My view.

                  • We did O/W-write-ups long before that HCOB came out. In the 70s we used the “Withhold System” (see Tech Dic) to write them up. Worked quite well and we cleaned whole areas of charge using it.

                    • Yup. When I did a handling at CLO (the “Decks”, or DPF for non-SO), we also used the Twenty-Ten datum of 20 minutes of WH pulling (OWs written) and 10 minutes of Havingness (MEST work). One of the best actions I ever did.

                    • As I remember the original didn’t lay out a procedure of any kind but only said in what circumstances writing up OWs would apply.

                      Pretty simple and straight forward. Nothing about the glorious benefits possible from doing so as in the later “revisions’ which I found somewhat evaluative.

                      Also as I wrote there was no rote procedure given on how to do them as there is in the current issue.

                      Personally I think that the procedure given is someone else’s idea on how to write ’em up and would not necessarily work for everyone.

                      As far as I’m concerned the withhold system worked just fine for most people and just writing them down without using any procedure at all worked for others.

                      Adding Time, Place, Form and Event is just an additive.

                    • Actually, I feel including Axiom 38 was a pluspoint. Using the Axioms, especially 29 – 38, can’t hurt. How one writes it, i.e. the exact format, may be a bit didactic, yes.

                    • I don’t know if it’s a plus point. To me it gives the impression that Axiom 38 only applies to writing up OWs. Also it could be added and inapplicable in some cases.

                      It is definitely an additive by giving the impression that there is only one standard procedure for writing up OWs:

                      ADDITIVE, a thing which has been added. This usually has a bad meaning in that an additive is said to be something needless or harmful which has been done in additionto standard procedure. Additive normally means a departure from standard procedure. For example, an auditor puts different or additionalwords into a standard process or command. It means a twist on standard procedure. In common English, it might mean a substance put into a compound to improve its qualities or suppress undesirable qualities. In Dn and Scn it definitely means to add something to the technology procedure resulting in undesirable results. (LRH Def. Notes)

                      It’s like these things that seem salutary superficially like the Golden Age of Tech.

                      I mean what could be wrong with getting drilled on Standard Procedure?

                      Except when it turns out that the procedures that they are drilled on are not Standard and violate KSW point 4 as well as the PL on Drills Allowed.

                      Same with the so called “Basics” which violate so many PLs and HCOBs on how you are supposed to train auditors and training in general about balancing mass with significance. Not to mention the study datum about creating such a long runway for the student.

                      In my opinion there has been a methodical and intentional degrading of the Tech. The revisions in OW Write Ups is but one example.

                      Those responsible get away with it because these changes seem so “reasonable” on the surface like adding “justifications” to the withhold rudiment or not getting the full EP per FPRD series 7 on running E Purps or omitting full drug handling prior to the Grades per the latest revision of the New Grade Chart Streamlined etc.

                      Now they’re omitting KTL/LOC from Super Power or whatever they’re calling “Super Power” which looks more like some R6 implant then a Scientology rundown with spinning chairs developed by NASA and involves the use of TV monitors.

                      Gawd help us if that brand of “Scientology” is fully “accepted”.

                    • Well, I guess we see things how we want to see them, Robin. For instance, I never would have thought that Axiom 38 would only apply to writing up OWs. But then, I learn something new every day in Scientology. 😉

                      I think ALL hatting leads to greater results in whatever one is doing, be it Scientology ethics, tech or admin, or changing the oil on one’s car. Axiom 38 does that. Where you get “this is the only way it is done” is by some goofball EO or MAA or senior demanding that it be done that way because maybe DM or RM said it had to be done that way, or they’re just perpetuating some successful valence.

                      But when you read the issue, all it says basically is that one should include the particulars of time, place, form, and event according to Axiom 38. And in fact, Ron explains how this is important and how Axiom 38 is applicable under “Basic Theory”.

                      As I’ve only seen this reference, until I see these “other revisions” and original issue you say exist, I’m quite fine with this one and am applying How To Defeat Verbal Tech Checklist to these supposed other revisions. This HCOB explains it well, IMO. But I’m also just as fine with doing it per the withhold system, just writing them up. However, I do see why Ron might want to include Axiom 38 as for one reason, I’m sure some were just doing a brush-off job of writing up their O/Ws and this helps them as-is any charge in the area.

                      There’s no doubt that there’s been a “methodical and intentional degrading of the Tech”; I don’t think that’s ever been in question. Many people have surmised that and some have exposed it. But not every piece of tech has yet fallen prey to that plan. I think one needs to “think” with the tech and this will help one navigate these troubled waters.

                      Just my thoughts. I expect I’ll hear more of yours. LOL

                    • Hey I’m all for thinking with the tech and all that which I think is the reason we did the Briefing Course. So we know what worked and what didn’t but unfortunately most Scientologists don’t have that “luxury”.

                      As you remember the levels of training progressively assign more self determinism to the auditor. Starting with just sit there and listen to muzzled to 2wc to auditing by lists to direct etc and that asking someone to “think with the tech” at say Level 0 is going to get different results then asking a Class VIII to do it.

                      It’s like giving some a license to squirrel.

                      Good point on the HCOB OW Write Up. Since neither of us have the original.

                      That said though there is plenty of earlier data on writing OWs such as in the Danger Condition handling and some of it written about the time the Blow Offs PL came out and like Worsel was saying they did great back in the ’70’s without that HCOB.

                      I mean you could sit somebody down with a copy of the Tech Dictionary and have them clear Overt and Withhold then ask ’em if they have any questions and if not tell ’em to write ’em down.

                      Then you could go over them and ask the guy or gal when they wrote something like “stole a paper clip from HASI once” or “kicked the cat” if they could be a wee bit more specific.

                      Eventually they’d get it right.

                      I remember I was assigned a Danger Condition once before they came up with using the Withhold System and just doing it per the PL or the Ethics Book and feeling great afterwards and back then the only training I had was HDC.

                      Basically you could just go with what you know is actual tech that preceded the HCOB and still do fine.

          • Sec checks weren’t what I was talking about, Robin. If you re-read my comments, I was talking about responsibility. And how it is vital to going free. Cheers. 🙂

  5. I just caught an interview on TV that had an amazing celebrity on it who was so high toned!! Since I came into the middle of it I didn’t get his name. The discussion was on being a victim and what it takes to enjoy life. This guy was so energetically talking about how much fun it is to work-he has 3 shows!!-he was explaining when you clean a house, that pretty soon as you get into it, its FUN-anything is fun when you are actually doing it. The best thing he said was ” the minute you say your best days are behind you, you are old. You need to feel that the best is yet to come” He expressed my sentiments from being on Solo NOTs perfectly!

    The other thing I liked about him was there was a discussion on the new movie” 50 Shades of Grey” and he said -“What about Love?? And creating a relationship??This couple in the movie can’t sustain this kind of relationship-they will be a mess in no time”

    TV is so into victims and case-so this was very refreshing. I will have to find his name as he is my new celebrity crush!!

  6. “…a good, well-intentioned, and well done Confessional should help a being recognize the truth of their own ability to cause/effect.

    It isn’t “look what you did, you dirty dog”. It is a chance to clean up an area and regain the ability to reach and do.”

    You got it, Jim. Otherwise, it’s an enforced set of morals which has no other basis than “personal” opinion (Axiom 31), and which probably stems from one’s own past (Act Three, HFP). I’ve had both sides of the coin and I can say, I like the one which has the intention that I grow as a being, rather than the “look-what-you’ve-done-you-slimebag” ones. 🙂

    • Personally I was never really a big fan of all this sec checking they used to do at ASHO which is one of the reasons I jumped ship and joined AO staff.

      James Marchand was big on sec checking and I used to constantly get into fire fights with him over it.

      I think a lot of this craziness had to do with Jim Coleman who’d always would be noting that some PC was nattering about something instead of looking for actual *auditing* errors.

      One time some auditor picked up a withhold I had allegedly “missed” while doing an Int RD on some PC and the duffus wanted to Comm Ev my ass for it.

      I was given the choice either to get comm-eved or attend Sec Checking School over at New World Corp.

      Anyway I choose Sec Checking School which was like boot camp for sec checkers but that’s another story.

      Sec Checking is valuable tech when it is applied correctly when needed but like any other tech it can be abused.

    • This tape has the material on creation and the 2D. It’s one place it exists, and has since the earliest years of Scientology.

      ASSESSMENT 0F PC _ THE DYNAMICS: BE, DO, HAVE
      A LECTURE GIVEN ON 20 NOVEMBER 1952

      • Thanks, Jim:

        “People have been hammering at me to get sex as an act differentiated from sex as children. I’ve never quite been able to see why this was, because the truth of the matter is that the creation of one’s own universe gives one the sensation of creation and can have far more joy in creation than the creation of children through the sexual act. There’s an urge in that direction, but it’s the urge toward creation, it is not the urge toward just one sex or something of the sort. This urge toward creation gets all wound up in an act, which is no more and no less than an energy flow. So again, we’re doing with an energy flow.”

        There is another reference, in the tech volumes I believe, on this which is the one I was thinking of. I found it last year and will look for it again. However, this is a great tape, all about the 2D and sex and what I’ve always felt pins a thetan to this universe – sensation.

    • Ah, yes. That was it. Makes sense as that series (and course) talked a lot about “Create”. Thanks very much, Trekker.

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