KSW unindoc hat

34 views
Skip to first unread message

Free

unread,
Apr 15, 2001, 10:40:06 PM4/15/01
to
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 degraded 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.

dornford

unread,
Apr 16, 2001, 1:20:08 AM4/16/01
to
A brilliant post, Free.

The Pilot pointed out that KSW was written in the mid 60's, and virtually
all of the then tech was replaced by LRH over the next few years.

I'm going to leave your post below this, as it deserves to be seen by as
many people as possible.

dornford


"Free" <Free_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9bdm2...@drn.newsguy.com...

> "agrees with himself" - he would merely be agreeing to maintain the
irrational
> consideration he had formed earlier - he will not take responsibility for

Public <Anonymous_Account>

unread,
Apr 16, 2001, 10:49:05 AM4/16/01
to
On 15 Apr 2001, Free_...@newsguy.com wrote:


(Reformatted for readability)


Unindoctrination Hat Part I

Take a look at the following excerpts 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 them.

is also a survival point. And I don't see that popular measures, self-

not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But

forbid contact with the sources of "entheta," "SP's." All of this is part
of the indoctrination too.

Unindoctrination Hat Part II


RE: The Veritas Site.


Unindoctrination Hat part III

Along with the DS (Data Series), a working knowledge of games conditions is

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 these 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 understand this, these irrational

Michael Hunsaker

unread,
Apr 16, 2001, 10:17:51 PM4/16/01
to Free
I think the below should be seen by as many people as possible. With your
permission I would like to post it on FZA.

Mike

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages