Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Archive for the month “March, 2013”

Responsibilities of Leaders

(Introductory note: In this essay, I use the term “wog”. Generally, this term has come to mean anyone who is not part of the more general group being addressed. The origin of the term is slightly unclear, but it came to be a pejorative used primarily by the British to describe conquered or subjugated Asians, most particularly those of India when it was ruled by the British. In Scientology, it came to mean non-Scientologists. The Independent Field has made a fair amount of noise about how this term is a pejorative and insensitive to the dignity of non-Scientologists. In the present essay and others, I do not mean this term to be pejorative. I mean it as a strictly neutral short-cut to represent non-Scientologists as a group. If you’re offended by its use, please get over yourself. Political correctness is an attempt originated by psychs to control thought by controlling speech. It is based on the false idea that people can be permanently damaged by the mere utterance of words by others. They cannot, except in cases where the words occur at the same time as pain and unconsciousness. See Dianetics The Modern Science of Mental Health.)

There is a policy letter called “Responsibilities of Leaders”, in which Ron essentially reviews a book he read about Simon Bolivar and his 2D. If you haven’t read this policy letter, go get a copy of it and read it. It’s quite conversational and entertaining. The policy letter has been included in some editions of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and is closely linked to the formula for the condition of Power.

The book itself is about the rise and fall of Simon Bolivar, a Venezuelan revolutionary, in his struggles to loosen Spain’s grip on Latin America. In the policy letter, Ron digs deeply into the factors which ultimately led to Bolivar’s downfall. Ron shows how these factors relate to anyone who rises to power, and to those surrounding the person of power who wish to partake of and share the power.

There has been much finger-wagging of late in the Independent Field about how this policy letter (and by extension, Ron) encourages things like murder, mayhem and blackmail in the name of supporting a person who has power. (Apparently, David Miscavige uses this policy letter to justify any number of unethical and immoral acts. Who’s surprised by this?) Such finger-wagging is the result of too literal an interpretation of what Ron is saying.

Let’s be clear. Early in Ron’s career as a writer, he wrote reams of fiction where murder, mayhem and blackmail figured prominently. This was the stuff of pulp fiction. But it was also a reflection of the types of things which happen daily in the real world, then and now. Even in his final work of fiction, Mission Earth, they figure prominently.

The case for Ron’s depravity in this respect is often supported by the Fair Game Law and certain policies supposedly written specifically for use and execution by personnel of the old Guardian’s Office. Two considerations are relevant here. First, the Fair Game Law did not necessarily encourage such behavior; it merely shielded Scientologists from penalties for such actions under Scientology justice codes. And the Fair Game Law was canceled. Second, the authorship of any policy in the Guardian’s Office is questionable. I’ve seen many a GO policy letter half redacted, particularly as regards its authors. The GO was guilty of taking a great many undue liberties, a fact which ultimately lead to its downfall and destruction, nearly taking the whole Church of Scientology with it.

In “Responsibilities of Leaders”, Ron is reviewing a book by a wog about wogs. The context of his commentary is that of the wog world. As a policy letter, it serves as a cautionary tale for Scientologists, and a commentary on human behavior. But its context is still that of the wog world. In the wog world, particularly that lived in by Simon Bolivar, murder, mayhem and blackmail would have been rather common, or at least not-unheard-of occurrences. In the world of Scientology or the Sea Org, those same actions would be virtually unheard of, and certainly actionable.

If you read this policy letter and believe (as some prominent members of the Independent Field do) that Ron is directly encouraging this type of behavior, you need to re-read the policy again, this time without being so literal about what LRH is saying. Remember, the policy is a bit of social commentary about wogs in the wog world. It would be patently absurd to imagine that Ron would encourage ambitious Letter Regges to murder other staff to bolster the power of an Executive Director of an org. Do you honestly imagine that Ron would look the other way, if such a thing were happening in any org he was aware of? (It’s been remarked that the policy on Kha Khan also excuses the recipient of that title of the crime of murder. Again, such an interpretation is wildly literal.)

You’ve got prominent opinion leaders in the Independent Field making bizarre assertions as regards LRH policy. This bespeaks of a too-literal frame of mind. Such literalness is at least indicative of study bugs. Unfortunately, we have no Qualifications Division in the Field to which to send such people. And worse, few who are willing to stand up and strongly encourage such people to get their study bugs handled.

I might also mention a factor LRH omitted in his materials related to study: common sense. Ron assumed you had some. Believing that he might seriously be quoted as saying something like, “Scientologists, go forth and murder in the name of power!” bespeaks a true lack of common sense, if nothing else.

Of course, if your intention is to besmirch Ron’s reputation, that’s another matter entirely.

Skype Auditing, Again

I just watched a couple of videos from a highly trained auditor who audits on occasion over Skype in the following way: he holds solo cans while the PC or pre-OT on the other end considers and answers the auditing questions.

Now, this auditor, while highly trained, also admits to running Power Processing on pcs who go out-int, rather than running the usual int rundown or End-Of-Endless Int Rundown. He believes it works better, and he may be right. But it establishes that he doesn’t have qualms about altering the Tech where he has determined he has a “better” idea. So having this fellow audit over Skype is not a surprising turn of events.

Another observation about this fellow, a personal one. I don’t know his case level, but if I had to guess, I’d say he’s somewhere in the OT range, from what I saw. I’m by no means an authority, but for the purposes of this essay I’m going to assume I’m right.

The above assumption also says something about this fellow’s ability to perceive and operate in the theta universe. Chances are, if you’re not Clear or only Clear, his ability to perceive and operate in the theta universe is better than yours. There is no attempt here to invalidate your abilities. I’ve known people who, while not yet Clear, had extraordinary ability to perceive in the theta universe, and perhaps you’re a person like that. But in general, one would expect an OT to have superior capabilities on this score than a preclear.

This person’s contention about why Skype auditing works for him is that he occupies the same space as the PC and the meter reactions are the PC’s, something he appears to have proven to himself over time. He also contends that this requires an auditor whose TRs are very “in”, though he doesn’t express it that way. In other words, the auditor is simply being there and comfortably perceiving the session and the PC.

One more point: This auditor claims that he hasn’t used a correction list in years. Leave aside that perhaps he should have. Let’s assume for the moment that his auditing is sufficiently good that he hasn’t really needed to use any correction lists.

I’d like to examine some of the above ideas in a little more depth. First off, the idea that his needle reactions are those of the PC. While this may be true, it is not something which can be guaranteed. If the auditor’s case does react to the question being asked, there is no way to untangle this from the assumption that the needle reads on the PC alone. If the auditor’s case reacts and the auditor then pursues this line with the PC, the PC may be left with a wrong item, which is a deadly thing to do to a PC. A wise and perceptive auditor might realize this, indicate the bypassed charge to the PC, and note that the item was likely his and not the PC’s. But if he were auditing in person, having the meter pick up the auditor’s charge rather than the PC’s would be very unlikely. (Although it is possible.) In any case, such an occurrence could leave the auditor and PC with a tangled mess which was introduced by virtue of the means of auditing.

Second, while perhaps it is possible for an OT auditor to perform this feat, there’s some question whether it could be performed by a Class II auditor who is not yet Clear (as an example). As a preclear, how good are the perceptics of this auditor? How much more case is there in the way when he goes to audit a PC? If the strong possibility exists that he could end up botching the session because of this, how do we set the bar in terms of who can and can’t audit over Skype this way? Yes, I know there is no way to stop someone in the field doing anything they like. But that doesn’t obviate the question. Where do we draw the line that someone should or shouldn’t be auditing via Skype, under the circumstances? Perhaps you can only audit over Skype if you’re OT? But what if you have a pre-OT whose perceptions aren’t quite as good as they could be? What then?

These two questions illustrate why Skype auditing would not be considered workable by LRH, in my opinion. There are simply too many gray areas and too much potential for problems with the PC. And thus I believe that if Ron were here, he would forbid this practice in any way he reasonably could. At least I don’t believe he would give it his imprimatur, and would speak out against it.

Getting your PC to arrive has long been a problem for far away PCs. But it was always resolved by simply getting the PC to arrive, not giving up on his arrival and auditing him remotely instead. While difficult, it is not impossible. And under the circumstances, I believe it would be more satisfactory than picking up the solo cans and expecting the PC’s case reactions to show up on the meter when he’s 1000 miles away.

At the very least, if the PC is on the ledge of a building and you’re a hot shot auditor, wouldn’t you expect that, via two-way-comm over the telephone, you could draw him back into the building? I’d consider that far more likely, and likely to be something LRH did more than once.

Post Navigation