Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified  (1)
(Some basic terms defined and explained)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“In a nutshell, (a) one finds an imperfect functioning of some portion of the org and then (b) finds something that one doesn't understand about it and then (c) interrogates by despatch the individuals in that portion connected with the imperfect functioning.”
        
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 11 May 65 “Ethics Officer Hat”)  

 

Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified  (page 1, index page)

A history of ethics within Scientology and its affiliate organization(s). A basic explanation and rundown of Scientology Ethics and its adherent misunderstandings and misapplications.

 
Index:

    
Foreword
(page 1)
  “All ethics is for ...”
 
Some basic terms defined and explained
  The basics of ‘ethics’ and ‘justice’ as used in Scientology explained
               - Ethics vs Justice
- The role of the Ethics Officer
  The ‘suppressive person’ (SP) and the ‘potential trouble source’ (PTS)
  The matter of ‘suppressive acts’ explained and when action is taken
         (Includes: The ‘justice of man’)
  PTS redefined in 1973?  or  The matter of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”
      (How the condition turned from handling in auditing to a matter of concern for ethics)
      - “all foul-ups” (“... stem directly and only from a PTS condition”)
- “all illness in greater or lesser degree” (“... stem directly and only from a PTS condition”)
        (Includes: Dianetics; Scientology; Dianetics vs Scientology)
      - HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”
        (Includes:  Authorship)
      - HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” (“from an LRH despatch of 10 Aug 1973”)
        (Includes:  Further notes on authorship)
      - Solutions to PTSness (a chronology 1965-83)
        (No cure left?)
  The matter of ‘Dead File’ clarified and the misuse of the term
 
Ethics Orders and the ‘suppressive person’ & Resources for defence
 
What is an Ethics Order? and its dangers if used incorrectly
(page 2)
  Issuing Ethics Orders on ‘suppressive persons’  –  Rules of the game & defence
      - Declaring someone a ‘suppressive person’ by means of an Ethics Order
- Declaring someone a ‘suppressive person’ - Change of rules (A.D. 1983)
                (‘New rule’  vs  HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”;  HCO PL 9 Sept 83 “Writing a Declare Order” (Includes: Stipped from your rights?; Authorship))
  Your right for a ‘Comm Ev’ (Committee of Evidence)
      - 1) Has a ‘Comm Ev’ be held prior to issuance of the Declare Order?
        (Includes: Exceptions to the rule ...)
      - 2) Your right for a ‘Comm Ev’ after the issuance of the Declare Order
  Placing the organization at a risk and the responsibilities of its personnel
      (Includes: “Suppressive Person Declare CSW Checklist” (1986))
  The usefulness of HCO PL 15 Dec 69 “Orders, Query of”
  Is querying a Third Dynamic activity?  &  De-PTSing
  How to establish if some group may be suppressive or squirrel?
 
Additional ‘ethics’ related studies
  Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study  (on different page)
  Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study  (on different page)
  Scientology: ‘Security Checking’ - A chronology  (on different page)
 
Miscellaneous information
 
“Code of Reform” (1968)
(page 3)
  The turbulent late ’70s and early ’80s
         - ‘List 1 Project’ (1977-78) & A new management (1982-83)
- Rough ethics and the ‘scare’ factor (US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco, 17 Oct 82)
  The phenomena and history of the term ‘Rock Slam’ (1962-78 span)
  The transformation of the book ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1968-2007)  (on separate page)
      - Introduction and ‘The Scientology Ethics System’ ...
- Schematic overview of the book (editions/prints, copyrighting, chapters and annotations)
- Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1968-80): Source of the original chapters
- Descriptions of Dianetics and Scientology that we find in the various editions
- Noted differences found in book chapter “The Ethics Codes” (1968, 70, 82 & 89)
- The year 1973 enforces an American spelling for the book both in USA and Europe
- The ‘Confusion formula’ included since the 5th edition (1978), and compared to 1989 edition
- A different version from Denmark (Mar 1982) vs The ‘unregistered’ USA revision (Oct 1982)
- The first ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ edition (1989)
- The ‘Golden Age of Ethics’ edition (1998)
- The ‘Golden Age of Knowledge’ or ‘Basics’ edition (2007)
- Afterword
  Versions analysis of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”



 
Back to Main Index Foreword

Relevant introductive information is also found in a chapter that I wrote on my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order or Changes in the flow of ‘information’, before and after” . You may consult this in link here below:  (separate window)
    “The arrival of new information (5) - The ‘new ways’  or  Turning from a self-correcting system into something where others can be given the power to control you?”

You will find here various information relating to the matter of ethics and Ethics Orders, about its dangers if used incorrectly and means enabling the victim to defend him/herself towards injustice. The purpose of this information is to educate, to make people aware of various risks involved if these tools are not properly used, to prevent injustices from occurring or prolong them, and to tell that one has in fact rights for defence!

What ethics is not for
“What ethics is not for!!!”

I also have found that there exist serious misunderstandings about the subject of ethics as exercised in the Scientology organization. It is not and never was intended as a means to put or keep people under any sort of control. It was developed and put to use only to continue being able to deliver services (auditing and training) to the Scientology parishioner in an undisturbed environment. Ethics in its application within that organization does not stand on itself! It will get the attention from this Ethics Officer for just one single reason, and that is if it disturbs or interfers with that the Scientology parishioner is taken services from that organization! It is important to understand this, as at present this is not how it is dealt with within the Church of Scientology.

My interest in this actually started with a few little wonderings that I had about the matter of Disconnection. These little wonderings then lead to performing a detailed comparison of all 8 release versions of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”, the policy letter that played a bit more than modest role in things like Ethics Orders, Declares*, Fair Game and touched the subject of Disconnection. Needless to say that it all became rather extensive when additional related references needed examination. In here I had also started to explain about policy letters and publication history. All these topics were mixed in this HCO PL versions chronology which thus had become messy. Simply for clarity reasons I extracted some time ago already all the gathered Disconnection information out of this page and gave it a page of its own. Since I have also moved the Fair Game information and the printing history information out of this, which both turned to pages of their own.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index “All ethics is for ...”

A few key citations that set its boundaries and purpose. Underlining is mine.

        
“The purpose of the Ethics Officer is ‘To help Ron clear orgs* and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done.’
        
 
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with Ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm* lines and by generally enforcing Ethics Codes.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 11 May 65 “Ethics Officer Hat”)
 

        
“All the ethics really does is hold the lines firm so that you can route and audit. You see, all ethics is for, in actual fact, the totality of its operation—it is simply that additional tool necessary to make it possible to get technology in. That's the whole purpose of ethics, is to get technology in. Well, man doesn't have that purpose for his law and justice. He wants to squash people who are giving him trouble. That isn't the case in the handling of ethics. It's an entirely different operation. And you'll find out it's a fabulously successful operation. They'll handle it with too much violence, and they'll handle it with too light, and they'll eventually get it adjusted, and they'll eventually learn this fabulously simple point: that ethics is there to let you get technology in. You see, it's the tourniquet before the doctor arrives. You got the idea? It makes it possible to get technology in. ...
        
 
Well, when you've got technical in, why, ethics—that's as far as you carry an ethics action. You carry ethics action to the point where you get technical in. No further.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #61, renumbered 1991: #424 “Organization and Ethics”, given on 18 May 65)
 
 
sound  Sound snippet
 
        
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
        

        
“Now, this is the whole backbone of ethics. And there isn't anything more to ethics than the—this basic purpose of ethics is ethics exists to get tech in. If you ever see ethics being put in that throws tech out, then ethics is being used in a suppressive fashion. Now, the only way that you could use ethics suppressively is use it in such a way that it threw tech out. Because the purpose of ethics is to put tech in. If you've got ethics, you can get tech in. You carry on ethics long enough to get tech in, and that's all the longer you carry it.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #68, renumbered 1991: #431 “Briefing to Review Auditors”, given on 14 Oct 65)
        
        
sound  Sound snippet
        

        
“The Purpose of Ethics is:
        
 
TO REMOVE COUNTER INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
 
 
And having accomplished that the purpose becomes
 
 
TO REMOVE OTHER INTENTIONEDNESS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT.
 
 
Thus progress can be made by all.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 18 Jun 68 “Ethics”)
 

 
Some basic terms defined and explained

Back to Main Index The basics of ‘ethics’ and ‘justice’ as used in Scientology explained

 
Go back Ethics vs Justice

The actual characteristics from a practical angle of the terms ethics and justice as regarded within Scientology we find nicely laid out in HCOB 15 Nov 72 II “Students Who Succeed”. It is also the first definition given for the entry JUSTICE that we find listed both in ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (first released 1975) and ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’* (released 1976). It reads:  (underlining is mine)
        
“In policy there has long been written the natural sequence of ethics, tech and administration.
        
 
When administration is out, it is necessary to get in tech. When tech is out it is necessary to get in ethics.
 
 
In other words, ethics must be in to get tech in.
 
 
ETHICS is a personal thing. By definition, the word means:
 
 
‘The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by an individual in his relationship with others.’ (American Heritage Dictionary)
 
 
When one is ethical or ‘has his ethics in’ it is done by his own determination and is done by himself.
 
 
JUSTICE is the action of the group against the individual when he has failed to get his own ethics in.”          LRH
 

The need for this justice is further explained as follows:
        
“The reason we have Justice Codes is to have justice. We don't want or need injustice.
        
 
When we have no codes, ‘justice’ can be anything any authority cares to make it.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 27 Mar 65 “The Justice of Scientology, Its Use and Purpose; Being a Scientologist”)
 

The whole focus is put on to enable to get advantages from auditing and training. Always has, and always will be.

 
Go back The role of the Ethics Officer

Now let's look at this person that is referred to as the Ethics Officer. HCO PL 11 May 65 “Ethics Officer Hat” lays out:
        
“The purpose of the Ethics Officer is ‘To help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done.’
        
 
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with Ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing Ethics Codes. ...
 
 
In a nutshell, (a) one finds an imperfect functioning of some portion of the org and then (b) finds something that one doesn't understand about it and then (c) interrogates by despatch the individuals in that portion connected with the imperfect functioning.
 
 
Just those three steps done over and over are usually quite enough to keep an org running quite smoothly.”          LRH
 
From this follows that this Ethics Officer only then interferes if there are indicators for “imperfect functioning”. One of the tools being used to determine that are statistics.

With other words, even if there would be some sort of situation, it would not be the business of the Ethics Officer to get into that, as long as it does not interfere or bounces back onto the organization or its parishioners. The only business of the organization overall is basically to be able to deliver and service its parishioners, and remove, where possible, any and all stumble blocks that would interfere with the progress and/or well-being of these parishioners.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The ‘suppressive person’ (SP) and the ‘potential trouble source’ (PTS)

Within Scientology we have these terms suppressive person and potential trouble source in use. To understand the attention on and the actions taken against these so-called suppressive persons (SP) one has to understand the phenomena of the condition of being a potential trouble source (PTS). As one would not have a particular bother about that SP if no persons were to be PTS, it is pretty much that simple.

It was first with HCO PL 27 Oct 64 “Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Potential Trouble Sources” that the term came into being and the condition of being PTS was identified. It lists this as “types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble”, and for that reason are referred to as a potential trouble source (PTS). Basically these are persons that in lesser or greater degree are connected with persons that suppress or invalidate them. That person that is unable to oppose to or handle such a situation in order to not be affected by it is then referred to as a PTS. The result is irrational behaviour, making mistakes and more such things. More particularly, and this is where the subject of Scientology comes in, are the findings that “they make very poor gains in processing” as long as they remain affected by such a suppressive source or person.
It is important to identify and understand the exact reasoning forwarded here. It means that the SP is no bother to the Scientology parishioner nor its organization if one (1) can handle the PTS situation, and (2) it does not affect the Scientology parishioner or its organization. Please reflect on the role played by the Ethics Officer as laid out in HCO PL 11 May 65 “Ethics Officer Hat” (see previous chapter).

Followingly HCO PL [7] Mar 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law” (later reissued and more commonly known as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”) gives below information:
        
“Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.
        
 
The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups. ...
 
 
A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
 
 
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.
 
 
A Scientologist caught in the situation of being in Scientology while still connected with a Suppressive Person or Group is given a Present Time Problem of sufficient magnitude to prevent case gain, as only a PTP can halt progress of a case. ...
 
 
Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen. ...
 
 
Unless the Potential Trouble Source, the preclear caught up in this, can be made to take action of an environmental nature to end the situation one has a pc* or Scientologist who may cave in ... . ...
 
 
A Potential Trouble Source may receive no processing until the situation is handled.”          LRH
 
Solutions that were offered at an early stage involved temporary disconnections with such a suppressive source or person. But already since October 1965 the hat for handling the PTS person was turned over to the Review Auditor rather than some Ethics Officer. The solution was formulated by handling the person through listing in auditing sessions. Then since 1971 much focus was also put on handling the PTS condition through educating him and have the person identifying the exact mechanics involved and thus have him becoming cause over the situation without having to disconnect.
Consult for a detailed overview of this development below link:  (separate window)
    “Solutions to PTSness: S & D, auditing, education & ‘why finding’ (1965-78)”

The focus is here on the PTS person and not the SP. Handle the PTS person, make him cause, and the SP is no further bother in regards to that person that previously suffered from a PTS condition.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The matter of ‘suppressive acts’ explained and when action is taken
(Includes:  The ‘justice of man’)

This HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”. was issued to address and attempted to handle a particular situation that existed at the time. It's first 2 paragraphs state:
        
“Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.
        
 
The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups.”          LRH
 
It does appear that particularly since so about 1962 things were a bit stormy. There were issues with the government, seizure of these E-meters, attempts for infiltration being reported, and so on. The measure taken to counteract this was this aforementioned HCO PL. This policy letter also introduced the term fair game. (all this is addressed on page “Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study”, chapter “Events leading up to the term coming into being”, consult here (separate window).
This policy letter that was being issued was thus indeed a bit crude and abrupt. But it did reflect the situation of that very time.
These measures taken also lead to repercussions which in turn lead to various cancellations of particular practices in 1968. By this time matters had also eased up. See for example the Code of Reform from 1968, consult here (separate window).

This HCO PL then goes about identifying suppressive acts as follows:
        
A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a pc yet remains connected to a person or group that is a Suppressive Person or Group.
        
 
A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
 
 
SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.”          LRH
 
The whole business of Scientology was delivering services that could better and improve man. It was however found that “Until the environment is handled, nothing beneficial can happen.”  LRH and thus accordingly directed that “A Potential Trouble Source may receive no processing until the situation is handled.”  LRH.

And so that HCO PL listed a whole array of these that were considered “Suppressive Acts”. The defining rule being “those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist.”  LRH.

Now, add to this the job assignments of this Ethics Officer which is to “clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done” in where his task is:
    (1) “isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with Ethics technology”;
  (2) “by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines”; and
  (3) “by generally enforcing Ethics Codes”.
Mind here that the first duty of this Ethics Officer would be that he “finds an imperfect functioning of some portion of the org”  LRH. (quotations from HCO PL 11 May 65 “Ethics Officer Hat”). That would thus mean that if all is fine, that accordingly no action would be actually taken! Do you see how this would work in coordination with HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law” ?

That HCO PL notes following the listing of these suppressive acts that action taken against such a person(s) or group committing them is told: “to stop committing present time overts and to cease all attacks and suppressions so he, she or they can get a case gain”  LRH. Once again we learn here about having that “case gain”.

One has to understand that these matters are merely practicalities! With what or whom do they interfere? What is the interaction? These suppressive acts listings are not laws, there is a circumstance that needs to be regarded! The business of the Scientology organization or groups, per these references, is not to play the role of some law enforcing entity, their only business is to make auditing and training happen. If that is occurring these things are not called for much attention and more particularly no action is taken. Then if someone breaks the state law you simply turn him over to the police and let them take care of matters.
Far too often however Scientology staff are taking action when it is not called for. I have seen this happening time after time after time.

There are a few listed rules that commonly have been either misused or have been misinterpreted. I fold out some examples of these here (separate window).


The ‘justice of man’

Another downside of all this is that people generally simply are not able to recognize situations! And so they just go on just doing ‘something’ and then one will be faced with all the consequences that will come forth from that. It would appear that L. Ron Hubbard also did find out about that. Which HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties” relates about. It refers to this “justice discovery that crime is the direct result of a lack of a hat and training on the hat and that a hat consists of a write up, checksheet and pack fully trained in on the person.”. This would work in various ways. It then directs:
        
“The target of Ethics is any neglect of org boarding or hatting and training an activity.
        
 
The motto is ‘Hat don't hit’.
 
 
It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)
 
This reference since has been very hard to come by. The full text can be consulted here, (pop-up window).
Go to index

 
Back to Main Index PTS redefined in 1973?  or  The matter of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”
(How the condition turned from handling in auditing to a matter of concern for ethics)

[A word of gratitude goes to Andreas Gross for the very well thought through paper he wrote about the matter of PTS and referencing used (external link).]

This is another of these references that were released at such a time that L. Ron Hubbard was missing in action (4 Dec 72-mid Sept 73), so where is it coming from? At Flag (Clearwater Fl.) at least when I was there it was frequently referred to as ‘The 10th August’. Now why would a reference receive such a referral? What other reason could there be then that there was a focus of attention on it. The implications were far-reaching as it set a new standard and approach, abandoning the previous status quo. The effects of which we see till this day.

It ruled:
        
“That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.”          (attributed to LRH)
        
It presents two angles: “all illness in greater or lesser degree” and “all foul-ups”.
That surely is pretty conclusive. At least “illness” still limits to “in greater or lesser degree”, but it says clearly all foul-ups” (underlining is mine). That means no exceptions.

 
Go back “all foul-ups” (“... stem directly and only from a PTS condition”)

What does “foul-up” mean exactly? (underlining is mine)
    ‘The World Book Dictionary’ says: “U.S. Informal. a muddle or mess that seriously interferes with an operation or movement: a shipping foul-up, a foul-up in diplomatic relations”.    
  ‘The Random House Dictionary’ says: “Informal. 1. a condition of confusion or disorder brought on by inefficiency, stupidity, etc.  2. failure of a mechanical part to operate correctly.”  
  ‘Webster's New World Dictionary for Young Readers’ says: “to make a mess of; bungle: used only in everyday talk.  

You can stretch this rather far, as when you fail with something, someone can put the label PTS on it. As we see is done in the Scientology organization, particular among its staff, I have seen it among other at Flag. If you failed with something, that somehow can be placed in relation with your person, then you can receive all the blame. This could take rather extreme expressions. When I was to travel to Flag which required invitation letters to allow a stay of one year, my person was blamed because they did not arrive at Amsterdam org. It was said that I must have counter intentions. I am not kidding here, it happened. It was later revealed they did never got send from US, when they finally did send them, they arrived promptly on the fax machine. In short, you as a person could/would be blamed for anything and everything that did not work out well for you, you were simply considered being PTS to a situation.

→ Understand here that it in effect does not matter if this HCOB factually caused that kind of behaviour, but the reference does not relieve it and it does provide for a good excuse or justification enabling someone to blame a (that other) person.

An odd notion was once forwarded by Tommy Davis, who was the chief spokesperson of the Church of Scientology during 2005-11. He said:
        
“And by virtue of the fact that people who are connected to suppressives do rollercoaster, cannot make gains, and are called potential sources of trouble, or sources of trouble for a reason, based on historical precedence, it isn't a policy that's going to change tomorrow, next week, next month, or ever.”
        
sound  Sound snippet
        
He implies here that any person being in contact with such “suppressives”, that one without exception would display these symptoms, and be PTS! Which in reality is certainly not true at all.
This concept however I have seen adopted and believed by relatively quite a few Scientologists.

 
Go back “all illness in greater or lesser degree” (“... stem directly and only from a PTS condition”)
(Includes:  Dianetics; Scientology; Dianetics vs Scientology)

Dianetics

This is essentially a false datum as L. Ron Hubbard had already established in ‘Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health’ (1950, 1st edition, page xiii) that
        
“The entire physical pain and painful emotion of a lifetime, whether the individual ‘knows’ about it or not, is contained, recorded, in the engram bank. Nothing is forgotten. And all physical pain and painful emotion, no matter how the individual may think he has handled it, is capable of re-inflicting itself upon him from this hidden level, unless that pain is removed by dianetic therapy.
The engram and only the engram causes aberration and psychosomatic illness.”          LRH
        
The same book on page 5 also determined that
        
“The cause and cure of all psycho-somatic ills, which number, some say, 70%, of Man's listed ailments.”          LRH
        
Why are we talking about PTS when we should be talking about engrams? At that, why does one talk about Ethics handling when one should be talking about auditing?

A clue about the remaining 30%.
        
“Thus in this first session, we are going to ask the preclear, namely you, to put some attention on your body – medically and dietetically.
You won't find in any of my lectures or writings any discounting of the physical ills of the body. They comprise 30% of the 100% of Man's ills.”
        
About efficiency with auditing sessions:
        
“Being particular about my practice, unlike some people I won't name, I always send a preclear to a medico before I audit whenever I suspect some chronic illness for maybe the medico can cure it quickly. If he can, then I can audit with speed. Auditing a physically sick preclear is slow work.”
        
The food and drink factor:
        
“In many instances where Dianetics failed in auditors’ hands, the auditor didn't look at his preclear. He audited a preclear who secretly took drugs, who was ridden by some disease, who didn't eat properly – in other words the failure was a failure to observe the simple rule that when a man is thirsty, while auditing might help a bit, it's easier to give him a drink of water.
All right. In this session, I am going to ask you to see if you aren't thirsty or hungry or sick before we go into your engrams.”
        
The advice:
        
“Now, it is 70% possible that whatever worries you or (if it is) makes your case hard to run, is psychosomatic. Let's wipe out the 30% chance that any trouble you're having is a physical stick on the tone scale, not a mental one.”          LRH
(all quotations in above section are from ‘PAB 6’, ca. end Jul 56 “Case Opening”)
        


Scientology

A discovery from 1965:
        
“If you find a Suppressive on a case you will also find a chronic problem. ...
        
 
A hidden standard is a problem a person thinks must be resolved before auditing can be seen to have worked. It's a standard by which to judge Scientology or auditing or the auditor. ...
 
 
A case that betters and worsens (a Roller Coaster) is always connected to a suppressive person and will not get steady gain until the Suppressive is found on the case or the basic suppressive person earlier.
 
 
Because the case doesn't get well he or she is a Potential Trouble Source. To us, to others, to himself. You can't successfully audit that pc because there is a hidden standard. It makes the pc think he is no better. Suppressives also suppress the pc just like that so long as a hidden standard is present.
 
 
Find the Suppressive, make the pc handle or disconnect. Then audit the pc up to Problems Release by getting rid of the hidden standard and the basic suppressive.”          LRH
(from HCOB 8 Nov 65 “Suppressives and Hidden Standards”)
 

Obviously if a person is subjected to this it will work as a stumble block and you will not handle it with Dianetics. Therefore you have to deal with that which is directly affecting the person right now, if you have a roller coaster situation.


Dianetics vs Scientology

However the question is if this does resolve the case fully? Mind that treating an illness belongs to Dianetics, this here however belongs to Scientology.

        
“Dianetics is Dianetics and Scientology is Scientology.
        
 
They are separate subjects. They have in common certain tools like the E-Meter, TRs and auditor presence. But there it ends.
 
 
Dianetics addresses the body. Scientology addresses the thetan.
 
 
While a thetan can produce illness, it is the body that is ill.
 
 
Thus Dianetics is used to knock out and erase illnesses, unwanted sensations, misemotion, somatics, pain, etc. Scientology and its grades are never used for such things.
 
 
Scientology is used to increase spiritual freedom, intelligence, ability, to produce immortality.
 
 
To mix the two has been a very bad error.”          LRH
(from HCOB 22 Apr 69 “DIANETIC vs SCIENTOLOGY”)
 

You thus can not solve a Dianetics problem with Scientology! You can however pull a person out of having a present time problem with the use of Scientology.

        
“So you don't use Scientology remedies or Scientology Case Supervisor procedures to run Dianetic sessions. High Tone Arm, ARC Breaks, etc are not even considered in Dianetic Auditing.”         LRH
(from HCOB 22 Apr 69 “DIANETIC vs SCIENTOLOGY”)
        

Therefore:
        
PRESENT TIME PROBLEMS PART OF RUDIMENTSTYPE 1 PROCESSES
        
 
... A present time problem is one that exists in present time, in a real universe. It is any set of circumstances that so engages the attention of the preclear that he feels he should be doing something about it instead of being audited.”          LRH
(from HCOB 3 Jul 59 “General information”)
 

        
“A pt problem is cleaned up as itself only. ...
        
 
A pt problem is checked at the beginning of every session – and if there is a break at noon, is cleaned up also at the beginning of the afternoon session.
 
 
A pt problem doesn't always bop on the meter at the first question. The auditor has to spend a little time asking around and making sure. Then he audits it on if it falls under above definition of pt problem.”          LRH
(from HCOB 16 Dec 57 “Present Time Problem”)
 

You handle the present time problem and after you have done that the person will be up for to receive treatment with Dianetics.

It does appear that during this time span a focus was had on a primarily Scientology approach of solving the problem. It did however not resolve the underlying Dianetics problem. Which was the reason why we see this published acknowledging that...
        
“I found that Dianetics had been forgotten for a dozen years and was being given a light brush-off as a course and that auditors and pcs were trying to use Scientology grades to handle body ills such as headaches, chronic somatics and so on.
        
 
Man's usual PTP is his body. So if one gave him gold ornaments he'd try to use them to cure his aches and pains.
 
 
Thus Dianetics was forgotten and unused and Scientology was being made to attempt cures. Thus they were, both subjects, busily being made to fail to some degree.”          LRH
(from HCOB 22 Apr 69 “DIANETIC vs SCIENTOLOGY”)
 

HCOB 16 Aug 69 “Handling Illness in Scientology” continues to confirm that “Sickness is of course the result of engram chains in restimulation.”  LRH.

Now we get to the year 1973 where we see a hang-up in regards to a persistence to treat Dianetics problems with Scientology procedures. See next section here below.

 
Go back HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”
(Includes:  Authorship)

It summarizes:
        
“There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and KNOW ARE TRUE in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives.
        
 
These data are:
 
 
1.
That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.
 
 
2.
That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions:  A.  Discover.  B.  Handle or disconnect.”          (attributed to LRH)
 
This is the Scientology approach of things. It says very clearly handling and the steps for the handling. We can see that it had dropped handling in auditing.
So, where o where has the mention gone of engram handling in auditing or any auditing for that matter? The title of the HCOB does read “PTS Handling”, now then how are you going to handle if you do not audit. It is clear from the track of references from 1950-69 that the solution was engram running. So where has it gone?

Of course there is nothing wrong about educating people about something, but that is not the same as handling, that is essentially just informing about matters. To that effect we see for example HCO PL 31 May 1971“ PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling Checksheet” being issued.
Please note:  I can't be sure though about the early title of this checksheet or the references it listed, the earliest version I have access to is an ‘RC’ revision from Aug 76, if you have any earlier checksheet of this, please do contact me!)


Authorship

A little remnant of the auditing is found at the bottom of page one of the reference where it says:  (underlining is mine)
        
“If that suppression is located and the person handles or disconnects, the condition diminishes. If he also has all the engrams and ARC Breaks, problems, overts and withholds audited out triple flow and if ALL such areas of suppression are thus handled, the person would recover from anything caused by ‘stress’.”
        
And that is the only mention it makes about this in the whole reference. It is an interesting statement, but it does not do anything with it, the reference just does not adjudicate ridding of the engram action as a standard procedure or handling! Instead one should be satisfied, sort of, with a statement that talks about removal of “anything” that “caused” this “‘stress’” but have no plan of action for all of these ways of treatment that are named!? Why making mention of “engrams” if running them out in auditing is simply not in the toolbox? It is rather unlike L. Ron Hubbard to write like this while ignoring a previous status quo.
Another thing is the choice of words, why using the word ‘stress’ in this context? L. Ron Hubbard is exact in that he says, this here is inexact. This is a generality that goes nowhere. This ‘stress’ is not the cause! The cause of “illness” is engrams, have we somehow forgotten about that? It makes you seriously wonder who actually wrote this HCOB!

During 1950-65 treating ailments was all about running out the engrams. In 1965 a discovery was made about spotting the suppressive influence (person) and offering ways to relieve the pc. A focus now was had on this alone. L. Ron Hubbard picked it up in 1969 and corrected that. Treating ailments, remove the core of the condition, was still done by engram running. Next we have this HCOB from 1973 abandoning that again, this with no explanation! Does that sound like a person that knows what he is doing? Does it sound like L. Ron Hubbard would behave this erratically?
Since 1973 till the present day we are all back into and stuck in handling a Dianetics problem with Scientology, get the bad influence (suppressive person) off the attention of the pc and then simply call it a day. Now, isn't that symptom treatment?

Here the basis was laid for that which once was an auditing matter was transformed into an Ethics matter. If it was thought you were PTS or had physical ailments you were not send to the auditing department (HGC*), nonono you were send to the Ethics Officer, where you commonly were put on writing down your overts and withholds (pretty much standard procedure in the orgs). You may also get set up for so-called security checking (sec checks) to have you confess these overts and withholds in auditing.

 
Go back HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” (“from an LRH despatch of 10 Aug 1973”)
(Includes:  Further notes on authorship)

Further notes on authorship

We find a further distortion in this matter in the publication history of this reference, that was said to be “Excerpted from an LRH despatch of 10 Aug 1973 (underlining is mine). Please note that is the same date as HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”. Considering that a despatch is just a despatch, there is nothing that says that a despatch needs to be issued as an HCOB, so who decided on that, this a whole nine years later?! In the same it makes you also wonder about HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” that is discussing the exact same topic as the despatch. What criteria determined which part of that was written on the matter on that very day was actual despatch and which part was HCOB type material? Now how do we know it was not all despatch to begin with? Which needed to be “Excerpted” from the “despatch” and which not?
The 1996 reissue instead states it was “Taken from an LRH despatch to an executive on 10 August 1973.” From a “despatch to an executive”? What reason is there to believe that L. Ron Hubbard would compile HCOBs from despatches? It is not how he operated in the past, why is this done now? Then we have the matter of going round and round, not making up one's mind, how could this be L. Ron Hubbard? There are no examples prior to 1973 that he went forth and back like this and in this manner. It was a mistake to issue the HCOB dated 1982, and a bigger mistake to reissue (=revise) it in 1996. It revealed a pattern that now has become obvious for all to see. This later release even is an additional reason to question the validity of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”.

Besides this HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” has more oddities to tell. Because 14 years after it was originally published it was “Corrected and Reissued”. The original release was all about to HANDLE the PTS, in 1996 it was suddenly HANDLE or DISCONNECT, although still abandoning handling in auditing. I address this in detail here (separate window).

It is a strange series of occurrences where some person(s) don't seem to be able to make up their mind. They keep on going round and round and round, adding and changing, and we get further and further away from original procedures and ways of treatment that mattered!

 
Go back Solutions to PTSness (a chronology 1965-83)
(No cure left?)

A detailed overview of this can be consulted at link here below:  (separate window)
    “Solutions to PTSness: S & D, auditing, education & ‘why finding’ (1965-78)”

Dec 78 saw the release of four HCOBs that relate to handling of the PTS person. The standard route was that if you were PTS you were send to Ethics (and not to the HGC), and if the suppressive person was identified in some manner, this was the end of the handling. The auditing procedure offered was this ‘Suppressed Person Rundown’. A requirement of these were that first the person needed to be educated (PTS C/S-1), and after that a Search & Discovery. Then through auditing you aim to get a Problems Release. The problem is that this only deals with part of the problem.

Mind that 70% are of a psychosomatic nature, so where is the engram running auditing? That action, as a solution, seems abandoned forever!

These four references confirm an insistence in handling the matter with Scientology procedures. They were issued some five years after the release of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”! At that isn't Dec 78 a bit well late?
They are:
    
HCOB 29 Dec 78 “The Suppressed Person Rundown”
  HCOB 30 Dec 78 “Suppressed Person Rundown, Problems Processes”
  HCOB 31 Dec 78 II “Outline of PTS Handling”
  HCOB 31 Dec 78 III “Educating the Potential Trouble Source, The First Step Toward Handling: PTS C/S-1”
  Note: It is missing HCOB 31 Dec 78 I  in the numbering, one may wonder what that would have been about?

This ordination from Sept 78, just a few months earlier, fits right in:
        
“New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.”   
(from HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”)
        
And in December that same year:
        
“Of course, when somebody goes Dianetic Clear, he can't be run on more engrams. right? Right! So it's forbidden now to run NED on Dianetic Clears. ...
        
 
In 1978 I discovered that it was deadly to go on running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear.”  
(from ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”)
 
And this effectively robbed any person that had attested for Dianetic Clear, from the possibility to rid one's engrams causing the illness, and the underlying cause of the PTS situation. It would seem it is full circle now. Is it a coincidence that all these things come together (are issued) at the same time? Either way you are left with no real solution. That is for the underprivileged Dianetic Clear, if he only had not been Dianetic Clear.
Well, a solution offered was to enroll on NOTs (NED for OTs), mind however that it uses no Dianetic procedures which makes it a misnomer. It says also very clearly in that LRH ED that “he can't be run on more engrams”. Therefore, whatever you are doing with that NOTs, you are thus not running engrams.

No worries though, another five years and we see a further devolopment (if you want to call that) in the situation. Now the focus had turned to disconnection no matter what. The reference that ordained that was HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” (all about that here, separate window). Ever since, if you had physical ailments or failed in achieving your aims in any which way, you were then considered a subject for Ethics, find your suppressive person and disconnect. The Ethics Officer will help/force you doing that as there is no other cure. You may want to contemplate about this for a moment, as what does that got to do with Dianetics and/or Scientology?

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The matter of ‘Dead File’ clarified and the misuse of the term

This is a matter that simply has to be included as this day there exists a huge misunderstanding and particularly a broad misapplication of what it is supposed to be about. The references that lay out the matter are:
   
HCO PL 7 Jun 65 “Entheta Letters and the Dead File, Handling of”
HCO PL 25 Sept 65 “Addition to HCO PL 7 Jun 65 entitled ‘Entheta Letters and the Dead File, Handling of’”
HCO PL 22 Aug 66 (Addition to HCO PL 7 Jun 65) “Dead File: Restoration to Good Standing”
And these are all there is that address it!

So, what is it then all about? Well, it is about entheta letters having been written. Now, what then are entheta letters?  The main policy letter on the matter lists explanations of the various terms.
        
AN ENTHETA LETTER  =  is a letter containing insult, discourtesy, chop or nastiness about an org, its personnel, Scientology or the principal figures in Scientology. En = Enturbulated; theta = Greek for thought or life. ...
        
 
AN ETHICS REPORT  =  is a report to Ethics ... concerning the misuse or abuse of technology or the misconduct of a Scientologist. ... Such a report is not Dead Filed ... but may become a Dead File.
 
 
A MIXED LETTER  =  is a letter which is an entheta letter (couched in nasty terms to the org or its personnel) which also contains a report pretending to be an Ethics Report. ‘You awful people have an awful auditor in the field – .’ A Mixed Letter is always routed to Dead Files ...
 
 
A PETITION  =  is a polite request to have something handled by the Office of LRH or the Org. ... An impolite ‘Petition’ is handled as an Entheta Letter always.”          LRH
 
Obviously this is all about written letters of some sort containing all sorts of nastiness.

And then we get also a warning:
        
IMPORTANT  =  It is important not to Dead File a Scientologist for reporting a bad breach of Ethics. This should be encouraged. However, people on our side make such reports without accusing us. When such reports are also accusative of us they are Dead Filed.”          LRH
        
And we are still left with these written matters.

So, to end up in this Dead File you (1) need thus have written something. And (2) it has to contain “nastiness about an org, its personnel, Scientology or the principal figures in Scientology”. If it doesn't, it is not supposed to have any concern for Dead File.
This however is not what we see today within the Scientology organization. People appear to end up in Dead File for the most silly reasons. Some person may have personally disliked you, some person may heard you criticizing something, some person may have uttered some hard truths that politely are directed to a person, or some person may have heard something from another person that made some claims about some other person being guilty of such things.
This in essence is actually enough to get you to end up in Dead File. It is silly of course, and it is not following any of the rules, but I repeatedly have personally observed such occurring with my own eyes. Suddenly your local Scientology organization may not send you letters anymore, or they may not invite you anymore by phone for upcoming events and such things. The funniest of it all is that most of the time it did not require anything written by you to get you in Dead File!

In essence ALL that some person has to do to get someone in Dead File is that this person marks your public folder with DF written with large initials with a red marker. No questions asked! Obviously the matter of ending up in these Dead Files has gone completely and utterly over the board!

In fact all this is actually a rather serious matter, because you can end up being treated unjustfully like this, and no person will be telling you what is going on. As the HCO PL directs: “we never inform them”. It has thus created a hidden line in where you can be wronged, and you are denied any information, as well as your right for defence.

See, the proper format for various ethics matters would be to use the guidelines as found in HCO PL 1 May 65 “Staff Member Reports”. It is a line that was put there to give people the opportunity to write down various information to improve upon or handle a particular contrary survival situation. There are “Damage Report”, “Misuse Report”, “A Found Report”, and so on (the policy letter lists 21 of these). The last one #21 reads: Knowledge Report.  On noting some investigation is in progress and having data on it of value to Ethics.”.
The matter here is that the purpose of this line is to make various information known, make persons aware of some situation or other and see that something can be done about it or having it clarified. The Staff Member Reports form directs here: “The original goes to Ethics by drawing an arrow pointing to ‘Ethics’ and the carbon goes to the person or portion of the org being reported on”. And so, the person or persons being written on, would receive a copy of what is being written on them. If an error has been made, the person can then respond and have it clarified. But if the Dead File format is used for the wrong reasons you will have basically no recourse! Do remember: “we never inform them”.

Once I was helping out in the local organization, and there I came across my own public folder. It had a large DF written on it. I inquired, but no staff in the organization knew anything about it. This is how things thus can go. Rest assured though that I have never been guilty of acts that rightfully would have placed me into Dead File. I can assure you that at one point or another any person can find himself represented there and commonly it will be for the wrong reason.

Another time I was confronted with a Security Officer at an Advanced Organization. I was accompanying a friend. This Security Officer came up to us and simply informed my friend that he was in Dead File (which he was not actually supposed to tell about), the Security Officer then informed that it was issued at his local organization, and he was advising my friend to contact the Ethics Officer of his local organizations to clear up the matter. He also relayed the information that only the International Justice Chief could lift the Dead File, which the HCO PL does not say anything about! Do you see how this one goes? Don't listen to claims being made, just revert back to the reference about that matter! Don't let anyone just tell you anything!

There are some warning signs to watch for here. If for some unexplained reason and rather sudden the organization personnel is not contacting you anymore for upcoming events and/or are not writing you anymore. Then you may suspect that something did happen here. And so you can go to the organization and ask them straight out what is going on here? If you are persistent here, you will have your answers soon enough and you can get this resolved.
If they tell you that you are in Dead File, then insist to see the letters you wrote that contain such nastiness and all that. If they fail to do so, or they can not present these then request that the Dead File be lifted and please do refer to the reference about Dead File. If needed you pull the book volume and put it open right in front of them and point your finger to the applicable paragraphs! If on the other hand some letters are shown, then determine if these were a valid reason to have you end up in Dead File. Just clear up the matter by these means.

Now, what is Dead File actually really about? Well, basically it is just a means to get bothering persons off the organizational lines instead of letting them literally waste the time of the personnel, time that can then be spent on persons that actually are worthy of that.

HCO PL 2 Jun 65 “Entheta Letters and the Dead File, Handling of” directs:
        
“Ethics Files shall include a DEAD FILE.
        
 
This File includes all persons who write nasty or choppy letters to an org or its personnel.”          LRH
 
It is all pretty clear-cut, so let's not use this format for something else!

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     ARC break:
1. An incomplete cycle of some kind or another. It's a lowering of Affinity, Reality and Communication, so we call it an ARC break. (SH Spec 65, 6507C27)  2. A sudden drop or cutting of one's affinity, reality, or communication with someone or something. Upsets with people or things come about because of a lessening or sundering of affinity, reality, or communication or understanding. It's called an ARC break instead of an upset, because, if one discovers which of the three points of understanding have been cut, one can bring about a rapid recovery in the person's state of mind. (LRH Def. Notes)  Abbr. ARCX
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     Comm:
Short for ‘Communication’.
     Comm Ev:
Committee of Evidence’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Committee of Evidence:
1. A committee of evidence is not a court. It is simply a fact-finding body with legal powers, convened to get at the facts and clean up the ARC breaks (breaks in communication) caused by rumor. (HCO PL 27 Mar 65)  2. A fact-finding body composed of impartial persons properly convened by a convening authority which hears evidence from persons it calls before it, arrives at a finding and makes a full report and recommendation to its convening authority for his or her action. (HCO PL 7 Sept 63)  3. A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 28)  4. A Committee of Evidence is considered the most severe form of ethics action. (HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III)  5. A Committee of Evidence is convened by the Office of LRH through the HCO Secretary and is composed of staff members. Its purpose is entirely to obtain evidence and recommend action which the Office of LRH then modifies or orders. (HCO PL 10 Apr 65)  Abbr. Comm Ev.
     CSW:
Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
     ‘Declare’ (or ‘Declare Order’):  
‘Suppressive Person Declare’ or ‘SP Declare’. Declare has grown to be an expression frequently used amongst the Scientology parishioners that means that an Ethics Order (as in official writing) in where a person(s) and/or group(s) are being declared being suppressive person(s) and/or suppressive group(s).
     entheta:
Means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)
     enturbulation, enturbulate:
Cause to be turbulent or agitated and disturbed. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     HGC:
Hubbard Guidance Center’. The department of the technical division of a Scientology organization which sets you up for and delivers auditing.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     O/W Write-up:
Overt/Withhold Write-up’. Basically writing down overt acts and withholds in a particular format on a piece of paper that is then forwarded to the Ethics section of a Scientology organization. It's purpose is to relieve the conscience of the person, and make him feel better. It is also a standard practice to be done prior to receiving auditing, as one is told that it will save the person costly auditing hours.
     PAB:
Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     PTP:
Short for ‘Present Time Problem’.
     PTS, PTSness:
potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
     Withholds (W/Hs):
Something a person did that he isn't talking about. Basically, it is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival. (Marriage Hats booklet)


Go to top of this page


Advertisement