Home

horse-cart-450x298

By Bernie

The success of this blog is due, at least in part to Lana’s insistence on keeping it theta. However there are a number of writers on other blogs that seem to believe that criticism of the antics of corporate Scientology will fix it.

Of course it won’t.

Putting someone under attack puts them into such a defensive mode that they have no space to review their actions and correct them.

Those that choose to fight corporate Scientology are involved in a game. It keeps them in turmoil (entheta) using up their energies in creating a problem. Those that choose to simply get on with it and use the material, get the gains and results that LRH intended.

The basic handling of the Service Fac is interesting. You find what the PC is doing wrong (the Service Fac) and get them to tell you why it is right.

When they feel right enough they can then let it go. F/N, cog, VGIs.

I’ve won more arguments getting people to explain the rightness of their view. It usually ends with them saying “I see what you mean.”

And I use my very best TRs to avoid giving the impression that I disagree with them.

If you really want to change the corporate church, getting enough members to explain why the antics are right appears to me to be the only answer.

Here is the LRH on this:

YOU CAN BE RIGHT

“Rightness and wrongness form a common source of argument and struggle.

“The concept of rightness reaches very high and very low on the Tone Scale.

“And the effort to be right is the last conscious striving of an individual on the way out. I-am-right-and-they-are-wrong is the lowest concept that can be formulated by an unaware case.

“What is right and what is wrong are not necessarily definable for everyone. These vary according to existing moral codes and disciplines and, before Scientology, despite their use in law as a test of “sanity,” had no basis in fact but only in opinion.

“In Dianetics and Scientology a more precise definition arose. And the definition became as well the true definition of an overt act. An overt act is not just injuring someone or something: an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics. (See the eight dynamics.)

“Thus, a wrong action is wrong to the degree that it harms the greatest number of dynamics. And a right action is right to the degree that it benefits the greatest number of dynamics.

“Many people think that an action is an overt simply because it is destructive. To them all destructive actions or omissions are overt acts. This is not true. For an act of commission or omission to be an overt act it must harm the greater number of dynamics. A failure to destroy can be, therefore, an overt act. Assistance to something that would harm a greater number of dynamics can also be an overt act.

“An overt act is something that harms broadly. A beneficial act is something that helps broadly. It can be a beneficial act to harm something that would be harmful to the greater number of dynamics.

“Harming everything and helping everything alike can be overt acts. Helping certain things and harming certain things alike can be beneficial acts.

“The idea of not harming anything and helping everything are alike rather mad. It is doubtful if you would think helping enslavers was a beneficial action and equally doubtful if you would consider the destruction of a disease an overt act.

”In the matter of being right or being wrong, a lot of muddy thinking can develop. There are no absolute rights or absolute wrongs. And being right does not consist of being unwilling to harm and being wrong does not consist only of not harming.

“There is an irrationality about “being right” which not only throws out the validity of the legal test of sanity but also explains why some people do very wrong things and insist they are doing right.

“The answer lies in an impulse, inborn in everyone, to try to be right. This is an insistence which rapidly becomes divorced from right action. And it is accompanied by an effort to make others wrong, as we see in hypercritical cases. A being who is apparently unconscious is still being right and making others wrong. It is the last criticism.

“We have seen a “defensive person” explaining away the most flagrant wrongnesses. This is “justification” as well. Most explanations of Conduct, no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other-wrongness.

“We have long said that that which is not admired tends to persist. If no one admires a person for being right, then that person’s “brand of being right” will persist, no matter how mad it sounds. Scientists who are aberrated cannot seem to get many theories. They do not because they are more interested in insisting on their own odd rightnesses than they are in finding truth. Thus, we get strange “scientific truths” from men who should know better, including the late Einstein. Truth is built by those who have the breadth and balance to see also where they’re wrong.

“You have heard some very absurd arguments out among the crowd. Realize that the speaker was more interested in asserting his or her own rightness than in being right.

“A thetan tries to be right and fights being wrong. This is without regard to being right about something or to do actual right. It is an insistence which has no concern with a rightness of conduct.

“One tries to be right always, right down to the last spark. How, then, is one ever wrong?

“It is this way:

“One does a wrong action, accidentally or through oversight. The wrongness of the action or inaction is then in conflict with one’s necessity to be right. So one then may continue and repeat the wrong action to prove it is right.

“This is a fundamental of aberration. All wrong actions are the result of an error followed by an insistence on having been right. Instead of righting the error (which would involve being wrong) one insists the error was a right action and so repeats it.

“As a being goes down scale, it is harder and harder to admit having been wrong. Nay, such an admission could well be disastrous to any remaining ability or sanity.

“For rightness is the stuff of which survival is made. And as one approaches the last ebb of survival, one can only insist on having been right, for to believe for a moment one has been wrong is to court oblivion.

“The last defence of any being is “I was right.” That applies to anyone. When that defence crumbles, the lights go out.

“So we are faced with the unlovely picture of asserted rightness in the face of flagrant wrongness. And any success in making the being realize their wrongness results in an immediate degradation, unconsciousness or, at best, a loss of personality. Pavlov, Freud, psychiatry alike never grasped the delicacy of these facts and so evaluated and punished the criminal and insane into further criminality and insanity.

“All justice today contains in it this hidden error-that the last defence is a belief in personal rightness regardless of charges and evidence alike, and that the effort to make another wrong results only in degradation.

“But all this would be a hopeless impasse leading to highly chaotic social conditions were it not for one saving fact:

“All repeated and “incurable” wrongnesses stem from the exercise of a last defence: “trying to be right.” Therefore, the compulsive wrongness can be cured no matter how mad it may seem or how thoroughly its rightness is insisted upon.

“Getting the offender to admit his or her wrongness is to court further degradation and even unconsciousness or the destruction of a being. Therefore, the purpose of punishment is defeated and punishment has minimal workability.

“But by getting the offender off the compulsive repetition of the wrongness, one then cures it.

“But how?

“By rehabilitating the ability to be right!

“This has limitless application-in training, in social skills, in marriage, in law, in life.

“Example: A wife is always burning dinner. Despite scolding, threats of divorce, anything, the compulsion continues. One can wipe this wrongness out by getting her to explain what is right about her cooking. This may well evoke a raging tirade in some extreme cases, but if one flattens the question, that all dies away and she happily ceases to burn dinners. Carried to classic proportions but not entirely necessary to end the compulsion, a moment in the past will be recovered when she accidentally burned a dinner and could not face up to having done a wrong action. To be right she thereafter had to burn dinners.

”Go into a prison and find one sane prisoner who says he did wrong. You won’t find one. Only the broken wrecks will say so out of terror of being hurt. But even they don’t believe they did wrong.

“A judge on a bench, sentencing criminals, would be given pause to realize that not one malefactor sentenced really-thought he had done wrong and will never believe it in fact, though he may seek to avert wrath by saying so.

“The do-gooder crashes into this continually and is given his loses by it.

“But marriage, law and crime do not constitute all the spheres of living where this applies. These facts embrace all of life.

“The student who can’t learn, the worker who can’t work, the boss who can’t boss are all caught on one side of the right-wrong question. They are being completely one-sided. They are being “last-ditch-right. ” And opposing them, those who would teach them are fixed on the other side, “admit-you-are-wrong.” And out of this we get not only no-change but actual degradation where it “wins.” But there are no wins in this imbalance, only loses for both.

“Thetans on the way down don’t believe they are wrong because they don’t dare believe it. And so they do not change.

“Many a preclear in processing is only trying to prove himself right and the auditor wrong, particularly the lower case levels, and so we sometimes get no-change sessions.

“And those who won’t be audited at all are totally fixed on asserted rightness and are so close to gone that any question of their past rightness would, they feel, destroy them.

“I get my share of this when a being, close to extinction, and holding contrary views, grasps for a moment the rightness of Scientology and then in sudden defence asserts his own “rightnesses,” sometimes close to terror.

“It would be a grave error to go on letting an abuser of Scientology abuse. The route is to get him or her to explain how right he or she is without explaining how wrong Scientology is, for to do the last is to let them commit a serious overt. “What is right about your mind” would produce more case change and win more friends than any amount of evaluation or punishment to make them wrong.

“You can be right. How? By getting another to explain how he or she is right-until he or she, being less defensive now, can take a less compulsive point of view. You don’t have to agree with what they think. You only have to acknowledge what they say. And suddenly they can be right.

“A lot of things can be done by understanding and using this mechanism. It will take, however, some study of this article before it can be gracefully applied-for all of us are reactive to some degree on this subject. And those who sought to enslave us did not neglect to install a right-wrong pair of items on the far backtrack. But these won’t really get in your way.

”As Scientologists, we are faced by a frightened society who think they would be wrong if we were found to be right. We need a weapon to correct this. We have one here.

“And you can be right, you know. I was probably the first to believe you were, mechanism or no mechanism. The road to rightness is the road to survival. And every person is somewhere on that scale.

“You can make yourself right, amongst other ways, by making others right enough to afford to change their minds. Then a lot more of us will arrive.” LRH (published as both an HCOB and also an HCO Policy Letter)

31 thoughts on “Explain why it is right

  1. I think there are different levels to this. With Dave, RTC etc and some public “You find what the PC is doing wrong (the Service Fac) and get them to tell you why it is right.” I agree this action would help a great deal with many people. I also agree that the constant hammering of them by antis and such like boxes them in and gets them to repeat their mistakes.

    We have seen them repeating their mistakes ad nauseum, and when that didnt work, pouring fuel on those mistakes to the point of the toxic brand of Scn we have today. (How some people can call Dave intelligent is beyond me, I dont think you can get much dumber. I mean, all you would have to do is let Scientologists get on with it, without all the draconian davetech and it would win)

    On the other hand with many public, we may be looking at a case of just not knowing, or being sure about the negative information about the church and whether it is off policy or not. So its an education type of thing, for example, explain how Gat violates policy, what changes in the Tech and policy has Dave made, why isnt the SHSBC or Class 8 courses available anymore, what happened to being able to see the actual stats of an Ideal org, not the square footage etc etc. Where the hell did Ideal Org come from anyway, its not in any friggin policy anywhere!!

    But we need to look at the fact that policy is protecting Dave, in that as public or staff, we are not allowed to mutiny or splinter, per policy it is a high crime. So that needs to be dealt with. What in the system broke down? Then we find out he appointed himself to the position of COB, LRH didn’t give it to him. There is a 3 board system LRH had developed that never got implemented after his death.

    But in the end we are all individuals, and maybe those still in are just not that bright, or are scared to the point of not allowing themselves to see the glaring outpoints.

    Its got me beat, honestly, after reading Debbie Cooks email, from someone of her stature and reputation, then looking back over my own experience in and with the church, which confirmed what she wrote, I fail to see how anyone could not see the outpoints and could have faith in Dave anymore and frankly I am fast loosing sympathy for anyone who is still in, and letting themselves be right royally screwed, while the name of Scientology is being more and more dragged through the mud.

  2. 4a:

    I rather suspect that the vast majority of Scientologists still connected to the Church know there’s something not right going on. Look at the number of people currently receiving services in any given org to any earlier time. That’s not success. And any group that must enforce guidelines in what people think, or penalize them for disagreement has something fundamentally wrong with it. But they’ve abandoned their personal integrity and honor for any of a variety of reasons, not the least of which is their idea that their future Bridge is only available in the Church. (And what a wretched Bridge they have ahead of them!)

    I understand why they are still in. I’ve just lost my respect for them. They should be paying more attention to that little voice in the back of their minds, telling them the truth. A majority of Scientologists, doing exactly what Debbie Cook urged in her email, could still turn things around.

    Paul

  3. When I first saw this “attack the Church” strategy in action out here, I realized immediately, and for no particular technical reason, it would never work. First of all, from the Church’s perspective, the attackers would all just be yapping cur dogs. Declare them and be done with it. The ones still playing the Church game will go along. Second, outside of Scientologists, no one will care what happens to Scientology. If it implodes, or it expands, the average human has never heard of it or has no particular opinion about it. So it doesn’t matter. So they’re not going to get behind your efforts to reform it. Third, the people inside are too cowed and ill to rise up and make effective change. They haven’t yet, and aren’t likely to. We can work on those who actually have the standing or stature to do something (and some of our current efforts on this line may succeed), but those people aren’t the rank and file. And the Church is expending a tremendous effort to cast the naysayers as psychos and SPs. Would you follow such people? Fourth, courts aren’t going to interfere with what goes on inside the Church (U.S. courts) or they’re going to look at the atrocities and just ban it or some such. The legislatures and courts will not work actively to reform the Church and/or its internal practices.

    So this whole “attack from the outside” strategy was doomed to failure from the outset. It’s surprising that anyone sane out here would advocate it. And now we come to find out that the effort is spearheaded by folks who are every bit as nutty as Miscavige.

    I’ve made the analogy before, that this is a lot like the conflict between Ahab and the whale in Moby Dick. Two opponents neither of which will let the other one go, nor will they be satisfied with anything less than the death of the other. All the while engaged in an insane bout of relentless oppterming. It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.

    Paul

  4. Please note particularly what LRH says here about science and our beloved Einstein. Science (physics mostly) does act in exactly this way, as has been posited here recently. This would be the “science service fac”, and it immediately tells you that something is wrong (or somethings). It is surprising the number of branches of science it afflicts.

    You know, I just realized how similar the reaction of science has been on the matter of anthropomorphic global climate change to the reaction of people inside the Church. If you’re in the science community and you want to be shunned by your peers, have your grant money cut off, and possibly lose your job, try asserting that global climate change is a myth, or that it is not caused by Man. So if you know what’s good for you, like those in the Church, you will agree with orthodoxy on this subject. I hadn’t quite made that connection before, but it’s startling how similar the behavior of Churchers is to that of global climate change folks. Remarkable.

    I used to get myself in hot water a lot when I was on staff and reported things which I saw as wrong (compared with policy). And now, aside from the O/W side of that, I see the service fac side of it. No wonder I got thumped so much. I was actively poking an ant hill of service facs. Yikes!

    F/N cog VGIs for me, then. Thanks, Ron (and Bernie).

    Paul

      • PZ:

        Good point. Apparently so. How goofy is that? Science, the one-time savior of Mankind, is now mostly a waste of time. You want to make strides now, you take up engineering. That’s where the science gets applied. Instead, science gives us, “salt is bad for you”, and then next month, “salt is good for you”. “Scientists” have more or less dead-agented their own field. Still, it’s sad and stunning how many people simply wait, open-mouthed for the utterances of SCIENTISTS. I feel the same way about most scientists as I do about medicos. They only half know what they think they know, and the other half is wrong.

        Kinda funny. On The Story of Dianetics and Scientology Ron describes his shock as a young man when he realized that the shrinks didn’t know much at all about the mind, and didn’t really care to know the truth. Now we have scientists in more or less the same boat. They’re getting paid to speculate, but in the end, virtually all of their speculations will end up as vapor.

        Paul

        • Paul, (sidebar)

          All very true, but cherry-picked to conclusion. “Science” has indeed bred such things as anti-vaxers, but it has also developed life-saving sera. There IS such a body of knowledge known as climatology; knowledge that predicated on factual data (empirical) and is capable of accurate predictions. For instance, have you noticed that “the weatherman” has become increasingly accurate (tho not perfect) over the last couple decades?

          Ron’s knowledge accurately blasts big holes in Darwin, yet Darwin is miles above “Jesus on a dinosaur” theories.

          It is not some invented fact that large coal and oil special interests have over many years spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying our government. I’m pretty sure that special-interest money didn’t go to sway scientists into false reporting global warming. Possibly clean energy industries have lobbyists too, but certainly not on the same scale as vested “dirty” energy.

          As bad as our Earth science might seem to one seeing only its canards, it is still a step above whatever special interests that seek to replace it.

          Bruce

          • Bruce:

            Climatology: I live in hurricane country. I see the predictive tracks of hurricanes every season, only one of which may be accurate (and not the same one every time). And those are the results of models, which are engineering accomplishments. Fail. I closely watch the precipitation percentages each day. Notice that they never get more precise than 10%. You’ll never see a precipitation percentage of 32%. Maybe 30%, 40%, etc. Fail. I have not heard of any major, fundamental, breakthroughs in climate science in my lifetime. Models might improve, perhaps, but that’s an engineering, computer programming, issue. Conclusion: Not an active science.

            I’m not here to debate global climate change. In this venue, I don’t advocate one way or another, though I have definite opinions on the subject. I’ve merely pointed out the irrational, religious reactions of scientific orthodoxy on the subject. Draw what conclusions you like about the veracity of global climate change, while taking this into account. Also note that another solid reason for “science” to latch on to one or another position in this debate has to do with the aggregate politics of those involved. Global climate change fits well with a certain brand of politics, and not with the other (which, not coincidentally, argues for the opposite side of the issue).

            Darwin/evolution: This planet was not populated with amoebas that eventually turned into humans. Life on this planet was engineered. Over time, species may alter in minor ways because of changes in climate, etc. But evolving from one species to another? Fail. Believe what you like.

            I’m not sure why you think special interests wouldn’t pay to fabricate global climate change. I can think of at least five major funding sources who would do exactly that and have the funds to do so. Not counting the nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydro and solar energy folk, all of which also would fund the idea of global climate change. In fact, the only lobbies I can think of which would fund “anti-global-climate-change” are coal, oil and natural gas folks.

            “Earth” science versus “special interests that seek to replace it”? I don’t see the one versus the other, as they aren’t in the same line of country at all. “Science” (and I use the term loosely) is science. Lobbies are lobbies. “Science”, as practiced today mostly exists to further its own existence. Lobbies exist to forward some political proposition, often one which is anathema to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Please note: the purpose for most special interest organizations is not, let me repeat, not what they advertise it to be. One must normally dig, and observe their actions to find out what they are really about. Also note that if scientific orthodoxy (whether right or wrong, honest or dishonest) is on the side of one or another lobbying groups, their job is made an order of magnitude easier. Lobbyists need only point out how science (God) has spoken on a subject.

            My apologies to readers who have heard my tirades on science before. I get tired of people worshipping at the altar of science and thinking these people are a holy repository of truth. Scientology is a repository of truth. Science, not so much.

            I’ll shut up now.

            Paul

  5. Thanks for the comments. The reason it is so hard to understand how we could be so gullible is because we are dealing with an aberration which by definition doesn’t make sense. Communication is the only answer and that is being denied. But take heart. we didn’t get into this mess over night. Even DM has a ‘use by date’. Those who get on and use the tech as best they can, without getting involved in the make wrong fight, will win the day eventually.
    Bernie

  6. BW:

    Good point. DM won’t live forever (perhaps quite literally). He has surrounded himself with people just like him, more or less. But once they no longer have DM to give them the daily “truth”, many may return to the true Source of Scientology. And gradually, we may see a drift back to something we more or less recognize as “normality”.

    Imagine sometime in the future, when someone says, “Didn’t there used to be a kind of auditor called a ‘Class VIII’? I’m pretty sure I heard about that one time.” Or, “Didn’t they have a bunch of tech and policy stuff in big red and green books? Seems like I’ve seen some of those lying around. I wonder if they’re any good.” Or, “You know, we’re selling these e-meters for $5000. But they only cost about $200 to make. We’re hardly selling any for $5000. What if we sold them for $500? Ya spoze we might sell more?”

    Paul

  7. Too many people are using the source material for it ever to fall into disuse, but it may take time for corporate to notice how well the field goes without the weird policies and pricing. But it will happen.

    Bernie

    • I’m not so worried about the widespread use of some of the tenets of the Scientology philosophy nor it apparently falling into disuse; but I AM worried about the various iterations and permutations of it that abound these days, both within and without the CoS, which have led to an anarchy of opinions current today. Scientology won’t survive, even if it’s in widespread “use”, if the 10 points of KSW are also not adhered to or followed. That’s what will kill it.

      “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.”

      Ability 76, ca. 1958

      • I agree Chris, the Bridge as laid out by LRH is relatively simple, quick and makes a whole lot of sense when done properly and when one is not pts to their church.

        The before Dave period was not perfect, but things were improving, and with good judgement, a good future could have been secured.

        Dave Miscavige and his cronies ruined that and I find I am just angry. Not just at the enormous past out justice, the masses of Scientologists who have had enough bpc by out tech, ethics and admin to blow them out of Scientology. I am especially mad at the thought of the huge amount of people with psycho somatics or case that ruins their lives now, that could have easily been resolved with good auditing and are not getting that handled.

        This is from the LRH lecture The Free Being

        “Well, all battles are won by a combination of two elements, and these are force and intelligence”

        ” Now, intelligence alone in active action is not enough. The wise men of Tibet, were just a few years ago driven out of their mountain fortresses by the dumbest infantrymen the world has known for some time”

        Dave has been really good with force, hes as dumb as a post, but I think we need to up our force and get him out, and if anyone deserves to be angry for having their dynamics ruined, it is us, and the rest of the people on this planet because the Tech is there and it works!

      • Chris:

        Another quote that goes in my permanent “special file”. Again, thanks, Chris.

        I keep harping on this exact point, and I know people get tired of it. They see what happened with the Church, and how UN-great things were even before DM really got hold of it, and they assume this attitude of “Screw Orgs; we don’t need ’em. We’ll just sit out here and be rugged individuals. Policy sucks.”

        Out here in the Field, we don’t have a “central organization”. And guess what the Field looks like: exactly what LRH describes above. You don’t have to listen to me. I’m just some guy. But this is LRH talking.

        It’s all very well for us to continue to whittle away at our own cases and those of the people around us. This is a laudable and noble activity. Kudos to all who are engaged in it. And kudos to those who have and are striving to put Orgs there and keep them there.

        If you’re going to take LRH’s word for how A, R and C make Understanding, and how there are 8 dynamics, perhaps you should consider taking his word for the fact that we really do need Orgs. That it’s not enough to keep plugging away as rugged individuals.

        And if not, then perhaps you should consider doing as Bernie suggests: working out why it’s right to not have Orgs.

        Paul

  8. Here’s an interesting point (to me, at least). As I’ve studied Scientology, I’ve always been interested in not only the processes which are applied to any given difficulty, but why that process and why/how it works. In the case of the service fac, you find that the PC has more or less been automatically asserting the rightness of it for ages. The answer? You get him to do, consciously what he’s been doing on automatic for ages. In other words, you get him to take control of this mechanism to the point where he can do or not do it at will, instead of just automatically doing it to his own detriment. At that point, the automaticity comes off and he no longer automatically asserts the rightness of the thing.

    A great many processes followed this same path, going all the way back to 1952 or so, with the Philadelphia Doctorate Course. The PC was seen to engage in a great many practices which were detrimental to his life and survival (or existence). These each appeared to have an element of automaticity involved. So the processing answer often became to get the PC to consciously do what he had been doing automatically, until at last he came to the point where he had conscious control and knew it. At that point, the automaticity would blow and the PC would no longer be effect of his own automaticities in a given area.

    As you study Scientology, keep an eye out for processes that follow this pattern. It is quite a powerful mechanism when applied to processing, and the source of many many processes which work beautifully to put the PC back in control of his own life.

    Paul

  9. Yes Paul, it is a beautiful process to watch and use. I remember my mother (Eileen Wimbush, a well known auditor at Saint Hill) using it on my brother. He had a habit of fainting at the sight of his own blood. He came rushing in with a friend in tow with a bleeding finger. Mum simply said “now show your friend how you faint.” He couldn’t and it never happened again.
    Bernie

    • BW:

      Here’s a pretty dumb example of this, also from real life. As many of you men know, women insist that you put down the toilet seat, and can get mighty cranky when you don’t. This used to irritate me. So instead of just putting down the toilet seat, I used to put down the lid as well. Women aren’t fond of us doing that either, but it’s harder for them to argue against it. But that’s what I used to do.

      At some point a few years back, I actually took a look at this and asked myself if there really was a point to it, and whether I was actually accomplishing anything by doing it. And I admitted that I really didn’t have a good reason for it, and all it really did was to serve as a minor irritation to my wife. So I stopped doing it. Now I just put the seat down and leave the lid up, as my wife would prefer.

      I told you it was a dumb example, didn’t I?

      But in the last day or so, as I look at what you (Bernie) wrote, something new has occurred to me (cognition). Up until I read the above, I wasn’t aware of how you handled service facs. It was kind of a mystery to me, since I only ever did ARC SW and Grade 0. A few years back, I had a metered interview with an auditor who was going to audit my OT preps. One of the questions she asked me was what Grades I was interested in or had attention on, or something of the sort (I don’t recall exactly). My answer was Grades 1 and 4, problems and service facs. And after thinking for a day or two about your post above, it occurs to me that I’m no longer interested in Grade 4. It now seems like an area I shouldn’t need any assistance on.

      So… another cognition from MS2. Thanks, Bernie, MS2 and Ron.

      Paul

      • SJ:

        Interesting that she would “ask” you what Grades you were interested in/had attention on as Ron talks about how important it is to have done one’s Grades before doing the OT levels in a number of places, and in fact, completed Grades is required before going onto the Advanced Levels per the Solo C/S Series checklist.

  10. CB:

    Before the advent of “Dianetic Clear” (1978), it would be assumed that the Grades were part of how you even got to the Clearing Course. However, after that point, I don’t recall Grades as being a requirement for advanced levels in any of the public pronouncements of the new Bridge line-up (assuming you went clear on Dianetics). Part of that might have been that if you went Clear (however it happened) you were suddenly in the Non-Interference Zone, severely limiting the auditing allowed. And I don’t recall Grades auditing as being part of the allowed auditing in the Zone.

    But I’m not a Tech terminal. I don’t know who her C/S was. Someone in Australia, I think. If I had to do my Grades now, you’d have to clear a “protest” rud on me first. In fact, they nearly did have to when I did Grade 0 way back when (the last Grade I did, as a favor to a student auditor to help her get through her Levels). At the time, I figured 0 was about the last Grade I’d ever need to flatten. I just had no attention on it at all.

    Anyway, all that’s above my pay grade. As a Class VIII, if you’d like to know who the auditor was, I’ll be glad to share the name with you privately. You should already have my email address.

    Paul

    • SJ:

      Not every piece of tech (or policy for that matter) is BPI (as you seem to allude in italicizing “public”), but as I mentioned, the Solo C/S Series 11

  11. Let me repeat as my keyboard screwed up (you realize I didn’t say “I” screwed up!)…

    Not every piece of tech (or policy for that matter) is BPI (as you seem to allude in italicizing “public”), but as I mentioned, Solo C/S Series 11RG with limited distribution (SHs, AOs, Flag) is a checklist of items that must be in before one advances onto the OT Grades. There are other references as well, some on the VIII course, some in the Tech Vols. Anyway, there is exact LRH tech on moving up the Bridge and while pc interest is a part of that, it’s not ALL of it. If it was, we’d have a dog’s breakfast of it, I’d imagine.

    And no, I don’t need the auditor’s email. That’s long gone and I have no firsthand experience of it; I’m just closing the door on any possibility of incorrect tech being applied, that’s all. What is needed for anyone moving up the Bridge, is to get a competent and standard program drawn up by a competent and standard C/S, following LRH technical advices and after having a good interview done. That way one will really make it.

  12. Chris:

    When you say things like the above, it just makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Makes me want to do research, and I don’t like doing that kind of research. I don’t wish to be disrespectful or rude, but you must understand that I reserve the right to disagree with anyone when I have what appear to be references that contradict what someone has said (including senior tech terminals). According to what you’ve said, I infer that (notice I did not say you implied) Grades are a necessary prerequisite (to advanced levels) for a Clear who achieved the state without having gone the original route (Grades 0-IV, V, Va, VI and Clearing Course). Statements to this (or similar) effect apparently exist in various places, including issues (e.g. Solo C/S Ser 11RG) which are confidential and of limited distribution.

    Fair enough. Here’s what my immediate, shallow research effort turned up:

    In Solo C/S Series l0RA, C/S Ser 73RA, THE NO-INTERFERENCE AREA CLARIFIED AND RE-ENFORCED (I’m skipping RB, since it was revised in 1990, after LRH’s death), there are listings of what can and cannot be done in the Non-Interference Area(s), and generally how the area should be handled. According to this reference, the Grades are included as actions not to be done on a person from Clear to OT 1.

    Again, I don’t wish to be disrespectful, in view of your considerably advanced technical knowledge compared to me. But the reference I have cited seems quite clear and appears to contradict what I have inferred from your statements.

    Paul

    • Hi Paul,

      I’ve dug up a few references which I’ve posted below. Probably too many, but that’s the old Qual Sec and Cramming Officer hats sliding in to second base. Probably the best thing for anyone to do is to get with a good auditor and standard C/S and have one’s case programmed against standard C/Sing tech while paralleling the pc’s mind and case.

      Having said that, just a few points:

      Doing research like this is a good thing, if one wants to ensure their path up the bridge is true and that they will make it. At least, that’s what I’ve found.

      As far as tech terminals, even senior ones, the only one I really abide by is LRH. IMO, he trumps anyone else. So ask these tech terminals what LRH says on the subject.

      Re C/S Series 73RA, yup, there’s that. I wonder, where is C/S Series 73R? I’ve not been able to get a hold of it (I suppose I should try Wise Old Goat) and wonder what was actually revised in each iteration.

      As for the hairs on the back of your neck, perhaps a close shave will help. 😉

      C.

      P.S. Of course you can disagree. Power and right of a thetan, right? And I wouldn’t expect otherwise. 🙂

      “But, if a person has neglected his grades, lower grades, and neglected C, and hasn’t picked his C up as he comes up through the grades, why when he gets into solo his reality is inadequate, and it is not possible for him to, in actual fact, have any R on III. No reality on III. Well that means he’s out somewhere along the line, don’t you see? He hasn’t made it in that way.” Class VIII #1, Welcome To The Class VIII Course

      “There are no different cases. There are no cases different than any other cases. There aren’t peculiar cases. But I can tell you this, I can tell you this, that a person who does not come up through the grades does not hit the phenomenon. He doesn’t hit the release points of the upper grades if he hasn’t been through the lower grades.” Class VIII #2, What Standard Tech Does

      “Now it’s very remarkable that we have just found a case which has had a bit of trouble with auditing and has been a little bit difficult to handle in session. And I’ll be a son of a gun if there weren’t about three lower grades that had never been run.

      Here the person had gone all the way up into the OT sections with three lower grades hanging fire. Now it’ll make a tremendous difference, tremendous difference, because those three lower grades have now been put in. It will now make a tremendous difference to the case in its progress, because what happens is, is when some lower step is missing on the staircase, and the fellow doesn’t make it, he just more or less keeps marking time on that step.

      Now the grade, what they call the gradation chart, is the only ladder anybody is climbing now. And I can actually give you, and will, a simplified gradation chart, which gives you the exact whats and whiches as it goes up….

      But I can give you a simplified gradation chart, and will. But where those blocks are missing on the line the case is not going to do well. And the higher they go, the more
      trouble they will have.” Class VIII #17, The Basics and Simplicity of Standard Tech

      “The end result has been:

      … 4. People coming into Advanced Orgs to be cleared who have NO lower grades actually run and so they can’t make any upper grades.

      In effect Scientology was thrown away. From total workability it was cut down to occasional result.” HCO PL 30 May 70, Cutatives

      “A case is not complete unless the lowest incomplete Grade Chart action is complete and then each completed in turn on up.” C/S Series 17, Incomplete Cases

      C/S Series 2, Programming Of Cases (Also C/S Series 3, 4, 5 & 13)

      HCOB 10 May 1970, Single Declare

      HCOB 17 Sept 1968R, Six Zones Of Action

      Also, HCOB 5 April 77, Expanded Grades, indicates they can be run after OT III, IV, V, etc.

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