out 2d

by Lana M.

Ethics is a personal thing. It is the choices that a person makes in day to day life which influence their survival or hinder it.

There are no absolutes, and the gradient scale of right and wrong are something that every person on this planet has to personally weigh up, when going about life.

Should I pay for this item, or quietly walk out with it in my pocket?

Should I keep my vows with my spouse, or have some fun on the town without him/her knowing?

Should I gamble with my salary, invest, create a savings account, or stash the money under my mattress?

Should I work — and where — and what role of responsibility will  I take for my place of work in seeing to their ongoing survival?

When I screw up or make a mistake, should I be honest and own up, or try to cover it up so no one finds out?

So many questions, and only you can make the choices and decisions.

I have met many people in recent years who I care for deeply. Really good friends and people I will go out of my way to assist and help. I open my house up to people and routinely have people living here for days, weeks or even months.

I love being able to help a person along and get them flying — but every once in a while I run into a person who despite the best of intentions, simply continues on a down-ward spiral. There are problems, there is a woven mess of personal, marital and organizational issues that seem impossible to unravel. And as we get one sorted out — another pops up as unresolving.

And in each case where an individual in this situation has shown up, there has been an underlying ethics situation that is continuing in present time and prevents any change.

I don’t use this as a label or way of outcasting a person — but a simple acknowledgement that the person is making decisions in their life that are not improving survival for them. They are involved in things that are actually dishonest, illegal, unfair or out-exchange — not because I say so, but because they KNOW so and have not been willing to look or admit to it. There is a continued push pull of wanting to achieve things, but then pulling themselves back so they do not continue to cause harm.

And until they sit back and look at, and take responsibility for what they are doing with their own hands, there is no moving forward on the Bridge.  It is not that I, or another auditor closes the gates — but because THEY stop themselves from making gains.  Actively.

We could not push them up The Bridge or audit them regardless of their scene, as the tech won’t go in, they won’t make the gains, and they are not honestly in session as they are too busy trying to withhold or not be discovered.

When I worked in the Sea Org I had a theoretical view of Ethics, and would apply it to a fair degree in a rote manner, but my own capacity to confront and direct another person has come way up since that time. Recently I have had a several criminal-types who have ended up at my door, and no matter how much help is offered them, until they actually confront and take responsibility for what THEY are doing (not what has been done to them), there is simply no change, no movement on the Bridge and continued unhappiness.

This has brought home to me the importance of a field auditor and group having strong Ethics lines. Writing a report on a person and sending it to them and to their file is a simple basic ethics gradient that has to be used.  Calling an Ethics Hearing when a person blows. Getting a PTS Rundown standardly completed, or a thorough confessional. Pulling the withholds becomes vital, and the use of conditions formulas give a person the way to pull themselves up by their own boot straps.

I care for people and it unfortunately worries me when I see a person unhappy, caught up in personal messes and seemingly unable to resolve them.

The truth is however that I cannot get another person to make the survival choices in their life. I cannot (and never will) try to force a reality on another person “for their own good”.  Ethics only works as a personal thing. It requires the person themselves sitting back, recognizing that the only way things will improve is by them taking responsibility for what they have done and are doing, and then CHANGING those things.

Another person cannot do it for them.

Only they can.

And though it may not be a pleasant personal journey, the person themselves realises that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming train, but is actually the way out. And life improves. And things go well.

I extend my hand to persons who are in such circumstances. I will help people who want to lead an honest life (not honest in my view, but honest in theirs).


“Case gain depends entirely upon the person’s ability to view the truth of something in order to bring about an as-isness. (Ref: The Axioms of Scientology, Booklet: Axioms and Logics)

“This ability is gained or regained on a gradient scale. The Grade Chart is designed to assist one to view gradiently larger areas of truth at each level. As one progresses up the Chart his ability to view the truth of things improves and expands. The accumulated masses and burdens and problems and falsities of a lifetime or lifetimes are dissolved and vanished, leaving the being free and clean and in control of his life and environment.

“But to receive help as a pc or pre-OT, one has to be honest with his auditor.

“Dishonest people have withholds, and withholds stack up mass and bring about stupidity. They cut the person’s reach and his ability to perceive. They hold in place the masses that imprison and pin the being at the level of Homo sapiens-and a miserable Homo sapiens, at that! Who is such a person really fooling?

“Thus, one can bar his own way up the Bridge by dishonesty.

“I always feel a bit sad when I see somebody doing himself in this way. It is so pointless.

“One sees this in those who, for whatever irrational reason, cling knowingly to withholds and wind up critical, nattery and generating hostility. If one finds himself feeling hounded or persecuted, he should ask himself what his condition is on the first dynamic instead of going around persuading others to do him in.

“How precious, after all, are one’s dishonesties, withholds and falsities in the face of the real freedom there is to be gained?

“One CAN be honest. He will find it a happier, more comfortable existence when he is.

“And more important-he’ll find the route to stable case gain is now open to him.


“That is the route to sanity. It is the route up the Bridge to OT and real freedom. With honesty, one can make it and make it all the way!

“Why settle for anything less?”



98 thoughts on “Ethical choices

  1. Very true Lana,

    I would like to put this in a future edition of the Mag or Journal if I may. Acknowledgements given of course.


    Mike APIS

  2. Amen, Lana. This is a guiding principle I use in my practice as well, and when someone needs and asks for help in this area, I am fully willing to assist. For example, recently Stefan had back-off on doing conditions in his life despite some glaring – to him – outpoints. So, after some RPEC and some coaching and hatting in the area, he is like a steamroller currently changing conditions in his life right now.

    Here is a definition from the Admin Dictionary I often use and that I find quite helpful, and which is coincident with the purpose of ethics:

    “OUT-ETHICS 2. his own concept of his own ethics is not adequate to his survival – that’s what that means. (7204C11 SO)”

    In essence, what you are doing when you help along these lines is helping one regain Cause point in their lives and on their dynamics and allowing them to play a better game.

    Great article!

  3. P.S. Just gotta say again, these pictures and graphics you find for the MS2 articles really help show the mass and realilty of the article.

  4. As Shakespeare (inspired by the ancient Greek advice to “Know Thyself”) said in Macbeth:

    “This above all: to thine own self be true,
    And it must follow, as the night the day,
    Thou canst not then be false to any man.” …..

    And now, with LRH’s ethics advices and technologies, we have tools which Scientologists can use to encourage a person who is suffering from a shortage of honesty within themselves and with others to get free from that trap once they understand that they are in a trap and that this trap is ruining their life. It is easier than they may think, and true freedom awaits.

  5. In addition to the tech of ethics and the direct application of it, there was a few auditing actions that changed my life at various points and took the effort and struggle out of “trying to be ethical”. Top of the list was the Happiness Rundown – removing the false data and the agreement with out-ethics individuals who had influenced me. Another was Clay Table De-PTSing. Again, the influence of a Suppressive Person from the past, often unknown and unsuspected, makes it very difficult to change course – but spotted and blown it makes it very very easy. There are of course other actions, but I wanted to put in a plug for some of the auditing actions that aren’t used enough as they allow one to make the transition to a more ethical life as easy as can be.

    • Thanks for the plug, Tom. While I’ve never delivered the HRD, your wins echo what my pcs who have had the action say about it. And I’m always behind any kind of CTP action. Wild and powerful stuff!

    • This comment got me thinking – thank you Manhattan Tom. I well recall going into the HRD, Clay Table De-PTSing, Life Orientation Course and FPRD, basic list as well as 1D, 2D and 3D. On each action I was “kickin’ back” but each action produced great results. There was never any RPEC (which would probably have been quite helpful with the kick back), just run the processes to EP.

    • I agree Tom.

      Did the HRD as a co-audit when it was first released. Truly an incredible RD. Others that aren’t used often enough in my opinion are the full Danger RD based on the 3 May PL and RED 176 Auditor Recovery along with the Auditor Correction List.

      I’ve also had and seen some phenomenally incredible results from Ethics and Exchange by Dynamics.

      There is so much great tech to handle ethics aside from just doing conditions or endlessly writing up O/Ws or demanding that some member or public get sec checked.

  6. I’ll never forget getting withholds off for the first time-it was tough, but the exhilerating feeling afterwards was unbelievable. My space went from a lumpy, clogginess to unlimited smooth mint freshmess! Thrilling!!

  7. What is so remarkable about Ron is he treated us as “adults, as”the thetans we really are. He didn’t treat us as victims. He gave us the straight poop. It was like ‘hey, here is some incredible stuff and if you want to really go free this is how you do it” And one big way is to take responsibility for your own actions.

    Then you have some who started on that path , but because they didn’t step up to higher responsibility levels, or more accurately didn’t use tech to really come clean are like little kids blaming Ron. And then you dig further and find out they have major crimes! Real criminals. And boy, these guys are the biggest “victims” on the planet!!

    • Ingrid! I am so with you on this! This is exactly how I feel as well. It’s like, “You’re a thetan, you’re immortal, so here’s what’s expected, and even that isn’t what you’re capable of!” I’d much rather be treated like that then some little, “Poor you, poor little baby” victim. And your conclusion on who is going to make it and who won’t is spot on. Excellent! 😀

    • But long ago I closed my book on the no-gain case. Each of those few dozen no-gains tell frightening lies to little children, pour ink on shoes, say how abused they are while tearing the guts out of those unlucky enough to be around them. They are suppressive persons, every one. I know. I’ve seen them all the way down to the little clinker they call their soul. And I don’t like what I saw. (HCOB 29 Sept 65 II The Continuing Overt Act)

  8. Problem with ethics tech is like confessional tech. It tends to be abused then falls out of use because people build up so much BPC on the subject.

    Probably why Ron developed the Ethics Repair List.

    Also a wrong condition assigned can cause that “concentrated hell” that Ron comments on in C/S Series 78.

    Fortunately a C/S 53 and more specifically the High/Low TA Assessment or LIX can address the above.

    Also there are actions that can be done by those who haven’t had the good fortune of being trained.

    Such as Repair of Past Ethics Conditions.

    Also there tends to be this false datum floating around that it doesn’t matter what the person’s indicators are on the action.

    That and for other reasons is probably why ethics tech has been abandoned by many in the so called “independent field”.

    Which in many cases sets up a Catch 22. The person’s ethics are out yet they have BPC on “ethics” and “justice” actions but unless they get their ethics in to a greater or lesser degree they are not going to make case gain.

    Fortunately there are technical actions that can be done to undercut ethics like the afore mentioned HRD. Ethics and Exchange, Repair of Past Ethics and the above repair actions including the Class VIII C/S on Unnecessary Sec Checks and LCRE.

    In other words the case can be Handled with Auditing as per the HCOB by that basic name says.

    So you don’t have to force someone to apply ethics to themselves but audit them up to a point where they are willing to get ethics in on there own.

    I just thought I’d bring this up because aside from the incredible wins that can be gotten by applying ethics tech or any other tech there can also be failures when it is not properly or wrongly applied.


    • Tech won’t go in when ethics is out, no matter how much tech you throw at it. Honestly done and for the pc/student/person, applying ethics won’t create BPC and in fact can quite easily clean any prior BPC up in the area.

      • Chris,

        From I understand as an auditor one’s job is to apply the tech i.e. *audit*.

        Per the HCOB Handling with Auditing.

        Of course when the tech can’t be gotten in then ethics must be applied. However aside from the person being an “ethics case” there is also the possibility that the auditor may have screwed up. See the following quote from the Class VIII Lecture Certainty of Standard Tech:

        The most deadly sins of auditing are, of course, auditing
        without any comprehension of the laws of listing. These
        are, that is a deadly sin. It can wrap a PC around a
        telegraph pole. And I mean those laws of listing which were
        put out in a bulletin in 1968. And any one of those not
        followed can wrap a PC around a telegraph pole. It is very
        It is sufficiently serious that five PCs audited in a row
        on an auditor who did not know the laws of listing, and so
        on, and who didn’t know these facts, had trouble, each one
        of them, with ethics. Almost immediately, within some forty
        eight hours. And it goes something like this.
        Out tech results in out ethics, then out ethics has to be
        put in heavily in order to hold the line to get tech back
        in. If tech were perfect ethics would be unnecessary.
        So you see that an auditor who doesn’t know his business
        opens the door to ethics. And the degree that tech has gone
        out is a direct measure of the amount of ethics which has
        to be put in.

        • Robbin, I am quite familiar with that tape. I think you may not fully grok it. But aside from that, we were talking about someone whose ethics could possibly be out. When needed, you put ethics in; ethics has to go in before tech. The reference you quoted is specific, but not applicable to what was being discussed.

          So, could you provide a reference for this view of yours?:

          “So you don’t have to force someone to apply ethics to themselves but audit them up to a point where they are willing to get ethics in on there own.”

          • Reference would be the following HCOB:

            HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
            HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JANUARY 1970 Issue II
            There is no reason or excuse not to actually HANDLE a pc’s desire or complaint with auditing.
            By handle is meant finish off, complete, end cycle on.
            To give you an idea of the reverse—in admin we sometimes find terminals that refer despatches to others, let them drift, give excuses why not. This all adds up to NOT HANDLING. This is the basic reason for DEV T (Developed, meaning excessive, traffic). Like the stationery company writes somebody in the org to please specify the number of sheets wanted. So whoever’s hat it is refers it to somebody else who refers it to another who fails to answer. In this way, the org can look industrious while accomplishing nothing. Nobody HANDLES it.
            You can get a similar situation going with pcs. Nobody HANDLES the pc. And if you keep this up, your whole area fills up with unhandled pcs, the org’s repute goes down and stats eventually crash.
            The org is being paid to HANDLE pcs. It is not being paid to put them off or explain or let them drift away.
            Here is an example from the early 1960s. An org had it going that anybody who was feeling bad and demanding help got a review. The review consisted of a Green Form to F/N. While this would clean up an ARC Brk or PTP or a poor prior session, it sure wasn’t about to remedy a feeling of nausea. So a pc would come in with a feeling of nausea. He would be sent to Review, get a Green Form and F/N on an ARC Break. Then Review would shrug off the fact that the pc was still nauseated by saying all it could do was a GF! In short, it wouldn’t handle the pc.
            Another recent case—pc with migraine headaches. Got some (evidently poor) Dianetic Auditing. No change. When the pc’s friend complained, he was told it was “the illegal life she was living” and no action was taken. So the pc went to another org and there they refused auditing due to painkillers (instead of waiting 2 or 3 days until it wore off).
            These are cases of NOT HANDLING.
            The idea of non-handling can also go into fees. A pc once paid a Franchise for auditing to be done in an org. The Franchise did not forward the fee so the org sent the pc back home.
            Service and HANDLING are the same thing. When you give service you handle.
            There are thousands of ways of not handling. Letting backlogs occur in Tech and Qual is probably the most serious to org income and to field repute. Also if a person is goofed up in Tech he probably is suffering and to be put off in Qual for any reason at all is a severe blow to the org. A 3 hour Qual backlog is too long.
            So, part of HANDLING cases is HANDLE N – O – W ! 4
            I recall a Qual backlog I once found of 10 pcs. They were of all varieties—but the main fault was just nobody had the idea except the pcs that they should be handled NOW. And HANDLED. I sat down and did four of them in the next four hours and grabbed off auditors from Admin and Exec areas and handled the rest. Within 6 hours of finding this backlog, they were all HANDLED, happily, finally and wholly satisfied.
            What was required was (a) a determination to handle cases, (b) a surety they could be handled and (c) the actual handling. All three points are needful.
            Only two things prevent the above. When the help factor is low in the org or its auditors, there is no real determination to handle cases. A commercialism enters where the payment of the money is more interesting than the delivery of the service. This is self-defeative. One has to have the money but one won’t continue to get money unless one is vitally interested in actually delivering service—which means actually handling the cases.
            The certainty that one can handle cases depends in the main upon good training and exact application of the technology. There can be an awful lot of tech to apply but the point is to apply the tech that is applied with exactness. “Squirreling” is not really different processes—it is careless, incomplete, messed up auditing procedure. An auditor auditing a process that reads with excellent TRs to an F/N with good indicators seldom has any loses. But even given good procedure, one occasionally gets a lose. This tends to reduce one’s certainty that he can get a result on a pc. Usually it isn’t one’s own pcs that cause this—it’s hearing about some pc who didn’t get a result, but not hearing the whole story.
            If one’s command of the subject of auditing is poor he doesn’t recognize why there was a lose. A pc lies about having eaten or slept or is being audited on someone else’s determination or some such thing and because of these, the pc gets a lose. This causes the auditor to have a lose.
            Some auditors can get 20 wins and I lose and then mourn only about the I lose.
            What is missed here—with pc loses—is that it is almost always a short-term lose. They lost in this one but nobody thinks to KEEP AT IT WITH DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY UNTIL IT’S A WIN.
            I’ve seen somebody audited for years before he finally and forever lost his chronic trouble. He would get better and then relapse, never quite so bad. And finally he recovered totally.
            So there must be some idea extant amongst auditors that all “twins” in auditing must be fast, total and appreciated volubly. This isn’t always the case. In fact, it is in the minority.
            So an auditor’s and an org’s certainty should depend only on being certain of eventual permanent result and to be very extra happy when it is fast, total and appreciated.
            To handle a case one keeps at it. So the pc got an intensive. So the pc wasn’t handled in that intensive. Well, one doesn’t just dust it off and say that’s it forever. The Case Supervisor looks harder and gets the Registrar to get more auditing bought.
            If Dianetics didn’t handle, Scientology will. If this process didn’t handle completely, that process may.
            This is the winning attitude. I know one case that’s still goofed up after a decade. The medics put a steel pipe in his leg bone. He won’t get it taken out and insists on auditing only. So every few months somebody tries again. Sooner or later this case will be handled. The point is to keep trying to handle, not dream up reasons it can’t be.
            Auditors brought up with the idea that 5 hours of auditing should always resurrect a decayed corpse haven’t been brought up right. Some SP around them has been making demands of the subject and auditing that BUILD IN LOSES.
            Girl with migraine, 15 hours of Dianetics, still has migraine. Okay. So we don’t brush her off. We get her to buy a good long Scientology intensive and do a full “GF 40”. Still has migraine. So we now do another Dianetic Intensive.
            We don’t mislead her. We say, “Okay, you want to get rid of your migraine. So we’ll stay with you if you’ll work along with us as long as it takes. It might happen fast, it might happen slow. You might have to go all the way to OT Grades. But we’ll try all the way.”
            A Registrar that promises instant miracles is cutting the Tech Sec’s throat and the GI as well!
            The condition can be handled. The whole point is, for the good of the pc and the org it eventually must be handled.
            There are literally thousands of processes and approaches available for use.
            The pc expects the condition to be handled. So one way or another one gets the pc handled. To do otherwise is to court disaster for the org.
            Now and then a pc gets away, nearly always because of errors that get the pc upset with the subject of auditing, never when the org wasn’t still trying to handle. A session was goofed and not repaired, somebody in the org inferred the condition couldn’t be handled, that’s the sort of thing that loses pcs.
            Keep on trying to handle and you will succeed.
            Auditing is remarkable enough already not to cripple it by leading pcs to expect instant results every time.
            But the main point is, you audit a pc with Dianetics and Scientology until the pc’s case is handled.
            And sooner or later, it will be.
            Copyright © 1970
            by L. Ron Hubbard
            L. RON HUBBARD Founder

            The way I see it if the person feels that ethics is being forced on them then you are not paralleling the case. C/S Series 2.

            True ethics has to go in before tech.

            But what level of ethics?

            For instance say on a drug case having them sign a waiver promising not to take drugs while being audited may be all the ethics that may be required.

            This is covered under the PL of Ethics Gradients.

            The question is what level of ethics is required to get tech in?

            • RV I can’t believe you are starting a debate about the use of ethics.

              This is going to go South quickly as your comment comes across as an opt term with the Class VIII and Class IXs who are very familiar with the use of ethics and are going to defend this.

              There are signifigances being added here that just come across as argumentative. It is not that we all have to agree, however we ain’t going to debate ethics tech and it’s use or workability.

            • Wow, Robin. Could you not just excerpt the paragraph? I guess not because nowhere in that HCOB does it say you audit someone up to the point where they are willing to get their ethics in. That was just you interpretation.

              Regarding what level of ethics, that wasn’t the point at all. It seems that you’re changing the parameters to support your interpretation above. IMO.

              • Chris,

                Just read the HCOB as is regardless of *what you think* my interpretation of it is.

                BTW does Ron say to handle the PC with anything other than auditing?

                What I said was my opinion. You can disagree with that if you wish.

        • P.S. That reference, the Class VIII tape, in it Ron never says you don’t apply ethics, just that out-tech leads to out-ethics. Out-ethics is still out-ethics. Ya know?

          • The slow-gain case is also committing overts the auditor doesn’t see.

            Therefore, a little discipline in the environment speeds the slow-gain case, the one we’re more interested in.

            The slow-gain case responds to a bit of “keep your nose clean, please, while I apply the thetan-booster.”

            (HCOB 29 Sept 65 II The Continuing Overt Act)

            [It appears Ethics cannot be taken out of the auditing equation.]

    • If the person applying the tech is clean and happy in the area of ethics tech and has had great wins in the area themselves, they will apply it in a sane way to others to many wins. I’m pretty insouciant in the area and have no worries on doing harm to others in applying ethics tech.

      • No wockin’ flurries then Ingrid 🙂

        My point is that you can still handle people who have BPC on the subject and run the other way when ethics is mentioned.

        I myself have audited so called “ethics cases” as a Case Cracker at AO that no one would touch because they were so “out ethics”, “suppressive”, “PTS” etc or were considered “dog cases”. True at times you have to get the person’s ethics in HCO say when they set fire to the PC waiting area or something.

        But the fact is I’ve seen a lot of so called “ethics cases” who were just basically cases of *out tech*.

        As Ron says in that quote I gave Chris.

        The point is I’m not saying that ethics shouldn’t be applied but like with any other aspect of Scientology it takes judgement and understanding.

      • Exactly Lana.

        We are in total agreement here. I’m just pointing out possible different levels approach to a case that has a sour view of ethics.

        For instance some cases don’t even understand the subject so the handling would be to word clear them on the conditions and do Ethics by Dynamics per the policy Ethics or a 3 May PL.

        All I am promoting is a broader view on the subject.

        That is all.

          • I also never said that anyone had a narrow view. I merely suggested that one could broaden their view on the subject.

            Also what is this about pushing the authoritative point of view?

            Any discussion should be related to the actual HCOBs, Policies or Directives under discussion. Not what the level of the auditor that is stating their opinion on the subject.

            For instance David Mayo was a Class XII Snr C/S and yet I still KRed him when he violated the tech.

            So if I wrote anything here that violated some HCOB or PL then show it to me. Otherwise it is a violation of C/S series 43:

            AUDITOR INVAL
            An auditor can be invalidated by a C/S by having a lot of questionable tech points thrown at him.
            The auditor’s data gets shaky.
            If no decision was ever made—is not in HCO Bs and tapes—is not to hand and
            can’t be referred to by HCO B and tape, then a C/S should not be making the point.
            Example: Auditor extends a list three more items beyond an F/N. C/S chops him. There is no such rule. The pc maybe wouldn’t accept the item until he listed a few more. Result is a firefight between C/S and auditor, simply because it isn’t a valid point.
            HCO Bs and Tapes are the stable data that form the agreement between the auditor and the C/S. “If it isn’t written (or spoken on tape) it isn’t true.”
            Don’t wander off known tech points in C/Sing.
            Never shake an auditor’s data by advancing data not on HCO Bs and Tapes.
            Always know your data, your HCO Bs and Tapes and refer the auditor to them in Cramming.
            Cramming MUST have a library of all materials.
            A hidden data line can build up in C/S-Auditor lines (or course lines or Cramming lines) that CAN UNSTABILIZE ALL TECH AND DENY FURTHER RESULTS.
            The decay of tech in areas begins with hidden data lines that ARE NOT TRUE.
            So use and refer to HCO Bs and Tapes and leave all other points alone. Your auditors will become confident and certain and Tech will improve.
            It’s enough just to insist on the usual. Then auditors and cases will fly.
            Copyright © 1971
            by L. Ron Hubbard
            L. RON HUBBARD Founder

                • Also there is no “stretch” when the common point of agreement should be what is written in HCOBs, Policy and recorded in Ron’s lectures.

                  Don’t you agree. That any arguments should be settled by referral to the exact source reference?

                  Thus my point is what did I say in my comment that was in violation of an HCOPL, HCOB or recorded lecture?

                  The exact reference. Please.

                    • Jim,

                      I thought I did this when I posted the HCOB Handling with Auditing where Ron says:

                      “There is no reason or excuse not to actually HANDLE a pc’s desire or complaint with auditing.”

                    • Anyway I’d like to expatiate on this further since I have a lot of time on my hands right now kickin’ back listening to Dead Radio on iTunes.

                      Did you know that two members of the Grateful Dead were Scientologists?


                      But I digress.

                      Hey really I’m all kudos for Lana about applying ethics tech and getting such great results.

                      My approach to ethics is …..

                      Well if I had someone who really needed ethics handling I’d probably turn them over to someone like say Lana.

                      I guess I’m just one of those ….what did one guy who was the AGI call us …that’s right…one of those “theetie wheetie auditors” 😉

                      Rather audit then get into that ethics stuff. Fully hatted and trained HGC auditor by the way.

                      Seen people get into all types of ethics trouble then did an FES to just before that and found the out list.

                      C/S Series 78

                      Or the guy blew and found out they went exterior in auditing just prior to that point.

                      HCOB Blows Auditing Past Exterior.

                      Then of course there are blows for other reasons as covered in the HCOB on Recovering Blown PCs and Students.

                      Though I know when the guy is wrapped around a telephone pole and third dynamic justice actions are involved it means no auditing per the HCOB Auditing and Ethics.

                      Anyway I figure as a Field Auditor my job is to audit and I’m slowly ….say ….immersing myself in the possibility that I may have to wear other hats, like Registrar, Treasury Secretary, Lecturer …and….heaven forbid….oh my gawd…shaking in my boots…Ethics Officer.

                      I mean if I was going to start a group that would probably be the first person I’d hire so I didn’t have to do it. 🙂

                      Some day it’d be nice to have an Org again. So I wouldn’t have to wear that hat and could give it to someone else.


                    • Robin,
                      No, you didn’t show the ref. You posted an auditing ref. Fine. It has its applicability. So does the ethics tech. Any of this material, these tools apply in working it out so the person is in fact recovering their ability to play a better game.
                      It ALL requires judgment and the correct estimation of effort to get a positive result.

                      I am assuming something along that line is what you are/were trying to say.

                      The Opening Piece is pointing out a fact -ethics must be in or case gain ain’t.

                    • No dispute there like Clean Hands Make a Happy Life, Honesty and Case Gain are more R-Factors for the PC or prospective PC.

                      Sorta like keep your nose clean while we apply the thetan booster.

                      Actually this would be good data for a PC to have. Sorta like the SP/PTS Detection Routing and Handling course for PCs who are PTS or Drugs Drying Out for the heavy drug case.

                      This for cases in general or particularly PCs who might have some ethics bind spots.

                      BTW never said that you didn’t have to apply a certain degree of ethics before certain PCs will make case gain which are also covered in the HCOPL on Ethics Gradients etc.

    • Robin,
      “…audit them up to a point where they are willing to get ethics in on there (sic) own.”


      Maybe you are trying to say something else, because what you’ve said here is nonsense. Doesn’t work. Is an Altered Sequence.

      • 🙂

        You’re right. Not exactly a statement I’d stand behind.

        Though we both know that getting ethics in is not just doing conditions. For instance it can be as simple as:

        “keep your nose clean, please, while I apply the thetan- booster.”

        HCO BULLETIN OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1965 Issue II

        Or the way we used to handle Drug Reversions by getting them to sign a “Drug Waiver”.

        Or finding the actual why that created the antagonism from the person is now PTS too.

        These type of actions to a greater to a lesser degree are getting ethics in prior to getting tech in.

        That said that the PC will eventually get to the point where they will get their own ethics in like say show up for session on time or you don’t have to tell them not to drink a bottle of Jack Daniels less 24 hrs prior to auditing i.e. take more responsibility.

        That sort of thing.

  9. Lana, when I went to get back on OT VII, I sought out a standard tech auditor/CS I could/would trust with MY case. (That says a lot about him.) After the initial interview, and before he would even consider starting a review, he had me look at some areas of my life and helped me apply conditions to them. So the first two days of a very short stay were doping ethics. Now, I am a long-term staff and Class VIII C/S, so I’ve been through a lot of ethics and justice actions. But it was still a right action and with his help, I was able to see this. As a result, I had some incredible wins. But there’s more! (LOL) He did not let me get back on the level until I had gone home and handled some out-ethics on another dynamic. And THAT action blew me away. So my point? Even at my level I needed a little bit of “introduction” to the definition of “out-ethics” before tech went in. And BECAUSE my auditor did that, I knew he could be trusted with my case as he wasn’t concerned with any reasons I couldn’t apply ethics to myself. He wanted me to win. And I learned that when needed – and the thetan KNOWS it – ethics is the right action. 🙂

    • Your story really resounds with me Chris and is my own experience too.
      At the beginning of 2011 I got my own ethics in — and it only happened because things had been let slide so long and so badly that my dynamics were a disaster and I had become chronically ill. I had compromised with my own personal ethics one too many times and it was a real shake up for me when my doctor said she there was a possibility I had cancer. I did not (as determined by later tests) but my body was a mess and I had let things slide for too long. Only then did I snap to and get my ethics in – starting with my 1D and then to my 2D, my 3D, my 4D and onwards and upwards.
      Life has never been the same !
      You are right — a thetan KNOWS it — when ethics are out, you know it. You know you need to work out what condition you are in, and change that condition, because you are headed in the wrong direction.
      And those condition formula work like a charm.
      Just so simple.
      it is like LRH left some instructions of how to pull yourself up out of the muck by your own bootstraps.
      Really cool stuff!

      • Hi Lana,

        I’m so happy that things turned out well for you. My friends are important to me! 🙂

        More and more every day as I audit on VII or apply the tech to others (including ethics and admin tech), it’s becoming more and more apparent that LRH left us ALL the tools we need to dig ourselves out of this mess (and help dig our friends out) and figure out our bearings. Despite the naysayers, he left us the manual on Life and what it is. As I strip off more false data every day in session or in life, I am realizing the simplicity of the game and how to play it better. Cause over Life is a reality. And it’s a helluva lot of fun, too!

        You’ve probably watched these videos, but your comment about handling your 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, etc. reminded me of this lecture set – The Clearing Congress Videos. To me, they are integral to understanding the road map and how one walks out. If you haven’t ewatched them – or not seen them in a while – they’re a great set of seeing LRH at work lecturing, as well as something you and Jim could curl up to when the kids are in bed. 🙂


  10. I think that the resolution to this debate may be to realize that handling situations like this is a matter of judgement. One must use judgement in application in determining the correct course of action. And judgement is a somewhat individual thing that may not be uniform from one person to the next or even in the same person from one point in time to the next. It is not rote. Also, paralleling the PC is a matter of observation as well as judgement.

    One thing that RV said above that I totally agree with is: “Also there tends to be this false datum floating around that it doesn’t matter what the person’s indicators are on the action.”

    Ron says in this excerpt from HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 JUNE 1968, ETHICS:
    “…..There are many ways to handle counter- and other-intentionedness. There is a fine line between ethics and tech.”……

    In the same PL Ron notes that:
    And having accomplished that the purpose becomes

    And the purpose of doing all that is to get tech in, right? So, whatever accomplishes doing that is valid.
    That said, one might not be willing to do “whatever”. I remember an LRH tape where Ron describes a hilarious adventure he had when he was a Los Angeles cop. He was in a bar and a guy tried to grab his gun and shoot someone. So Ron took the gun back and then grabbed the guy, told him to calm down, brought him up to the bar and told him that he was going to buy him a drink…into which he surreptitiously emptied a salt shaker. After the guy puked his guts out, he was calmer and told Ron that he had realized that “one should not shoot one’s friends”.
    I.E., he was back in session and having wins.
    (If anyone recognizes this tape from this story please tell me the name of it. I seem to remember that it was on the subject of cognitions.)
    My thought in telling this story is that, despite the fact that the action was successful and amusing as it is is to hear about, every auditor might not be willing or able to deal with a situation like this in the same way.

    • Hi ESP,

      Thanks for the backup bro. You said it better then I obviously did.

      The lecture you are discussing is The Deterioration of Liberty. One of my faves.

      I always like at what ethics is needed to get the tech in. Like is the PC there? Are they sessionable? Are they there to get audited?

      I don’t care if they’re a porn star or a prostitute a gun runner or drug dealer or even if they work for the Government (I mean how low can ya get?) as long as they’re purpose is to get audited for their own personal gain and follow my directions.

      I’m no moralist.

      Now if they want someone to get their ethics or be able to help ’em see their ethics blind spots I’ll…..hmmmm….turn ’em over to Lana 😉

      No just kidding 🙂

      I’d apply the tech I know and familiar with like Ethic and Exchange, Correct Danger Handling, 3 May PL, Order Vs Disorder, PTS Interviews, PTS Handling, FPRD, etc.

      I guess it comes down to using what you know and what you know you can get gains doing :

      It isn’t using a lot of things indifferently that counts. It’s using something you know well very well indeed.
      And it isn’t putting people’s attention on 40 dozen targets that gets them to be trained or processed, it’s getting their attention on one thing that can become real to them soon.
      So any reason beyond pure admin goofs that anybody in the field or an org would do poorly lies in just two things:
      1. Not doing one technical thing well and
      2. Not keeping people’s attention directed at it and nothing else.
      When an auditor knows seventy processes indifferently he knows none.
      When one directs people’s attention at 40 dozen targets one disperses them and they don’t want training or processing as they don’t know what to have, since they can’t tell what’s there.
      You have to be skilled on one process at least and know all about it before you can do two. If anyone were to make a good study of 8C and do it well, and do nothing else for any case, a high percentage of pc wins would occur.

      HCO BULLETIN OF 29 JUNE 1964

      • “The individual who lacks any ethics technology is unable to put in ethics on himself and restrain himself from contrasurvival actions, so he caves himself in. And the individual is not going to come alive unless he gets hold of the basic tech of ethics and applies it to himself and others. He may find it a little unpal- atable at first, but when you’re dying of malaria you don’t usually complain about the taste of the quinine: you may not like it, but you sure drink it.” BASICS OF ETHICS, PL 12 July 80R.

        An “ethics interview” like the DofP Interview and a Cramming Interview (applying the Sup’s Code) are all “NOT auditing you” consultations. That is, not conducted under the Auditor’s Code and the admonitions concerning evaluation.

        In particular with an ethics handling, frequently the person has to suck up some quinine and if need be have a good healthy draught of it poured for him and the glass raised to his mouth the lips pried open and down the gullet it goes. Tastes like shit but it cures the malaria.

        Now, a diffident attitude about that on the part of the person helping this person out is inapplicable.

        “There isn’t a person here who isn’t too careful about hurting somebody else. And all it is, is a diffidence about communication.”

        “The iron constitution of the wits is greater than you think. It’s much harder to drive a person stark staring mad than you believe. As a matter of fact, it’s very hard to make a person worse. Some people manage it, but it’s very hard to do. It’s very hard to do. What
        a person can stand up to, how much abuse he can take without worsening, is something you should understand. That doesn’t give you a wide-open invitation to be technically incorrect, to use bum communication and do all the rest of it. But it does tell you that you
        worry too much about doing so. Be as perfect as possible and communicate as straightly as you can.” Tape, Other Processes, The Help Button, 13 Feb 58.

        • “In particular with an ethics handling, frequently the person has to suck up some quinine and if need be have a good healthy draught of it poured for him and the glass raised to his mouth the lips pried open and down the gullet it goes. Tastes like shit but it cures the malaria.”

          Roger that Jim is sorta the response of some PCs when I show ’em Mary Sue’s PL on PTS Handling regarding the why and indicating that that mean rotten “SP” was probably created by his or her actions or inaction.

          No need to violate the Auditor’s Code the policy says what it says I’m just the messenger 😉

          I see where you’re going with this but for a lot of auditors it’s a matter of pride and integrity to stay within the boundaries of the Code.

          Not that we (the royal we I guess) don’t step outside of it occasionally. I mean my discourses with Chris sorta prove this point.

          But then I’m not Chris’ auditor 😉

          As ESP and I were discussing. I ain’t exactly a shrinking violet as far as …..shall we say….the variety of cases I’ve audited including one or two stone cold killers.

          (Nice people when you’re on their good side 😉 )

          So diffidence no except maybe to that extent discretion is the better part of valor. Code in, TRs perfect etc. is the only way to play it based on Book 1 and SOS with some of cases I deal with.

          That game is basically the “good cop” 🙂

          • “I see where you’re going with this but for a lot of auditors it’s a matter of pride and integrity to stay within the boundaries of the Code.”

            When an auditor, be an auditor; when a Chaplain, be a Chaplain; when a Qual Consultant, be a Qual Consultant; and when an Ethics Office, BE an Ethics Officer. If one is NOT BEING the beingness of the hat, one IS to that degree, ineffective. To be effective, one uses the correct tech at the precise time that will enable the pc/pre-OT to handle whatever it is that needs to be handled at that time.

            • Not a problem for me personally wearing different hats. The problem is that the PC may get confused.

              One minute your his or her auditor and then out of session you become the fire breathing ethics officer.

              I’m pointing out the difference here.

              Another thing is you can still wear the above hats while still keeping the Auditors Code *in* with the exception of Course Supervisor which has it’s own code of conduct.

              • “Another thing is you can still wear the above hats while still keeping the Auditors Code *in*….”

                That’s mixing hats and is basically an interpretation of the tech and policy governing these functions. I’d suggest a better way to put it would be that one could continue to have ARC for, and grant beingness to, the pc/pre-OT while wearing an EO hat (or any hat).

                BTW – “One minute your his or her auditor and then out of session you become the fire breathing ethics officer.” Has that happened to you on org lines or in the field?

                • Exactly how is that “mixing hats” Chris?

                  What HCOB or Policy Letter says that you don’t apply the code outside of an auditing session?

                  In my personal opinion this is exactly where the Organization went off the rails when things like “Severe Reality Adjustments” came in and untrained (as far as Auditor Training) Execs started running things using punishment drive and threats.

                  Actually the best EOs and MAAs I’ve worked with are those who were auditor trained and pretty much followed the code.

                  The ones who were untrained morons I never bothered wasting my time with either by sending PCs to or helping me with my own personal ethics.

                  If there was a choice between me doing a Type A handling and one done by an untrained MAA or EO I’d chose the former because they’d usually come back with no why for the antagonism found or doing some off the wall “condition” cycle which would usually cause more antagonism since the PC not being able to confront their own overts would in many cases invariably chose to “disconnect ” at “doubt” instead of actually *handle* the antagonism.

                  Obviously the guy would rather scrub toilets with a tooth brush and donate some sum to the IAS then pay off his loan from Aunt Mamie or whoever or get back in comm with his parents per the Chapter on ARC and explain why they choose Scientology instead of going to law school etc.

                  Me personally. I’ve never had a problem telling some fire breathing MAA and EO who tried to enforce some reality on me to either go fuck themselves or demand a Comm Ev 😉

                  • “Exactly how is that “mixing hats” Chris?
                    “What HCOB or Policy Letter says that you don’t apply the code outside of an auditing session?”

                    It’s a tape; 15 April 59, CODES. An excerpt:

                    “Auditors sometimes, when they’ve been doing tremendous quantities of auditing, forget to shift their hats the other way. Now, here you had an example of people who have been a Registrar or something like that won’t evalu…. they keep on evaluating for a PC. Then they get into session and they kind of tend to – all of a sudden, why the D of P, after they’ve been a staff auditor for a little while, you know, he’s got them down on the carpet. And he says, “You know – you know those explanations – those explanations you were giving the pc for the engram I found very, very interesting. But you’re wondering why the pc was trying to blow during the session. Well, that was why. You were telling him what his engram was all about, and it’s up to him.”

                    “Well, the person says, “Oh, yeah, well, I’ll get my hats straightened out, here, and one way or the other.”

                    “Well, reversely an auditor can come out of session, go down and meet Joe and run right straight on through the line working with the Auditor’s Code. But no, no – he’s having dinner with a friend, don’t you see? And he’s bound by the Auditor’s Code. Oh, no, he isn’t bound by the Auditor’s Code. The Auditor’s Code applies to a session and that’s it. Got the idea?

                    “So he finds Joe is going on and on and saying, “Well, I don’t know what I’m going to do. I don’t know whether I ought to stick around or not because it just seems so fruitless – keep on arguing all the time.”

                    “And this auditor is perfectly at liberty to say, “Well, I think it’s just because you’ve got a nasty temper. I think that’s – you keep flying into people’s faces and so forth. And that’s why they’re mad at you and if you just learn to cool your temper down a little bit, why, you’ll get along.”

                    “Boy, he couldn’t do that in a session, don’t you see? But he sure could do it in social intercourse because in the social world conversation is almost totally evaluation, see? But not in a session.”

                  • Jim’s given the reference, Robin. You could also take a look at HCO PL The Ethics Officer, His Character, and HCO PL Ethics Officer Hat for an idea of how that hat operates.

                    In regards to the use of ethics, here’s an interesting view from Ron on it. Per HCO PL 20 June 1968 I, Ethics Officers, LRH says:

                    “Tech can’t be gotten in unless ethics is in. We’ve proved that by actual stats. Admin can’t be gotten in until our three techs are in (tech of ethics, tech of processing and training, tech of admin itself).

                    So if admin is out, then ethics and tech are out. If ethics is out, then tech is out.


                    As far as a pc goes, ethics is the beginning. As far as a student goes, ethics is the beginning. As far as an org goes, ETHICS IS THE BEGINNING, and behind every org sag there is out-ethics.”

  11. Thanks for the reference, RV. I may have the tape somewhere. Do you by any chance know the date? I want to play it for a group of people if I can find it.
    With regards to me backing you up, with clients like the the extreme example in that LRH tape, not everyone might be willing to be as gentle as Ron was with a dude pointing a gun at them.
    And from what you said, with a similar but less extreme case you might even be tempted to turn them over to Lana or someone else.
    Then again, you might become Lana’s backup with such cases if you keep volunteering. : -)

    • Here’s the exact date.

      The lecture is part of the 15th ACC given in Washington DC on November 22 1956 and is also part of the “Classics Series”.

      I’ve had my life threaten before by a PC back when I was working a gig at NN back in the mid 70’s.

      My TR4 was if he killed me then we’d just have to get another auditor to flatten the process 😉

      One guy I audited at AO was a former gang member from Chicago and was always packing a ACP 45 for personal protection.

      Never knew he was packing. Ya know because doing a weapons search wasn’t part of standard pre-session protocol.

      The reason we found out was when he took off that heavy leather jacket of his to run objectives for another auditor who took over the case for a short time when I was doing a short retread on something.

      Maybe they should’ve put a sign in the waiting area to check in all weapons at Tech Services 😉

      • Thanks for the reference, RV. I do have it! I appreciate that!

        Yes, I do agree, guns should be checked at the door as a standard prerequisite for getting audited even if it is not listed on the grade chart. ….the Ethics Officer’s door!
        The EO might then check for other things to the benefit of all.

        • Hey ESP,

          I never saw it as a big deal. I mean the guy was within his 2nd Amendment rights carrying one for his own personal protection.

          Never had any problem with the FBI packin’ iron when they were going over our files on NME when I was working at CCHR Int.

          Not a gun nut myself but I respect the right to arm bears 😉

          Like I said the guy was a good PC actually Pre OT who was there to get audited and so I audited him. No need for an MAA.

          After his concealed weapon was revealed he was totally OK with leaving it with Tech Services while he was in session.

          What more could you ask?

          Might have been a “former gang member” or could have been a Fed working under cover. Never had any reason to ask ’cause eligibility wasn’t my department.

          At AO we had an some interesting and eclectic clientele.

            • Robin,
              Yes. And without thorough training in Scientology, honestly done Grades all the way up, and actual experience applying to another in session, then you’ve got a lot of arbitraries sitting there to be foisted off.

              An EO/MAA or any other needs a real grounding in Scientology in order to do Scientology.

              Ronnie Bell pointed out in an earlier thread that it is a stunner to find just what sort of confused ideas exist on things Scientological.

              • Jim,

                That’s the basis of the problem. As with Auditing Tech. There is nothing wrong with Ethics Tech except with the individuals who say they apply it and as Ron says in KSW do something else.

                I see Worsel is addressing this in the following article.

                Very timely 😉

  12. From C/S Series 116, ETHICS AND THE C/S:


    There is (or can appear to be) a conflict of targets between a C/S and an Ethics Officer. An Ethics Officer is trying to get in discipline and a C/S is trying to improve a case. But it is true that an out-ethics pc does not make case gain.

    So one could say that one measures the amount of ethics which must go in to satisfy the viewpoint of the Ethics Officer who is charged with maintaining discipline and to still keep in Rule 4 of HCOB C/S Series 115 to C/S the pc for his own case gain.

    In normal operating practice, the way I handle ethics in relationship to C/Sing is to:

    1. Take the ethics actions necessary for the benefit of discipline in the group, and when this has been done,

    2. Salvage the being independently of the organizational requirements.

    So I would say that a C/S must not forbid ethics actions but that he follows steps 1 and 2 above, in that sequence. For it is very certain that tech won’t go in unless ethics is in.” LRH

  13. Perfect, Chris. This reference describes the location of that “‘fine line” with exactitude. You are a really good C/S! Thank you.

  14. In regards the use of ethics, here’s an interesting view from Ron on it. Per HCO PL 20 June 1968 I, Ethics Officers, LRH says:

    “Tech can’t be gotten in unless ethics is in. We’ve proved that by actual stats. Admin can’t be gotten in until our three techs are in (tech of ethics, tech of processing and training, tech of admin itself).

    So if admin is out, then ethics and tech are out. If ethics is out, then tech is out.


    As far as a pc goes, ethics is the beginning. As far as a student goes, ethics is the beginning. As far as an org goes, ETHICS IS THE BEGINNING, and behind every org sag there is out-ethics.”

    • This may be off topic. Chris, As for an org, I can see this. But for the PC, I would suspect that it would be more of a gradient scale. For instance, div 6 would be to get the green guy a win (any win), to make sure that he starts on the right foot.
      I know , for myself, shortly after I got in, I almost started a fight with the ethics off,because I didn’t like the idea of ‘acquiring files’. He handled it with humor. It worked for me.

      • I agree, 1984. First action I did was the Comm Course/HAS; second was the HQS. Somewhere during the HQS – when I was late a couple of times – the ED/EO just had a talk with me. That was it. So yes, when it’s needed. This was posted to demonstrate how ethics fits in. Having said that, from a strict viewpoint, probably no one on Earth walking into an org today wouldn’t have some out-ethics somewhere that could use addressing. But as you say, it’s too steep a gradient. So fine to give them wins and tech until their out-ethics shows up. 😉

      • 84,
        The Life Orientation Course was intended as a primary action and includes the basic gradient. If it was actually done the way it was intended a person would get those wins and realities early on.

        • Problem is, it has to be done after the KTL, which is an extensive runway. Best intro, IMO, is HAS and HQS, all the way.

          No need to get heavy on ethics until after the second week in Scientology. (joke)

          • I agree with you regarding the best intro line-up, Chris. That lineup has long been proven to be an effective introduction to the subject.

            However, the KTL is also an amazing course which, to my observation, seems to result in people who are calmer, more literate, more civilized, and not so easily bsed. (Maybe that’s why DM cancelled it.) I’ve never done the course myself, but I highly recommend it having seen the results in others. Seems like a good place for it in the sequence might be after the BSM and before the Student Hat. What do you think?
            In the past I noticed that, like the FPRD, staff who had finished the KTL seemed to be islands of sanity in orgs.

            Also, I don’t know if it is true or not, but I’ve heard speculation that the reason that DM cancelled the LOC was because too many SO members were cogniting that their purpose in life was something other than to be a SO member.

            • Espiritu: Seems like a good place for it in the sequence might be after the BSM and before the Student Hat. What do you think?

              I jumped to KTL mid-Student Hat. After I was done, the Student hat just flew. Great undercut, the CTP, small common words and grammar provided a great foundation for study. The CTP was almost on PAR in terms of gains to NED. Huge turn in my life on other fronts too such as putting superb order into MEST.

              • What needs to be put back into the training line-up is the PRD. Even more so than the KTL (the LOC being a separate action targeted to a different area of case/life), the PRD was a vital action that was taken off the line.

            • No Espiritu, it was not cancelled for that reason — that is speculation.
              There was a problem however in that one of the steps of the course was to work out your hat in life, and when people did work out what they felt their hat in life was, it was many times not what they were doing on post. As an example, a person was posted on an administrative post and realized their hat in life was to be an auditor, or they were posted as a cook and decided their hat in life was to work in CINE as a camera man. DM “handled” this problem by ordering that the only hat in life that people could choose on the course was the post that they were currently on — which is squirrel and essentially knocking air out of those doing the course, driving them into apathy. It would not have been hard to accommodate staff who had a driving purpose to be an auditor, or be a camera man, or whatever. These are staff who are dedicated, on-purpose in the true sense of the term, and bending over backwards to try and get onto doing what they are really passionate about. You can’t get better auditors and cameramen, etc. that those who REALLY want to do it and feel it is their calling. But no, DM instead told them that is not their hat and can’t be their hat in life, and he then issued a blanket order that all Sea Org members can only have a hat in life of “Sea Org Member”. That is not in the course, or in LRH materials anywhere.

              • Thanks Lana,
                It doesn’t surprise me that DM wrote an order that in overtly violated the auditors’ code not to evaluate or invalidate for the preclear or pre-ot.
                Whether the person on the LOC determined that their hat in life was in the SO, out of the SO, their current SO post, or some other post, the cognition was supposed to be THEIR’S to discover and have.
                I know of an indie Scientologist who is trained to deliver the KTL and LOC. I am now thinking about how great it would be to have this service available again. 🙂

                • ESP,

                  From what I understand per the World Out of Comm Eval KTL/LOC was supposed to be the undercut to Super Power which was supposed to be delivered to Staff prior first prior to public release.

                  In my opinion Management total screwed the pooch on both of those Rds by broadly issuing them to the public without staff who have been trained and processed in those actions. Just as they are currently doing with Super Power.

                  Currently I’d be suspicious of any effort to deliver these RDs in the Field and just stick to standard grade chart actions until there is a full review and compilation of the materials related to these actions.

                  Just my opinion.

                  • RV: “In my opinion Management total screwed the pooch on both of those Rds by broadly issuing them to the public without staff who have been trained and processed in those actions.”

                    Actually, these actions were not released to public until teams were assembled for each org who were not only trained on the KTL/LOC, but had received it themselves. As a KTL/LOC review auditor and C/S, I was on the original evolution. Whether “all staff” should have received it first is debatable. But each org had a three-person complement for the delivery team when the tech was exported.

                    • Chris,

                      Originally the teams were supposed to be assembled to deliver to staff per RJ 30 and various NWC directives on Tech Export then to public.

                      This was the same evolution that Super Power was supposed to follow:

                      SUPER POWER. A super fantastic, but confidential series of rundowns that can be done on anyone whether Dianetic Clear or not that puts the person into fantastic shape unleashing the super power of a thetan. This is the means that puts Scientologists into a new realm of ability enabling them to create the New World. It puts world Clearing within reach in the future. This is a parallel rundown to Power in Saint Hills which is taken by the Dianetic Clear. It consists of 12 separate high power rundowns which are brand new and enter realms of the tech never before approached. Power is still very much in use on the Grade Chart but is for those who didn’t go Clear on Dianetics. Super Power will be delivered at Saint Hills within the next 6 weeks as we are right now super grooming the Super Power auditors in a special international course. It will be delivered in almost all languages.
                      The New World Corps is being formed and trained this very minute, candidates for which must be Class IV, OT IIIs. Orgs were once promised Power for their staffs.
                      If org staff are very, very good and get on policy and everything. they will one day look up and see a New World Corps team move in on them, and then…. New World Corps mean just that!

                      RON’S JOURNAL 30
                      1978—THE YEAR OF LIGHTNING FAST NEW TECH

                    • True, Robin, but LRH came up against something that he realized needed to be addressed first as it prohibited NWC auditor training. In fact, out of it came a couple of revolutionary programs. So, by the time that was all said and done, and way late I agree, the KTL/LOC rolled out with full teams firing back to their orgs to deliver it to staff and public. RJ 30 notwithstanding.

                    • All we have in writing on Super Power which is broadly available is RJ 30, since very few have read the WOOC which is basically an eval that Ron did to find the why behind the difficulty in training Super Power auditors.

                      To me it would seem logical that these rundowns would be used to make auditors who were capable of being trained in Super Power. Not just a study rundown.

                      Anyway I thought the way they rolled out KTL/LOC was a big mistake though I’m not dismissing or invalidating the gains that many achieved by doing those actions.

                    • RV: “the WOOC which is basically an eval that Ron did to find the why behind the difficulty in training Super Power auditors.”

                      This is what the WOOC eval says under situation:


                      Under the data section he does mention in one paragraph that it was taking 8x as long to train auditors and admin personnel as it did in the 50s without real results. Much of it zeroed in on illiteracy as a major outpoint, so yeh, I can see it as having relevance to Super Power.

              • Great info Lana. That order by DM, however, may have spilled over into the public venue as I got called in to “review my hat in life.” I refused.

                • It definitely did spill over into public as well, Rachel. Now, some of it was deserved as “some” public missed the mark by a long shot. But some overly eager staff took it to mean every LOC comp needed to have their HIL reviewed. Not so.

                • I never took this “Hat-in-Life” stuff seriously, and possibly I never got the stated EP, but then I couldn’t have cared less either. But then that’s just me. When I was very young I sensed the existence of the bank in rather indefinite terms and decided I was going to get that handled this lifetime one way or the other. And I did. Second purpose was to help others do the same, but staff was not something I ever wanted to get involved with.

                  Particular hats never made a difference to me, neither here nor there. Just get the $$$ in any which way being a plumber, teacher, politician or whatever … just get the bucks in, pay the bills and then have some left over. I guess my hat was a bridger-mover-upper but that never occurred to me in the context of the LOC. I did however appreciate the data in that course, esp. all the conditions in clay.

              • This “command intention” also was pushed down into Class V orgs, Lana, and all staff had to find their Hat In Life (HIL) as being the post they were on; or it was deemed they had MUs and false data.

                The irony of it all is, even if a CINE staff wanted to be an auditor and found that to be their HIL, all they had to do was replace themselves – other policy still applied to changing posts. That’s what I did when I was D/ED – they wanted me to re-sign my contract and I laid out the terms: I replaced myself with three (3) staff and went off and trained to Class VIII C/S. Ands you say, what better person for a post than one eager and wanting it?

            • Espiritu,

              The BSM wasn’t pushed much when I was on staff, although some public and some staff did it. So I would go something like (and I reserve the right to change my mind on this! lol): Comm/HAS Course, HQS, KTL (maybe, depending on the person, if they weren’t deficient in grammar, might not need to do it), St. Hat or PRD (if PRD, probably wouldn’t need KTL, but would be an individual decision and assessment), then rest of the training line-up. So definitely, nearer the beginning of the Bridge then later. Plus the CTP would resolve a lot of difficulties encountered later on in processing or training.

  15. Yeah, Chris. The BSM was actually allowed as an alternative to the Student hat as a prerequisite for auditor courses when I did it in the late ’70s….so I did it and then did the Student Hat also because I knew how important knowing how to study well is.

    Previously, I had done a little known course called the Basic Grammar Course which was available at orgs in the early 1970’s. The checksheet worked in conjunction with a 9th grade grammar book which was readily available at the time. So far as I know this was the first strictly grammar course ever offered in Scientology. It laid out the subject of grammar very well and I had great wins doing it. Have you ever heard of this course?

    • Hey Espiritu,

      Yes, I remember that course. I have actually supervised it, and I did the course myself – both in the late 70s/early 80s. I’ve always done well at grammar, but that course and all my study in Scientology really helped and then the KTL really polished it up.

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