Home

formulas

by Worsel

I would like to mention two points that seem to have gotten lost in the C of S. Understanding them made it easier for me to help people who had undergone “Ethics treatment”.

Definitions first: A formula is “exact method or form of words prescribed as a guide for thought, action, expression or statement” (Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language). Although exact, a formula is of general character. It is applied to something specific – a specific situation, circumstance or state of affaires.

“CONSISTENCY – The whole of it should concern itself with the same general scene, the same subject matter. This is known as CONSISTENCY. One does not have a Situation about books, data about bicycles, stats of another person, a WHY about another area, a different subject for ideal scene and handling for another activity.” — L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 17 FEBRUARY 1972, PROPER FORMAT AND CORRECT ACTION

Once you have specified what you are applying a formula to, you stick to that when you proceed through the steps of that formula.

The lecture “A talk to Department Thirteen” from 16. September 1970 contains an example dealing with the condition of Treason. (If you manage to listen to a copy, please note that there are several edited versions, one version omitted so much of the story that I had difficulties to find out what LRH was talking about at all.)

What had happened? The Treasury Sec of the ship had smuggled cigarettes through the customs and that had come to LRH’s attention. He was not amused.

“… after they recruited, why, they say, “All right, you’re the Treasury Secretary, now go to work.” And the fellow says, “Well…money.. I don’t know what to do…I put it in my pocket….I take it to the bank…..” “You get your GDSes up”, uh, the CO says. “Get your GDS up, up, …. There we are. Get your GDS up”, and so on. The guy says, “Up ub bub ub uhhhh. There’s a machine here. Maybe I write something on this machine, maybe. Maybe I doodle on it uh.. uh…uh…”, right?

“All right, now I can tell you exactly why the world turns criminal, and that is the major breakthrough and that’s what’s going to carry us forward. The world turns criminal because the guy hasn’t got any purpose. So it isn’t that he goofs on post. This Treasury Sec was appointed, was not grooved in, he has no purpose for his post, he moves over into treason in that he doesn’t know what he is. He doesn’t know that he is the Treasury Sec because he doesn’t know what it is. And he will shortly get into a frame of mind of sticking the dough in his pocket. Or he’ll go out and steal automobiles or he’ll do something like that.” — L. Ron Hubbard, Lecture of 16 Sept 1970, Talk to Dept. 13

Please note that the formula for the Treason Condition, “Find out that you are”, is applied to something specific, “Treasury Sec” If one omitted that area of application, this person could write about being a spiritual being or anything. The cycle could turn into a wrong Ethics Condition, by being applied to something else. And for that other subject it might or might not be the correct condition at all.

By not defining what exact area or activity a formula is applied to the door to plain idiocy is opened. Each step of the an applied formula has to be consistent with the subject the condition is done on.

When he got grooved in and trained on his post and knows what a Treasury Sec is, then can he find out (and now understand) that he is the Treasury Sec. Now he can be against being himself the Treasury Sec (Enemy) and solve that, and then he can look at the pro’s and contras of him filling this post (Doubt) etc. Each of the steps would be consistent with the same subject.

Here are some actual examples from “ethics”-handlings inside the C of S:

A staff member had been assigned a Treason Condition for being repetitive late for post – this staff member “did the formula” and found out that “he is a spiritual being”. Surprisingly, he continued to be late for post. This cycle repeated a few times and finally the “Ethics Officer” said that “Ethics doesn’t work on this guy” and kicked him off staff. Crazy! Looking into it I found that this guy was listening to and playing music half the night. He used the night for following that purpose since he didn’t want to give it up and during the day he didn’t have the time to do his music . And after accumulating lack of sleep for some days, he would then “sleep in” and be late for post. Please note that in his formula he had applied this formula for a different dynamic without the “Ethics”-Officer or he himself noticing it.

Another example: A student missed out on his course schedule and was assigned “Liability”. When he reached the step “Make up the damage one has done by personal contribution far beyond the ordinary demands of a group member.” he “donated” money for the org for a special project. Now let me ask you, what was the damage he had done? First, I wouldn’t be able to tell from that, if any damage had been done at all. He might have had valid reasons to miss out from course and a much greater damage could have possibly occurred if he had come to course! After this has been cleared up and it had been established that he had created a damage, the question would come up: “What was the damage?” How could one tell if he made up the damage, if one has not found out what damage was done?

In that case of this student I would say, that he has lost some time in his progress. Now it becomes obvious how he can make it up. By speeding up, by putting in some additional time, not by donating money for a special project. That “handling” was not consistent with the damage.

Another example: A person swindled taxes by making false entries in his books. He was assigned Liability and in order to “make up the damage” he donated this amount to the IAS! If he had stolen the money from the IAS, I would agree that he returns this money. That would be making up the damage! Needless to mention that he still lived in “suspense” regarding the Tax Office.

Another Example: A person assigned himself “Liability on his First Dynamic” for not keeping his integrity concerning a certain matter. And then he went around and asked the group for “okay to re-enter”!?! He had changed the Dynamic even within the formula. Being a matter of his First Dynamic, it was him to decide to be in peace with himself, not some other person.

Just knowing these two points:

1) specifying what one is doing a Condition about, and

2) sticking to that subject when doing its formula, had made some of my friends change from “allergic to Ethics-treatment” to using ethics formulas as helpful tools in their daily live.

 “One has to do the steps of a condition formula in order to improve one’s condition.

“And those doingnesses, which will bring about a changed condition, will then be reflected in one’s statistics.”  LRH, HCO PL 2 Nov 1982 Conditions Handlings

********

Update by MS Admin:

Thank you to LL who has also just provided the below LRH article:

“A New Hope For Justice

“Scientology Ethics Tech works when it is applied, but applying it means that the conditions have to be correctly assigned and the formulas have to be honestly applied.

“False reports and false data are the order of the day in this society and justice has too often been used for political gain or getting rid of rivals or forwarding the purposes of some clique.  The thought of using justice to straighten up the individual or to safeguard the society doesn’t seem to have occurred to anybody.

“Observation

“Societies today seem to be rigged so that any downstat creep can torpedo any upstat person and is even assisted in doing so by the powers that be.

“This alone could cause a decline of a civilization, as the reward for being upstat is made inadequate by the penalties capriciously machine-gunned about by downstat criminals, bums and degraded beings favored by their protectors and sponsors– “the justice system” and modern governments.

“As they themselves are contaminated by their criminal associates, the police and court systems are, in the main, composed of downstats who couldn’t make it in life any other way.

“Societies traditionally cave in through their police and justice systems, since these provide a channel of contamination between the vicious and lawless, and decent people. Eventually such police and justice systems, aided by advice from criminal practitioners such as psychologists and psychiatrists, sink into a belief that all men are criminals. This at once justifies their own vicious practices and excuses their merciless injustices against all men.

“The few decent officers and judges in these systems find themselves unable to cope with the scene, surrounded as they are by vicious colleagues and connected as they are in their daily work to the minority dregs of the society. They soon sink into a hopeless apathy and their sensible weight is seldom felt by others in the morass in which they wallow.

“Police and courts offer an open-armed opportunity to the vicious and corrupt to establish themselves in a position of safety while satisfying their strange appetites of perverted viciousness toward their fellow man.

“There is little thought of administering justice so that individuals can improve. There is every thought to punish and create misery.

“Justice systems thereby become a sort of cancer which erode every splendid ambition and achievement of the decent citizen.

“Man has never before invented a remedy for this corrosion in the name of “justice.” Even the Spanish Inquisition was headed, at Isabella’s demand, by her own tutor so as to keep it from becoming a blot on her reign. And who was the tutor? It was the man Torquemada, who sank to a point where he began to bind his books with human skin and whose name has come down through the ages as a synonym for cruel and senseless sadism. It was the Inquisition which did more to destroy the repute and power of the Catholic Church than any other single operation.

“Justice” apparently cannot be trusted in the hands of Man.

“The FBI charter mews about safeguarding the populace, but hides and is utterly disregarded by an organization whose principles are carefully planned wholly on terrorism and conducts itself more lawlessly than any criminal it ever listed as Public Enemy # 1. Who is Public Enemy # 1 today? The FBI! Its obvious target is every opinion leader and public-spirited group in America!

“To the FBI, their own charter is not only a subject for mirth, but the Constitution itself (which they are sworn in to uphold) is just “garbage” which impedes their headlong terror zeal. In the name of “justice” (and even calling themselves the Justice Department), their terror tools, preferring lies to fact, they have created a police state in which no man, woman or child or even a politician is safe, neither from downstats nor the FBI. To the FBI, all men are guilty and can’t be proven innocent and, behind her bandaged eyes, Justice herself weeps. In the name of “Justice”, they have condemned this society to death.

“Tolerance, mercy, understanding and the actual handling of the individual by decent and effective Ethics Technology is a new hope for justice.

“You cannot bestialize every man and expect any benefit to accrue to the society at large, even though this is what the contemporary justice systems are trying to do (which is of course its own brand of insanity).

“We must safeguard against unjust practices and make haste to remedy all injustices. We must be accordingly committed or we will never make it.

“Meanwhile, we must cope with the social morass in which we find ourselves and rise above it. For, factually, these generations have no hope, either as individuals or society, unless we do make it. ”  

61 thoughts on “Formula mess

  1. I do agree that the formulas always must be applied with regards to something or they are meaningless.

    However, from my understanding, the formula “Find out WHAT You Are” is the treason formula for a group, to be used when a whole group is applying the treason formula.

    The way I look at it, to discover THAT One Is (with regards to a post which one is holding may) or may not result in an awareness that one actually has assumed the beingness of that post. …Discovering That One Is a spiritual being who is aware that the post exists as part of their personal universe would be a very valid EP. In my view, when the person then moves up to the enemy formula and discovers WHO they Really are, that’s when they can find out that they are actually supposed to be, for example, the Treasury Sec. and whether or not they are actually being so. And so on up the conditions.

    With regards to Treason, the successful action for me has been to thoroughly clear the words “are”, “you”, “that”, “out”, and “find” and then simply “find out that I am”. It’s actually quite therapeutic and and have found that it is virtually impossible to find out WHO one really is with regards to anything before one is quite aware That One IS with regards to it with certainty.

    At least this is how I look at it and this has worked for me.

    • ESP,

      I think the formula “Find out what you are?” is actually the group confusion formula per the E&J Book which probably could be applied to the current Organization since they have no idea that they are a *Scientology* organization.

      BTW Worsel,

      Excellent article.

      Nice to see you are getting wins from those who have conditions allergies 😉

      Also had a cog on why these so called “doubt formulas” one occasionally sees posted on message boards and blogs don’t seem to fly.

      Thanks.

      LR

      • Absolutely right, RV. My error.
        “Find out What You Are” is the group Confusion Formula, not a group Treason formula. Thanks.

    • In the above lecture Ron didn’t talk about the group formula.
      “…he moves over into treason in that he doesn’t know what he is. He doesn’t know that he is the Treasury Sec because he doesn’t know what it is.”
      When a person had difficulties to understand the nature of this condition and its formula I had them made examples with posts like “a student”, “a husband”, “a mother” etc. and how one would go down into that condition and how doing the formula would get them out again.
      I have seen people really get stuck and spin when they come to close to analyzing the item “me”. So your approach may not work for everyone. Good that it worked for you.

      • “So your approach may not work for everyone.”

        A key point, Worsel. Thanks for pointing it out. Also, your other comment about having people make examples is good advice.

    • Lana’s article on “ethical choices” made me think about it, again.
      Also, common purpose and intention lead to harmonic actions. 🙂

  2. Good article, Worsel. Thanks.
    I also like the quote at the end ““And those doingnesses, which will bring about a changed condition, will then be reflected in one’s statistics.” LRH, HCO PL 2 Nov 1982 Conditions Handlings”
    (Pushing stats is really putting the cart in front of the horse.)

  3. One of the worst problems I’ve seen in Church ethics applications is that the Ethics Officer/MAA fails to actually get in 2WC with the individual about why a condition is being assigned and why that particular condition. There is a lot of, “You’re in X condition, go look up and do the formula”. If you treat the individual that way in ethics, you’re not going to consult his understanding, and there should be every expectation that the individual will treat ethics as simply another chore he must complete, an arbitrary set of rules he doesn’t really understand but must follow.

    Add the above to the original poster’s essay, and the fact that most people are simply put on post with almost no orientation, hatting, training or apprenticing, and you can see what a mess is made of things.

    Then come the out-and-out injustices, and “ethics” soon becomes a subject for complete contempt. And voila, what do we see in our Field today? An overflowing cauldron of contempt and loathing for ethics and justice. (Remember the hazing MS2 got from others in the Field for presuming to have a justice component in their original charter?)

    Fortunately, Ron gave us Repair of Past Ethics, and other tech, like Conditions and Exchange by Dynamics. So even long-term damage can be repaired.

    Paul

    • “Then come the out-and-out injustices, and « ethics » soon becomes a subject for complete contempt. And voila, what do we see in our Field today? An overflowing cauldron of contempt and loathing for ethics and justice.”

      I’m sorry, Paul, but I don’t fully buy this as a reason for the “contempt and loathing for ethics” we see in the field. Sure, there’s BPC connected with it (which, as any auditor knows, is not from PT but prior times and incidents on the track), but many of us went through some pretty cruddy crap and still harken to valid and reasoning use of the subject matter. (Ie., myself, Lana, Jim, Tom, to name just a few off the top of my head.) No, most of that natter we here is from one’s own MWHs and prior out-ethics on the subject, with a very few perhaps stemming from C/S 78 out list phenomena. As well, as these tirades are usually associated with other criticisms of LRH and the tech and admin, I’d say there was much more missed on them then just in the area of ethics.

      • CB:

        In many cases, you’re probably right. Certainly, I, too, have endured more than my share of injustice, yet also see ethics and justice in the way LRH intended. However, one distinction I’ll make is that you guys are heavily trained in the Tech, and I and my wife in Admin. (Plus, some of us, like my wife and I are both last-lifers, which makes a serious difference as well.) Thus, we have quite a bit more 7, 8, 9 and 10 than perhaps most. As has been mentioned before, lack of 7, 8, 9 and 10 is one reason for the debacle that took place.

        But as has been also mentioned before, being hit for masturbation, disagreement with management or “command intention”, withholding funds from the Church, et al, have become rampant in terms of administering justice. And for someone a little weak on KSW, I can see it souring someone’s attitude on the subject quite thoroughly. Some of this is “missed withhold of nothing”, which may fit in with your C/S 78 item.

        So I wouldn’t quickly dismiss true injustice as a factor in the Field attitude toward ethics/justice. It may be more of a factor than you think and less of one than I think. But there was a reason LRH developed “Repair of Past Ethics…”.

        On a mildly related note, I was the target of a Comm Ev one time in which I was found guilty of almost everything in the Ethics Book (and to which IJC replied, “acquitted due to lack of evidence”). I never took the verdict personally or held it against those who served on my committee. Similarly, I had to serve on a Comm Ev for my best friend, and after it was done, there were no hard feelings there either. (We found my friend guilty, and he was.) I find it interesting that you can administer justice, even badly (in my case) and still have that kind of result.

        Paul

        • Paul,

          I think we’re on the same page. And yes, I had forgotten about a “missed withhold of nothing”. Thanks for bringing that up. So I think it would depend on the type of charge coming along the intention line: there’s a definite difference between the BPC from having to give off masturbation overts and doing lower conditions just because one had a disagreement with church fund-raising tactics, and the vitriolic, carping 1.1 criticisms leveled not only at ethics tech, but using that as a “rationale” to deride the rest of the philosophy and LRH. As I said, I think we’re on the same page on this.

          Re your comm ev story, it reminded me of a story I heard about the MAA at AOLA (I think it was Mike Howsen) when he had to declare someone SP – he did it with such compassion and granting of beingness and with a well laid-out program, that the person was in tears and thanked him for helping him. I think you’ve mentioned it before, it’s been mentioned here and other wheres before, and I surely have stated this, it all depends on the intention behind the deliverance of the comm or help flow. “By their actions…..” 🙂

          • “So I think it would depend on the type of charge coming along the intention line: there’s a definite difference between the BPC from having to give off masturbation overts and doing lower conditions just because one had a disagreement with church fund-raising tactics, and the vitriolic, carping 1.1 criticisms leveled not only at ethics tech, but using that as a “rationale” to deride the rest of the philosophy and LRH. ”
            I pretty agree with this, EXCEPT in those cases where most of the “Scientology” they experienced in the COS was of the type you mention. I have come across a instances like this especially in newer people and some SO people where the preponderance of their experience with “Scientology” has been this type. Their decision and opinion that “Scientology sucks” is actually fairly rational given their experience. I have handled this problem to quite a degree by informing or reminding them that the COS was taken over by a sociopath who, along with others of his ilk, has perverted the original subject into something different that uses the name “Scientology”, but practices something else which is often destructive. Then I tell them that the original subject of Scientology, as developed by L. Ron Hubbard is actually quite helpful to people and enhances people’s lives and that anything that does not do so is not Scientology. I then give them a little example that might be helpful to them or get them to remember something they learned in the subject that was helpful. Once they get it that it is not the SUBJECT of Scientology that created their bad experiences, they tend to re-direct to their attacks to the correct target and become open to learning about it.

        • 3.)
          For 2.) above I would view an apparent neccessity of “2WC” for the reason of a condition assignment as either some failure to spot and clear some deficiency in understanding of the conditions (in the MAA or his public or in both) or as an indicator for a wrong condition assignment, by needing lots of explanation.
          Also, errors can be in all these points simultaniously.

    • Paul,
      You touch several important aspects here and I would like to say something to them in separate fractions.
      1.
      There is a wider frame the above article has. As I view it
      an understanding of the Data-Series is the backbone of Ethics application!!!
      (This deserved a separate article which I haven’t written yet, but I will give here some key-points.)
      1a.) The Data-Series definition of a “Why” is not applied in the “Ethics”-Departments but the dictionary definition of “the cause; reason; purpose”. The Data-Series understanding is much different: “the basic outness found which will lead to arecovery of stats” (Data Series 19, The Real Why).
      “When beings operate mainly on illogics, they are unable to conceive of valid reasons for things or to see that effects are directly caused by the things they themselves can control.
      The inability to observe and find an actual usable Why is the downfall of beings and activities.” (Data-Series 22, The Why is God)
      “A real Why must lead to a bettering of the existing scene or (in the case of a wonderful new scene) maintaining it as a new ideal scene.
      Therefore the Why must be something you can do something about. (See THE WHY IS GOD policy letter.)
      Thus the Why is limited by what you can control. It is NEVER that other division or top management or the bumps on the moon.
      Even if all this were true, the Why must be something which YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOURSELF FROM YOUR LEVEL OF AUTHORITY OR INITIATIVE that will lead to
      THE IMPROVEMENT OF A POOR EXISTING SCENE TOWARD THE IDEAL SCENE.
      The Why is a special thing then. It is a key that opens the door to effective improvement.
      It is not prejudice or a good idea. It is where all the analysis led.
      And a REAL Why when used and handled and acted upon is like a magic carpet The scene at once becomes potentially better or gets maintained.” (Data-Series 23, Proper Format and Correct Action)
      How does that apply to Ethics? An Ethics Officer or MAA who doesn’t have that down cold and running in his veins, how will he lead people to do an Emergency-Formula? A Danger-Formula? Or an Affluence-Formula? If he didn’t use an understanding of a „Why“ that contained the element of cause?
      Accepting a „Why“ like „my senior gave me wrong orders“ would be one example – and the “handling” was to write a KR. (Now go and get your own ethics in on that one.) That Ethics Officer who accepted that used the dictionary understanding, not the one of the Data-Series!
      1b.) This omitted understanding is not limited to Ethics Officers. It is widespread beyond belief. Examples? Inpector General Network Bulletin 32 of 1 June 1998 „Orgazational Why“ for the not working of GAT gives as the „Why“: „No Qualifications Division“! Did the Scientology world burst out in laughter? This is a situation, not a Why!
      Or the „blind leading the blind“ from 1996. That didn’t become the joke of the year. (And so it became the yoke of a decade.) If it were true it would have been a situation. In no case it would have been a „Why“.
      This omitted understanding is caused. DM did not like the Data-Series course. LRH had written the Data-Series after he had developed the original OT VIII, so it embraced a high level of understanding. The checksheet was written by MSH, Most of the drills were created by Suzette Hubbard. It was never marketed, not even in the 1990 version. A call-inner from an AO said recently when directed to the Data-Series that he had never seen it and he thinks that woul be „only for management“. Such data around I conclude that from a management viewpoint the Data-Series is sabotaged.
      1c.) One area where this omitted understanding is most deadly are PTS-handlings. In BPL 5 April 72RC-I, PTS Type A Handling, we find:
      “… As per older, now cancelled policy, the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect from the antagonistic family member before he or she could continue with their training or processing. Many took the easy course and merely disconnected as such disconnection was only temporary for the time of their training or processing and so they did not in actual fact handle the condition in their life which was upsetting to them as Scientologists.
      Scientology executives have had to promise the New Zealand government that the policy of disconnection from families would be cancelled. This was done. But since that time, we have had more PTS trouble than before.
      Therefore, what is needed is a legal and more sensible way to handle.
      Using recent technology contained in the Data Series Policy Letters, a new procedure is possible. Each PTS individual should report to Ethics and with the assistance of Ethics, find a WHY as to their familial antagonism and then set about actually handling the situation. The WHY could be that his parents wanted him to be a lawyer and so blame Scientology that he is not one, rather than the fact that he flunked out of law school and couldn’t stand the thought of being a lawyer.
      Or perhaps the WHY is that the Scientologist keeps writing her parents for money or the WHY could be that the mother has just read an entheta newspaper article.
      In any case the WHY should be found and the PTS individual should then do whatever is necessary to handle.
      See the Data Series PLs (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why. This is not mandatory – for doing the PTS-SP Detection Checksheet (BPL 31 May 1971RG). “
      At the end we find the signature: CS-G for L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER; Revised by LRH Tech Expeditor: Revised 29.12.78 by L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER
      LRH:MSH:PA:jm
      A later version of that BPL has lost the stress on the Data-Series, only people who wordclear why „WHY“ is capitalized would find a trace leading to the Data-Series.

      Therefore, many a case of „ethics“-treatment turned into a case of „injustice“, „contempt“ and other bypassed charge because of omitted understanding of the Data-Series and subsequent false application. Without the backbone of the Data-Series Ethics has a liability to become arbitrary or lunatic. This is my view regarding this point.

      • W:

        You are so right! I’ve been trying to get people to see the distinction between “cause” and “Why” for years. The “Why” of the Data Series is very precisely defined and beautifully illustrated throughout the Data Series.

        Also agreed on a lot of the crap promoted by Management as the “Why” in various cases. I remember seeing this stuff and wondering who was doing their evals for them, and who was passing them in AVC/AVU.

        Paul

    • 2.)
      In my experience, when a person has difficulties to do a condition formula, it is often because it is the wrong condition.
      (given that he cleared mis-understandings and understand the formulas and how they are applied).
      For instance, a husband in confusion could appear to be in danger, doubt, liabity or treason or any other. While none of these formulas would be af any help, but create further difficulties.
      I myself had a lot of bypassed charge as a staff member when I was assigned Liability while working my as off. However, years later I realized that I had actually been in enemy toward the post, as I had accepted a post that I did not want to do. The wrongassignment was “Liabity as a staff member”, the one that would have handled the situation would have been “enemy toward that post”. Made a hell of a difference.

      • The PL on RPEC also explains back-off and difficulties doing conditions formulae. And “Hang-Up At Doubt gives further data on when a person can’t make it through Doubt. These policies are complementary to your excellent commentary, Worsel, and provide further information and possibly other reasons for difficulties. Of course, there’s also the possibility of a tech why, like a wrong item, out-list, wrong condition, wrong why, etc. 🙂

      • W:

        Preeecisely. Another reason why an EO/MAA can’t simply toss out ethics conditions rotely. You must consult with the actual person and sort out their situation. This also goes to your comment about the Data Series and “Whys”. Just because the book says, “this infraction = this condition” doesn’t mean you always do it that way. The actual situation with the individual may be way over somewhere else, which ends up being the ultimate thing which should be handled.

        Paul

        • Yes, getting the CORRECT condition is vital, as assigning a wrong condition – outside of any case condition screw-ups – will drop the person into a lower condition than he was really in. So it has pretty severe ramifications, not finding the right condition.

          As with all of this in Scientology – and in fact, in anything – it comes down to the intention to help, or the intention to make wrong and punish. Many churches are in the business of “punishment”, unless, of course, you follow what they tell you to do, much like donating money to IAS as part of a liability formula. But to many in these positions today, what is forgotten is that we’re all in the same boat, we all need help, and that as Ron said once on a BC tape, nothing can replace kindness and human compassion.

          • CB:

            Your comment about “kindness and human compassion” applies quite broadly. Like most people, I’m often faced with a person on the phone working for a large corporation who has no real control over whatever problem I’m trying to resolve. I keep this in mind while dealing with the person and simultaneously trying to resolve my problem. I often get the impression from the person on the other end that they are grateful for my attitude, even though they realize their company deserves a sock in the nose for being so brain dead. But one has to keep in mind the person on the other end of the phone didn’t cause your problem and has only a limited ability to resolve it. They don’t deserve your wrath, and are the wrong target for it.

            This even applies to such wildly insane entities as the US Post Office and the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles), two entities where (like Congress) insanity is so baked in that it is the rule rather than the exception.

            Paul

            • Couldn’t agree more, Paul. Thanks for bringing this up. Always good to keep in mind. I try to grant beingness whenever I can and recognize that – and treat – people as people. Everyone has value. Of course, there are the rare exceptions when dealing with a 2 1/2%er or some a-hole, but we know those are the exceptions.

  4. Wow, great story about Mike Howsen. He was a great ethics terminal and I hope that he still is plying his trade somewhere. Looks like Mike got through to that guy, who did some self-examination, cognited, and stopped being an SP right then. This is a perfect example of how declaring someone an SP is for the benefit of the individual being declared as well as for the benefit of the group. But if Mike had been screaming at him and telling him what an A-hole he was, it never would have happened.

  5. ES:

    Ah yes, there are plenty of those guys. I once had to do conditions under a guy whom I’d heard was the premier MAA on 53 continents or somesuch. He had the bedside manner of a wolverine. On one occasion in particular, he returned a formula to me with the words (and I quote), “This is utter crap!” scrawled across the top, and no other explanation. You could almost hear the guy yelling this out loud in his thick, Scottish accent.

    Based on events at the time, and subsequent, I’ve since concluded that he really had no desire for me to complete my formulas successfully.

    Paul

      • CB:

        You said it. This guy treated my then-wife (in the same ethics condition boat as me) like a princess, and me like a bastard step-child. Later we divorced. I found out that after that they dated for a while. Coincidence? I think not.

        Paul

        • Jesus, Scatjappers! That guy should have been frog marched right off post. What abuse of power! What treason! Instead of handling any ethics situation that you and your then wife were in, he failed to do so and then attacked your 2D. There should have been zero tolerance of that kind of sleazy 1.1 behavior from anyone in such a position. He should have been assigned a condition of treason or lower immediately, and after he worked his way all the way up to liability, made up the damage he did to not only the organization but also to you and your then wife, personally. We need to make a resolution not to suffer such fools lightly ever again.
          Sorry for the rant, but it just pisses me off to think that good hard working people who were trying to run Int Management back then for the good of all Scientologists were being handled by any such out-ethics pretenders who abused their power so casually. OK, I’ll shut up now.

          • ES:

            That was only part of the shenanigans at WISE Int, when it was in Clearwater in the early days. I was there with my then wife to prep for going into the Sea Org. My wife and I traveled from Dallas to Clearwater to do this whole thing, and by the time we got there, there was a garrison mission in the place, and this guy was the mission 2nd. It got so bad that I finally wrote the whole thing up to CMO CW. Afterward, Debbie Cook (then CO CMO CW) marched down from the West Coast building to WISE with a couple of deputies, and had a long closed door meeting with the Mission 1st. Afterward, no change ( = he weaseled his way out of getting hit).

            By that time, my wife was already in the SO on her Products, and I was thinking, “If this is what the SO is like, these guys can have it.” I decided it was not the game for me, and called a friend in LA to send me a plane ticket out of there. My wife and I got divorced, and she ended up in Gold eventually.

            That time period was fruitful for stories I could tell. I got a chance there to live the Sea Org life without actually being in the Sea Org.
            And it was ultimately the reason I never tried to go into the SO again.

            Paul

          • Happened more than you think, Espiritu, and on other posts as well. But one thing we have to remember, and I know it doesn’t excuse it, but as Ron said, we build a better world with broken men and broken straws. Guy still should have had some justice actions applied, though.

            • Yeah Chris,
              I know. Out-ethics like that by staff happened more than I ever wanted to believe. I still remember the time when I went to course admin to get the PC folder of a staff member so that I could audit him and found holes cut in the worksheets where sections had apparently been cut out with a razor blade. When I asked, “What the f*** is this?!, the course admin said oh so casually that the staff member had previously been at int management and his folders had been “vetted”. My reply back to him was not so “casual”, and had a lot more asterisks in it. Then I wrote it up but never heard anything back.
              The important thing, I think is to never again become inured to this kind of treasonous behavior towards other beings. I see this as an important part of the journey that we are on.

              • I don’t know about inured, Espiritu, but definitely not stand for it or push it back, yes. I’ve run across those types of folders many times as well; usually GO or OSA, but sometimes Int management. It was usually not too bad, just names and such, but it still rankled me, especially when I was given the folder to sort the pc out. :-/

                • …And sorting out a folder in that condition would entail an awful lot of guesswork since the cut-outs also impact the other side of the worksheet as well. In the folder I had, some of the pages had around 20 cut-outs! This is a perfect example of the solution to a problem being worse than the problem itself. …And of course if the C/S did succeed in sorting out the folder, then the “security” might be breached. Sounds like whoever thought that idea up was about one beer short of a six-pack and too drunk to care.

    • Paul,

      I pity you for ever getting involved with WISE.

      WISE was Ron’s bright idea based on his Con(front)-Evil Eval to keep those covered in the policy Field Ethics off Org lines so that they wouldn’t be disrupting Org services and raiding Scientology staff.

      Some where probably the source of the false datum that you couldn’t make it on staff and had to “Moonlight” which according to Personnel Series 3 was only supposed to be a temporary solution.

      Anyway these disruptive business men or more accurately den of thieves and corporate pirates or “suits” as I called them were placed under the tender mercy of the GO.

      Life after that was pretty quiet on staff. Meaning that the prophets of profits were no longer hanging out in reception trying to convince staff members to leave staff so they could make some “real money” or who were hawking their wares to unsuspecting public.

      Anyway short story long. After the GO was abolished and SoCo for social coordination was replaced by ABLE and the IAS was created these money grubbing cruds gained special undeserved status as “Patrons” of the Church and used it to convince Senior HCO to look the other way on many of their transgressions and even gained their support to “handle” “troublesome” employees who objected to getting the short end of the stick such as no overtime (since many “developed” a unique system of getting around the labor codes of having their employees clock out then clock in again as another post or making them “salaried” employees expecting them to work 24/7 for what amounted to about 5 bucks an hour etc. Kinda like the Sea Org but not quite. Since the Sea Org had a higher purpose other being accepted as the premier title clearing company by a bunch of sleazy bankers but anyway…) or vacations or bonuses etc.

      In other words bringing back old 19th century capitalism where only a few received the benefits while everyone else starved. In other words harkening back to the glory days of the Industrial Revolution David Copperfield ,Oliver Twist. Not quite pulling dead kids from weaving machines or prying their dead corpses out of chimneys but close enough.

      They even began promoting other tech written by another Hubbard Elbert BTW and his blind obedience doctrine known as Message to Garcia.

      In my opinion WISE is filled with a bunch of got bucks elitists who have seized control of the Church of Scientology and are the only ones who are stupid enough to support a total moron like Miscavige.

      I mean if it wasn’t for the above and that money making racket called “OT Committees” Dave would probably be diving dumpsters these days.

      But I digress…

      To expect an organization like that to apply any semblance of actual ethics and use proper justice policies is like expecting Institutional Psychiatry to apply straight Scientology.

      • LR:

        I’m aware of the reasons for the establishing WISE, both public and confidential and have read some of the advices on the matter. However, what you describe is not what I experienced. I was sent in on at least one invest to find out if there was an undue external influence on a Pac area org, and I did not find one. My “operator” was an original FEBC (72), and likely would have kept me on the invest if there was more to find that I missed. In fact, as one of the front line people at WISE (consultant), I saw none of what you’ve described. Nor do I know of any other consultant who did. Bear in mind, this was the mid-80s, ending in about 1988 or so. What came later I can’t vouch for.

        As for moonlighting, almost all staff I ever knew were forced to moonlight, including myself. This was not due to false data but to paychecks on the order of $5 to $20 per week. Had we all been fully trained and audited for our posts, perhaps things would have been different. But the lack of hatting, training and auditing of staff has been the rule for at least some 45 years.

        WISE spent many years foundering because it could not find a “value proposition” which would make it worth being a member of. That is, there was nothing it gave back worth what it cost to be a member. I believe it was only when WISE dropped consulting and concentrated solely on training and the HCI (Hubbard College International) that it began to really get on track. Inter-business disputes were handled not by WISE, but by business-member committees set up by WISE (relieving WISE of yet another source of liability it didn’t need and couldn’t afford).

        Paul

        • Paul,

          You might say I had a different WISE experience.

          I know for a fact that some WISE companies were using they’re pull with HCO to influence staff and doing illegal actions.

          This is the problem I have with Marty, Mike and others because they view things from the top down like some kind of general instead of from the front lines where the action really is.

          • Perhaps some view things from a wider perspective, or from more of a multi-viewpoint system. That’s the problem with gauging things based solely on one’s own experience, or the experience of only a few.

            Re M&M, I think they just have their own agendas. JMO.

            • My point entirely. We all have our different viewpoints of how things went down based on our location as covered in the factors.

              You could say my view of WISE activities is somewhat more cynical and jaded to those at higher levels of the Org Board. Many who viewed them as an viable income source.

              • Multiple viewpoints would include Paul’s observations as well. I’m sure there was good and bad and in-between, but to hover over only one idea (e.g., “cynicism”) or view precludes one from being able to accurately evaluate a scene.

                • Personally I think the only person that was “able to accurately evaluate a scene” Ron and I’m sure there was a reason that he called it the Con-Evil Eval.

                  Some of these so called WISE members from my own personal experience are just common run of the mill criminals who have gained special protected status in the Church either because their criminal activities aligned with certain individuals with in the Organization or because they are theetie wheetie and can’t confront evil.

        • “WISE spent many years foundering because it could not find a « value proposition » which would make it worth being a member of. That is, there was nothing it gave back worth what it cost to be a member.”

          In other words, it was low on the scale of exchange.

          “I believe it was only when WISE dropped consulting and concentrated solely on training and the HCI (Hubbard College International) that it began to really get on track.”

          Good observation and conclusion, Paul.

          • CB:

            Bingo on the point of exchange.

            When I went to work for WISE LA in the mid-80s (I had worked for WISE Int in the early 80s), we were doing a lot of consulting, just to use up the money we were getting from members (our “academy” was very sparsely populated). I remember thinking at the time what a liability this was. All it would have taken is one or two wog companies who didn’t get what they thought they wanted from us, to sue us and that would have been the end. Not to mention the fact that we didn’t entirely know what we were doing. We’d been on staff, but that’s not the same as walking into a company and figuring out the hierarchy of things which needed to be done for that company. And hoping they did what you told them.

            Conversely, training had almost no liability. Much less likelihood of a lawsuit, and much easier outs for us if they did sue.

            Also interestingly, wog executives virtually all agreed that if you had never consulted a company which did X, you couldn’t validly consult a company which did X. There was no idea that there was a generalized subject called “administration” and “management” which could be applied to any and all companies. This despite the fact that a lot of those executives probably had MBAs (what did they think their MBA degrees were for?). Peculiar phenomenon. Maybe they realized their MBAs were worthless and thus assumed that the subject itself was a fraud.

            I also noted that “consultants” in the wog world worked at keeping you on their breasts, so to speak. Conversely, our job at WISE was to do ourselves out of a job.

            Paul

  6. Since there are some comments about Ethic Tech misuse and abuse, here is some Ethics Tech a la Dror Center.

    Hemi on February 25, 2015 at 12:28 am said:

    […]
    “We spend so much time kidding at Dror, its ridiculous … ‘Jokers & upgraders’ that we are … it does slow ‘production’ many times. And there we have, luckily, our ED and senior Ethics terminal, Dani Lemberger, eyes glazing, rushing to handle this atrocity with … more joking and kidding!! Goodness me! No wonder they chucked you out the RCS man. All those Chrome faces smiling? Or God forbids, laughing?? Spoils the spotless shine. Very bad.

    Kidding aside, to those who still don’t have reality nowadays on the vast difference between a good Indie operation and a CoS one, read this, fresh from this week:

    After ages at Dror, doing much and incredible work, I never did Ethics. No Ethics office, no Ethics officer (that I know of … ). Not necessary. Then few days ago I did get a tech suggestion to do an Ethics special program. My 1st reaction was: ‘Incredible, I’ve been feeling the need for just that recently. Wow, Bingo!!’
    Ok, compliments to the Dror tech terminals, they are bloody good! But that isn’t the point here. The point is that true Ethics is wonder of wonders, when done correctly, at a correct point and with the correct intention. Something that got lost long ago in the CoS, sadly! And the results: pure joy. Arriving one morning in real bad shape, very rare, but happens, life’s a joker & kidder itself sometimes, and leaving a few ours later totally relieved with dramatic change of attitude and tone. Ethics …

    And the Ethics work, with a class 9 top auditor, if someone was to listen near the door, he would have been convinced we were watching top comedy, Marx brothers/Chaplin or similar. So much laughter, and great comm. And of course so much depth, wisdom and true care, only for one thing: ME, the service receiver.
    Coming out of one such session, and meeting Tami my great friend and who happens to be the C/S, feeling great, I said: ‘sure, this stuff is awesome, but what so fantastic here, for me, is the INTELLIGENCE of that ethics-auditor.’ (And of everybody here!) We did things intelligently, wisely, and that is for me a life channel. While doing this kind of work rote, robotic, no ARC, is for me a killer, makes me wither and fade.

    I am writing all this, because I know that so many of us, abused by wrong attitudes and wrong terminals, much of the time the total opposite of everything I write here, lost trust that it can be done right, and bring back joy and wisdom back without enslaving or betraying. Well, it can be done differently! But don’t take my word for it. Try and see for yourselves.

    With Love,
    Hemi”

    https://backincomm.wordpress.com/2015/02/24/south-african-ex-rcs-members-gather-together/comment-page-1/#comment-15546

  7. I noted that someone donating to something or other is now considered acceptable “amends” currently by the church yet this is contrary to the following policy on Staff Member Reports:

    Any Amends Project must benefit the org and be beyond routine duties. It may not only benefit the individual. Offers to “get audited at own expense in Review” are acceptable as auditing will benefit everyone.
    “To get trained at own expense up to ….. and serve the org two years afterwards” is acceptable amends. But the person’s staff pay is also suspended entirely during any auditing or training undertaken as amends. “To get another department’s files in order on my own time” would be acceptable amends. Getting a celebrity into Scientology would be acceptable amends. No work one would normally do himself on post is acceptable amends. *A donation or fine would not be acceptable amends.* (emphasis mine) Doing what one should do anyway is not amends, it is the expected. No org funds may be employed in an Amends Project.

    • I recall donations being acceptable on liability formulas over 20 years ago. So its not all that recent, although probably much more prevalent nowadays.

      • Yer right Chris it’s probably been going on for while.

        Way back I refused to sign a liability of some guy who’s blow to the enemies of the group was a donation to IAS (I kept the idea that he was in fact contributing to them to myself 😉 ) and showed him this ref which was pretty much Quixotic on my part.

        Another policy they don’t bother to apply over there is the one on Contests and Prizes as well.

    • Everyone is being involved and made responsible for organization stats even if only a public, even though one may never have agreed to play along on that basis. Some say it’s everyone’s responsibility, others feel caught in a game they were never interested in in the first place, and must be handled if they don’t. Many amends projects arose from failures in participating with stats, not the reason one may have ever come to study Scientology in the first place. I don’t think I would ever want to be involved with Scientology on that basis again. I guess if they are going to quit, let them quit fast and get serviced elsewhere where fabricated stat-based amends projects don’t exist.

      • Formost,

        I suggest you read the actual policy that I cited a portion of which pretty much outlines what Ron expects when someone makes *amends* for screwing up.

        Lest anyone get the idea that I am anti-ethics or something. The fact is that I am totally for ethics when properly applied according to its purposes and policies.

        In my opinion we are where we are and the Church is where it is is because these policies were not applied when the so called “clean team” took over and took us down the road to perdition.

        • Robin, I think you’re taking this out of context some. The policy you quoted had a distribution to staff member hats and executive hats only, not BPI or public. Secondly, the quote comes from the section on cleaning one’s ethics files – as a staff member – and gives the process for doing so. That’s why the amends project must benefit the org and “be beyond routine duties.” It was laid out by LRH for use by a staff member to clean their staff member ethics files. Not sure it’s 100% across the boards applicable to a public, although it *may* be applicable to public, and they can use this policy as a guide.

          That said, I agree with you re just paying money as a step on one’s Liability formula for making up the damage, or as Step 7 of the Doubt formula, but then again, it depends on how big the make up the damage was: for instance, someone could donate $100,000, not to IAS, but their local org for a new roof, or paying all the bills for 6 months or a new course room, or along those lines. That would suffice, I would think, depending on why the lower condition in the first place.

          Point is, that policy isn’t meant for that step on the Liability formula, or even on the Doubt formula as it specifically spoke to cleaning one’s ethics files through an amends project; As well, each person’s conditions would have to be looked at within its own merits. That’s how I see it.

          • Chris,

            I never said it was part of Liability just that it gives examples of what amends should consist of if one were in that position.

            Also as you can see by the definition:

            AMENDSPROJECT,an individual may clean his own file by approaching ethics and offering to make amends. Any amends project must benefit theorgandbebeyondtheroutineduties.Itmay not only benefit the individual. Offers to “get audited at own expense in Review” are acceptable as auditing will benefit everyone. No work one would normally do himself on post is acceptable amends. Doing what one should do anyway is not amends, it is the expected. No org funds may be employed in an amends project. (HCO PL 1 May 65)

            Admin Dictionary.

            That it does not say “staff member” but “individual”.

            Regarding staff.

            According to policy anyone who is a trained is considered staff and is therefore on the Org Board.

            Personally I think one of the major problems is that a lot of “public” don’t realize this fact and view themselves solely as customers or consumers and do nothing but contribute money.

            Gung Ho Groups Pol LTR II

            The essences of a true group are participation and contribution.
            Group members must be able to participate in action to become a true team.
            And each must be permitted to contribute to the action for a group to generate a life of its own.
            Giving money or things to a group are both a form of participation and contribution. But while this is an important matter, it does not involve actual action. Thus a contributor of money or objects to a group is yet withholding himself and his time. One should seek contribution of money and things. But the status granted for this is that of patron or associate, not of a true member of the group.

            As per the above in my opinion having someone just give money does not really make him or her a group member just a Patron at best.

            The Church if it delivers services does not need donations for buildings. This is what makes Scientology different from other religions.

            I’m sure you are familiar with the policies that cover this point like Org Programs, Magic of Good Management, Vital Data on Promotion to name a few.

            Also once you allow these people to subsidize the Org they eventually take over.

              • Yeah well I’ll just say that some of those who’s names shall not be mentioned who I mentioned earlier anyway are prime examples of those in which the policy Field Ethics should be applied instead of their god like worship as special donors or whatever when many of them qualify as organ donors at best 😉

                Not that the term “upstat” wasn’t applied to anyone having lots of money (making JD Rockefeller the most “upstat” person on Earth) was only perverted after the IAS. There was a lot of that going on before then but thankfully the wise application of actual policy precluded falling under their spell.

                Personally I think that it was the GO’s Safe Environment Fund then later the IAS that pulled that evil genie out of the bottle which has pretty much corrupted the whole organization like it has done with politics in general.

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