Scientology pages index  |  Contact

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

(to other Scientology pages)

1) G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w / i n t r o d u c t i o n :   M i s s i o n   s t a t e m e n t ,   o v e r v i e w ,   r e s e a r c h   s p e c i f i c s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   L R H K e e p i n g   S c i e n t o l o g y   W o r k i n g ,   f u n d a m en t al s S c i e n t o l o g y   i n   m e d i a   a nd   I n t e r n e t   ( +   f o r u m s ,   W i k i p e d i a ) S c i e n t o l o g y :   I t s   t r u e   h i s t o r y   e x p o s e d ? S c i e n t o l o g y   Q & A   ( F A Q ) E x t e r n a l   l i n k s M a t e r i a l s   w a n t   l i s t R e c o m m e n d e d   l i s t   o f   m a t e r i a l s 2) R e s p o n s e s   ( w i t h   a n n o t a t i o n s ) : A p p r e c i a t i v e   r e s p o n s e s   t o   m y   p a g e s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 1 )   f r o m   c h u r c h g o i n g   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 2 )   f r o m   o u t - o f - c h u r c h   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d    ( 3 )   f r o m   a n t i - S c i e n t o l o g i s t s 3) T o p i c s   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   i n t e r e s t : (a): G e n e r a l   t o p i c s H o l y   S c r i p t u r e s   v s   S c i e n t o l o g y L R H   v s   D i c t i o n a r i e s L R H   v s   t h e o r y   o f   e v o l u t i o n L R H ' s   w o r k s   o f   f i c t i o n (b): O r g a n i z a t i o n a l   t o p i c s A   p r i n t i n g   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   m a t e r i a l s   o f   S c i e n t o l o g y S c i e n t o l o g y   M e m b e r s h i p :   H A S I   v s   I A S L R H   v s   p r i c i n g   p o l i c i e s T h e   c o p y r i g h t s   i s s u e   a n d   l i c e n s i n g (c): T e c h n i c a l   t o p i c s H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   a )   G e n e r a l H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   b )   D e t a i l e d ‘ C l e a r ’   d e f i n e d N E D   f o r   O T s T h e   ‘ P r i m a r y   R u n d o w n ’ 4) C o n t r o v e r s i a l   t o p i c s : M i s t a k e n   i d e a s   o f   ‘ E t h i c s ’   c l a r i f i e d T h e   F a i r    G a m e   L a w P r a c t i c e   o f   D i s c o n n e c t i o n S e c u r i t y   C h e c k i n g F r e e l o a d e r s   v s   E x - s t a f f   m e m b e r s T h e   ‘ R e h a b i l i t a t i o n   P r o j e c t   F o r c e ’   ( R P F ) 5) C h a n g e s   i n   t h e   f l o w   o f   ‘ i n f o r m a t i o n ’: (a): A l t e r a t i o n s   ( L R H   o r   n o n- L R H ? ) L R H   v s   A l t e r a t i o n s N o n - L R H   t u r n s   i n t o   L R H ?   &   P r o p o s a l   t o   s o l u t i o n T h e    ‘ C r a m m i n g   S e r i e s ’   -   L R H   o r   n o t   L R H ? B a s e d   o n   L R H   p u b l i c a t i o n s (b): G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w L R H   v s   A   N e w   O r d e r   ( i n t r o d u c t i o n ) → A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d    o r g a n i z a t i o n a l   m a t t e r s S e t u p   o f   t h e   p r i n t e d   m a t e r i a l s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ) T h e   R T R C ,   t h e   u n i t   t h a t   w r o t e   L R H   i s s u e s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 2 ) T h e   d a w n i n g   o f   R T C   a n d   n e w   m a n a g e m e n t   ( 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 ) → T e c h n i c a l   m a t t e r s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   t h e   e v e n t   o f   l o s i n g   a   B r i d g e ) A n a l y s i s   o f   H C O B   “ T e c h   C o r r e c t i o n   R o u n d - u p ” L o s t   B r i d g e :   T e c h   c h a n g e s   d u r i n g   1 9 7 8 - 8 2 T h e   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   o r i g i n a l   O T   V I I I ‘ G o l d e n   A g e   o f   T e c h ’   ( G A T )   a n a l y s i s D r i l l i n g   i n   S c i e n t o l o g y (c): T h e   m a t t e r   o f   D a v i d   M a y o S t o r y   o f   D a v i d   M a y o ‘ S O   E D   2 3 4 4   I n t’   a n a l y s i s T r a i n i n g   d r i l l s   ( T R s ) M a y o   r e f e r e n c e   l i s t 6) C o n s p i r a c i e s   -   I n   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ' s   f o o t s t e p s S c i e n t o l o g y   v s   a   N e w   W o r l d   O r d e r → W h e r e   i s   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ?   ( c h r o n o l o g y   o f   S c n   h i s t o r y ) W h e r e a b o u t s   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   c h r o n o l o g y T h e   e r a   o f   a d o r a t i o n ;   P r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   i n t o   a r t i s t r y :   M u s i c   &   F i l m → W h e r e   i s   h i s   w i f e   a n d   f a m i l y ? S t o r y   o f   M a r y   S u e   H u b b a r d T h e   l a s t   s t a n d :   T h e   G u a r d i a n   O f f i c e 7) S c i e n t o l o g y   u n d e r   a t t a c k (a): A   p r e m e d i t a t e d   s e r i e s   o f   o c c u r r e n c e s ?   ( ’ 8 0 s   c o n s p i r a c y ) I n t r o d u c t i o n   &   R o n   D e W o l f G e r r y   A r m s t r o n g   ( ‘ a f f i r m a t i o n s ’ ) R u s s e l l   M i l l e r    ( ‘ B a r e - F a c e d   M e s s i a h ’ ) A   r e l i g i o n   c r e a t e d   f o r   t h e   m o n e y ? (b): B a t t l e s   f o u g h t   a n d   t h e   i n t e r n e t   ( 2 0 1 6 -   ) L e a h   R e m i n i :   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   t h e   A f t e r m a t h   ( T V   s h o w )

>> 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”

Foreword

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!!!”

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.

“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 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 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”)

The basics of ‘ethics’ and ‘justice’ as used in Scientology explained

• Ethics vs Justice
• The role of the Ethics Officer

 
Ethics vs Justice

	“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 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.

 
The role of the Ethics Officer

	“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.

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.

	“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.

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.

The matter of ‘suppressive acts’ explained and when action is taken

	“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).

	“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.

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”.

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’

	“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).

PTS redefined in 1973?  or  The matter of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”

• “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?)

[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.

“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.

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

→ 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.

“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 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.

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

Dianetics

“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

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:

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

	“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 “DIANETICS 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 “DIANETICS vs SCIENTOLOGY”)

	“PRESENT TIME PROBLEMS – PART OF RUDIMENTS – TYPE 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.

	“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 “DIANETICS 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.

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

	“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?

Authorship

“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!

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.

 
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

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!

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

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!

	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”

“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 development (if you want to call it that) with 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?

The matter of ‘Dead File’ clarified and the misuse of the term

	“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.

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.

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!

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.

	“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)