Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Growth with Competence - B590827

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex


There is a great deal of history to the development and dissemination of Dianetics and Scientology. And it has not been without its severe lessons.

One of the first vows I made, in L.A. in the fall of 1950, was based on the assumption that “it will go as far as it works”, and I vowed to make it work not just for the few but for the many and not just in expert hands but for the tyro as well. Well, that vow has been achieved.

The HAS Co-Audit course taught in Washington, D.C., by Nibs, Dick, Jan and Nina West has made Mest Clears using only muzzled co-auditing.

So it is working for the many in the hands of the relatively unskilled group co- auditor.

But there were other things learned in this history. And amongst them was the lesson that a Central Org can succeed as far as it can service. When a Central Org can no longer service it cannot succeed. And that goes for any individual or group in the whole of Dianetics and Scientology, and on these the sun never sets.

Our problem then, now, is to be able to service as far as we go. We are in the possession of powerful tools. We have relatively good literature and will soon have better. We can promise a great deal and point proudly to records of things we have done. We can say with truth that we have done more than fifty thousand years of thinking man could do in understanding and assisting the human being. We can command a very wide sphere of credit for first discoveries. We can promise a great many things on the basis of having delivered them. BUT CAN WE SERVICE THIS WELL AS A GROUP?

I get some very fine reports from HAS Co-Audits throughout the world. But amongst these reports there are a few failures, a few resistive cases. I could audit them, a great many Scientologists could audit them and push them through. BUT the fact remains that there are auditors here and there who cannot.

“Why?” I asked the HCO Area Secretary London the other night on telex — ”Low ARC,” she replied. And this apparently explained two case failures by field auditors.

And not very long ago when we had a bad code break with a pc in the field, the Ethics Committee suspended the auditor for a few days and then told him he could be reinstated but would have to sign a paper pledging to obey the Auditor’s Code and HE REFUSED TO SIGN IT. Why? Because he had “gotten results with invalidating pcs too often”, but the truth is he hadn’t gotten good results and the tests showed it so he was wrong. But why wouldn’t he sign the Auditor’s Code?

These of course are isolated things BUT AT THIS PRESENT INSTANT THEY EXIST.

Low ARC, the HCO Area Sec London said.

Well, what’s this low ARC doing at this stage of the game? How come this late in the business does an auditor get discovered who doesn’t believe in the Auditor’s Code? Why do individuals and groups still flub on occasion?

I know that all these people basically mean well. I would stake my life on their humanity and decency. And have. But we’re in something that’s got to go all the wayand the basic lessons contain this one, an Organisation will succeed as far as it can service.

And if groups are still flubbing service let alone Administration, then they aren’t going to go very far.

Now does this mean there must be more training? No.

There will always have to be training but this won’t entirely solve this one.

“Low ARC,” the HCO Area Secretary London said. What did she mean by that? She meant basically that these auditors somehow or other weren’t going to make a pc well. They didn’t care enough about that pc to do the job.

The button which causes such things is VICTIM. This is the central button of the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence. Some auditor, perhaps one that is ordinarily quite good, gets a restim. He keys in something not from what the pc said for this couldn’t aberrate anyone. He gets a restim between sessions on the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence, and he comes back into session with the VICTIM button in full flare. And what does he do? Almost beyond his control he flubs. He makes a victim out of his pc. Why? Because that’s the exact action which occurs when an Overt Act-Motivator Sequence is triggered.

Low ARC. The whole answer to it is contained in VICTIM. The auditor feels that the pc deserves what he gets for a moment. He rationalises it all out — but he treated the pc as a victim. A dropped ashtray, a stupid auditor remark, an invalidation of a cognition. . . however the auditor flubs, he is treating the pc as a victim, and the pc victimised responds with bared engrams.

Well, true enough a lot of pcs ARC break easily because they are really being fully fledged victims, and all the auditor has to do is slightly hint toward victimising in the pc’s estimation and bang, out goes the session. But an auditor who ISN’T really treating the pc as his victim can pull the pc through. The auditor who is keyed in by this victim thing drops all the cans in the rack and flubs but grandly.

All this has been a big mystery previously. It’s understood now and thoroughly.

And further, we’ve the processes that can do something about it.

The right way to audit this victim item out from scratch is with a Comm Process. Handling the whole case it is necessary in most instances to find a specific dropping terminal on the pc, perhaps even more than one, convert it into a generalised form and flatten it until it reads as a button right at the clear reading of the pc’s sex. When this has been worked over and done, it is usually safe to do a plunge into this victim thing. Given the pc in session — given the pc really answering the auditing question, then we can handle the Overt Act-Motivator Sequence with the Comm Process, “From where could you communicate to a victim?” The process is actually a one-shot OT Process.

Don’t make the mistake of running a pc who figure-figures his answers or gives philosophic type answers on a Comm Process without actually making him do it, do it, do it.

There are cases around that have been “audited” for years who have never really done a process. This can be whipped by a Comm Process done with paper and pencil. You locate the terminal with an E-Meter and then you lay the instrument aside, give the pc a sheaf of paper and a pencil, and every time he answers your auditing question, you have him or her draw the answer on the paper. As the Comm Process exceeds language, it can be easily checked. Even if the pc seems to be having some success but could succeed faster you can boost it along with the “paper trick” as this is called. So even the people who couldn’t be trusted with a thinkingness process can be run on a Comm Process using the paper trick.

All right. That’s what makes an auditor not flub, and it keeps him from being a burden to himself and others as a person too. It’s a cyclone of a process as the experienced person can tell you.

And it prevents the flubbing of service in an Organisation.

Scientologists who can’t stand the sight of money or who can’t seem to get pcs are just having a fine old time being in some way or another, a victim. So let’s face this reality and understand clearly that we can guarantee our successes as individuals and Organisations by getting bell clear on victim.

Then we can give service. And then an Organisation can give service. Then it’s safe to make promises. And we don’t get Administration chopped up. And it’s safe and successful to have an Organisation set up and financed and running on the mission of clearing Earth.

Of course we have to go right on with our jobs whether victim is flat or leaping about like a Texas thermometer. Of course we have to go right on organising and planning and making the future real. We can’t just quit and say well, when we all get to be clear then we’ll go-man-go. We can’t afford that.

But this time be warned. We know that with our Organisations and Comm lines and plans we’re going to go successfully or not straight up the line. Let’s see this one coming though and not fly into the thunderhead blind. Let’s understand that staffs and individual Scientologists are going to goof just as long as the victim button is not flat and that it’s going to take quite a while to get it all flat.

People are always preparing for rainy days and failures. Well, let’s prepare for success. If we get much bigger nobody will be able to handle anything unless we get smooth operation, smooth procurement, efficient good looking HAS Co-Audit units, successful case handling everywhere. We won’t be able to live in a climate of 75% success and 25% failure. We won’t be able to administer with people here and there on our lines who are bound and determined to be victims and to appoint us their executioners.

We’re moving right up to the Big Win and we should be able to handle it without going half round the bend patching up the flubs made by the victim impulse that comes on when we’re restimmed or exhausted. Let’s win all the way this time and keep it won..

You see, you can’t ever get a victim valence to win. It’s a plain lesson to him, and he believes it, fallacious though it is, that when somebody wins there is always a loser and that winning “is always an overt act to somebody”. To prevent losers, our victim doesn’t win. He quits instead.

Thus there can be no constant and safe win until we have amongst us whipped our first big hurdle. No amount of planning, writing and care, no amount of education can overcome this impulse. We already know it can only be done by auditing. So let’s clear up this thing, let’s get the auditing, let’s make sure that when we set up something to go none of us will say, “Oh-oh, that’s a win! Mustn’t! Mustn’t!” and start tearing the whole thing down.

Before we get too far along this road let’s make sure we stay winners after we’ve won by making sure that none among us will go victim on us and cut our throats with the best intentions in the world.

Let’s define Scientologists as “People who aren’t Victims”, and really get the show on the road.