Home

situational-ethics-cartoon

by Paul Foster

My daughter regards her mother and I as virtual paragons of virtue. We’ve done nothing to dissuade her from this misconception. I rather like the idea of it. It’s not true, of course, but it’s fun to pretend.

That said, I’ll also stipulate that throughout our lives her mother and I have striven to achieve as high a level of ethics and morality as we could manage. So while I won’t admit to being a paragon of virtue, I will assert that my wife and I have done a pretty good job on that score, as humans go.

One of my ideas, shared by most people, is that honesty involves telling the truth whenever possible.

(Remember that old saw, “honesty is the best policy”?)

Even when it must be tempered by PR to make it palatable, the truth is almost always your best bet. By nature, I’m an idealist, and I always hope that the truth the best path to take.

So my daughter was recently shocked when I advised her, under the circumstances she described, to lie. She had described a set of circumstances which, like ‘Star Trek’s’ Kobayashi Maru, comprised a no-win scenario. The only way to win was to cheat.

Remember when I said I was an idealist? Very true. But the older I’ve gotten and the more I’ve experienced, the more I’ve come to recognize when circumstances have been rigged to prevent “honesty” from being the winning move. This planet is full of circumstances like this, and more spring up every day. Our societies and civilizations here have become more and more illogical and more and more prone to being “gamed” by those who are less than ethical and moral. In fact, it has gotten so bad in places that the innocent truth can actually get you incarcerated.

This kind of thing can cause confusion when it comes to considering overts and withholds, confessionals and the like. You ‘wanted’ to tell the truth, but you couldn’t for fear of the circumstances. Did you commit an overt or not?

Note what The Way To Happiness has to say about telling the truth:

Seek to live with the truth and Do not tell harmful lies

Where’s the dictum about “Do not lie”? It’s not in there! It’s a fair bet that if it was good advice, it would be in there. But it’s not.

(Of course, if you think about it, this whole universe is based on a lie, which is that you ‘didn’t’ create it. You may not have been one of the cretins who dreamed it up, but you’re here experiencing it, so you’re one of those standing around, going, “Nope, I didn’t make this”. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be here for you to experience.)

Let me submit for your consideration the equation of the optimum solution:

The solution which brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of dynamics.

Ron, while ultimately an ethical and moral individual, advised us on repeated occasions to obey the law, but still had a rather casual attitude toward our police and wog justice systems. He had worked with cops and like most of us, could see that ‘justice’ is something which can be purchased or rigged.

(Those who think that he contradicted himself in “Responsibilities of Leaders” need to purchase a clue. You might want to clay demo the phrase “tongue in cheek” first and then reread the policy. Those who have no idea what I’m talking about it, don’t sweat it. You’re not missing anything important.)

So where does this leave us? Well, of course, we should ‘seek to live with the truth’ and ‘don’t tell harmful lies’. We should recognize that the truth, including truth diluted with PR is generally the best course, still (and ‘never’ lie in the name of PR).

But we also need to recognize that sometimes the game is rigged to prevent you from winning, and a lie is the only way through. In that case in particular, but in all cases generally, consider the equation of the optimum solution. You may fail from time to time. In that case, consider this, also from Ron (paraphrased): You don’t have to be completely right all the time in life. To survive, it’s only necessary be right better than half the time, and never wrong on the really important stuff.

Next time you’re in the middle of writing up overts and withholds or getting a confessional, consider the above.

(One other point. There’s no win in trying to get your young children to understand the fine distinctions here. They’ll figure out that some games are rigged all by themselves. When they get old enough, then you can explain this stuff to them. Meantime, try to arrange their games so that honesty does give them a better score.)

Paul M. Foster

51 thoughts on “Ethics and broken systems

  1. If an overt is designed as a way to solve a problem that also harms dynamics, and is as Lana pointed out in a prior article, what one considers to be a harmful act, then to answer the question ” “You ‘wanted’ to tell the truth, but you couldn’t for fear of the circumstances. Did you commit an overt or not?” is YES, it is.

    It is just being justified (fear of circumstances) whether rationally or not and so one is withholding since doing so otherwise is perceived as contra-survival.

    This is also explored in the film The Imitation Game (speaking of games, war and communication/coding/intel is viewed as a game) in which the UK must decide whether to alert a passenger ship and possibly save their lives vs. lose the war and give up intel. (I won’t go into any more for those who have not seen it)

    It’s not really a no-win though, which is really kind of a misnomer.

    All games have winners and losers, but may be on different dynamics. In this hypothetical situation it is pitting 1st Dynamic vs. 7th dynamic (ideals, thoughts, values, etc).

    Kobyashi Maru is the same idea – pitting a 3rd Dynamic vs. 1st & possible 4th Dynamic – but it *appears* to be no-win since a loss on any dynamic really affects all dynamics and overall survival.

    • Ian:

      Not sure that I agree with your first paragraph or the next four. Not sure I’m grasping your overall point, except that it appears you disagree. If subterfuge results in a destructive act which is harmful to the majority of the dynamics, then yes, it would be an overt (as I implied). The amount of destruction or construction is more or less irrelevant. It is the overall effect on the dynamics which dictates the “overt quotient” of an act. Many acts have immediate effects only on a single dynamic, but will echo out to other dynamics. Infidelity, for example, would seem to be an act which only affects the 2nd, but in fact, once discovered, has profound consequences on the 1st, 3rd and 4th. (Incidentally, when I spoke of “lying” in the original post, I was really talking not only about “lying” but any other act as well.)

      Moreover, I’m not sure that pitting different dynamics against each other make “no win” scenarios any less “no win”. And when I say, “no win”, I generally mean that the truth or honesty in that scenario yields a loss overall.

      Disagree with you on the K Maru. It is a no-win scenario, period, The writer of the scene makes this clear in no uncertain terms. I’m disinclined to argue with him. I’m not sure where 1st and 4th dynamics come in, other than as they get dragged along with the 3rd. It is 3rd dynamics, as far as I can see it. You’re on the edge of the Neutral Zone, the Kobayashi Maru is putting out a distress call but is inside the Neutral Zone. Your mission is to rescue the Maru if possible. You make the choice to enter the Neutral Zone or not, but once there, your chances of survival (and the Maru’s, presumably) are zero. The test is programmed that way. Thus making it a test of character. Your choices: 1) Violate your mission orders and don’t play (don’t enter the Zone); 2) Enter the zone and die and create an interstellar incident; 3) Cheat (Kirk’s solution).

      (Holy crap. I never thought I’d have a serious in depth discussion about a scene in a sci fi movie. In public. I’m deep in geekdom now.)

      • Since we’re on the topic, add these two into the considerations:

        “At its best, logic is rationalism, for all logic is based upon the somewhat idiotic circumstance that a being that is immortal is trying to survive. Survival is a condition susceptible to non-survival. If one is “surviving,” one is at the same moment admitting that one can cease to survive, otherwise one would never strive to survive. An immortal being striving to survive presents immediately a paradox. An immortal being must be persuaded that he can not survive or that he is not or might become not, before he would pay any attention to logic.” 8-8008

        And of course, Infinity Valued Logic – the Non Aristotelian method of a gradient scale association of facts of an infinite value – more than two or Right/Wrong.

        • JL:

          OMG! Ron contradicted himself! Somebody do something! You know what this means, of course. This means it’s perfectly okay to run Power Processes on people having problems with exteriorization! Or audit over the Internet! Technology moves on!

          Of course I’m making fun of all the bozos who like to run around and pretend that Ron was lying or wrong about things because he supposedly “contradicted” himself.

          Of course he contradicted himself! In light of new research results, the Technology and our view of the world had to change. This was a prime example of it. Originally (DMSMH), life was attempting to “Survive!” Then, as it became apparent that the thetan was immortal, it called into question the matter of “survival”. And exactly as Ron stated, the dynamics had now become about “existence” instead of “survival”. This means nothing more or less than what it means. It doesn’t mean something else. It doesn’t make any statement about Ron either way or the Tech. It just means the Tech was updated as time went on.

          Sorry Jim. I had to take that detour to thumb my nose at the squirrels out there who use cases like this to make some big statement against Ron and the Tech.

          Of course, you’re right in both cases– “survival” and Infinity Valued Logic. Both add to the factors one has to take into consideration when judging actions.

          There’s another datum whose origin in Ron’s writings I don’t recall. But it says, more or less, that thetans don’t reason then act. Contrary to what everyone thinks, thetans act, and then figure out reasons for doing what they did (otherwise known as logic). This is not only true for overts but any other action they take. When I first heard (read) this datum, I thought to myself, “No way! It couldn’t be that way!” But the more I thought about it, the more I realized how true it was. Meaning your actions may or may not follow some trail of logic, but it’s not necessarily because you sat down and reasoned the whole thing out first. That came later. Stunning.

          Paul

          • Nice, Paul.

            I find it funny that squirrels, critics, SPs etc will say that Ron contradicted himself, and yet they also can’t see his work being a process and a progress, and instead mock his work as “research” – as though it should have been perfect out the gate if it “truly worked”.

            What science of any kind is perfect when it begins? Seems like they want it both ways, which is also self contradicting. But then, that’s why they are squirrelly.

            • Ian:

              My favorite quote about this (from either KSW or Safeguarding Technology, I can’t remember which) (paraphrased): The not-quite-bright have a button on self-importance… that prevents their ability to observe, etc. I’ve known a few of them.

              Paul

              • You’re right, Paul, it’s from KSW:

                “The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. (d) The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront, good or bad, and seek to make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad.” LRH (Keeping Scientology Working)

                Now, who do you think points a – e fit like a glove (and not OJ’s glove!)?

                • CB:

                  Thanks for your assist.

                  Gosh. Who might that be? Hmm. I mean, I wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or subject them to undeserved injustice. Heck, I’ll have to sit down and think about this.

                  😉

                  Paul

        • “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.”
          Robert A. Heinlein
          What is commonly called “Logic” is in fact a creation, something fabricated. Presence of charge can place this view away from the reality of a person. And so it can happen that a being can be qverwhelmed with “Logic” or something they call “Logic”. With omitted Reality this being is now below communication and can only be reached through the awareness levels below communication.
          Try to communicate with a person on duality or some such level regarding a subject. Impossible, you get only discussions, endlessly, fruitlessly – but no communication or understanding. The only thing that helps is to remove the charge. Until then, using the the proper process of the proper level, one has to use the awareness levels.

          • Very good point, Worsel.

            “Try to communicate with a person on duality or some such level regarding a subject. Impossible, you get only discussions, endlessly, fruitlessly – but no communication or understanding. The only thing that helps is to remove the charge.”

            The folk who live at say, Criminality, see only Criminality – don’t talk to them about Duality, they’ll only see some kind of crime.

            Where do LRH bashers live? Heck knows, you’ll need an excavator.

            http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/Caterpillar/C823819?$cc-g$

            • After I listened to the lecture “Awareness Levels” from 1065 and started to apply it learned a lot and found it very helpful.
              Many former labels, such as “fence sitters” or the “open minded one” solved when I realized that the common denominator of them was that they were below communication!
              They were completely unable to absorb a datum or even to observe. KSW 1 was “Ron’s opinion” and then there was someone else’s “opinion” and another one’s “opinion”. And for the one’s on “duality” they were all of equal weight – like you find that sometimes in news reporting: This is this persons view and this is that persons view. No own viewpoint, no evaluation of data, much less any idea of causation clear straight down to “uncausing”. A war “broke out” and the stock market raised”.
              I finally found a way to understand why some people are fond of eating garbage and declare that to be their new “bridge”.
              Having no Ideal Scene or a false Ideal Scene makes them unable to see outpoints. But when they cannot even absorb the idea of an Ideal Scene they are below communication. Surprisingly you find them even below “hope” and below “need for improvement” even when they pretend to do the Bridge.
              So one really needs one of those excavators to find a trace of the being and in some cases even an oil rig drilling set.

      • Paul,

        Bonus points for bringing Star Trek geekdom to the forum. But it also kind of makes sense considering the subject.

        Also I realized I did not acknowledge the rest of the article which I thought was pretty good. I was really answering the question as to whether it is an overt or not.

        I guess my issue is when one says no win – the question is who is not winning. If using the ethics/church example, the church wins even if the PC and honesty loses either way. If using K Maru then I would think the Klingons or at least the computer program (designers?) also wins. I’m not saying that the direct player wins but rather the competitors of the game – hope that makes more sense.

        • Ian:

          Well yes, the Klingons win either way. But the scenario isn’t about them. So we mostly just ignore it when they win. The computer isn’t a player but an automaton. It simply does what it’s told, typical for computers. (By the way, since I program computers as a profession, I’m very careful to only give computers as much credit as they are actually due. And the truth is, it’s usually almost none. You want to balance your checkbook, you use a computer. You want to get to the grocery store, you drive a car. About the same thing.)

          As for the Church, at this point, I suspect the only win for the Church is when the PC or student loses. Kinda like Vegas. The only game you can possibly gain against the house is blackjack, and you’d better not win too long or too much against the house. And if you do win against the house at blackjack (by counting cards and whatnot) they consider you are cheating. Talk about a no-win scenario (from the viewpoint of the gambler).

          Paul

  2. Underneath “not to lie” there is “being good” and/or a desire “to be in ARC with”. A PC I had once had a breakdown because he had as stable datum for life “nothing bad can happen to you when you keep your hands clean” and then was shocked and shaken completely when something bad happened to him.
    (I noticed for myself that he had not run out any charge on the incident that installed the idea of an overt-motivator-sequence and that he will solve the charge behind that idea when he does his OT II.)
    For now I went with him over a few sets of data. From time to time this was repeated, regarding different applications.
    :
    The first set of data was:
    Lecture of 3 April 1962, Overt-Motivator-Sequence. In this lecture Ron explains why the idea of this Overt-Motivator-Sequence cannot be true and is nothing but a control operation to keep people from attacking (as the entire social meaning of “keeping someone ‘good’ through a threat of overwhelm” is.)
    “Now, the basis of the individual is his ability to observe and make decisions and to act. And that is ability: his ability to observe, to make decisions, and to act. He has to be able to inspect and know what he is looking at – what he is looking at. He has to be able to make a sensible summary of what he is looking at, and he has to be able to act in accordance to what he’s inspected.”
    (I made myself very familiar with that lecture before.)

    The second set of data was:
    HCPL of 30 January 1983, “Your Post And Life”:
    “A vital datum has emerged in my recent whole-track research.
    IF ONE KNOWS THE TECH OF HOW TO DO SOMETHING AND CAN DO IT, AND USES IT, HE CANNOT BE THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF IT.
    This applies in many, many ways and is in fact a key point of life – a fundamental that may underlie all others.
    And it applies to you directly on a post and in life.
    If you know the tech-and that includes policy – of your post and apply it, you cannot be the adverse effect of it. FACT!”…

    “The list could go on and on since the datum pervades all sectors of life itself. In fact, it is almost mystical!
    There is a corollary: If one is experiencing an adverse effect on a post or in life, then he does not know or has not applied the tech or policy covering it.
    There is also a limiting factor: The full benefit of the datum is not sweepingly realized in all sectors until one is all the way up the Bridge. BUT the datum is so powerful that it can be applied and will manifest itself even in small things like opening cans, much less doing a post.”

    I included also HCO PL of 30 October 1980, “Tech” into the package, to go along with “Your Post And Life”.
    “Every action that results in a product has a certain tech.
    One finds out about it or develops it.
    When one adopts false tech he will then wind up with confusion as false tech will not deliver a product.”

    With these three references thoroughly understood, your daughter should have a very good basis for dealing with life – as anyone should – and should be able to solve such questions as above.

    • W:

      “Nothing bad will happen…” I remember having that computation solidly as a child. Then, when I was six years old, an incident proved to me that I could indeed be hit, even if I was being a “good kid”. I was very ARCXen at the time. Eventually, I got over it, but I learned the lesson.

      When I first encountered the datum that the overt-motivator sequence was just a big control operation, that was a massive cognition for me, but one where my reaction was, “I THOUGHT SO!” That fact made O/W write-ups and “confessionals” almost irrelevant to me. And it made any bad thing I’d done on the whole track more or less irrelevant as well. At that point, who knew, who found out and whether anyone forgave me or not became unimportant. It more or less freed me from the whole mechanisms of overts, withholds and the like. Now, if I (usually inadvertently) do something wrong, I just don’t sweat it. I think to myself, “Dang, I shouldn’t have done that”. But I don’t have shame, blame and regret about it. If I did it, I own it. Oh well. if I did it, that’s too bad. I’ll try not to do that thing again. (And of course, the thought goes through my head, along the lines of, “What was I thinking when I did that?”)

      I don’t want to give the impression here that it’s alright to do just what you want, no matter what it is. That’s not the point at all. Natively, a thetan will choose to do the right thing, if given what he perceives to be a choice. And most of the time, he will make the right choice. Sometimes he doesn’t, for one reason or another. And sometimes he’s compelled, for case reasons, to do the wrong thing. But he also has a choice about his own reaction to his overts. He can agonize over them, torture himself, dream up reasons why he had to do them, or why they were deserved. Alternatively, he can just own them, without regret or shame or anything else. He can realize they were overts or mistakes, and resolve not to do that again, if possible. And then just go on about his life.

      The datum about having the tech to do certain things properly is something I’ve spent my life trying to do. If I have something to do, I spend a fair amount of time working out how to do it properly and efficiently. Recognizing that there aren’t perfect ways to do something, but knowing as well that there are right ways, wrong ways and workable ways, I always strive to figure out the “hat” for doing anything I have to do, and then doing it that way. What stuns me is how many people don’t do this. They don’t want to know about how things work. They don’t want to know what the best ways to make something work are. They just want it all to go right with no effort on their parts whatsoever. Which more or less means they do not want to take responsibility for doing the thing or understanding the thing or anything else. It’s incredible. I simply can’t conceive of such an attitude. For example, I don’t want to work on my car any more. I did it when I was young, but I don’t want to do it now. So I pay a mechanic to work on my car. But that doesn’t mean I don’t want to know or understand what he’s doing with it. I absolutely want to know what he’s doing to my car and why. I just don’t want to be the one twiddling the wrenches.

      I suppose these last two items sum up to responsibility, taking of. In order to properly handle the situation of one’s overts and to handle the tech of doing a job, one must take responsibility. Your comment about OTII is interesting. As I recall, the EP of OTII was on the order of resolving the cause of whole track amnesia. When I first read that (or rather, re-read that after being in Scientology for a time), I thought, “simple– responsibility”. Beings do not take responsibility for the deeds of their past lives or the lives themselves. LRH about says as much in various places. That’s the essence of forgettingness– abandoning responsibility. Taking responsibility for one’s overts, for having and properly using the tech of a job or task, these are essential to survival.

      I’ve gone on too long. But great comment, Worsel.

      Paul

  3. A hugely interesting subject, thanks for bringing it up, Paul.

    I unreservedly agree with the statement: “The solution which brings the greatest benefit to the greatest number of dynamics.”

    While we persist in the MEST universe, this statement will always bring about majority approval.

    I also agree that: “There’s no win in trying to get your young children to understand the fine distinctions here.”

    In HCOB 22 July 1963 You Can Be Right, Ron says: “There are no absolute rights and absolute wrongs.” The subtleties in this wonderful HCOB would be lost on a child.

    My experience with young children is that they can be ridiculously and often hilariously honest, but are prone to ARCXs. They want to be loved and to love in return, and this is a far trickier area than the world of Grade II. Even more difficult is the world of Grade IV, and it’s no wonder that LRH placed Grades 0, I, II, III and VI in that order, an increasing gradient to comprehending the world.

    I idolise my daughter, but had to take responsibility to allow her to be right yet try not confuse her with the madnesses of grown-ups.

    As Ron says elsewhere, no-one gave us a guide-book when we came into the MEST universe, but TWTH is a good opening chapter 🙂

    • P13C:

      I originally brought up kids here for a couple of reasons. I have some granddaughters who range from very smart to brilliant. One (six years old) reads at an eighth grade level. There is a program in the schools where I live, called the “gifted program”. And as smart as my grandchildren are, they cannot get into this program. Why? Because that program is for children who have a good grasp of what might be called pure “concepts”. Things like, honor, modesty, patriotism and the like. If they can’t readily grasp or discuss these things as pure concepts, they can’t get into this program. I find no fault in the school or my grandkids in this. It’s an ability that is sometimes never developed. And there’s no sense in trying to make these fine distinctions about overts and responsibility with children who can’t grasp the nuances of the subjects.

      You’re also right about kids being ARCXy. And this is understandable when you consider what Ron has to say about kids: they’re generally stuck in the prior death. Which also makes sense when you consider what a momentous evolution a death and rebirth is.

      It’s almost like kids are going down a channel with edges and a definite goal, but they don’t know it. And because they don’t even know they’re in a game, they’re not aware of the walls and edges, and will frequently try to go in the direction of the walls, rather than continue down the channel toward the goal. These are your ARCXs. Your job as a parent is to try to protect them from impacts with the the walls until they themselves are aware enough to see the walls and edges, so to avoid them.

      And yes, granting of beingness is about the most important thing to keep in mind about kids. They see monsters under their beds. Just because you don’t see them under the bed, doesn’t mean they aren’t there as far as the kid is concerned. Never invalidate their reality in such cases. If your child falls in love with someone you believe they shouldn’t, tread lightly. If a child wants to pursue a career choice you’d rather they avoid, step lightly as well. You can’t prevent all the mistakes kids will make. You have to give them the freedom to make those mistakes, to a large extent. And be ready with the bandages and iodine when they do. After all, it’s their life, not yours.

      Paul

  4. Paul:

    This subject should prompt some interesting, long overdue discussion in the Indy field. Because it may well be one of the the most used, covert and successful control mechanizims ever.

    Want to stop a Being cold and dead? No problem, just focus his attention on his/her sins, and a laundry list of the 157 things he should “not” do. End of freedom – end of all hopes of OT.

    One does not require LRH to observe or write such down for them to know about honesty, decency, compassion and the like. Sane beings don’t murder their baker or the candlestick maker. They do not need to be reminded that it’s bad, illegal, suppressive or unpopular at birthday parties.

    Want to stop the flow of Clears and OTs in the making, or turn a loving family dinner into a toxic family feud? No problem. Simply “evaluate” for a member or two with language like “treason” – enemy and overts and withholds. Or tell a Clear he/she needs Sec Checking, he may not be honest enough to be trusted.

    Want an honest, decent Being? No problem. Put him in session with a good standard auditor. Help him end his/her suffering.

    My observation: No Being on this planet has ever gotten another Being’s “ethics in.” Period, end of subject. Not you, me, LRH or any almighty god in any universe. Not on the 1st Dynamic.

    Sports teams, groups, etc., yes, they can insist on standards and rules and guidelines. But for a Being on route to greater freedom one may inform another, inspire, even insist, but nothing short of one’s own postulate will ever produce an OT.

    The subjects of Ethics & Justice, the misunderstandings of, along with the covert use of the same to seek and destroy has brought the very existence of Clearing and helping to free good Beings to the deepest depths of non-existence.

    Want to be a truly free Being? No problem. The next time someone (other than your fully qualified and 100% standard CS) wants your attention on your overs, withholds, crimes, and who thought of Shania Twain in a Bikini, well, well. I say you would be better off to just slap them in the mouth, tell them to fuck off and really fuck off NOW!

    They want overts, lies, crimes, withholds and mental image pictures of naked dancers on shiny poles, tell em to find the first mirror they can get to and introvert themself all they want. You’ll be too busy splurging on your goodness, honesty and love of your fellow man to waste another second of that beauty on their fascination with spiritual death and destruction.

    And if in that process you happen to realize that telling your mom you didn’t eat the ice creme, or you left a village or two burning in your rearview mirror once upon a time, then clean it up like the courageous Being you really are and get the hell back in session.

    The purpose never was your sins. Give LRH a break on this one. You never did need him or The Tech, chart or lecture to tell you that you are a good, decent and kind Being now did you, Paul?

    R

    • Ren,
      Please correct me if I’m mistaken. After Googleing “Shania Twain in a Bikini”, I suspect that we both agree that Shania Twain in a Bikini is kind of disgusting and unethical.

    • Ren:

      You and Shania, I swear. 😉

      If you want to know whether you could ever put someone’s individual ethics in, get married (or have a 2D with someone). I’ve had Ethics Officers suggest that I put my 2D’s ethics in, and my answer is, “Are you out of your mind?” You might have some leverage in that direction, but you’d better approach it obliquely and be prepared to back off at roughly 100 miles per hour. Hot stoves are more approachable. The best you can do is to avoid the situation at the outset by selecting a 2D with relatively high ethics and high tone level. That way, if you suggest that maybe, just possibly, perhaps they might want to do someone or other about their ethics, you don’t get your head taken off.

      This is much like the situation with drug addicts. You can talk all day and send them to jail and do all sorts of things to them. But until they actually make the decision to stop taking drugs, they will not stop.

      As an Ethics Officer, you can bring pressure to bear on someone to get their individual ethics in. And to the extent that someone’s individual ethics are out and it’s affecting their 3D, that’s okay. But whether they do it or not will be entirely up to them.

      I think one of the great breakthroughs that Ron made was to determine that Man is basically good. The Christians, Jews and Moslems have been pounding on people for centuries about how Man is natively bad and must be continually forgiven. In fact, the whole of organized Christianity hinges on the idea that Jesus died on the cross in order to ensure that your sins are forgiven (I’ve never ever understood the logic of this; it makes no sense whatsoever when you really look at it). Want a barometer on how much of a control mechanism a religion really is? Look at how many things you are and are not supposed to do.

      One of the things you find in movies and television when dealing with beings who have super powers is the inevitable fear that beings like that will use them for evil. And those who are weak and evil fear the powerful for obvious reasons. The truth is, though, that one needn’t worry about this. The fact that beings are natively good introduces a mechanism whereby a powerful being doing bad things will work to lessen his own power and ability to act when he sees that he is acting badly. This is remarkable, and it’s a tribute to Ron that he managed to dig up the mechanism and provide us with the proper perspective on the native ethics of thetans.

      I’ve also found that, when functioning as an ethics terminal (which I have), it really isn’t necessary to rub people’s noses in their own overts. Generally, they already feel bad about them. Of course, you (as an ethics terminal) must put some focus on the misdeeds of others. But anything stronger than that is usually more than is needed. One of the biggest problems people have along these lines is to fail to see how overts over here are having an effect over there as well. If an ethics particle is having any problem seeing the evil in what he’s doing, that’s generally the tack I take.

      As regards children, this is a little more difficult. You don’t want to load them up with guilt, but you also want them to cease and desist. The problem is that they have a hard time seeing the extended effects of their own actions. Sometimes it’s necessary to simply change the flow and have them look at it that way. For example, if they have a habit of dragging their sibling around by the hair, it can be useful to have them imagine what it would be like for their sibling to drag them around by their hair.

      As to your final question, Ren: “You never did need him or The Tech, chart or lecture to tell you that you are a good, decent and kind Being now did you, Paul?” Well I short-circuited the whole thing by applying for and receiving my “License To Survive” directly from LRH, signed and sealed. Got it hanging on my wall. So I got that going for me…. 😉

      Paul

      • Paul: I must defer to your wisdom. I too required LRH and a few other admired terminals (friends and loved ones) to sign and seal my “License To Survive” for a while. Then we get the game. We learn, remember we never could do anything but survive and one is on their way back up the pole.

        As for the 2D analogy – you got that right PONTIAC!

        But the take-home point in this entire discussion is simply this. It is OK to go Clear, be Clear, get the OT Levels under one’s belt and get on with the greater game of HAVING such, anew.

        There is only one way in this universe to do that. And it is not via introversions on “Ethics” matters. It is ONLY by taking the next small step in front of one’s nose.

        If it’s a D of P Interview Take it! If it’s put $500 together – Do it! If it’s stop smoking dope – do it now and also cool it on beating up gay people at the office party. Simply quit thinking one can’t have that single next step.

        I have never met a Being who “Did the OT Levels – ever!” I only ever met those who did the next small step consistently, until at last, they were DONE. They were X Completions, Y Comps and Z Comps. Ideally, all Ethics actions are merely tools to get to the next step.

        R

        • Ren:

          Of course, my tongue was firmly embedded in my cheek when I spoke of having a “License to Survive” direct from LRH on my wall. Ron would probably thump you, but good, for even asking for one.

          Yes, the point of ethics is to clear the road so that Tech can go in. This is true for both Ethics and Justice. “Justice” is just the 3D version, designed for 3D problems and actions.

          One thing that used to bother me in the Church (long before DM) was the knee jerk connection between a bad act and the penalty. There was no discussion of the pluses of the person versus the seriousness of the transgression. Ron does mention this in places, but it wasn’t practiced (except perhaps by Ron himself and those who were well-trained).

          One other point, which probably deserves its own post at this point, is the fact that all the justice codes and such were written in such a way as to assume that the Church and its agents and actions were free of fault. Since we now know this is not the case, it’s worth discussing how such a situation should be handled in the future. Back in the day (and today as well), accusing the Church of bad acts or judgments, and acting in accordance with that fact were shooting offenses. But I think such circumstances in the future should be investigated along two fronts: one to determine to what extent the Church might be at fault, and then the extent to which our resulting actions might be “deserved”. This is likewise true of MS2 or any group to which we belong. When the group is found to be wrong, actions which attempt to point this out and/or correct it, regardless of the Justice Codes, may well be warranted.

          Just something worth discussion.

          Paul

          • Paul: Wow! that is one very, very big question at this point in the cherch’s history. The situation is the very definition of a problem: KSW, (a) don’t change or alter a single comma (b) get rid of the non-survival elements. Postulate – counter-postulate, force – counter-force: PROBLEM.

            It may well be that we are witnessesing the only hope the Tech had left once DM demonstarted how damaging it could be in the wrong hands. For better or worse the tech is now almost entirely available to anyone on the planet.

            It may not have been envisioned, but the tech will now take its place among all of the other spiritual philosophies, ideas and offerings of the world. The real test of its “workability” will no longer be what can happen in a Sea Org facility, it will be what happens when any little group of two or more people choose to use what they happened to find of it one day.

            Small pockets of like minded people will gather, much like with Dianetics – 1950. Leaders, players, pawns and broken pieces will come and they will go. Big Central groups will form and seek to standardize it with some successes at times.

            But of this we can be sure. The DM driven Sea Org is dead in terms of control and management of the Tech. Dead as dead can be. All they have left to sell is their lies.

            So the next time one passes an “ideal org” it might be appropriate to kiss it goodbye. You, me, and most of the more free Beings, LRH and The Tech HAVE LEFT THE BUILDING.

            Thus, we are not playing witness to the destruction of “Scientology,” only its ascension into the hands of humanity.

            R

            • Ren:

              What you’re saying is true, but at some point in the future, the big Org will return as a primary purveyor and standardizer of the Tech. It must and will. It may be five years from now, and it may be a hundred years from now. But thetans will want to gather in ever larger numbers, and in some places, those numbers will be “Org size”. And in fact, I don’t think we can clear this planet without Orgs. Whether they are “franchise” type Orgs or what, I can’t say.

              Yes, of course, as we see the Church today, it is merely a husk of what it once was, no matter where you go. That probably includes Flag, DM’s own org.

              All the above is opinion, after all. My opinion. You may disagree, and that’s okay. I hope I’m right.

              But regardless, the question of justice and ethics in the face of the idea that an Org can be wrong is still something to consider. It certainly never was in the first place. And now that we are the true custodians of the Tech, we must take some time at some point to consider it.

              Paul

            • “Without a guiding central organization Scientology would fall into an anarchy of opinions in a week for there are too many who can go through the motions of auditing who do not know their basics. They think a new thing, Scientology, is an experimental thing. It is not. The basics are inflexible and have been for years.

              We know now just exactly what clears people. And we know exactly what a clear is. And we know exactly how to train and process. These are hard won riches. Don’t waste them and your time, too.

              L. RON HUBBARD”

              (Excerpted from Ability Issue 76, early June 1958 – “Offbeat” Processing)

  5. I knew a highly trained OT 8 who had knocked a hole in the wall of the local AO moving furniture for the AO. Here was a man who had donated around $1mill, services, donations, ideal orgs et al and he was so terrified of this coming up in his next sec check, he had to, himself, get it fixed immediately. Thats what the Estates Org is for! What the AO doesnt know is the phone number he wont give them. Although by now that has probably come up as a withhold.

    The Introversion and fettering of the OTs in the church is a done deal, they are so scared of doing the “wrong” thing, they don’t do anything. Even to the extent of recycling them thru the bottom steps of the Bridge. They are in effect being told that this is their case level, and if they accept that this is their case level they have mocked it up to audit it out again, with the attendant reactivity and the being effect that goes along with it, and a dependence on a squirrel church.

    Talk about Black Dianetics! You got to give it to Dave, who would have thought in the heyday of Scientology, that this could have happened.

  6. “So let’s look at present time.

    And let’s be blunt.

    What are you trying to hide in present time?

    What would happen to you if it were discovered?

    How many things like this are there in present time?

    Don’t bother to list them. If other people found these things out they would probably blink, maybe they’d chatter over fences. You might get fired or divorced. But I’ll tell you a secret about secrets. No single person to whom you uttered the confidence would NOT have a similar list to hide. They’ve all masturbated and had clandestine affairs and a lot of them venereal diseases. They’ve stolen money and maybe some have even left a cold dead body in a culvert. They’ve lied and cheated and done blackmail. And the funny part of it is, only those who have a long, long list of things to hide would even begin to reprimand you.

    And another thing. Anyone who punished you would someday regret it. A dean in college who threatened to flunk me for writing a bit of truth in what was the longest sentence in the English language (500 words without colons or semicolons) had it weigh upon his mind to such an extent that he wrote me, years afterwards, when he had retired and was nearly dead, the most astonishing apology.

    You are treating yourself in present time much as you were treated by others in the past. And you punish yourself far more than anyone would ever punish you. The suicide is simply self-executioner, having been found guilty by his own court.” LRH (Handbook For Preclears, Third Act)

  7. Thank you Chris: I had not seen that quote before, but there it is: Freedom to enjoy the journey to greater spiritual awareness.

    As for Shania, I do joke, but then, no Shanias, no motorcycles, no Hagen Das coffee ice creme on this planet and I am out of here, Batman.

    R

  8. Interesting post. My best guess is that if all truth suddenly became universally known, all would collapse into an implosion of shattered angst…, or…, something like that.

    Several things to consider: processing itself is in the lower bounds a gradient path to truth (as-isness). The reality of our (I’m referring to the USA here) current society is that truth is not as appreciated as much as acceptable beliefs that are mostly borne out of pshrink think tanks and financed and promoted by special interest groups. People mostly want to hear what they want to hear; communicating truth is Level One (problems).

    It’s remarkable after all we’d learned about withholds, that intelligence is also the ability to withhold. Accent on ability. (To paraphrase a bunch of R)

    Lots of parameters to all this; intention and ethics not the least of them.

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