6406C30 SHSpec-25 Cause Level, OT, and the Public
What is wrong with you is this: You are so bird-dogged onto the glories
of OT that you are going to leave the rest of the world suspended between the
lower rung of OT and the ground. The bottom rung of OT does not sit on the
ground. There is a large gap. So there has to be another ladder there. The
lower ladder could be called "cause level". [See Fig. 267 A person can't
vanquish the sun and stars who is having a Hell of a time with his wife.
FIGURE 26: CAUSE LEVEL AND THE LADDER TO OT
[GRAPHICS INSERTED]
We have had the definition of causativeness for a long time. "If you
could imagine an expansion of reach from an inverse self -- a not-imagined,
unbelieved self, which he can't reach, because it ain't, because he doesn't
know, he actually sort of has to reach in, in order to reach out -- if you can
imagine a reach that is this confused, that a person doesn't even know which
direction to go to get it, you've got Level O" and 99% of the human beings on
the planet.
They are following the Pied Piper of science. The blind alley of science
is that Man is intelligent meat, a machine. This leaves out the being
himself. According to this view, Man is a thinking brain nothing more. There
are two kinds of sciences:
1. Classification, or naming things.
2. Extrapolative: a science that derives answers.
Modern science is just a classification science. E.g. biology is nothing but
classification. It doesn't let you learn anything. To modern science, the
science of Man is just another classification science. "When they don't know
anything, they name everything.... If you don't know the right name for the
non-existent parts of the brain, then you know nothing about the mind." They
go on the basis that Man never creates. They try to understand the mind on
the basis of the law of conservation of energy, i.e. that nothing is ever
created or destroyed. From that viewpoint, Man doesn't make any sense."
Something would have to be done to him before he could do anything to anybody
else." This isn't true, so neither is stimulus/response theory. Since Man
isn't really understandable on the basis of his never creating, the
stimulus/response mechanism is likewise untrue.
After making wrong assumptions about the mind, modern science can't
understand it, so they sweep it aside as an incomprehensible subject: the
humanities. So we just classify and appoint authorities is it and say that it
is an unworkable field.
Then the scientologist comes along and says, "Heresy: Man is not a
machine. He's a thetan, a being!" 'We've taken that as our basic ...
assumption, because we can demonstrate it." This violates the idea that the
scientist has that nothing is ever created or destroyed. The fact is,
however, that Man mocks up his own mind. This disagrees with the law of
conservation of energy. When you say, "mind", the scientist receives,
"brain". When you say that you can run out a troublesome part of the mind, he
thinks that it would be easier to cut out part of the brain. He has already
accepted two falsehoods:
1. Man is a machine.
2. Man never creates anything.
You can prove the scientist wrong by getting a result on a preclear.
That is a difference between us and the humanities. Form is more important to
the non-scientologist than the result. "They have no end results, so they've
begun to believe there are no end results in the field of the mind.... You
... say, 'An end result can occur in the field of the mind.... You have to
follow ... a very exact discipline to get this end result,' and they don't
believe that." The end result is more important to us than how you arrive at
it. They lost interest in end results because they couldn't produce any.
They couldn't produce any end results because they couldn't accept these basic
premises:
1. Man is a being independent of his body.
2. He is capable of creating his private universe, including his mind,
complete with mass and spaces.
We cure a leukemia case, and the doctors say, "They couldn't have! It must
have been misdiagnosed in the first place." You ask, "Why couldn't he have
had leukemia?", and the answer is, "He couldn't have had it, because it is
incurable." I.e. leukemia is incurable, by definition. They are trying to
protect authority in an unworkable rationale that they themselves, down deep,
know has failed. Their question is, "How long can we put up the big bluff?"
All analysts know that they aren't getting results.
To get workable results, one must accept two things:
1. A being is an independent thing that can exist independent of a
body.
2. A being is capable of auto-creation, all by his lonesome. By doing
this, he builds a mind.
A person's own universe, or his bank, is not stuck in his skull but is
plastered all over the physical universe.
The "scientific" premises about the origin of Man require at least as
much assumption as our premises about Man's nature. The "life springing from
an electrified sea of ammonia" bit is at least as bizarre as the Virgin Mary
story. Science starts assuming that Man is an inflow mechanism. The reverse
is actually true. The former assumption won't cure anyone. The latter
assumption will, always. If you want to help a man, don't get him to inflow.
Get him to outflow. That is why scientists cannot make Man well or solve the
problems of the mind.
Man is actually an outflow mechanism. You solve his problems on the
basis of outflow. If you want to prove this, watch what happens if you run
someone on an inflow, e.g. "Think of a motivator." This will give you a high
stuck TA and a PC who feels worse and worse, sicker and sicker, fuzzy and
foggy, etc. Actually, Man's basic action is outflowing, and his basic error
was an outflow. He is restraining himself from outflow because of his
experience of causing bad outflows. He learned not to outflow, so he decided
to inflow only. Then he thought he could only inflow. Then he caved in. We
get an end result by operating on this assumption. We rehab the ability to
outflow and win. However, society and religion train people to operate on
this reverse basis. We are really in the line of religion, rather than
science, if "science, means "conservation of energy". Science has only
recently, i.e. in the past hundred years, presumed to have anything to do
with the field of the mind. In space-opera, of course, science took over the
mind, but without comprehension, so you got oddball damaging actions.
However, space-opera science was capable of more damage than modern science.
Our assumptions about the nature of Man are violently opposed to the
assumptions of science.
That is the first ladder that you have to jump with people. They have to
get past the current belief that if you stuff something in the body, something
beneficial will occur.
This is something that has confronted us in the past few weeks wi h
violence. Practically no one comes to St. Hill who is low on causativeness,
since it takes outflow and causativeness to get here. Out in central
organizations or in the world at large, you run into more non-communication
than is comfortable. If you flee the non-scientology world after standing it
for just so long, "it's the level of causation that gets [on] your nerves. It
isn't that they don't talk your language. It's their non-communication. It's
the fact that they don't seem to connect with anything." People have to be
gotten up to recognition of the world around them. Total introversion has to
be changed to slight extroversion before there is any way that they can as-is
items. A guy can't go OT until he has been gotten out of his total
introversion. The grades enable the individual to break through to the
environment. They get a person reaching, causative to a degree, extroverted,
and able to as-is. A person has to be able to cause, slightly at least,
before he can as-is something. When a person can't as-is the bank, he is the
effect of it. A small percentage of the Level IV co-auditors were Type B when
they started. They weren't really low on cause, but only when they were spot-on on the exact item with all ruds in could they as-is it. These were people who had had a fair amount of auditing. If you put a green PC into a GPM, even spot-on, he would do nothing to the GPM. The GPM would make him sick. You can take a Type A PC, who can usually as-is anything, and, if he is underfed, run down, or underslept, so that his body is soaking up energy, he will run poorly, with a
packed-up meter.
If someone can't as-is his personal problems, he won't be able to as-is a
GPM. This barriered a lovely idea that LRH had, which only works on him. If
he finds himself thinking too hard about something, he can always skip down
through the end-words and pick out the one that has gotten into restimulation,
and let it blow down . This is a bit heroic: He thought that you could just
take someone at Level IV and assess the end words, but you can't. The meter
packs up almost at once.
When a person cannot as-is his bank because his cause level is too low,
he will be the effect of his bank and he will get no disappearance of that is
worrying him. So whatever process you use, your whole task is to put the PC
more at cause. You run O/W to raise someone's cause level, since O/W is a big
barrier to his cause level, in that he has done something he regrets and,
furthermore, isn't communicating about it. You run O/W to raise his certainty
of having done, not just to as-is regretted doingness. You will find that it
is probably that few of your PCs have been answering the auditing question,
since, while you are looking for something they have done, they are looking
for an explanation of what happened to them. Some PCs go plunging madly into
the bank, searching madly for some answer that explains it all. Such PCs
invent things or give things that they are not sure of, in an effort to find
the "right" answer. A11 you have to do is be sure the PC is certain that he
did the thing, without alter-ises. In other words, you want an as-ising of
doneness. "All you want is the answer to your ... question, 'What have you
done?', not 'What have you done [that is] bad, antisocial, etc.'" "I ate
breakfast, and that is probably why ... " is not an answer to the auditing
question. "As auditor, all you have to do is police and make sure the person
is certain he did do that." "It isn't the quality of the deed. It's just
whether or not he has done it." Just make sure the PC is sure that he did
that. Otherwise, O/W will not work.
So you build up the person's idea of what he can cause and what he can
reach, until he can reach the lowest rung of the upper ladder. You can
convert SOP 8C and run it in such a way that the PC is sure of doing it.
Distance has to do with reach, So on SOP 8C, you get a wider perimeter of what
a person can reach Then, [on subjective processing] you get a gradient of what
the PC can as-is in his mind." The object of all lower level processing, up
to Level VI, is to raise the cause level of the individual."
Don't expect recognition or appreciation from society around you, when
they don't even recognize themselves as existing. We don't really have
opponents except ourselves, if we neglect the lower ladder that people need to
climb before getting on the ladder to OT. O/W is the only thing that will key
out a GPM without the PC's having to pay attention to the GPM. This is
because O/W is senior to the bank and can therefore make a key-out clear.
Then you can erase the bank. To as-is, a person must have done something.
Promote the idea of raising cause level, not so much the idea of going OT.
People could understand that.
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
SHSpec 72 6607C28 Dianetic Auditing and the MindSHSpec 82 6611C29 OT and Clear DefinedSHSpec 289 6307C24 ARC Breaks and the Comm CycleSHSpec 300 6308C29 The TA and the Service Facsimile2002 09 Creating Virtual Worlds with Pov Ray and the Right Front EndThe Leader And The?mnedMoney, Banking and the Federal Reserve (napisy PL)The Serpent And The Rainbow Wąż i Tęcza 1988Gill (Plato and the scope of ethical knowledge) BBFIDE Trainers Surveys 2013 04 01, Georg Mohr Bobby Fischer and the square d5drugs for youth via internet and the example of mephedrone tox lett 2011 j toxlet 2010 12 014BBC Auschwitz The Nazis and the Final Solution Episode 4Jack and the Beanstalk ebookBates, Gramsci and the Theory of HegemonyFIDE Trainers Surveys 2012 03 30 Georg Mohr Capablanca and the Endgameswięcej podobnych podstron