KSW unindoc hat [reformatted]

71 views
Skip to first unread message

Reposter

unread,
Jun 14, 2001, 3:22:37 PM6/14/01
to
Reposted:


Title: KSW unindoc hat
Author: Greg <Greg_...@newsguy.com>
Date: 14 Jun 2001 10:47:18 -0700

Unindoctrination Hat Part I

As Scientologists we are indoctrinated to some extent. By this I mean that we
become less than adequately critical of Scientology and of LRH. And this is a
no-no. It violates study tech. More fundamentally, it contradicts a good deal
of basic Scientology philosophy, and it's from here that everything else is
built.

As a Scientologist, one has no business accepting *any* data without having
evaluated it thoroughly, critically, and entirely to one's satisfaction. Yet
we all end up doing exactly this. The only difference amongst us is that some
of us do it more or less than others.

The vast, vast majority of Scientology data is perfectly legitimate, if not
downright brilliant and extraordinary. The more Scientology one does, the more
clearly one understands this and the greater one's appreciation of LRH becomes.
But there is also data included in the subject and authored by LRH which is
simply false. I'm referring almost exclusively to what is actually a minuscule
portion of Scientology policy, and not to Scientology philosophy or the tech.
We'll look at an example in a moment.

If, as Scientologists, we were not indoctrinated to be less than adequately
critical, this false data would be known and clearly evident as such to all of
us.

If we're envisaging what the ideal scene might be here, we might ask the
question, "Who, if not a Scientologist, should be well aware of anything in
Scientology or about LRH which may be legitimately criticized?" Not exaggerated
or incorrectly evaluated as critics almost invariably do, but correctly
evaluated and criticized simply because it warrants criticism. The answer, of
course, is no one.

KSW 1. There are parts of this policy which make a great deal of sense, and this
is evident. But there are also some parts of it which are just false and make no
sense at all, and this is evident too.

Take a look at the following excerpt in a new unit of time. I'm going to add
some comments here and there to bring to your attention just some of the false
or questionable data included in it.

"In all the years I have been engaged in research I have
kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had
the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of
Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing
as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of
suggestions (less than twenty) had long run value and none
were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic
suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented
and eventually had to 'eat crow'."

I don't actually know how true any of this may or may not be, as I don't have
all of the data concerning suggestions others made. The point here is that
probably no one knew this other than LRH.

That individuals, not groups, evolve truth is, I'd say, evident. This does not
mean, however, that only one person in any given group or only one person on an
entire planet is capable of evolving truth.

LRH took the opportunity on a number of occasions in the early fifties to
acknowledge the "thinking men" who came before. He acknowledged that he owed
much to them. They too had evolved truth. Amongst these were Sigmund Freud,
who made real the concept of resolving problems in the present by locating and
re-examining traumas in the past.

Why LRH later stopped acknowledging others is a legitimate question to ask.
Why he went on later to attack Freud viciously and to thoroughly invalidate
his work - about the best he goes on to say about him is that he was a cocaine
addict - this is a good question to ask too.

"On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands
of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted
upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of
all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what
a group of people will do and how insane they will go in
accepting unworkable "technology". By actual record the
percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of
human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good
technology. As we could have gotten along without
suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to
continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will,
of course, be attacked as 'unpopular' 'egotistical' and
'undemocratic'. It very well may be. But it is also a
survival point. And I don't see that popular measures, self-
abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push
him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorse de-
graded novels, self- abnegation has filled the South East
Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has
given us inflation and income tax."

Neither you nor I are familiar, of course, with the "actual record" to which
he refers, and one might legitimately wonder whether any such record exists.

Let's look at the numbers ourselves to see what we're looking at here. Let's
just imagine any old group. And let's give its members as much time as they
need to dream up 100,000 ideas which are to be applied to technology. 20 of
these ideas will be okay at least insofar as they wouldn't destroy good
technology. Some of them would be the ones that actually resulted in new and
good technology or which would improve already existing and good technology.
And 99,980 of them would destroy what good technology this group already
had.

A few hours ago I visited my computer manufacturer's website to check out their
latest computers. Then I took a quick look at some of IBM's. I know that both of
these companies have more than one person dreaming up technology; they have
quite a few. I imagine as well that if these people had been dreaming up 20 good
ideas and 99,980 that would destroy what good technology they already had -
well, I don't think I'd have been able even to access their sites. Do you?

Do you know of any group yourself, large or small, with such percentages? I
don't.

The data is not just obviously false. It's obvious that it's ridiculously false.

If it were even remotely, remotely, remotely true, we wouldn't all still be
living in caves, we'd have long ago destroyed all caves and become extinct.

Okay, just one more observation about this paragraph. Democracy. That democracy
has given us inflation and income tax is false. There are a number of causes of
inflation; none of them have anything to do with democracy. Just look at
countries which have not been or are not now democracies and you'll see no lack
of inflation. Same goes for income tax or, for that matter, unjust taxes of any
kind.

That democracy has pushed Man further into the mud is false. Once can select
just about any democracy and take a look at what has happened in it for however
long it has been a democracy. In almost all cases one sees that these countries
have become more and more democratic as time has gone by and that the people
living in them have not been pushed further into the mud, but that their overall
condition has risen and continues to rise.

Modern democracies are not all fun and games and ideal scenes all over the
place. Neither can we assign the progress of the 20th century to democracy as
though nothing else had gone on. But here we're viewing trends over long periods
of time. And I should think that if democracy were so bad, and if countries have
become more and more democratic as they have in the last century, we wouldn't
have experienced the almost incredible progress we have.

These three false data about democracy (inflation, income tax, mud) are, in
fact, just as ridiculously false as the "actual record."

"Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if
the group had no supported me in many ways I could not have
discovered it either. But it remains that in its formative
stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts,
one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully
alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is
done."

The false datum here is his conclusion that group efforts will not add to
Scientology or successfully alter it. To state that "in its formative stages
it was not discovered by a group" is fine. But this is hardly a datum from
which one can then go on to conclude anything at all. And especially in view
of the fact that the group we're discussing is composed of individual
Scientologists who are supposed to be able for starters and who are then
supposed to become more and more able all the time.

"There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination
of what has been done, which will be valuable only so long
as it does not seek to alter basic principles and
successful applications".

In other words, the rest of us are up to nothing better than keeping score.
And this only so long as any score-keeping doesn't affect basic principles,
which is fine, or "successful applications," which is actually not fine if now,
nearly fifteen years after LRH's death, someone discovers a "successful
application" is not actually successful at all. Some of the policy off which
the GO operated and OSA continues to operate, for example, is not successful
in the least, but we'll get to this stuff later.

"The contributions that were worth while in this period of
forming the technology were help in the form of friendship,
of defense, of organization, of dissemination, of
application, of advices on results and of finance. These
were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated.
Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we
are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the
broad picture."

Once more, this doesn't mean that "discovery contribution" could not be part
of the broad picture. He has given no legitimate reason, nor does he in the
rest of this issue, to validate such a conclusion. And many of the reasons he
does give are false.

"We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came
to rise above the bank".

This is actually my "favorite" in the entire issue. One is meant by this point
to be in awe of LRH. Now, a certain amount of awe is fine. It's due him. No
problem here. But anything can be exaggerated, including awe. And it's the
exaggeration here which creates another false datum. And it's not just a bit
of exaggeration; it's a whole hell of a lot of exaggeration.

I don't know about you, but when I used to read this, I'd sit there and wonder,
in awe, just how he *did* come "to rise above the bank"? I didn't wonder long,
though, because he leads one to believe that even speculating about it would be
a waste of time. Why? Well, it's obvious: I'm some sort of second-rate thetan
who's not up to comprehending something like this. So, I'd leave the concept
sitting there as a great and profound mystery - to be resolved some day.

But guess what? There's no great and profound mystery. There's not even a minor
and shallow mystery. There's no mystery at all. What does "rise above the bank"
actually mean? Well, it doesn't mean anything different than what any of us does
when any of us rises above the bank. I rise above the bank at least a few times
a day. I'm sure you do too. Just as I'm sure just about everyone else does. If
we didn't, we'd be back to the no-more-caves, now-we're-extinct scenario.

This statement is actually nothing more than a mystery sandwich designed to
inspire more awe and to establish more distance between himself and the rest
of us. So, fine, let's say there's some distance. Let's say there's lots of
distance. But just how much distance is there supposed to be here?

And how does it compare to other statements he made which are along the lines
of, "If I can do it, I figure you can too." Which statements seem to be
considerably saner to me.

Nope, the "rise above the bank" bit is just another take on the basic concept
of this issue which is, essentially, that compared to LRH, the rest of us are,
more or less, just walk-on parts, supporting actors, bit players, or in his
words, coordinators, tabulators, friends who helped out with financial
contributions, etc.. Little guys. Runts. Compared to the incomparable Source.

And not just now, but for goodness knows how long, and at least until he
cancels or revises the issue himself, as per policy no one else can cancel or
revise LRH issues except LRH.

As I mentioned a moment ago, I consider LRH is rightfully due considerable awe.
Lots of considerable awe. Whole lots of considerable awe. But I also consider
that he went way out of his way in this issue to assign himself considerably
more awe than is his due. This is what I mean by exaggeration. And an
exaggeration is a false datum.

"We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact-the
group left to its own devices would not have evolved
Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called
'new ideas' would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the
fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental
technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he
did evolve-psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock
treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc., ad infinitum".

Most of the above is either false or mere assumption or just meaningless.
An example of the last is also the most interesting bit: that Man has never
before evolved workable mental technology. This is also false, as there was
*some* workable technology before, and there's also been *some* workable
technology since, and which isn't Scientology. But mostly it's just meaningless.
Before Scientology there was certainly little workable mental technology.
And there's certainly nothing else around - zip - to compare to it even vaguely
today. But, hey, until a couple of centuries ago, Man hadn't developed
industrial technology to amount to much, either. And until just a few decades
ago, Man was still using slide rules to speed up calculations and hadn't even
dreamed of computers.

Now, the idea here isn't to compare Scientology to computers. Nor is it to take
anything away from what LRH did discover or any of the truly amazing tech he
developed. The idea is just not to exaggerate. Because *any* exaggeration is
false.

The idea, then, is to correctly evaluate things and to arrive at a correct
estimation.

How far would he have gotten, for example, without the e-meter? He didn't
develop it, Volney Mathison did. And Volney wouldn't have developed it if a
whole lot of people hadn't developed a whole lot of things first.

How soon would LRH have even gotten off the ground if it hadn't been for Freud
popularizing some of the basic concepts of psychoanalysis in the late 19th and
early 20th century?

In other words, are we to understand that LRH descended from Heaven, "rose
above the bank," and developed something that no one else can touch for fear
of destroying it at the odds of 100,000 to 20?

Or are we to understand that as extraordinary as was, and as remains, what he
did, perhaps it was also about time that something like Scientology was
developed?

And perhaps it's also about time that the Church of Scientology organized things
such that at least some of its more questionable policy were actually evaluated
against the effects it actually creates.

I chose KSW 1 because *some* of the data in it is at the heart of what I
consider are the very few things wrong with Scientology.

I also chose it because it is at the same time at the heart of the
indoctrination Scientologists receive and which is subsequently drummed into
them, over and over again, and enforced at *all* costs.

There isn't anything more sacred in Scientology than KSW 1.

Which is absolutely batty when we realize that it's not the Scientology Axioms,
it's not the Dianetic Axioms, it's not fundamental philosophy or tech of any
kind. It's just a flipping policy letter with some perfectly correct data and
some perfectly false data, the latter of which are entirely in conflict with ...
some of the Scientology Axioms, some of the Dianetic Axioms, and some of the
fundamental philosophy and tech of Scientology and Dianetics.

Okay, let's get to the fact that all Scientologists end up with a button on
LRH. How can a Scientologist not develop such a button when he's so thoroughly
indoctrinated to have an *exaggerated* opinion of LRH?

Now, this wouldn't be so bad if we were talking about Bill Gates and Microsoft.
Bill might indoctrinate Microsoft staff to have an exaggerated opinion of him.
He could way exaggerate it. But however way he exaggerated it, we'd still be
looking at Bill Gates and Microsoft, and very few people would be *that*
impressed.

Instead we're looking here at LRH and Scientology. And this complicates things
considerably. It was entirely unnecessary for LRH to exaggerate his
accomplishments at all at all at all. They were already huge. So, what happens
if we exaggerate something which is already huge, and exaggerate it not just a
little but a whole hell of a lot? Well, we get something far too exaggerated
than is going to be good for anyone's health.

This is why Scientologists end up with a button on LRH. Our estimation of him
becomes way exaggerated. He goes up on a pedestal. Most Scientologists consider
that he could do no harm. That he was perfect or as good as. It becomes an overt
or a nasty of some other kind to even have a critical thought about him. And all
of this is part of the indoctrination too.

As we know, Scientologists are sheltered from "entheta," and especially entheta
about LRH. When not sheltered, they're discouraged from having any contact with
it. And if that isn't enough, there are policies which also forbid contact with
the sources of "entheta" SP's. All of this is part of the indoctrination too.

I'm not interested in promoting entheta. But if there are critical facts to be
known, why doesn't each and every Scientologist learn about these sooner or
later? Instead there is really no one more ignorant of Scientology's or LRH's
outpoints than Scientologists.

Okay, one last thing here. Why is it not just a good idea but actually
indispensable to discover what, if anything, may have been not quite right with
LRH?

If he had some aberrations, if these remained unhandled right up to his death,
but if these aberrations *did not* end up in Scientology materials, then they
could be considered little or nothing more than historical data. If, on the
other hand, any such aberrations did work their way into Scientology materials,
then it would be more than useful to know what these aberrations were.

This is why I've read several entheta biographies. It's why I've read all sorts
of other stuff about LRH too. Almost all of this material is packed with its own
false data, exaggerations, incorrect evaluations, and god knows what else. So,
one needs to evaluate things correctly and one needs as well to exercise one's
capacity to leave a lot of this data in "suspended animation" - if it's not
possible to evaluate it correctly because one isn't able to verify the data, or
because there's omitted data, or whatever, don't try to draw conclusions from
it; just park it for the time being - without getting bent out of shape, way
arc broken, disaffected, or whatever.

What happens with too many Scientologists when they finally do decide to look at
some of this stuff is that they do not correctly evaluate some of it or a lot of
it, but draw conclusions from it anyway, and so end up getting bent out of
shape, etc..

The good news is that there is *no* reason *anyone* cannot correctly evaluate,
or temporarily leave unevaluated, any of this data. This may be harder for some
than for others, but that's all.


Unindoctrination Hat Part II

Some Scientologists fail to correctly evaluate some things. The result is that
instead of becoming better, more aware, more responsible Scientologists, they
become disaffected.

Some become disaffected to the point of becoming ex-Scientologists. Some just
go into apathy on the subject. I imagine there are all sorts of gradients and
manners of disaffection.

I consider any degree at all of disaffection to be an outpoint. This doesn't
mean that when one finds out something about LRH or OSA or whatever, that one
can't get annoyed or very, very annoyed, or arc broken, or anything else.
Responses such as these are often pluspoints, of course, as they're
understandable, rational responses to the surprises one experiences.

If, however, and after one has had some time to cool off and reason things out,
one also leaves oneself with arc breaks, HE&R of some kind or other, motivators,
etc. - I consider any and all such things to be outpoints. There's just no
reason for these things to *persist*. One should be able to get through such
stuff and out the other end.

After having re-evaluated all sorts of things myself, I don't, for example, have
less arc for LRH. As he observed, understanding is composed of a, r, and c. So,
I now have greater arc and greater understanding of him. I no longer have some
of the awe I had before, but that's cool because it was misplaced to begin with.
I no longer have some of the awed considerations I had before, but this is cool
because they were misplaced too.

What I have now is a far more accurate appreciation of the man. And it *is*
appreciation. A lot of it. In fact a whole heck of a lot of it. All that's gone
is stuff that shouldn't have been there in the first place. The result is that
I have far more *actual and genuine* understanding and appreciation.

This is what I consider any Scientologist should end up with after re-evaluating
some things. If they end up with something else, I can only conclude that it's
because they've managed to accomplish a good deal of misevaluation instead of
evaluation.

Instead, and as mentioned above, all Scientologists should become better, more
aware, more responsible Scientologists.

RE: The Veritas Site.

It's a games condition. When you're interested, do a search for "The McDonald
Papers." Mid-nineties, if I recall correctly; a small group of well
indoctrinated Scientologists led by Randy McDonald go into a games condition
with management, as it has begun issuing SPD's which oblige Scientologists to
pay all of their taxes. This was after the "war" with the IRS was ended.

Many or most or all of them were eventually declared. They have remained
thoroughly indoctrinated. They were and remain conspiracy-theorists.

They've done a lot of invest into the corporate structure of the Church of
Scientology and they have published documents which show that the CST, I think
it is (Church of Spiritual Technology), owns the copyrights and trademarks.
Also that Meade Emory, ex-Assistant Commissioner of the IRS, I think he was,
is a member of the board of directors. And there's other stuff I've forgotten.
Their conspiracy theory insists that Scientology was taken over by the IRS or
god knows who; that LRH was drugged/controlled/whatever in his later years; and
that Miscavige is just a pawn of those who are actually in charge.

As even some of the less intelligent people on ars have pointed out, whatever
the legal papers may say, it is naïve to think that they are more than legal
papers or that anyone other than Miscavige is actually running things. But the
Veritas (Latin for *truth*) crowd (Randy and co.) are too stuck in their games
condition to understand this.

"The McDonald Papers" give the history of the genesis of this scene. And if I
were writing a checksheet to train people on the subject of games conditions,
I'd consider including them in the theory section.

RE: The criminal time track which has been under constant construction for a
year or two

The gist of it is that management has been squirreling the tech and screwing
up other things as well, so management are the bad guys. A similar take as
Virginia's with the "squirrel sec checks" on OT VII.

What these fellows and the Veritas people keep missing, because they just won't
confront it, is that although management is screwing up some things, they are
not the primary Who. LRH is the primary Who. Most of management's screw-ups are
nothing more than their attempts to apply various LRH policies and programs and
orders and advices and who knows what else.

Now, if you've been management for nearly twenty years, and if you just keep
making the same kind of screw-up over and over again in the name of Keeping
Scientology Working, well, this isn't too bright, either, and it makes these
people whos too. But if all of the management were replaced and no policy
cancelled/revised, we'd just have other people committing and then repeating
the same screw-ups over and over again.

Who are the good guys?

An area you'll have fun re-evaluating is PTS/SP philosophy. LRH developed some
spot-on philosophy and some absolutely amazing tech. The Suppressed Person R/D,
for example, is exactly what he wrote it was: magic.

I'd add, though, that some parts of the philosophy could be far better
researched. In other words, and as just one example, I don't know that I'd be
so quick to label some people SP's or PTS's.

Most Scientologists, for example, would consider many or most of the critics
on ars to be SP's just because they're publicly criticizing/attacking
Scientology. Well, things aren't quite this simple.

What is true is that ars critics, virtually without exception, have Scientology
and LRH misevaluated big time. They've got *some* of the criticism right, but
the rest of the criticism and everything else wrong. But this doesn't make them
SP's either.

I think the biggest problem with critics of Scientology is that it's impossible
to be a good one without understanding Scientology very well, and none of these
people do. Even the ex's we read on ars end up screwing up much of whatever
understanding they did have as part of the "way bad reaction" they experience
becoming ex's.

All of these people experience overwhelm. The only difference is one of degree.
Their stable data go for a loop, and they don't handle the resultant confusions
as well as they otherwise might. As mentioned, some stable data need to go;
others need to be revised; some old ones might be rehabed; and some new ones
probably need to be formulated and adopted. These people get some or a lot of
this wrong. They don't dump some of their stable data that needs dumping; they
do dump some that shouldn't be dumped; god knows what some of them rehab; and
they may be less than adequately intelligent now and then in formulating and
adopting new ones. From what I've seen, many of them readopt old ones; sometimes
these even include real winners like, "I think with my brain."

So, we have an extraordinarily weird scene overall, actually. Critics who aren't
particularly good critics; Scientologists who don't know there's anything major
to fix in Scientology, let alone what it might be; and a very few Scientologists
who do have a good estimation of what's wrong, but who can't speak freely
because if they did, they'd be declared - for starters. LOL

Another thing that contributes to making this such a weird scene is that even
when a critic gets some criticism right, instead of being given an
acknowledgment or a "Hmm, I hope you're wrong, but we're going to look into
this," he's roundly ignored. Unless he persists with his criticism, in which
case he may end up being investigated by private investigators. LOL

In other words, the criticism scene is, and has always been, considerably more
weird than it has any business being. The why and the who, however, are not
critics. The why is some of the policy concerning criticism of Scientology and
LRH. The who is LRH.

:2. Do you think it can in fact be changed from within?

What I'm entirely certain about is that things can and will be sorted out. How
and how long it might take - this is perhaps what makes this scene more
interesting than anything else.

I'm thrilled, actually, that ars and activities connected to it are an element
of the scene. Regardless of how bad some of the criticism is, Scientology needs
external criticism. Any criticism would be better than none. Fortunately some of
the criticism is quite good. Chris Owen's research into LRH's actual military
record is an example.

The most important thing about ars and the rest of the critical stuff on the
Net is that it's there. It's just a matter of time before more and more
Scientologists get into it. Some of them will become disaffected and blow, just
as some already have. Others will be more responsible. Slowly but surely, the
Scientology indoctrination will become real as such to more and more
Scientologists. If nothing else has a big impact first, such as Miscavige
having a few cognitions, more and more Scientologists unindoctrinating
themselves certainly will.

So, while there are aspects of this scene which can justly be considered
serious, seriousness can be overdone. Part of the Scientology indoctrination,
in fact, results in Scientologists taking Scientology and life way too
seriously. Rather than the exaggerated seriousness heaped onto both of these in
KSW 1 (another and big false datum), there are tons of LRH references along the
lines of "seriousness equals mass" and "life is a game," and it is these which
are quite true and sane.

Unindoctrination Hat part III

Along with the DS ( data series), a working knowledge of games conditions is
something else I consider vital to understand this scene or, for that matter,
a great many other scenes.

I ended up studying this subject extensively over ten years ago when I decided
to do some "serious" evaluation of an area and realized in the middle of this
that a games condition was at the bottom of any real difficulty I'd ever had.
I went on from there to take my games condition apart, which was fascinating.

It's a term some of us use now and then, and with at least some concept of what
it is, but I discovered when I began to actually study it that I wasn't the only
Scientologist whose knowledge of the phenomenon was partial at best.

LRH's first, and some of his best, work on it was in the mid-fifties. He takes
it up very briefly at one point during the BC, but then drops the term
altogether. What he didn't drop was research into the aberrations that make up
a games condition.

With a bit of cross-referencing of definitions of several Scientology terms, it
becomes clear that a games condition is made up of service facs, false purposes,
and other irrational considerations; these last just don't have a specific
technical term in Scientology like the other two do. All of them, however, are
simply irrational considerations.

It's with an understanding of games conditions that one is able to envisage more
accurately and more realistically - or often to envisage at all - what is the
actual ideal scene for an activity. This is the case because an essential
component of any ideal scene is pan-determinism.

I imagine you have some familiarity with the short scale that goes up from
other-determinism, through self-determinism, and up to pan-determinism. None
of these conditions is a point; they are bands. In other words, there are many
gradients of each of these conditions.

There are also many gradients of ideal in any ideal scene. For a scene to be
ideal at all, however, it must be at least on the bottom rungs of the
pan-determinism band. Anything short of this isn't really an ideal scene. A
knowledge of games conditions comes in handy because they're what prevent ideal
scenes from being achieved or maintained.

A person in a games condition is convinced that he's acting in a pan-determined
or at least a self-determined manner. What he fails to recognize is that despite
how determined he may be, and despite how much he may be convinced that he is
being rational, all or much or just some of his thinking and decisions and
actions are not rational at all. So, instead of someone who’s at least
self-determined, let alone pan-determined, we have someone who is other-
determined by his own irrational considerations.

Example. Richard says, "I take a great deal of responsibility for Ralph. And
I’m willing to take even more responsibility for Ralph. But if Ralph does ____,
well, that would be too much. There are limits to how much responsibility I
should take for Ralph."

This may look quite rational. It is not.

If the last sentence were to read, "There are definite limits to how much
responsibility I *will* take for Ralph," and if Richard’s reasoning about this
were rational, then it would be a rational consideration. Instead Richard’s
consideration is that there are limits to how much responsibility he *should*
take for Ralph. There are no such limits. Richard is free to take however much,
or however little, responsibility he likes. It is his choice to make, and no
one else’s. He accomplishes only one thing with his first consideration, and
that is to limit his freedom of choice. In so doing, he creates a trap for
himself.

What may happen as a result of this?

When Ralph does ____, Richard may find himself, sooner or later, sitting with
the consideration that he should not take responsibility for Ralph in this
instance. If he "agrees with himself" — he would merely be agreeing to maintain
the irrational consideration he had formed earlier — he will not take
responsibility for Ralph. What may be the consequences of this?

There might be no particular consequences. Or there might be ill consequences
for Ralph. Or there might be ill consequences for Richard. Or there might be
ill consequences for Ralph and Richard. Or there might be ill consequences for
someone else. Or there might be ill consequences for Ralph and for Richard and
for someone else.

We might see any of the consequences even if Richard had not had his *should*
consideration in place, but had decided that he simply did not *want* to take
responsibility for Ralph when he did ____. The difference here is that Richard
would have expressed a free choice based on whatever reasoning he might have
done at the time. With his *should* consideration left in place, however,
Richard is locked into taking no responsibility for Ralph because he considers
he should not.

In other words, there may be ill consequences in both scenarios. But in the
first we have Richard trapped by his irrational consideration and limited,
therefore, in his capacity to reason, to decide, and to act. In the second
scenario we have him free to make choices based on whatever reasoning he may
summon to the occasion. It is obvious which one is likely to result in more
desired, and fewer undersired, consequences.

A person is a games condition is convinced that he is acting entirely rational
or at least adequately rational to the task at hand. He is also convinced that
he is being pan-determined or at least self-determined, and in some respects
he very well may be. What he doesn’t understand is that he is also other-
determined, to a greater or lesser extent, by irrational considerations. Until
he does, these irrational considerations will remain unrecognized as such. And
when he dramatizes them, he will undo or undermine whatever else he may be
accomplishing.

We're all pan-determined in some areas or on some occasions or under certain
circumstances. Where we tend to have any real difficulty is in areas where being
stably pan-determined is essential, but where instead we're chronically in, or
too frequently drop into, a games condition.

The anatomy of a games condition is not difficult to understand. It just takes
some study of a dozen or so technical terms and putting them together to see how
they might add up.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages