“So, you are dealing with several types of therapy every time you process a person in Dianetics. You are trying to rehabilitate his contact with reality. But to do that you have to repair his communications with reality and you have to demonstrate to him an affinity which really doesn’t take place very well until his sense of reality is rehabilitated. There is always that trio.

“It is much more difficult to work on a person who has become inaccessible. He is out of communication. It is like trying to call a radio station parked on some desert island someplace, where the antenna is down and the power has been out for a long time and somebody shot the operator. It is pretty tough.

“Your first job is to get the person in communication again. They usually go out of communication because of the breaking of affinity lines.

“The greatest aberrative force of which I know is the breaking down of the closest of affinities, the ally relationship. When that breaks you get a grief charge.

“The rehabilitation of any preclear then, involves working with these factors. The fellow who just sits and glowers, and will not say anything, he won’t agree with you, he won’t do anything, has been pressed so thoroughly out of communication with existence that you can’t communicate with him enough to do anything for him right away. And if we only had the tool of sending him back to basic-basic and reducing it, we would be in pretty bad shape.

“Fortunately, we also have the tool of affinity. Affinity is not something you can measure on a meter, but it is there. There is the old adage, you’ve got to like people to have them like you. Therefore, the more mechanically a person treats a case, the less chance he has of success.

“You have to treat the case as a human being, not because it is the thing to do, but because there is actual theta there, and an affinity line. Simply getting a human being into communication is in itself enormously therapeutic.

“You have already broken down one point of the holdup, and although they will work against you as a trio, the moment that you can re-establish one of them, the rest will follow. So we have got three points of attack. We have affinity, and the auditor needs to form a certain affinity and demonstrate an interest in the preclear’s affairs.”

An excerpt from an LRH lecture given on 4 August 1950, RELATION OF AFFINITY, COMMUNICATION AND REALITY

53 thoughts on “Relation of ARC

  1. The datum that someone will not like you until you like them is an interesting one.

    The Scientology field is awash with ARCXen people. People who are upset with the Church, with Management, with out-tech, with in-justice, with failed purposes, with betrayal.

    A large number of people simply walk away and don’t wish to communicate any more on the subject or with persons who are associated with the subject.

    There are so many breaks in affinity, reality and communication — but nothing can be resolved (regardless of whether that person continues to “be” a Scientologist or not) without communication.

    There are people who come and go from this blog, sometimes upset or ARCxen by something someone has commented or stated — and they drop more out of comm and it is that much harder to reestablish a comm line.

    Reality is key. A desire or reach (ie. affinity) is vital.

    A space has to be safe — which is hard to create when there are opposing views or differing views on many subjects.

    And communication becomes the key.

    If you feel that your comm has been chopped, or you have been unnecessarily slagged/blocked/jumped on on this forum — please write to admin@milestonetwo.org and we will try and resolve it.

    Communication is the universal solvent, after all.

    • Well done on wearing the Milestone II chaplain’s hat, Lana. The chaplain is one of the most important posts in an org in my opinion. To my observation, an org that doesn’t have one eventually falls apart but an org that has a good one stays on purpose.

  2. LM:

    Let me echo this sentiment. I’ve been on various email lists and such for 20 years, and administered quite a few in that time. They are often rough and tumble places to be. So let me encourage others to do what I’ve tried to do over those years– be civil. Whether you realize it or not, this is a “long distance commline”, and LRH had some choice words about these. In short, don’t put entheta on such lines. The reasons should be obvious. We have a tenuous connection with a lot of people in this field. There’s no benefit to blowing that connection by being uncivil. Miscavige and others of his ilk have given us a very tough job to do, and it’s important we do it with compassion and granting of beingness. Lord knows, the people who are out here had enough of the lack of these things in the Church.


  3. Excellent quote! I am reminded of an incident, doing an investigation into LA-D and discovering that the Snr. C/S had done something incredibly stupid. So there I was, standing in her office yelling at her (because hey, that was how it was done, non?) and afterwards I had to stop and ask her, “Why are you smiling at me?” She replied, “Because I can feel the love.”

    She totally busted my butt because she was right, I really did care. She faced my wrath easily because she held onto the affinity line. It was a lesson well learned for me. 🙂

  4. “The Scientology field is awash with ARCXen people. People who are upset with the Church, with Management, with out-tech, with in-justice, with failed purposes, with betrayal.

    A large number of people simply walk away and don’t wish to communicate any more on the subject or with persons who are associated with the subject.”

    Yep, its a mess!! I think it was Chris who put up the LRH quote, that without orgs, it becomes a wild west and we not only dont have orgs, we have orgs that are counter survival, so its even worse, even if actual feelings and considerations of those still in are suppressed by an oppressive regime.

    Also, in my opinion, there will come a time when Dave goes down, and those in now will be even more POd, and the anti Ron ringleaders will have even more suckers.

    My only concern is the preservation of the Tech, in its workable form, which Ortega and his new bffs are hard at work degrading, even if the ostensible objective is to “right the wrongs” and “get rid of Dave”.

    To me, the stable datum and the important thing right now is exactly what is found on an academy checksheet. TRs, metering, model session and the theory and practical processes of the Grade. All well taught, and then its application.

    That is the pointy end of the stick and what the whole thing is about.

    One last thing! I used to have the opinion that those who are arcxen with Ron and the Tech, should have some compassion and understanding and maybe, given good auditing, this would help and it should be done, given a willing pc.

    But otherwise, it doesn’t seem to work, there is something else at play with many of these people, because they just didn’t meet me half way or even a quarter, but majorly hold onto a view that can only be described as biased and quite irrational, and due to this, I have come to the conclusion that I should not humor people who would deny the benefits to others, that the good application of Scientology can bring.

    Personally I think just keep the comm line in Lana, if you want to, even if there is nothing to say for a while. People come, people go, it is their prerogative.

    In the end its not the stats for this, or any blog, that is the important thing, it is the preservation and application of the correct technology. I am not saying this for myself, so much, as I have had a large section of the Bridge that I am pretty damn happy with. Sure there is more to do, and I have much to learn, but I am saying this because I would like others to have the wins that I have had, and which I know are available 🙂

    • Lovely comment 4a. Thank you. I too want others to have the gains. Jim returns to base in a short while and we will get some good delivery going on the home front. Christmas looks like it will be busy busy busy. 🙂

        • Scat – haha! Jim has spent the summer in Nova Scotia, heavily productive and then hosting myself and two scamps for the last several weeks. He heads back Down Under within days (which we could probably call his “second home base”). We can’t say “Milestone flight 4 – 2 heavy” as he aint that heavy any more ( getting to be more of a lean machine now he has kicked the donut habit).

          • LM:

            Just as a matter of interest is, the word “heavy” in connection with aircraft has a very specific meaning, most particularly to air traffic controllers. Certain aircraft, because of their shape, engine placement, etc., generate a tremendous amount of what’s called “wake turbulence” (airflow agitation behind them). So much so that they are a hazard to following aircraft. Land or take off too close behind an aircraft which generates this kind of turbulence, and it can cause engine flame-outs and other disastrous outcomes. The US Federal Aviation Authority (presumably after actual testing) designates which aircraft models need the designation “heavy”). Once a model of aircraft is known to generate this kind of heavy wake turbulence, all subsequent aircraft of that model are designated “heavy”. Afterward, all communications with any air traffic controller regarding that aircraft must include the word “heavy”. In practical terms, this alerts air traffic controllers that when a “heavy” is taking off or landing, the controller must allow added time before allowing another jet to take off or land behind it, to allow the turbulence to dissipate. (I have no connection with aircraft manufacture or piloting. But I just happened to have researched this term, after hearing it so often in films and on TV.)

            Poor Jim. First you got him to quit smoking cigarettes. Then you got him to give up donuts. What will be next, you… you… you… devil woman! 😉


            • Hey thanks for providing the additional info on heavy. I did not know that and it is really interesting.

              Yes — devil woman is me. I aint too bad though as Jim’s pipe smoking is fine by me, and he is the one that gave up the donuts as he realised they weren’t doing him much good. LOL

              • LM:

                (Sticklers please refrain. In the matter of runway naming there are numerous minor exceptions.)

                Runways are typically named for their magnetic compass headings. Exceptions: since the Earth’s magnetic north tends to wander a bit, in some cases where the airport is relatively close to the North Pole, “true north” is used instead.

                Runways are not designated 0 to 360 as might be expected from the above. Only two digits are used, instead of three. Thus, for example a runway facing west (270 degrees) would be designated 27; and a runway pointing south (180 degrees) would be designated 18. Instantly, it becomes apparent that runway directions are rounded to the nearest 10 degrees. It should also be noted that in runway designations, the separate digits making up the name are spoken separately. For example, runway 21 (more or less 210 degrees) is not spoken of as “runway twenty-one”. Instead, it is spoken of as “runway two one”. Runways less than 100 degrees get a zero added to the beginning. Thus a runway going east (90 degrees) would be “zero niner”. For those perpetually curious, a runway facing north would be designated “three six” (for 360 degrees, rather than 0 degrees). And for those who just can’t leave it alone, 9 in “runway speak” (and numerous other applications) is typically called “niner”. Points off for asking why.

                This leaves two questions. First, a runway running, for example, east-west, should actually have two names: 09 (90 degrees) and 27 (270 degrees), since it could be used in either direction. And so it is named. Which name is used depends on the direction from which it is being approached. If approached from the west it would be 09, and from the east, 27. Runway names are generally painted at the “beginning” of each runway. This makes it easy for pilots to confirm their proper runway names, both on landing and take-off.

                The second question is what happens when there are multiple runways running parallel (as is often the case at larger airports). In this case, a “left”, “right” or “center” are added to the end of the name (an L, R or C will be added to the name painted on the beginning of the runway). If more than three runways run parallel, additional runways would likely be referred to by adding or subtracting 10 degrees to the runway name. Thus an additional fourth runway running east-west (09/27) might be specified “08” or “10” and “26” or “28”.

                As an example of all this, Sydney Airport has three runways, two of which are parallel. They are 16R/34L, 16L/34R, and 07/25.

                And that’s all I know about that. 😉


                  • LM:

                    I kept hearing “airport chatter” in movies and on television. They kept using the word “heavy” after aircraft designations, and it drove me crazy because I didn’t know what it meant and couldn’t readily find an explanation. It’s that sort of technical jargon you get in any given field, definitions of which are hard to find. So I dug around and finally found an explanation.

                    As for runway designations, that was slightly different. They could be completely random numbers for all I knew, and it wouldn’t make any difference. Except that there seemed to be a pattern of two digits, often followed by a “left”, “right” or “center” designation. And I started to suspect there was some rational explanation behind all of that, so I started looking for it. Again jargony hard to find stuff. But I finally found it.

                    Throughout most of my life, I’ve been engaged in fields with a wealth of jargon: computers (construction, network design and programming), fonts and design, steel construction, electrical work (houses and such), electronics, chemistry, physics, meteorology, music etc. Sometimes it’s because of the job I’m doing and sometimes it just some sort of hobby study. One of the fastest ways to learn the guts of a field is to learn the jargon in use. Much like what LRH encountered when he was studying music and photography as a way of cracking the subject of study itself.
                    And I’ve often found myself in a position of having to explain the jargon to newbies. My test of whether I know some bit of tech is whether I can explain it to a newbie (who is paying attention and wants to really know it) first time out the gate. If I can do that, then I know it. It’s perhaps one step beyond literacy (but not really) in any given field: can you take it off the page and apply it? And then, can you turn around and convey it to someone else in an understandable manner? Now you’ve really got it.

                    You want to know a field with a lot of jargon? Get Jim to talk to you about music some time. He’s probably dug deep into it (as he has with the Tech), and probably knows ten times what I do about music.

                    But in overall answer to your question, I’m endlessly curious about stuff. I’d probably be good as a technical writer, but no one’s ever offered me a job as one.


    • 4a:

      Stunning isn’t it, how people can simply walk away from Scientology? I’m perpetually amazed by this kind of behavior. I can sort of intellectually conceive of it, but I just can’t imagine myself ever doing it. No matter the circumstances (and I’ve been through some circumstances).


      • Reverse vector flow.

        When I left the church, I knew that LRH and the tech were legitimate. I didn’t know why the church had gone astray, but I knew that I should continue to study Dianetics and Scientology independently from the church.

        The church desires for former members to hate and attack LRH and the tech. It’s a false solution for them. They couldn’t get the tech to work in the church (due to the fact of it being a mind control cult where no one is allowed to address their ARCXs or M/W/Hs), so they attack the tech.

        The technology is awesome regardless how glib DM or Marty were. The technology works regardless how much the critics insist otherwise.

        • JB:

          Good point. Botching things does provide a ready enemy for those inside the Church. Fortunately, MS2 and others of like mind have at least partially thwarted the best laid plans of SPs.


      • Yeh, I dont get it either Paul.

        I was not an HGC auditor just an uninterned trainee, but I re read some of the Grades processes recently and it boggles my mind that anybody could not see how brilliant these questions are in unearthing the major barriers people encounter in their day to day life, and it upsets me when I think of what could have been and how we have been let down by the very people we thought we could trust, and insistance by them that we do so and then, to top that off, as if it couldn’t get any worse, by some of those same people to then blame the policies and LRH after their own irresponsible behaviour.

        • It’s a sad commentary to our Earth civilization, truly. Yet that is the evidence of where it lies, even with some who have been trained and processed.

          Ron has said, Scientology will go as far as the technology works (a paraphrase, not a quote) and that sort of bites. He was forever working out solutions, especially for staff. E.g., FPRD, the L’s, WOOC solutions (KTL, etc) and many others throughout the years.

          He also understood that even those who turned against Scientology, and him, actually did benefit from the tech.

          Underlying that all, it seemed his ultimate solution was to keep on applying the tech despite all adversity. And at this point, I do not see that we have a better solution.

        • 4a:

          Agreed. Any of a number of people could have prevented all this. And that’s why I repeatedly insist we pay very close attention to what’s happened here, learn from it, and insist/promise one another it will never happen among our ranks again.

          This wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened to us on the track, and like the silly dopes we are, we let it happen again. It’s time we finally grow up and take responsibility. Let’s hope that all the good works by Lana, Jim, Tom, Ingrid, Chris and others help proof us from a repeat performance down the track.

          We’ve got one motto in Scientology: “Revenimus” (We Come Back). We perhaps need a second one: “Never Again”.


      • I think when the rug gets pulled out from some people, they grab onto any stable datum in a confusion — and sometimes the stable datum is just completely wrong — but it stabilises them by being something they can use to keep their head above the water. And once they have grabbed that stable datum, it can be hard to let go of it — particularly if there has been out-tech, out-ethics or MUs.

        I recently spoke to someone who had been a Scientologist for the last 30 years, but off-lines for the last 10 — directing them to read a Ruth Minshell’s book”Miracles for Breakfast”. I got slapped back with a retort that they would not be reading squirrel crap and some more expletives that I cannot repeat here. But this same person has been off the Bridge for 10 years, does not read LRH books, does not apply basic Scn principles, and has no connection with the Scn org or any Scn group. They have abandoned the entire subject while at the same time accusing me of being squirrel and refusing to read basic information that can improve life.

        I just shrug my shoulders. It aint understandable. It just makes no sense.

        • LM:

          You are so right. That’s the origin of most of the problems a thetan has. Look at false purposes, service facs, GPMs, etc. He gets in a jam, grabs on to some stable datum (usually some stupid one from his past which served him at one time and doesn’t fit the current circumstances) and off he goes. And his life continues to be miserable. Thetans, for all their power, can be pretty dumb.

          I get exasperated at times with actors and police types who try to discern the motivations of psychos. It’s an exercise in futility, and besides, you really don’t want to know why this guy shot up a theatre full of people. It’s a dark place from which you don’t want to look. Just stamp his paperwork “PSYCHO” and leave it at that (until you can get him into session and start taking apart his aberrations).


    • “The purpose of an ARC Break Assessment is to return the pc into session or into Scientology or into an Org or course. By-passed charge can cause the person to blow out of session, or out of an Org or a course or Scientology.




      The data about ARC Breaks can be expanded to marriage, companies, jobs, etc. Indeed to all dynamics—With Dynamic, Against Dynamic.

      What it boils down to is this: There are only two conditions of living, but many shades of grey to each one.

      These conditions are:

      1. LIFE: NOT ARC BROKEN: Capable of some affinity for, some reality about
      and some communication with the environment; and

      2. DEATH: ARC BROKEN: Incapable of affinity for, reality about and
      communication with the environment.

      Under One we have those who can disenturbulate themselves and make some progress in life.

      Under Two we have those who are in such protest that they are stopped and can make little or no progress in life.

      One, we consider to be in some ARC with existence.

      Two, we consider to be broken in ARC with existence.

      In a session or handling the living lightning we handle, people can be hit by a forceful charge of which they are only minutely aware but which swamps them. Their affinity, reality and communication (life force) is retarded or cut by this hidden charge and they react with what we call an ARC Break or have an ARC Broken aspect.

      If they know what charge it is they do not ARC Break or they cease to be ARC Broken.

      It is the unknown character of the charge that causes it to have such a violent effect on the person.

      People do not ARC Break on known charge. It is always the hidden or the earlier charge that causes the ARC Break.

      This makes life look different (and more understandable). People continuously explain so glibly why they are acting as badly as they are. Whereas, if they really knew, they would not act that way. When the true character of the charge (or many charges as in a full case) is known to the person the ARC Break ceases.”

      (HCOB “How To Do An ARCX Assessment”)

  5. Hi Lana. It’s reassuring to see this article. The message is incredibly simple, if ignored by many.

    Being in a place where the affinity is palpably welcoming, is an amazing experience.

    It’s that instant connection, (enormous ARC) which sets the tone for a lasting relationship to follow.

    One either holds to that essential, (CARING) about impeccable ARC and good manners, with the other person (–never failing to acknowledge, for example) even ‘out of session’ — or one doesn’t.

    Those fundamentals we all learned on the comm course, provide the basis of the Auditors Code, for maintaining high ARC, regardless of with whom, where, or whenever.

    Without them “in” relationships tend to dissolve.

    Just a thought.

  6. The very best example, that should make this clear to anyone, was the Ol’ man’s standing order number one, “All communications to me, will be received by me”

    He followed that faithfully, with a high ARC reply/ack to every single student/pc letter written to him.

    Sums up “how” it can be done. 🙂

  7. What a great post! And what great comments. While I can enjoy a good fight and controversy as much as the next guy, ARC and civilized communication is so much better. And that’s what Milestone II has kept IN.
    It is OK to express differing viewpoints and agreements here.
    We can communicate about anything here, even the opinion that LRH may have been wrong about something or other, or that we do not agree with something that someone may have said. We are also free to communicate about what we agree about.
    But the bottom line is that we COMMUNICATE here. We are polite to each other. We do not attack each other as people. We do not “debate” here.
    This is what I love most about this blog.
    Incidentally, my personal definition of the word debate is:
    a debate = communication + ser fac computations.

    The COS and it’s home grown op-terms have lost their way and lost track of their original purpose. We have not.
    In keeping with this theme of ARC, I wish to take this opportunity to repeat one of my all time favorite LRH quotes:

    KINDNESS: Our Most Valuable Asset

    (from OEC Tape: Attitude and Conduct of Scientology, 3 November 1955)

    “The most valuable asset we have, actually, is our ability to understand, to be kind, to be decent.
    “Amongst us we have occasionally the feeling like: life requires that we be stern, life requires that we be ornery enough and mean enough to fire him: life requires that we’ve got to tell this preclear the next time we come that she must go, she must leave, she must never darken our door again. Life requires that. We must be stern, we must be mean, we must be occasionally ornery, and we must steel ourselves to take an unkind action. And we feel sometimes there’s something wanting in us, because we refuse to take this unkind action. We feel we are being cowardly that we are ducking back from our responsibilities. We feel the best way to solve the thing would be to be a little bit mean about it. Get the idea? We should be able to be tough…
    “And so our kind impulse is muffled by the fact that we ‘know’ we had certainly better tell this person off…
    “Well, I hate to unsettle a very stable datum, if it does unsettle it. But the only way anything ever does resolve is by letting your own kind heart reach through. That’s the only way it ever does solve.
    “And it never solves by being tough. And believe me, ladies and gentleman, here talks a guy who in his college days was a top sergeant of the reserve marines, who drilled battalions. And when I tell you that it doesn’t pay to be tough, I’ve had experience.

    “An officer in the war, and I can tell you that at no time, at no time during the entire war, did I ever see toughness win either in the field of discipline, the field of efficiency, or the field of getting a job done. I have never seen it win.
    “…There is no substitute for liking people like liking people. There’s no substitute for reality like reality. There’s no substitute for communication like communication with good affinity and good reality. And that’s really close to a static. Do you understand?
    “You go down scale from that you get into Dale Carnegie-ism. You ought to read that book sometime; it’s a real killer. It’s how to subvert ARC.
    “All right. What do we have then? What do we have in these organizations? What do we really have of value in the organizations of Scientology?
    “The only thing we have of value, actually, is Scientology, an understanding of life, increasing ability to communicate, a good concept and grip on reality, and the ability to like guys. That’s all you got.” – LRH

    • God — what a fantastic reference Espiritu. No wonder it is one of your favourites! Holy moly — just brilliant!

      Thank you for sharing. Might just print that one for my growing collection. 🙂

      • yeah. This is such a simple, powerful statement of where Scientology is at. If COS management applied this datum……well, they don’t. And that’s why they are who they are.
        But we can set a good example for them. : -)
        And doing that is a powerful statement too.

    • E:

      Good reference. Another point here (this is not an LRH datum; it’s mine, but I don’t mind sharing): the ad hominem attack (attacking the person, their expressions or mannerisms, etc.) usually happens when the person is incapable of arguing the actual issues at hand. An ad hominem attack often says more about the person making it than it does about the person to whom it was directed. Thus, faced with such an attack, it is often best to simply be silent and allow one’s own and the attacker’s words to stand. It’s hoped that other observers of the conversation can see what’s happened and reason for themselves who is right and who is wrong. It is fairly certain the attacker will not be swayed, once they’ve started down the ad hominem path.


      • “If a person is very, very mean to you, the chances are they don’t know you. That’s the best chance in the world that they don’t know you. They’re very mean to you. How could you guarantee they don’t know you? Well, that’s very, very obvious, for the excellent reason that A-R-C added up together comprise knowingness.

        And this is understanding which expands and expands and expands and becomes more knowing and more knowing and more knowing. You can be further and further from things and know what they’re all about, in other words.

        Don’t worry about people who are mean to you or who get mad at you. There’s no reason to worry about them at all. They’re not even getting mad at you. They don’t know where you are, who you are, or anything else. That is people going around trying to be understood. Why try to be understood? Why not try to fix up people so they can understand.

        That’s why Man can be basically good and be considered to be the foulest beast on the face of the Earth. Simply, as his affinities go down, his communication and agreements go to pieces too.”

        LRH (Lecture, 28 July 1954′ ARC – As-Isness)

      • Paul, it is true that people who are in a DEBATE argue.
        On the other hand, people who are having an actual DISCUSSION actually communicate.
        There is this nasty phenomenon called a “service facimile”, or more properly, a “service computation” which seems to permeate Earth cultures. In fact LRH developed a whole grade of auditing to deal with it.
        Perhaps that tech could be applied to defuse situations when people go on an ad hom rant. I know for a fact that I want to study and learn more about this tech.

        • E:

          Whether something is a debate or a discussion may be a matter of opinion, and may depend on whether a conversation has reached a point of rancor or not. And while I agree that service facs may sometimes bear on whether a person engages in ad hominem attacks, I think you’d agree that it’s impractical to engage in un-C/Sed Grade 4 auditing actions on someone, simply because you’ve observed them employing a service fac.

          Again, I’m only offering my observation over 20 years of seeing, engaging in and administering online traffic: ad hominems only happen when someone is incapable of constructing a logical argument on a subject, service facs or otherwise.


  8. The term “ARC-broken field” is often loosely used but can be misleading. In the lecture “ARC breaks and PTPs, the Differentiation” LRH explains why 95% of all ARC breaks run are not ARC breaks, but are in fact problems and should rather be treated as such.
    When I listened to it recently I realized that many of the “ARC broken” are in fact persons with a problem: a problem of no service received, a problem of strange mishandling instead of help, etc. etc. Some of them may be ARC broken as well. However, to call the sensation of bypassed charge an “arc break” would be a false indication.
    I recommend this lecture of 11 May 1965.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s