Yea though I walk through the valley of shadow of death...
Peter Graham
Beth
I am a bit late in joining this discussion, but I have a few comments
that may be relevant. Please see below.
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:21:15 -0500, Beth Guest wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> (snip)
> I had been pondering where it went wrong for me personally.
> I got into Scientology, as I said, at least in part because of the
> datum
>
> "Do not compromise your own reality"
>
> This was the first time, this lifetime at least, that I'd come
> across
> a religious group who had this tenet as a central theme. It was very
>
> important to me. But somewhere along the line I personally had moved
>
> from this without noticing, ie looking back I realise there were
> times
> when I did compromise my reality.
>
> (snip)
>
> What does concern me is how I can prevent this from re-occurring.
> I suppose in the general case,
>
> "How can I stop violations of my own integrity?" but especially with
>
> reference to religious/spiritual groups.
>
> It did occur to me that even listening and taking in thoughts/advice
>
> from people on this group might lead to similar problems.
>
> One solution is of course to stay away from all groups but this is
> biting off one's nose to spite one's face I'd say.
>
> (snip)
> Beth
Many of us have had the same or a similar experience to the one you
described. To solve that by not being part of a group again denies one
the benefits and opportunities that can come from group interaction
and co-action. The challenge is to do that without losing oneself or a
part thereof.
One of the best answers concerning how to remain true to one's
integrity is to develop a strong sense of *certainty* regarding one's
own viewpoints. By having a high degree of certainty, providing that
that certainty is well founded, you can walk through the valley of the
shadow of death relatively unscathed. A little bruised at times maybe,
but still in one piece and wiser. True certainty enables one to hold
one's position in space and to be true to oneself. I am not talking
about the type of "certainty" that comes from fixed viewpoints or
ideas.
The question then arises, how do we attain such certainty? The answer
lies in developing our evaluation skills and shedding ourselves of
faulty or poor evaluation methods and habits.
When we select a guru or "source" or channeled entity to be our
teacher or guide (no matter how experienced or wise), we may abrogate
our responsibility to do our own evaluating and appoint someone else
do it for us. To put it bluntly, some of us want someone else to do it
for us and to spoon feed us the truth (to set us free or make us
"enlightened").
Hubbard wrote years ago (in the Logics): "A datum is as valuable as it
has been evaluated" (Logic 9). IMHO, it should have read: "A datum is
only as valuable as it has been effectively evaluated". All our
beliefs come from *some sort of an evaluation* (even if it was only
"the guru said it, so it must be true" or "it makes me feel good, so
it is right") but experience has surely taught us that not all of our
beliefs were valid or useful. The subject of evaluation (in this
context) was given relatively scant treatment in Scn (compared to what
it deserved). The Scn materials did include some data on evaluation
here and there, but were we taught to evaluate effectively (or to
repeat back what the bulletin said)?
Korzybski recognized the importance of evaluation. He is quoted as
saying: "I will speak all through the seminars about the importance of
using the term evaluation...." and later: "You remember the other
night, I stressed the term evaluation? I suggested that you apply the
term where ever you can. Later on, you will see why it is so
important. The term alone will ... sharpen your intelligence, your
acuteness, and your capacities; yes, just the use of that term
evaluation." (from a transcription of General Semantics Seminar 1937).
As our evaluation skills improve, we become more certain of the
relative validity of our viewpoints and ideas and less susceptible to
PR, false or misleading claims, manipulation, sales jobs and other
crap.
We can develop and improve our evaluation skills by seriously studying
it, defining it, closely observing how we and others evaluate things,
observing and eliminating poor evaluation habits, learning new
evaluation strategies and refining old ones, learning some of the
pitfalls of evaluations, learning more about logic and what makes
things illogical, becoming more aware of our assumptions, learning
when to trust or not trust our inner messages, knowing when we do not
know something or when an evaluation is incomplete, learning to think
in "degrees of" or gradients instead of using binary (two-valued)
logic, thinking in terms of possibilities and probabilities rather
than in absolutes, etc. etc. It's a big subject.
When some people join a group, they adopt the group's ideas or
philosophy. Some things appear or feel so completely true or right
that we *assume* or *know* that the rest is also valid, true or right
(without specifically evaluating them). In other words, we may "buy
the package". Later on, we may encounter things that we might
otherwise question or disagree with but they get rationalized away or
denied (not-is-ed) or similar and we hang onto our wobbly
"certainties" (the stable datums that "solve" or hold off our
confusions). Added to that may be the sense of belonging and the
constant reinforcement of certain ideas by others which help to
convince us that the group's belief system is right.
Thus, joining a group with weak evaluation skills may not be good for
one's spiritual health. And buying the package can be a huge mistake
and can have serious consequences. One answer to this is to be aware
of this possibility and its consequences and for each of us to
gradually develop and refine our own belief systems and to not accept
someone else's belief system lock, stock and barrel. If we do not
learn that lesson, we are doomed to do to again and again until we do.
I am not against the idea of finding or using a guru or teacher to
present, stimulate or catalyze ideas or to gaining wisdom by reading
books written by them. However, the best answer in the long term is to
become one's own guru or teacher by learning to evaluate effectively.
Thanks for the opportunity to contribute.
Regards
Peter Graham
PS. Sorry this is a bit long.
Xpolitic
At 08:46 AM 4/22/98 -0400, Peter Graham wrote:
>Beth
>
>I am a bit late in joining this discussion, but I have a few comments
>that may be relevant. Please see below.
>
>On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 14:21:15 -0500, Beth Guest wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>> (snip)
>> I had been pondering where it went wrong for me personally.
>> I got into Scientology, as I said, at least in part because of the
>> datum
>>
>> "Do not compromise your own reality"
Code of Honor. See below.
(snip)
>> What does concern me is how I can prevent this from re-occurring.
>> I suppose in the general case,
>>
>> "How can I stop violations of my own integrity?" but especially with
>>
>> reference to religious/spiritual groups.
(snip)
>> Beth
>
(snip)
>When some people join a group, they adopt the group's ideas or
>philosophy. Some things appear or feel so completely true or right
>that we *assume* or *know* that the rest is also valid, true or right
>(without specifically evaluating them). In other words, we may "buy
>the package".
(snip)
>Regards
>
>Peter Graham
I feel that an additional point is in order here.
When one joins a group, one usually adopts the group's codes. (Reminicent of
Pierre's post titled "Some ideas about group codes".)
At the exact point of adopting the group's codes, one has most probably
already compromised one's own integrity and reality. To the exact degree
that your own codes do not precisely match the codes of the group, you have
violated your personal integrity and set yourself up for compromises on your
own reality.
It is only a matter of time before the group uses its codes to enforce its
reality on you and get you to accept the group reality over your own. When
this does happen, you do not have a leg to stand on because you adopted
their codes.
The proper action IMHO is to state the distinctive differences between your
codes and those of the group right at the begining of the relationship. Of
course in the CoS you are imediately assigned a condition of doubt and told
to apply the doubt formula. Please take note of the fact that the doubt
formula does not say anything about personal integrity or personal reality.
The first part of the formula says "... , brushing aside all bias ...". Bias
is defined in Webster's as mental leaning or inclination. This means that
you *can not* use your own standards, codes or reality in doing the doubt
formula. (You have already stated your *bias* toward your own integrity,
codes, and reality. That is how you got to ethics in the first place.)
Does this sound familiar to anyone?
David
Individual Liberties Research Unit | Acceptance University Network
----------------------- Thomas Paine College of Law -----------------
Next to the posession of knowledge, | 415 964-3436
is the ability to turn at will to | PO Box 390696 Mtn Vw CA 94039
where knowledge can be found. | Xpol...@law.aun-edu.org
Beth Guest
Hello Peter,
Many thanks for your replies on this. When I originally posted I had
some very helpful replies which resolved much, but I'm still learning,
so yours is appreciated.
>Many of us have had the same or a similar experience to the one you
>described.
I'd be interested to know how the transition went from CofS to life
after C of S if any others would care to share. Successful actions?
> To solve that by not being part of a group again denies one
>the benefits and opportunities that can come from group interaction
>and co-action. The challenge is to do that without losing oneself or a
>part thereof.
Exactly.
>
>One of the best answers concerning how to remain true to one's
>integrity is to develop a strong sense of *certainty* regarding one's
>own viewpoints.
My problem is that my viewpoints have been and still are in a state of
change.
I don't know if this happened to anyone else but after the fact of
leaving C of S I felt, and still feel to an extent, like a "clean page".
Paradoxically I also feel more aware than for a very long time.
My inclination is to sit in a corner and do one of the following:
a) giggle
b) listen to music
c) read read read read read read (but tech type stuff only. I can't read
novels or watch TV any more)
d) discuss philosphical or religious concepts/awarenesses/cogs/analyses
of life the universe and everything with anyone who's interested
e) Investigate all items mentioned in d) in my own universe. I seem to
have stuff there to look at.
f) play civil disobedience type games for the hell of it.
g) stuff nearly everything else
As you can see this isn't conducive to life in the "real world", after
all who wants a Mum who's an apprentice visionary? I tried to explain to
my son who's 15 why I enjoyed mathematics,
"It's a universe you can play around in," I said. "Just like Meridian
you play on the net."
"No it isn't it's just something that we do at school, Mum. Why do you
have to be so strange all the time?"
(Bless him!)
>By having a high degree of certainty,
Maybe that will come. I just feel I'm "feeling" my way around a very
new/old playground. I'm still looking/feeling/experiencing/discovering.
>
>When we select a guru or "source" or channeled entity to be our
>teacher or guide (no matter how experienced or wise), we may abrogate
>our responsibility to do our own evaluating and appoint someone else
>do it for us. To put it bluntly, some of us want someone else to do it
>for us and to spoon feed us the truth (to set us free or make us
>"enlightened").
This has proved a successful action for me in recent track. The positive
things I got from Scn outweighed the negative, for example.
There's a paradox it seems:
If you percieve someone as further along a path than you and that they
are willing to help you along that path then you have to trust to some
degree. You cannot by definition take every suggestion and
evaluate/decide for yourself because if you knew that much you
wouldn't need their help anyway.
However there can come a point where their path might be false (wholly
or partly) and one can end up in a mess. Trick is spotting it.
I agree with you that ultimately the only path that's correct for me is
mine. But it wouldn't it be stupid in the extreme not to follow others
who have valid paths to offer, for a time at least?
>
>
<snip data on evaluation>
I can see the logic of applying logic (!) and all the other mechanisms
you outlined but maybe it's a case thing, right now I can only *see*
these bits:
> learning
>when to trust or not trust our inner messages,
I can identify strongly with this one: (!)
>knowing when we do not
>know something
This makes a lot of sense to me too:
>or when an evaluation is incomplete, learning to think
>in "degrees of" or gradients instead of using binary (two-valued)
>logic, thinking in terms of possibilities and probabilities rather
>than in absolutes,
(snip)
> One answer to this is to be aware
>of this possibility and its consequences and for each of us to
>gradually develop and refine our own belief systems and to not accept
>someone else's belief system lock, stock and barrel. If we do not
>learn that lesson, we are doomed to do to again and again until we do.
Agreed. So I guess it's "follow" but keep checking that the 2 paths
your and theirs, are "in tune".
I wish I'd done that before...
(The lie was that I didn't think I had to "this time" ie C of S. I just
trusted more or less completely. How daft! I won't do that again.)
( So how come I seem to recall saying that before...!)
>
>I am not against the idea of finding or using a guru or teacher to
>present, stimulate or catalyze ideas or to gaining wisdom by reading
>books written by them. However, the best answer in the long term is to
>become one's own guru or teacher by learning to evaluate effectively.
Ah but what about when you feel you are suddenly in a new world and
there are others around who know a few paths/rules/things that you
don't? Does that make a difference?
>
>Thanks for the opportunity to contribute.
It's good stuff.
>PS. Sorry this is a bit long.
Seemed very short to me!
Thank you.
>
>
>
..............................................................................
" I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I must have changed several
times since then."
Lewis Carroll Alice in Wonderland.
Allen
C. B. Willis wrote:
>
> Xpolitic wrote:
> : At the exact point of adopting the group's codes, one has most probably
> : already compromised one's own integrity and reality.
>
> in the code.
>
> : To the exact degree
> : that your own codes do not precisely match the codes of the group, you have
> : violated your personal integrity and set yourself up for compromises on your
> : own reality.
>
> : It is only a matter of time before the group uses its codes to enforce its
> : reality on you and get you to accept the group reality over your own.
>
> rid of you, usually with inadequate or inappropriate communication around
> the subject, which causes a hell of a lot of confusion, hurt, and
> unfinished karmic threads (mishandlings, attn hung out to dry, failed
> purposes, wasted resources on all sides, etc).
>
> : The proper action IMHO is to state the distinctive differences between your
> : codes and those of the group right at the begining of the relationship.
>
> differences only show up later in relation to particular case situations
> and how these are interpreted by the individuals. Also who has more power
> in the situation (their interpretation is the one that will prevail
> officially), what are the unspoken games being played, the undiscussables,
> ego stuff, false ideas, false assumptions, misperceptions, etc.
Hi,
Excellent points, both of you!
The following article is from the ASC/ Articulate Management, ntc., web
page.
There is more than just this information available to help. The
Standings Procedures take all this into account, unlike the Conditions
Formulas, which are slanteded to keep one in compliance with the group
(command intention, for those of you who know what the Scn game really
is!).
Articulate Management
Consulting to your vision!
Misalignment
Memo by Allen Hacker
Copyright © 1989-96
by ASC Missions Group, ntc.
Misalignment is the more common of the two major causes of strife within
an organization.
The other cause, relatively rare and not discussed in this article, is
the pre-emptively
defensive personality.
Misalignment occurs when two or more entities try to mesh deceptively
similar but
essentially different visions into a cooperative venture without
clarifying the subtle
differences. With their subtle differences left unnoticed, the
"overlaid" visions mask
each other and compete within the minds of their originators without
anyone realizing it.
Each entity then proceeds as though its vision is the same as everyone
else's. Inevitably,
one of them will take a position or an action based on its private
version and then find
itself apparently the only sane person on the team as the other
entity(ies) suddenly act
like the action or position makes no sense.
Causes
The error that permits misalignment is mutual, and therefore no one is
more right or wrong
than anyone else when it happens. Misalignment can only occur when all
of the involved
entities permit vagueness, tolerate "minor" concession on the details of
the vision(s),
and proceed from assumptions.
Exceptions
This is not to say that everyone's vision must be exactly the same.
What is important
is that the differences be known. When the differences are known,
supporters will know
when they need to set aside their own preferences on a particular point
in favor of that
detail of leadership's vision.
This perspective assumes that leadership exists in the form of some kind
of final
arbiter in the group: a leader, a superior-subordinate relationship, the
spokesperson
for a negotiated vision that was democratically developed, and so on.
Consequences
The consequences of misalignment are a mutually distasteful but
recurring push-pull on
seemingly trivial issues, a vague but pervasive sense of vexation, and
an accumulating
appraisal by each entity that the other is unreasonably obstinate.
Those suffering from
this often say something like, "How can we be disagreeing so much, when
we agree on so much?"!
The structure of a group often determines how misalignment manifests.
Democratic groups and
partnerships that seek to equalize authority usually suffer continuous
renegotiation,
factionalism and chronic paralysis. Libertarian and anarchist groups,
which seek personally
responsible independence, suffer the chaos of willfulness, individuation
and disintegration.
Republican and other hierarchical groups that rely on rank and obedience
suffer from power
plays, internal politics and turnover.
A misalliance (of whatever type) that is allowed to continue uncorrected
should be expected
to perform minimally, to generate high levels of stress for everyone
involved, to sometimes
escalate into openly adversarial situations, to seriously damage the
peripheral
relationships of everyone involved, and to unfavorably taint each of
the original visions
with frustration and a sense of failure.
Upsets
It is true that pursuing a goal, which often involves confronting a lot
of barriers, can stir
up a person's "stuff" (mental/emotional baggage). It is also true that
a great deal of
friction can stem from unhandled "stuff". And it is also true that when
a "stuff"-contaminated
situation exists and is left unhandled, disaster is probable.
Obviously, where "stuff" is
causing the problem, it must be handled. However, while this logic is
sound where it does
apply, it does not apply where misalignment exists.
Misalignment is senior in importance to "stuff", and handling it often
removes the "stuff" as
well, because usually most of the "stuff" is actually pursuant to upsets
flowing from the
clash of subtle differences hidden in the misalignment.
Addressing upsets when misalignment is present neglects the fact that
most of the upsets stem
from the misalignment. Further, addressing the upsets directly is not
likely to lead to a
resolution of their underlying cause when the cause is misalignment.
The exception is when
misalignment is looked for as a probable cause. The signal for which
one looks is whether the
upsets continue.
When people don't know about misalignment, the closest most of them ever
get to exposing it
is the identification of specific fundamental disagreements without
seeing the implications.
This is an ironic case of "close, but so far away", because when you
know about it, such
disagreements are obvious indications of misalignment.
Polarization
Misalignment can refocus a group's purpose toward the unnoticed agendas
of its controlling
factions. For example, there are two basic types of people who become
interested in
humanitarian organizations. There are those who want to serve directly,
perhaps as
counselors, trainers and other kinds of front-line activists. Then there
are those whose
aptitudes point them more toward support and administrative roles.
The problem of polarization occurs when the preferred mode of operation
of each faction is
inconsistent with the other. As discussed, the misalignment remains
unnoticed, but the
behaviors reflect the subtle differences.
In this example, the front-line people will usually defer all management
duties to the other
sub-group. But later on, when the management style of the organization
settles toward control
and enforcement of policy, coupled with an inadvertent insensitivity to
the public being served,
some degree of civil war erupts as the front-line people find their
functions increasingly
restricted by what they consider unjustifiable bureaucracy and
oppressive police actions.
In most cases of this type, once things reach the point of antagonism
between the key divisions
of the group, it is too late. The controllers are in power and the
servers have no tools for
change and little access to public opinion. They lose by default,
having long since unwittingly
given away the positions of administrative power.
Reluctance
Misaligned entities are often reluctant to dissolve the arrangement.
There are perceived
or desired benefits that often motivate one or more of them to continue
the "trade-off".
Sometimes the benefit/cost ratio is large enough to seem to justify
continuing, and only
when the cost factor obviously exceeds the benefits will such people
finally give up the
ghost and move on. Sometimes it's just an assertiveness issue that
requires them to
continue to "throw good money after bad" in the desperate hope that it
will all somehow
work out or that they will eventually be vindicated or able to "fix"
each other.
Misalignment always costs more than it gives. But that is only an
obvious fact to those
who have finally come to understand the value (impact) of the stress,
restrained growth
and other intangibles involved. Those who look only at the tangible,
semi-tangible, and
immediate financial aspects of the "trade-off" usually never see what
they are losing.
Incredibly, one of those unexamined items is the astounding cost of
staff turnover.
Resolution
There are important benefits to handling misalignment, even when it
means the dissolution
of a heavily vested cooperative venture.
Benefits
The benefit that usually surprises everyone is that in most cases each
of the spun-off
restarts does better than everyone else expected.
For example, Joe and Jim realize that their "negligible" irreconcilable
differences really
are important, and they split up. Each is certain that the other can't
make it without him,
or that the other just can't make it. The less they know about
misalignment and the more
adversarial their recent relationship, the more they will believe this.
Later, when each
finds that both are doing better than before the split, they are
surprised.
The reason misalignment's spun-off restarts usually do better is that
each is now free of
all of the counter-intention and counteraction under which the previous
cooperative venture
had been laboring. Freed of all that excess baggage, they should do
better!
The greatest benefit to terminating misalignment (by either approach) is
the recovery of
integrity that goes with the cessation of concession and mutual subtle
abuse. Each
disentangled entity is no longer an accidental pretender and is free to
recover and declare
its own true vision and pursue it without arbitrary restraints.
Being yourself to the maximum possible in the moment and pursuing your
own vision are
definitely among the greatest of pleasures. Freeing yourself of
entangling alliances of
the misalignment kind is a big step in that direction.
Because alignment is so important to us, we must be certain that we do
not lose our quest
for it in denial when it is flawed or absent.
How
The resolution of misalignment is achieved primarily in either of two
ways. The first step in
both is to identify the fundamentals-level subtle disagreements. After
that, a new agreement,
approach and commitment to creating true alignment must be developed and
implemented.
When identification and agreement are not an option, the flawed alliance
must be suspended or
terminated.
A word of caution: people who don't understand misalignment often
compound the situation by
'agreeing to disagree' at the upsets level and then trying to carry on
as though it doesn't
matter, never clarifying the fundamental disagreements. But to do that
is to perpetuate an
unresolved counter-productive situation.
The Quest for Alignment
Obviously, real alignment goes beyond the usual simple agreement on
immediate purpose that
most people settle for. I hire you and agree to pay you; you come on
board and agree to
perform to my expectations. But what if I'm a letch and you don't want
to dress to gratify
my illicit eye? What if I make parts for bombers and you are a
peacenik? What if my operating
platform is benevolent commerce and yours is mercenarial mercantilism?
How can we accommodate the breadth of opportunity for misalignment? One
way is to list our
alignment factors and then live in terms of them. The list should be as
detailed as reality allows.
Alignment Constructs
The Alignment Construct is a template developed by the author to
identify and flesh out
the necessary alignment factors for a successful life or alliance.
Goals, purposes, and
principles are some of the elements covered by an Alignment Construct.
Of course, just listing alignment factors is not enough. One must keep
them perpetually
active in planning, management, and personnel interaction. For that
there is Affirmative
Direction, a personnel management method that keeps everyone focused on
the Alignment
Construct. Discipline can be replaced by reorientation. The intent of
Affirmative
Direction is to assist people to find their own reasons for doing their
necessary parts
while keeping those activities in pursuit of their own happiness and in
support of personal integrity.
Results
So what does alignment look like in practice? Everyone pursuing common
plans and actions
in a high spirit of co-operation with incredibly open communication and
discussion, without
internal competition.
If you don't see this in your group, look for misalignment.
-0-
--
|
Allen, Speaker -0- ASC Missions Group
spe...@asc.org | http://www.asc.org
"When the computers' clocks think it's
1900, it soon will be." --Gary North
Beth Guest
Peter wrote:
>
>>When some people join a group, they adopt the group's ideas or
>>philosophy. Some things appear or feel so completely true or right
>>that we *assume* or *know* that the rest is also valid, true or right
>>(without specifically evaluating them). In other words, we may "buy
>>the package".
>
>>
David wrote:
>
>I feel that an additional point is in order here.
>
>When one joins a group, one usually adopts the group's codes. (Reminicent of
>Pierre's post titled "Some ideas about group codes".)
>
>At the exact point of adopting the group's codes, one has most probably
>already compromised one's own integrity and reality. To the exact degree
>that your own codes do not precisely match the codes of the group, you have
>violated your personal integrity and set yourself up for compromises on your
>own reality.
True, but perhaps the benefits one could (theoretically at least) get
from the group might outweigh this compromise?
What if one is aware of the differences and simply takes what one can?
>
>It is only a matter of time before the group uses its codes to enforce its
>reality on you and get you to accept the group reality over your own.
Is this necessarily true? And if so isn't it a question of degree?
>When
>this does happen, you do not have a leg to stand on because you adopted
>their codes.
Not if you did what you recommend below surely. And even if you didn't
what's wrong with changing your mind?
>
>The proper action IMHO is to state the distinctive differences between your
>codes and those of the group right at the begining of the relationship.
Excellent idea.
>Of
>course in the CoS you are imediately assigned a condition of doubt and told
>to apply the doubt formula. Please take note of the fact that the doubt
>formula does not say anything about personal integrity or personal reality.
>The first part of the formula says "... , brushing aside all bias ...". Bias
>is defined in Webster's as mental leaning or inclination. This means that
>you *can not* use your own standards, codes or reality in doing the doubt
>formula. (You have already stated your *bias* toward your own integrity,
>codes, and reality. That is how you got to ethics in the first place.)
>
>Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Yes, but perhaps I'm over optimisitic. Does it have to be that way?
Isn't C of S an extreme example? Couldn't there be - OK theoretically at
least- a spiritual group "big" enough to incorporate many different
realities?
As a non sequiteur:
I'm reminded of one of the Marx Brothers comments about not wanting to
be part of a group that would consider having him as a member.
Stark
All of this applies quite well to marriages(and boyfriend/girlfriend type
relationships), and explains part of why they so often don't work out.
I once started seeing a woman, and after knowing each other a few weeks she
asked if I considered her my girlfriend. I said yes, and so we were
boyfriend and girlfriend.
So a few days later, we went out to eat at a restaurant and I split the
check with her, we each payed half. She got really angry about it
afterwards. Apparently her view of a boyfriend included the idea that he
would pay for her meals. That was not my view at all. And I realized that
in the future, before agreeing to be someone's boyfriend, I'd better
clarify exactly what that meant.
Stark
Xpolitic
Beth and CB Willis wrote:
>>David:
>>I feel that an additional point is in order here.
>>
>>When one joins a group, one usually adopts the group's codes. (Reminicent of
>>Pierre's post titled "Some ideas about group codes".)
>>
>>At the exact point of adopting the group's codes, one has most probably
>>already compromised one's own integrity and reality.
>CB Willis:
>Excellent observation, even if you agree in principle with the statements
>in the code.
Thank you.
It is easiest to compromise in those areas where you "agree in principle
with the statements in the code."
>>David:
>>To the exact degree
>>that your own codes do not precisely match the codes of the group, you have
>>violated your personal integrity and set yourself up for compromises on your
>>own reality.
>Beth:
>True, but perhaps the benefits one could (theoretically at least) get
>from the group might outweigh this compromise?
Never happen. Each and every compromise builds resentment and charge. The
resentment puts you at 1.2 or 1.1 on Hubbards tone scale and the charge will
blow you out of that space.
>Beth:
>What if one is aware of the differences and simply takes what one can?
Being aware of the differences is the key.
Standing your ground in the face of opposition is the road.
Taking what you can use is freedom. (Keep the exchange in.)
How many times did Hubbard say things to the effect of *Keep what you can
use and throw out the rest?*
>>David:
>>It is only a matter of time before the group uses its codes to enforce its
>>reality on you and get you to accept the group reality over your own.
>Beth:
>Is this necessarily true? And if so isn't it a question of degree?
Not in an absolute sense, but it is an extremely high probability in any
group where other members have already compromised.
Walk into any C of S and try to get any staff member to discuss what some
policy or tech writing means to them and they will most probably tell you
that you are asking for verbal tech and you should read the writings yourself.
They have compromised themselves and may not even know it. They have lost
the ability to express their opinions on Hubbards writings. Whether that
loss is out of fear or something else is irrelevent.
>>David:
>>When
>>this does happen, you do not have a leg to stand on because you adopted
>>their codes.
>Beth:
>Not if you did what you recommend below surely. And even if you didn't
>what's wrong with changing your mind?
See below.
>>david:
>>The proper action IMHO is to state the distinctive differences between your
>>codes and those of the group right at the begining of the relationship.
>Beth:
>Excellent idea.
Thank you.
>CB Willis:
>Where there are discernable differences, yes,right on. But many of the
>differences only show up later in relation to particular case situations
>and how these are interpreted by the individuals. Also who has more power
>in the situation (their interpretation is the one that will prevail
>officially), what are the unspoken games being played, the undiscussables,
>ego stuff, false ideas, false assumptions, misperceptions, etc.
When I first entered the C of S, I made it known that I always reserved the
right to determine what was right or wrong and that whenever there was a
conflict between the group's values and mine that mine were superior.
As you can imagine, I ended up in Ethics a few times. Most of them were
resolved by standing my ground and stuffing The Code of Honor number 6 in
their faces. "Never compromise with your own reality." Or simply asking "Are
you trying to get me to compromise my reality?"
When I was on staff in Las Vegas, I was highly commended three times for
being the most on policy staff member in the org. I was also accused of
using policy to stop policy a few times. Most of those were resolved by my
demanding to see the policy that authorized what I was not allowing.
>>David:
>>Of
>>course in the CoS you are imediately assigned a condition of doubt and told
>>to apply the doubt formula. Please take note of the fact that the doubt
>>formula does not say anything about personal integrity or personal reality.
>>The first part of the formula says "... , brushing aside all bias ...". Bias
>>is defined in Webster's as mental leaning or inclination. This means that
>>you *can not* use your own standards, codes or reality in doing the doubt
>>formula. (You have already stated your *bias* toward your own integrity,
>>codes, and reality. That is how you got to ethics in the first place.)
>>
>>Does this sound familiar to anyone?
>Beth:
>Yes, but perhaps I'm over optimisitic. Does it have to be that way?
No. See below.
>Beth:
>Isn't C of S an extreme example?
Not really. Almost every religion/group has some form of excommunication
and/or silent treatment that is used to bring errant members back in line.
What makes the C of S look so extreme is a combination of their lofty goals
and promises. *You can achieve personal freedom here and only here but you
must compromise your integrity and reality in order to be a part of this group.*
>Beth:
>Couldn't there be - OK theoretically at
>least- a spiritual group "big" enough to incorporate many different
>realities?
This is the primary reason behind the Non-indoctrination Policy of Acceptance.
Non-indoctrination Policy
"Free will, and the unquestioned right of every individual
to make personal choices, without duress from anyone, are
to be respected absolutely and honored above all purposes
whatsoever, whether a particular choice is fully informed
or not."
This policy is a guarantee and safeguard against violations of integrity and
reality.
As an end note, IMHO the best way to help an ex-(whatever) to overcome the
crash expierenced after a break is to have them spot instances of integrity
and reality violations.
You could use ARC straight-wire, correction lists, ARC break sessions, GPM
handling, and others. The end phenomenon would be: charge blown and the
realization of how they did it to themselves. I would do it 5 flows. No that
is not a typo. The fifth flow is the expectation of future violations.
It wouldn't hurt to have them do a comparison of their own codes and those
of the group they broke with. This could spill over into other groups,
relationships, jobs, and family to mention some.
Robert bob Hummels
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:25:02 -0400, you wrote:
>Sender: cle...@lightlink.com
>Received: from light.lightlink.com (light.lightlink.com [205.232.34.1])
> by hil-img-1.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.10) with ESMTP id OAA18816
> for <11346...@compuserve.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:24:45 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from light (server@localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by light.lightlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA24866;
> Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:21:16 -0400 (EDT)
>Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:21:16 -0400 (EDT)
>Message-Id: <353F85...@asc.org>
>Errors-To: ho...@lightlink.com
>Reply-To: spe...@asc.org
>Originator: cle...@lightlink.com
>Sender: cle...@lightlink.com
>Precedence: bulk
>From: Allen <spe...@asc.org>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <cle...@lightlink.com>
>Subject: Re: Yea though I walk through the valley of shadow of death...
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: CLEAR-L LIST
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
>C. B. Willis wrote:
>>
>> Xpolitic wrote:
>> : At the exact point of adopting the group's codes, one has most probably
>> : already compromised one's own integrity and reality.
>>
>> Excellent observation, even if you agree in principle with the statements
>> in the code.
>>
>> : To the exact degree
>> : that your own codes do not precisely match the codes of the group, you have
>> : violated your personal integrity and set yourself up for compromises on your
>> : own reality.
>>
>> : It is only a matter of time before the group uses its codes to enforce its
>> : reality on you and get you to accept the group reality over your own.
>>
>> Or you're considered a trouble source and they instinctively want to get
>> rid of you, usually with inadequate or inappropriate communication around
>> the subject, which causes a hell of a lot of confusion, hurt, and
>> unfinished karmic threads (mishandlings, attn hung out to dry, failed
>> purposes, wasted resources on all sides, etc).
>>
>> : The proper action IMHO is to state the distinctive differences between your
>> : codes and those of the group right at the begining of the relationship.
>>
>> Where there are discernable differences, yes,right on. But many of the
>> differences only show up later in relation to particular case situations
>> and how these are interpreted by the individuals. Also who has more power
>> in the situation (their interpretation is the one that will prevail
>> officially), what are the unspoken games being played, the undiscussables,
>> ego stuff, false ideas, false assumptions, misperceptions, etc.
>
>Hi,
>
>Excellent points, both of you!
>
>The following article is from the ASC/ Articulate Management, ntc., web
>page.
>
>There is more than just this information available to help. The
>Standings Procedures take all this into account, unlike the Conditions
>Formulas, which are slanteded to keep one in compliance with the group
>(command intention, for those of you who know what the Scn game really
>is!).
>
>
>Articulate Management
>Consulting to your vision!
A very good memo Allen!
I have seen this crop up in so many Government working groups you
would not believe it!
In these days of US Government overhead reduction, nearly everyone in
a working group to reduce overhead has so much of this hidden agenda
stuff ruinning in the background that the group rarely makes any
headway. In the end, all compromise, and the results are often much
worse than the original problem. Except at this point you have
reduced resources to where it is nearly impossible to handle the
results.
ARC,
bob
>
>Misalignment
>
>Memo by Allen Hacker
>
>Copyright © 1989-96
>by ASC Missions Group, ntc.
>
>
>Misalignment is the more common of the two major causes of strife within
>an organization.
>The other cause, relatively rare and not discussed in this article, is
>the pre-emptively
>defensive personality.
>
>Misalignment occurs when two or more entities try to mesh deceptively
>similar but
>essentially different visions into a cooperative venture without
>clarifying the subtle
>differences. With their subtle differences left unnoticed, the
>"overlaid" visions mask
>each other and compete within the minds of their originators without
>anyone realizing it.
>
>Each entity then proceeds as though its vision is the same as everyone
>else's. Inevitably,
>one of them will take a position or an action based on its private
>version and then find
>itself apparently the only sane person on the team as the other
>entity(ies) suddenly act
>like the action or position makes no sense.
>
Peter Graham
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 09:16:34, Beth Guest wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> Many thanks for your replies on this. When I originally posted I
> had
> some very helpful replies which resolved much, but I'm still
> learning,
> so yours is appreciated.
Hello, Beth. And thanks :-)
> >Many of us have had the same or a similar experience to the one you
>
> >described.
>
> I'd be interested to know how the transition went from CofS to life
> after C of S if any others would care to share. Successful actions?
It was a painful path for me. In addition to the loss of the game
(with no new game yet in sight), most of my work experience to that
time was as a CofS staff member (1966 to 1982 with some gaps here and
there). After nearly two years in NoWhereLand, I went to college for
three years full time and got a new profession.
Without a game, especially after being involved in what seemed to be a
very important and meaningful game, it can feel like there is no
future. The obvious answer is to find or create a new game or games
and get on with it/them.
For me, I went through a series of stages: For about two years
(84-86), I still thought of myself as "a scientologist" (as part of
"the independent movement"). Then, I shed that identity and became an
"ex-scnt" but I still thought of myself as "an auditor". By 1988, I
felt I had evolved beyond that and that the label "auditor" was no
longer appropriate. These changes in how I was defining myself were
important turning points for me and I found I was then able to look
forward rather than backwards. And ten years down the line, I still
find the clearing game very interesting and satisfying.
> (snip) One of the best answers concerning how to remain true to
> one's
> >integrity is to develop a strong sense of *certainty* regarding
> one's
> >own viewpoints.
>
> My problem is that my viewpoints have been and still are in a state
> of
> change.
OK. There is probably a lot of re-evaluating to do and that can take
time. And many of these evaluations many be incomplete. Most
evaluations are a process of continuous refinement over time (rather
than do it once and that's it). Some things are harder to evaluate
than others or would take time and resources that we may not have
right now.
The overall process can be greatly accelerated by selecting a topic
(such as scn or auditing or clearing or a sub-set of them that
interests you) and writing down all one's Considerations and Beliefs
concerning that topic (including anything you "know" to be true). This
can be very cognition producing and revealing. It helps if the beliefs
one writes down are identified as clearly or precisely as possible (or
at least, best wording for now). Much confusion can blow off while
doing this. If not certain, note down something like "maybe" or "poss"
or "prob" or similar next to it. Cross out any that you no longer
believe to be true and write down what you now believe to be true. If
needed, also write down your Assumptions and Expectations (which are
types of Beliefs that are easily overlooked). This can take hours.
> I don't know if this happened to anyone else but after the fact of
> leaving C of S I felt, and still feel to an extent, like a "clean
> page".
> Paradoxically I also feel more aware than for a very long time.
> My inclination is to sit in a corner and do one of the following:
>
> (snip)
> >By having a high degree of certainty,
>
> Maybe that will come. I just feel I'm "feeling" my way around a very
>
> new/old playground. I'm still
> looking/feeling/experiencing/discovering.
Good. It takes time and dedication to achieve a high degree of
certainty that is based on thorough and honest examinations and
evaluations.
> (snip)
> I agree with you that ultimately the only path that's correct for me
> is
> mine. But it wouldn't it be stupid in the extreme not to follow
> others
> who have valid paths to offer, for a time at least?
It would not be stupid to read or study other people's paths or even
to try them if they appeal to you, but (in my view) it is unwise to
accept anything as true or valid that you have not yourself
experienced or observed or can not experience or observe at this time.
I put things like that in the pending basket. If someone offers a pot
of gold at the end of a path, it makes sense to first evaluate the
path itself before rushing in and parting with your hard earned money.
Every path or system has its strengths and weaknesses but usually only
the strengths get promoted and only their best results get aired
(which may not necessarily be the norm or average result). One study
of a psychological treatment I read about, which claimed good results,
showed that there were indeed people who had benefited, but there was
an equal number who got worse plus others in between (from the book
"The Psychological Society" by M Cross).
My view is: Why believe anything that I myself have not evaluated? Up
to that time, they are not truths or facts, only possible or claimed
truths or facts or even assumed (for now) truths or facts. As far as
evaluations go, the buck should stop where you are! When you study
another's data, you are reading/hearing the results of their
evaluations.
> <snip data on evaluation>
>
> I can see the logic of applying logic (!) and all the other
> mechanisms
> you outlined but maybe it's a case thing, right now I can only *see*
>
> these bits:
Case phenomena can interfere with our evaluations and may push us
towards or away from certain ideas or conclusions or even prevent us
from doing an evaluation. Charge and fixed ideas in an area can
predispose us to view something a certain way. Knowing that may help
as one can recognize when it happens and make allowances for it. I
wish I had had a really good "scn repair program" soon after I left
the CofS. Alan Walter's Culture Deprogramming program may be just the
ticket.
As I see it, "excitement" is close to the ultimate motivator. When we
get really excited about something, practically nothing will stop us
(including past experience or common sense). Excitement can be a deep
message from a fundamental part of ourselves. It can also be a curse
that makes us sign a billion year contract or cut our ties with a
loved one. In other words, it can be a case thing that we have not
handled which makes us susceptible to someone with a path to sell. My
observation is that we tend to get excited about what might be
(possible results) rather than what is (the actual results). This is
an evaluation problem and a case problem.
> (snip)
>
> >One answer to this is to be aware
> >of this possibility and its consequences and for each of us to
> >gradually develop and refine our own belief systems and to not
> accept
> >someone else's belief system lock, stock and barrel. If we do not
> >learn that lesson, we are doomed to do to again and again until we
> do.
>
> Agreed. So I guess it's "follow" but keep checking that the 2 paths
> your and theirs, are "in tune".
> I wish I'd done that before...
> (The lie was that I didn't think I had to "this time" ie C of S. I
> just
> trusted more or less completely. How daft! I won't do that again.)
I know what you mean. It isn't that we should now become horribly
distrustful. It just means that we should get a balanced view by
evaluating things effectively. This includes playing the devil's
advocate with the ideas or claims presented to us as facts and looking
for inconsistencies (and not just consistencies).
This refers to consistencies and inconsistencies with our
observations, with our experiences, with reliable data we already hold
to be true, and with reasonable expectations, plus consistencies and
inconsistencies within the subject itself (such as contradictions and
other outpoints). This is all part of the evaluation process.
> >I am not against the idea of finding or using a guru or teacher to
> >present, stimulate or catalyze ideas or to gaining wisdom by
> reading
> >books written by them. However, the best answer in the long term is
> to
> >become one's own guru or teacher by learning to evaluate
> effectively.
>
> Ah but what about when you feel you are suddenly in a new world and
> there are others around who know a few paths/rules/things that you
> don't? Does that make a difference?
Not really, as we will continue to be confronted with new "better
paradigms" from time to time which comes from an expert or guru who
speaks with CERTAINTY. If we gradually develop phenomenal evaluation
skills and learn to think with those concepts, we can better deal with
such situations. Even then, it may be wise to take our time and move
forward little by little as we assess the validity of the various
claims and assertions.
Good luck!
Regards
Peter
Allen
Robert bob Hummels wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:25:02 -0400, Allen wrote:
...
> >The following article is from the ASC/ Articulate Management, ntc., web
> >page.
> >
> >There is more than just this information available to help. The
> >Standings Procedures take all this into account, unlike the Conditions
> >Formulas, which are slanteded to keep one in compliance with the group
> >(command intention, for those of you who know what the Scn game really
> >is!).
> >
> >
> >Articulate Management
> >Consulting to your vision!
>
> A very good memo Allen!
Thank you.
> I have seen this crop up in so many Government working groups you
> would not believe it!
I would! I was an officer of the Libertarian Party Nevada (state and
Clark County) for years. And later, on the Clark County, Nevada (Las
Vegas area) Republican Party Central Committee. And a candidate a
couple of time, state and federal levels.
I have seen the misalignment from the grass roots up.
That's how I came to truly understand that the peoblem is in the mindset
of the people. It's really all about Disorientation, as discussed in
the Lucidity article on the ASC web page.
Oh, yes, I was also in the Army in 1969. Now there was con flicted
conflict if anybody ever saw it anywhere.
>
> In these days of US Government overhead reduction, nearly everyone in
> a working group to reduce overhead has so much of this hidden agenda
> stuff ruinning in the background that the group rarely makes any
> headway. In the end, all compromise, and the results are often much
> worse than the original problem. Except at this point you have
> reduced resources to where it is nearly impossible to handle the
> results.
Gosh, Bob, that's got to be the most telling typo I've ever seen in my
life:
> hidden agenda
> stuff ruinning in the background
^^^^^^^^
!!!
Anyway, now we know WHY we don't get all the government we pay for! But
we're still grateful, I bet.
> >Misalignment
> >
> >Memo by Allen Hacker
-0-
--
Allen, Speaker | spe...@asc.org
ASC Missions Group -0- http://www.asc.org
Articulate Management | http://www.artman.com