Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Archive for the category “Church of Scientology”

Information Technology, Part 1

This is the beginning of a series I wanted to do on org boards, IT (Information Technology) and INCOMM. If you’re not interested in any of these topics just skip posts with this title. These posts will be pretty much “inside baseball”, meaning that they have limited appeal, and then only for those who are especially knowledgeable in certain areas.

Some definitions first.

Information Technology (IT)
Anything related to processing of data in a computer context. Could pertain to hardware, software, networks or whatever. But it involves the input, shifting, moving, computation, or output of data on a computerized basis.
INCOMM
That arm of Church of Scientology management which had/has exclusive control over computers and the data in them at the management (and possibly local Org) level.
Operating System (OS)
That part of the software (programs) of a computer which deals directly with the hardware (disk drives, memory, printers, displays, etc.). For example, a key press at a keyboard would be transmitted to the OS, which would then send commands to the terminal display to print that character and move the cursor one space to the right. Anything which affects the hardware of a computer ultimately does so via a path which goes through the OS. Other programs function by sending commands to the OS.
Time Slicing
The process of having a computer do multiple jobs at once by “slicing” up the time of the computer to handle a part of each job during an interval. So the computer might take a “slice” of computer time to send a line to the printer, then print a message to a terminal screen, then compute some real estate formulas, then back for another line to the printer. Each task would take up a “slice” of the computer’s overall “compute time”. Early computers did one full job at a time and then went on to the next full job. Then time slicing was invented to make more equitable use of expensive computer time. Modern OSes also engage in time slicing today, but no one calls it that these days.

I’m going to start this series with quotes from some letters I had back and forth with people at INCOMM back in the early 80s. Those of you old enough to remember back that far may be aware that INCOMM was inaugurated back in the late 1970s or early 1980s to produce a raft of programs which were predicted to be useful to management. This was very early in the PC (personal computer) revolution. At this time, there was no winner in the PC manufacture race, and in fact personal computers were relatively rare. The Internet was something shared only by universities and the federal government. Ron had the idea that computers were now at a level where they could actually be configured to do effective work in the name of the organization. But a typically corporate computer setup was one where a minicomputer (smaller than a mainframe, but bigger than what would eventually be a PC) would be hooked up to “dumb terminals”. The terminals had virtually no computing power, that being vested in the minicomputer. At that time the OSes “time-sliced” to get tasks done. Undoubtedly, the first computers at INCOMM were minis, and it’s likely they would have used time slicing.

The quotes from staff at INCOMM were in response to questions I had sent them. I will not name names, but I may indicate positions they occupied on the org board. These quotes give insights into the internal structure and activities of INCOMM. I have no other specialized knowledge of INCOMM, other than some INCOMM promo put out at the time, and these letters.

In INCOMM, Qual as you know it IS in HCO. This is based on an advice. The Qual functions for staff in our Org become Dept 1A, the Department of Hatting and Enhancement. This department also has the Hats Section that is usually in Dept 1. I run this department. So HCO has 4 departments instead of three.

Div 5 in INCOMM is the “Quality Control Division”. This division examines the computer programs that are written to ensure that they work and are effective, and it examines the hardware systems to ensure that they are maintained standardly. All our products are piloted before implementation. When a pilot of a computer system is complete, it’s Qual that checks out the product for standardness, before it is implemented. Qual is responsible for the quality of the computer software and hardware systems.

In my department [Div 1A], I oversee the following functions:

  • Cramming
  • Word Clearing
  • Auditing
  • C/Sing
  • Training
  • Hatting
  • Hatting
  • Interneships
  • Medical Liaison
  • Library

The person writing that was a Class 9 auditor, for what it’s worth.

The next writer was the “Operations Secretary”, whatever that meant.

1) We do very EXTENSIVE programming.

3) We use a 16 bit microcomputer with Qume (ITT) terminals. (Actually many microcomputers.)
4) We use the computer manufacturers’ OS.
5) We have an eight Div org bd. With 3 tech divs [and] 1 qual div– the tech and qual related to computer technology. …
6) Yes, we service our own equipment.

I should stop here and note what some of the products of INCOMM were supposed to be. As mentioned above, there was a raft of programs which were supposed to be produced by INCOMM to assist management. There was a more-or-less full list of them put out in a piece of promo at the time, but the whole list isn’t really important. I will note here some of them I remember.

  • Mercury: This was an email program before email was really a “thing” on the Internet. Once implemented, staff at management level orgs were able to send “mercs” (email messages) to each other.
  • Target Nudge and Tally (TNT): To the best of my knowledge, this was a program which kept track of targets on programs and nagged staff when they weren’t done, among other things.
  • Red Arrow, Blue Arrow: I don’t recall, but I believe this program had something to do with stats.
  • Source Information Retrieval (SIR): This was the program to make any staff drool. All LRH issues in one place on the computer, and searchable.

Etc. Ultimately, INCOMM had programs which graphed stats and could give you a stat graph of any stat in any Org for any time period. I’ve see print-outs of stats which were four or five feet long and extending the whole length of an Org’s existence.

Now, I include these quotes out of letters from INCOMM personnel not because I have any brief for or against INCOMM. I include them because they say some significant things about how their org board was structured. And that’s a significant part of what I want to examine in this series.

The first thing I’ll say about INCOMM’s org board is that they probably didn’t train raw recruits in computer topics. I’m willing to bet that anyone who worked there and anyone they hired for technical positions already had some expertise in their chosen area of IT. This seems pretty obvious from the fact that the normal three departments of Qual were crammed into one department in Div 1 (HCO). I’m also willing to bet that recruiting was not a top priority for this Org, the way is was for Class IV (or V) Orgs.

Next, three Tech divs. One of the writers above said that after a program was piloted, it was sent to Quality Control (Div 5) to check for “standardness” whatever that means in this context. This means that piloting was done in Tech. If I had to guess, I would say that the three Tech divisions were divided up as: Div 4A, hardware; Div 4B, software (programming and such); Div 4C, pilots.

In a Class IV/V Org, you were building everything from scratch. Not only did you have to audit the PCs, but you had to train the auditors who audited them. Thus, you have a single Tech div with Dept 10 being Technical Services (support), Dept 11 being Training, and Dept 12 being the HGC, where auditing took place. But here in INCOMM, that wasn’t the case. You were purchasing the computers from a manufacturer, servicing them yourself (one whole division for all that). You were writing the software (definitely a whole division for that). And then you were piloting (this is actually a massive activity if done as it should be), making a whole division for that. After all that, on to Quality Control (Div 5).

What Quality Control was doing with this, I can’t say. They were checking for “standardness”, but there’s no way to know what that was. Implementation might well have been the province of Div 6. Makes sense– Div 6 in a Class IV/V Org being known as the “Distribution Division”. It’s certain this would not have been Quality Control’s job. The awareness characteristics for an Org’s Div 5 were “validity”, “enhancement” and “correction”. Validity in INCOMM may have been how closely a program was to its original design specs. Enhancement might have had something to do with new features. Correction might have had to do with bug fixes. Software production is more or less divided into four areas: Design and Specification, original software programming, fixing bugs and adding features. And in the case of software, one might also include a point about rebuilding for different hardware and other, newer languages. For languages, a program originally written, for example, in COBOL, might later be rewritten in C (a likely successor to COBOL for non-scientific applications).

In any case, that’s it for now. Just some quotes and some speculation involving what we don’t know about INCOMM’s internal structure. If you know more than I do about any of this, please comment and let me know.

Advertisements

When Technology != Technology

(For those not familiar with the terminology, the expression “!=” means “is not equal to”. It’s programmer code.)

Technology has proceeded at a phenomenal rate in the last 100 years. In my lifetime alone, I can recall when microwave ovens and cell phones didn’t exist. When television was not in color. When there weren’t such things as iPads, iPods and personal computers. When integrated circuits hadn’t been invented. When asbestos was used virtually everywhere to insulate things. When Man had not yet landed on the moon. I could go on.

The pace of innovation in the last century has been staggering. Our lives have been endlessly improved (and sometimes become far more complicated) by technology. And there always seems to be a drive to “improve” and “refine” the technology of any given thing.

By way of example, consider the vacuum tube. At one time in the not-too-distant past, before transistors were invented (1947), vacuum tubes were in virtually every piece of reasonably complex electronics. They were the workhorses of most electronic circuits. But like the light bulbs to which they were kin, they were prone to burning out and needed to be periodically replaced. Thus there was a whole sector of industry devoted to manufacturing tubes, the sockets they fit in, etc. Then transistors were invented. Eventually, they replaced almost all applications where tubes had been in use before. They were more reliable, ran cooler, and didn’t require periodic replacement. But it still took a while before manufacturers changed their assembly lines to replace tubes with transistors.

Then came the integrated circuit (1958). Suddenly you could replace many transistors, resistors and other components with a single semiconductor package which would do the same job. And as time went on, it was found that you could make the individual components on an integrated circuit smaller and smaller, allowing for greater functionality in smaller and smaller packages. This made possible things like electronic calculators (1967), and personal computers (about 1977).

Some may recall the first cell phones, which were of enormous size by today’s standards. These were made possible by a variety of innovations, one of what was the integrated circuit. But how did manufacturers manage to squeeze all that functionality (the first cell phones made phone calls and that’s all) and more into the cell phones of today (true multi-purpose devices in a package that fits easily in your pocket)? The answer is “surface mount” technology. Prior to this invention, components like transistors and integrated circuits were built with wires sticking out of them. The circuit boards they fit on had holes in them. The wires on the components fit through the holes and were soldered to the boards underneath, then the excess wire was cut. That was referred to has “through hole” construction. Surface mount technology (1960), by contrast, required only “pads” on circuit boards, where very small components could be soldered on in seconds, with no excess wire to cut and no holes needed in circuit boards. This technology gained wide use in the 1980s and eventually was adopted universally for almost every application using electronics. Electronic components could be further downsized. Cell phones and other electronic gear could now be sized to fit on your wrist or in your pocket.

Think about that. In the span of about 40 years, electronics changed radically, in massive jumps about every ten years or so. Now you can make phone calls, surf the Internet, play games, and a do a wide variety of other things on one device that fits in your pocket. And contains more computing power than was used to get a man to the moon. The motto here seems to be, “How can we make this faster, smaller, cooler and better?”

As with electronics, so have gone many other areas of technology. The automotive manufacturing industry, for example, has seen the influx of a tremendous about of automation in the last 60 or 70 years. But interestingly enough, some aspects of automobiles have not changed. For example, steering wheels haven’t changed much in over a 100 years. If you think about it, we could use controls like joysticks to steer our cars. But we don’t. The steering wheel is quite “intuitive”, and the general population is quite used to using them to steer things. It would take a bit of engineering to retrofit automobiles to use joysticks, and it’s not certain that the general public would buy joystick automobiles if you offered them. By contrast, consider motorcycles and similar conveyances, which instead carry forward the roots of their predecessors, bicycles. Instead of steering wheels, they have handlebars. But these are cases where technology stopped because it wasn’t clear that changing them would provide any benefits, and could profoundly impact sales in a negative way.

In any case, as I mentioned before, the tendency in technology is to always move forward. To “improve”, whatever that means in a given industry. And as a people, we’ve gotten used to this and consider it a normal thing. A few years from now, there will be children born who have never seen anything but a flat panel display. They will wonder what those boxy things (CRT or cathode ray tubes) were for. That’s technology as we normally define it.

In Scientology, we have another thing we call “technology”. It describes and defines the form of and interaction of people in an organization. It lays out practices and routines which, when followed, lead to improved intelligence and markedly clearer states of awareness. This technology (more precisely, these technologies) was developed and/or codified by L. Ron Hubbard and constitutes the main body of his life’s work. While he was alive, he continually improved it and made it so that it could be applied, to great benefit, to anyone by anyone. Note that it was not developed by a committee or an organization or a group. Ron had a lot of help, but the main development and codification was his.

As Ron researched these technologies, he worked toward one thing: “workability”. Notice, not “perfection”. But “workability”. This is an extremely key factor to keep in mind. Whatever it was, it had to work invariably to improve specified conditions of the thing or person it applied to, usually to some specified end result. It didn’t have to be the “best” or “perfect”. One could chase his tail forever trying to attain perfection, only to have someone else come along and do it better. No, “workable” was sufficient. If Scientology was the ability to improve conditions, workable technology was how you got there.

Unfortunately, there are those in the Field who make too close an association between technology (e.g. smart phones, the Internet, etc.) and Technology (e.g. ethics, tech and admin). They believe that, because technology continues to march on and continually “improve”, Technology must do the same. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Technology we have is more than adequate in the hands of an expert to handle what it’s designed to handle, without any “improvements”, thank you.

Our Technology was developed almost exclusively by LRH.

Our technology has not been discovered by a group. … [I]f in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future.

HCOPL 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working

In fifty thousand years of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system [of Technology]. It is doubtful if, in some foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another.

HCOPL 14 February 1965 Safeguarding Technology

In the above two issues, Ron made it abundantly clear what he thought of “helpful suggestions” and “improvements” to our Technology.

Getting the correct technology applied consists of:

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.
Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.

Seven is done by a few but is a weak point.
Eight is not worked on hard enough.
Nine is impeded by the “reasonable” attitude of the not quite bright.
Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity.
Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area.

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.

HCOPL Keeping Scientology Working

So when you see somebody having a ball getting everyone to take peyote because it restimulates prenatals, know he is pulling people off the route. Realize he is squirreling. He isn’t following the route.

HCOPL Safeguarding Technology

And that is where we sit today, except for this: Ron is no longer around to be the last bastion of sanity in protecting our Technology from alteration and “better ideas”. And so it falls to us.

Our Technology is workable. It doesn’t need “improvements” or “better ideas”. It needs us to hold the line on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above. And when we see someone trying to pull people off the route, we need to take appropriate action to ensure they don’t infect our group with their bank-originated alterations.

It’s up to us. Please, for all our sakes, do your part.

Tech Degrades

I’m going to make a statement that I couldn’t have gotten away with inside the Church, neither now nor back when I got into Scientology in 1976.

SOP 4, from the latter days of Philadelphia Doctorate Course, is no longer in use.

Why wouldn’t I get away with saying that? Because it violates HCOPL 17 June 1970 URGENT AND IMPORTANT TECHNICAL DEGRADES, of course.

Or does it?

Prefatory material on that policy:

Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading statement must be destroyed and issued without qualifying statements.

Example: Level 0 to IV Checksheets SH carry “A. Background Material– This section is included as an historical background, but has much interest and value to the student. Most of the processes are no longer used, having been replaced by more modern technology. The student is only required to read this material and ensure he leaves no misunderstood.” This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op Pro by Dup! The statement is a falsehood.

These checksheets were not approved by myself, all the material of the Academy and SH courses IS in use.

Such actions as this gave us “Quickie Grades”, ARC Broke the field and downgraded the Academy and SH Courses.

A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a full investigation of the background of any person found guilty, will be activated in the case of anyone committing the following HIGH CRIMES.

After this point in the PL, there is a list of ten HIGH CRIMES. Some of them simply don’t relate to the statement I just made, because they have to do with checksheets only, and my statement isn’t part of a checksheet or related to one. I’ll list the HIGH CRIMES which might apply only:

2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labelling any material “background” or “not used now” or “old” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using, and applying the data in which he is being trained.

4. Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any such comments as “historical”, “background”, “not used”, “old”, etc. or VERBALLY STATING IT TO STUDENTS.

10. Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to use or shorten its materials or its application.

Let’s take each in turn. Number 2 relates to a presumably complete and okayed checksheet. Ron talks about the material the student is being trained in (contained on the checksheet). So this high crime relates to invalidating material on an approved checksheet. As a high crime, this makes sense, since it goes to the heart of the point LRH made in the first part of the policy letter. Unfortunately, it therefore doesn’t have anything to do with the statement I made in the beginning. That statement was simply a bald statement made outside the context of any checksheet or course.

Number 4 overlaps somewhat with number 2, but makes it a crime not to strike such statements from any checksheet. Sort of the opposite of number 2, but adds a proviso about verbally stating such things to students. In other words, if the invalidative statement isn’t on the checksheet, but you give it to students verbally anyway, it’s still a crime. An example might be, for a course teaching TRs to students, telling a student that OT TR-0 and TR-0 are mainly of historical significance, but aren’t really in use any more (even though they are rightfully on the TRs course checksheet). Okay, again this has nothing to do with the statement I made in the beginning. I’m not telling students who have SOP 4 on their checksheets that it’s old and not used any more.

Number 10 covers anything that might have been missed in the other high crimes. Here we have to determine that the instructor/speaker is acting in a way which is “calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to use or shorten its materials or its application.” Remember in the case of my statement above, I’m not talking to a student who is studying SOP 4 as part of his course, nor who has it on his checksheet. I’m not acting in a way to shorten its materials or its application. As far as I know, SOP 4 not included on any student’s course. So I’m not shortening any materials or application. Am I acting in a way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics and Scientology? Well considering that I’m talking about something which is not on any checksheet anywhere, there’s no technology in active use which I’m likely to or liable to lose.

Incidentally, in case you’re wondering, LRH makes a clear statement on tape that not even he knows what happened to SOP 4. Apparently, SOP moved directly from version 3 to version 5, bypassing version 4 entirely. It is never described anywhere because it was simply skipped. That’s why I can comfortably make my statement above. Kind of a “trick” statement, actually.

In any case, for decades people have been afraid to use the terms “old”, “not used any more” and such for anything in Scientology, largely because of this policy letter. And I have no doubt that people have been “hit” (targeted with justice actions) for over-active misinterpretations of this policy. I know I’ve been hit for it. But this happens only because of people not carefully reading the policy letter and applying it correctly.

One has to correctly consider the context of policies in applying them, and not apply them in contexts in which they don’t belong. In the case of Technical Degrades, the context is explained right there in the policy letter, as well as the problem the policy letter is attempting to resolve.

The fact is, there is a lot of material introduced early in Scientology which is factually “old” and “not used anymore”, which was superceded either immediately or years later by other technology. To act like it’s not there or not call it what it is is like pretending not to notice the elephant in the middle of the room. Stating that it’s “old” or “not used any more” does not in the least invalidate its workability. When it was originally introduced, it was workable, just like the technology which eventually replaced it, which was probably even more workable.

Some day we’ll be in a position to again enforce this policy letter with legitimate justice actions. When that happens, let’s be clear about where it applies and where it doesn’t. And let’s not lie to ourselves and withhold our voices to steer clear of an important policy which may be applied incorrectly.

The Basics

I recently read through a blog post elsewhere complaining about the so-called “Basics”. In fact, once people had a chance to read the original post, there were a lot of commenters complaining about the Basics.

(Let’s be clear. I’m not an apologist for the Church of Scientology or its management. Just the opposite. “The Basics” was a program to extract more money from the public for a product they didn’t need. It may also have been a way to recapture the copyrights of the LRH works after having lost them. I have no illusions about the nefarious motives of the Church in issuing these materials.)

First, there were complaints about the name: “The Basics”. The problem apparently was that “The Basics” included things like the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) and Creation of Human Ability (COHA), which are actually quite advanced material. That is, “The Basics” included material which was not in any way “basic” in the sense of “elementary”. However, this material is basic in the sense that it is part of the basis of what later became the Bridge. But it’s still kind of a silly complaint, since “The Basics” was a marketing name for all this stuff. The material could better have been called the “Pre-Bridge” materials, since that’s exactly what they are. But again, “The Basics” was just a marketing name, not something I’d put enough attention on to complain about.

Second, there were complaints that the Basics were too steep a gradient. I happen to disagree with this assessment. The Basics comprised a study of the books and lectures from 1950 through to about the early 1960s. From 1950 to 1952/54, the track of research went rapidly from engrams to the state of OT, its capabilities and the techniques by which one would create OTs. The lectures and books reflected that track, including the Philadelphia Doctorate Course. There were people there at the time, auditors and enthusiasts, who had been through prior lecture series, and some who hadn’t been. These materials weren’t necessarily out gradient for those attending, so I fail to see how they’re necessarily out-gradient now, particularly when you consider that the Basics includes all the materials leading up to the PDC. That said, I would not put this stuff in front of newbies. There are real Scientology “basics” they need to learn first, like the ARC triangle and the Tone Scale.

Third, the Basics checksheets lack the necessary mass. Well, I’ve never seen the checksheets, so I don’t know. But mass could be added in the form of clay demos, doll drills, etc. And if your checksheet doesn’t include proper mass for the course you’re studying, it’s your job to wear your student hat, identify the “lack of mass” study phenomenon, and come up with a fix yourself. (Though admittedly, the authors of the checksheet would also need a cram on “lack of mass” as well.)

Fourth is the implication that raw public (or those with inadequate set-up at least) are being put on these courses. I can’t speak to this, as I don’t know. However I wouldn’t personally recommend a raw public be put on these courses. Those who attended these lectures in the 1950s and read these books when they were first published were generally dedicated to auditing and thoroughly studying the subject, something that can’t be said for raw public. I would suggest a prerequisite of, say, the HQS, before putting someone on the full “Basics” study track.

Fifth was actually a missing complaint, the fact that The Basics were a prerequisite for almost anything and everything on the Bridge. No one seemed to complain about this, but it’s a very legitimate complaint. LRH never required the prior study of these materials for anything that I know of. And since their study lengthens the runway on almost everything else by quite a bit, I’d have to say that requiring The Basics as has been done is a Bad ThingTM.

Sixth is the complaint that the “library program” (to put The Basics into every library in the world) is a huge mistake. I’d have to agree completely here. As has been noted, this material contains advanced topics, which the casual library patron has no business reading about or listening to. Of course, by now it should be clear that the Church’s motivation with regard to this program was simply another money grab.

Seventh, someone implied that forcing people to study “The Basics” was like dumping random Scientology data on the wrong public. Their precise quote was from PAB 38: “you cannot avalanche data onto the heads of partially trained, pooly comprehending people, or people who have no real conversance with auditing at all”. I would refer this person to Data Series 48. The quote: “The Data Series PLs must be studied in sequence.” The Basics is precisely an in-sequence study of all the data. All this assumes that the person has some familiarity with auditing and true Scientology “basics”. Not raw public and not pure PCs. The original attendees of these lectures were not raw public or pure PCs either. They were auditors and true enthusiasts. Remember that the PDC, for example, was called the Philadelphia DOCTORATE Course.

While some of the complaints are valid, I’d guess the real reasons behind a lot of these complaints were

  • people didn’t want to do the courses in the first place and have protest BPC
  • people didn’t actually understand what they studied on the courses

Let’s keep in mind that most of these materials have been available one way or another since the day they were issued, and LRH never forbade their study. So if you’re of a mind to study them and are willing to faithfully wear your student hat and delve deep into the mysteries of OTs, aliens, universes and the like, have a blast. (If you’re currently studying on the left side of the Bridge, please continue that first.)

Dynamics Out Of Balance

Let’s look at history.

The first principle worked out by LRH in Dianetics and Scientology was that life was attempting to SURVIVE! Right along behind this came the four dynamics of Dianetics and the eight dynamics of Scientology. These were the paths along with Man was seeking to survive. Throughout the late 40s, 50s, and early 60s, there was apparently room for all eight dynamics in Scientology. At some point between that time and the time I got into Scientology (the mid 1970s), several of the dynamics got lost and it all became about the third dynamic.

Before I go any further, let me make a point here about ethics and administration. There are those (quite a few) in the Field currently, who would have us all believe that there were fundamental flaws in ethics and admin which forced the virtual exclusion of all but the third dynamic in considering the optimum solution to any problem. While this assertion may seem credible depending on the argument made, it is, in point of fact, not true.

Someone recently made an analogy, and my apologies to that person, because I don’t recall who it was. But it was a very clever assertion. It was more or less along these lines: you can take an Ethics Book and stick it up at the North Pole, and it will have no influence whatsoever on anyone. It will be completely inert. On the other hand, that same book (and the tech within) can have a good or bad influence, depending on who is using it and for what purpose. This indicates that the flaws which cause the total worship of the third dynamic don’t spring from the techs of ethics and admin, but in their application by those who do not have the best of intentions.

When I came on staff in 1976, straight off the HAS Course, no one told me I’d be getting $10 or less a week, and have to have a “day job” in order to survive. Once I found that out, I hoped against hope that it would only be a little while before we’d all be making good money at the Org and we could abandon our day jobs. It never happened. And I found out later that this was the case at almost every Org across the planet.

When I came on staff in 1976, straight off the HAS Course, no one told me I’d be getting $10 or less a week, and have to have a “day job” in order to survive. Once I found that out, I hoped against hope that it would only be a little while before we’d all be making good money at the Org and we could abandon our day jobs. It never happened. And I found out later that this was the case at almost every Org across the planet.

When I joined staff, it was made clear to me that I would need to make time to get my hatting in. I’m not sure how I was supposed to do that. Maybe at 2am in the morning? No, between a day job and my post time, there really was no time for me to get trained in the tech for any post I might hold. And the furthest you could go up the Bridge in a Class IV Org (as they were designated at the time) was Grade IV completion (at the time, the Grades were run after Dianetics). And that was if you could be sessionable (um… right), if you could carve out the time (sure, no problem), and if your student auditor made no significant mistakes on your case. Guess how often someone on staff for 2-1/2 or 5 years made it all the way to Grade IV. (By the way, there is policy that says various posts in the Org must have periodic ruds flown because of what they have to deal with on a day to day basis. How often do you think that happened?) And once you were done with your contract as a staff member, it was up to you to work out how you were going to pay for your Grades V, VI, Clearing Course and OT levels. (This was long before the idea of the Universe Corps which, when finally implemented in a very limited way, was subsequently sabotaged.)

Oddly enough, you would think that those in the Sea Org would have an easier time of it. In the Sea Org, there was no moonlighting. Moonlighting was obviated by the fact that you couldn’t even get into the Sea Org if you had heavy or ongoing debts which might pull you off post. You were expected to devote full time to the Sea Org. And since Org policy also applied to Sea Org orgs, you would expect that the edict to get your 2-1/2 hours of hatting/training/enhancement in every day would be an easy one to fulfill. You’d expect highly trained and processed Sea Org personnel everywhere you went. Not so. Why? Because Sea Org personnel enhancement was regularly cross-ordered and sabotaged. In fact, about the only way you might guarantee getting good solid enhancement time was to screw up royally and be placed in the RPF. And then at some point, the RPF became mainly a pool of people management could practice “Fair Game” on (contrary to LRH policy
on the RPF).

I remember asking a Sea Org recruiter one time, if I wanted to join the Sea Org, but I also wanted to write the Great American Novel, could I do it? “Oh sure. Why, so-and-so SO member just finished writing a novel!” Or learn to paint. “Yep, so-and-so SO member just finished two paintings.” Or practice a musical instrument. “Oh definitely. So-and-so….” Right. I had my doubts, and now that I know a lot more about Sea Org life, I can pretty much guarantee you’d never get to do those things in the Sea Org unless you worked at Gold or you could manage to do some some of that stuff on a vacation (if you could manage one of those).

The point of the above is that, if you were involved in third dynamic activities under contract to the Church of Scientology, (from at least the mid-1970s on) you might as well kiss your other dynamics good bye, at least for a while. Currently, the Church is known to sabotage the first dynamic of staff, shred the second, demand total ascendency of the third, and has attempted to do everything it can to ensure that the fourth dynamic is never salvaged. The other dynamics? What other dynamics?

And none of this is particularly the fault of ethics itself or LRH policy. It is, sadly, the result of just the opposite:

  1. Failure to know LRH policy.
  2. Failure to follow LRH policy.
  3. Failure to insist on LRH policy being followed.
  4. Deliberate mis-use or misapplication of LRH policy.
  5. Substituting something else for policy (like “Command Intention”) and insisting that is policy.

So much for history.

Now let’s look at something else:

Optimum Solution: the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

That’s from the HCO Manual of Justice and before that from Notes On The Lectures.

In a number of places, Ron expands on this idea. The optimum solution doesn’t mean there will be no destruction on one dynamic or another. Some destruction may be necessary for the optimum solution. It doesn’t mean no one gets hurt. Causing harm to one or more people may be necessary for the optimum solution. It just means what it says: the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

Note that Ron does not refer to this as the “perfect” solution. It is, instead, the “optimum” solution. There are no absolutes here. And conditions on the dynamics may change from minute to minute, year to year.

But here’s what the “Optimum Solution” doesn’t mean: The greatest good for the third dynamic. The third dynamic is just one of many.

Now before I go on, I’ve also heard people say that no one dynamic is more important than any other, and that they all must, in that sense be in balance. This is questionable. Honor and personal integrity enter in here, and there may well be times where one dynamic must take precedence over others.

Imagine yourself on the deck of a ship in rough seas. You’re secured to the deck, so you you won’t get far from the ship, even though you may drown if the ship goes down. But not far from you is a ship mate, not secured to the deck. The waves are starting to come over the deck and your ship mate is in real danger of slipping overboard and drowning. At this point, there are two dynamics involved, the first and the third. The rest are completely irrelevant. You either do something quickly to save your ship mate, or you let him drown. You don’t have time to take out your Ethics Book or your iPad and calculate which dynamics might be affected and how. You have to make an instant decision based on two dynamics.

Similar situations abound, mostly in the midst of emergencies. The point is that there are often cases where the importance of the individual dynamics cannot be equal, and some may be positively excluded from your calculations.

If you want to gain a greater mastery of the scope and relation of all the dynamics to you, I suggest you have someone assist you in running “Conditions and Exchange By Dynamics”. So far as I know this action can be done off a meter, but the potential increase in ARC (and KRC) for all the dynamics is profound. Honestly done, you are likely to have numerous cognitions. I know I did.

In addition, it might be instructive to study the operation of the old time missions (franchises) of Scientology (pre-1982). My understanding is that many of them did not suffer from the same monomania of the third dynamic that Orgs did. They were more pleasant places to work and staff got paid better. At least that’s my understanding. No one has done a full and exhaustive study of the subject. I do know that Orgs were excessively managed by CLOs and FOLOs and missions weren’t. (One of many facts which might turn up in an eval of the subject. I am not forwarding this as the only factor or as a “why”.)

In any case, my point is that, in going forward we would be wise not to repeat the mistakes of the Church in our own affairs. Unfortunately, we’ve been given the chance to start over, to form groups and our own organizations in the Field. As we do so, we must keep in mind how Orgs and Sea Org orgs managed to get things wrong. (And a more thorough, searching evaluation than I’ve done is called for.)

Each dynamic is part of the impulse to survive. And in general, each must be given a reasonable weight, given the circumstances of any anticipated action. That doesn’t mean that the third dynamic wins all the time. It means that the third dynamic may or may not be the most important dynamic to consider in any given circumstances, and that the other dynamics should be considered as well. And it is your duty to be vigilant about your dynamics. Don’t let them be abandoned, sabotaged, or not-ised by others when operating as a group member. Give the third dynamic its due. But don’t let it constantly overshadow every other consideration. If your third dynamic is constantly being paraded as the most important, and your other dynamics are suffering, do something about it and give the reason why.

Post Navigation