Re: Rehabilitating "Lower Ethics Conditions" by defining the positive
Reply #3 –
THE CONDITIONS TECH AND NEGATIVE SCIENTOLOGY
Good questions, Christian.
The history of Scn and things Hubbard shows that the beginnings of newly released techs were routinely positive, uplifting and productive.
And that was the case with “The Conditions” as well.
Originally, in 1965, Hubbard released what was called “The Operating Conditions” and also referred to as “The Five Conditions.”
These were absolutely POSITIVE and valuable tech. They addressed how to keep the organization (or self) running at optimum . . . I don’t have the original bulletins to hand, but the Conditions of Operation first listed, from memory were Danger, Emergency, Normal, Affluence & Power. Then Non-Existence was added. And all this was good positive stuff that very much helped folks and the operation of the org.
It was not until November (?) 1967 (I was on staff in London) that the NEGATIVE and destructive aspects of the Conditions Tech began to be introduced. The first being the introduction of “LIABILITY.” I well remember Herbie Parkhouse coming up from St. Hill as a result of being assigned in Liability to carry out his version of the Formula. He was in TERROR, and chose to come to London to do his “Strike a Blow At The ENEMY” step of the formula. The enemy he selected was some Psychiatrist or other. Quite mad, really.
Following that, in the very beginning of 1968, the LOWER conditions were released (Enemy and Doubt) . . . and even later Treason and later still Confusion.
But, typical of the class of humanity that is Yellow Zone and below, who are NOT UP TO PUTTING IN THE POSITIVE, but who instead fixate on opposing the negative, even the Positive original “Five Conditions Tech” was managed to be misused to run “make-wrongs” and negatives on the environment.
Example: The Danger Formula. The first step of which is: “Bypass and handle any danger, etc.”
Well, OK, bypassing the guy who had the scene go into danger to then get things going again is reasonable . . . but too often this step was used to make the person responsible for the danger wrong, was carried out for too long, and the guy did not get coached and hatted so he could do it right in future . . . with the result being he forever operated in fear of screwing up again.
But the most egregious error of all was the failure to carry out the “develop policy that will hereafter detect possible danger condition events and prevent them from occurring.”
That is, this very POSITIVE action was routinely skimped or omitted all together.
However, once “The Ethics Conditions” were introduced in November, 1967, and onwards, the whole scene and that body of tech was negatively used as a weapon.
And hence the crashing of Orgs because the whole place was thus operating in FEAR.
But that is simply the product of Hubbard and his “SADISTIC DOMINATOR” identity . . . what else can one expect from a (mis)leader who throws old ladies who cannot swim overboard off the ship, or who puts children into the terror of the chain locker, or who orders an old man to push a peanut around the deck with his nose?
Remember, this is the guy who fixated his tech on address to the NEGATIVE, classic examples are his switch in 1962 from the valuable use of Rockslams to find hot identities on the case, to then use them as representing you as being an enemy to him personally and to his organization; also his switching from addressing your OWN Goals to asserting that you had to run all those stupid implants (Helatrobus, and Heaven, etc.) he asserted were affecting you: hence the abandonment of the powerful positives of your own purposes (this was done in April 1963). And of course, the negative war he waged against the positive of our essential spiritual team connections . . . and this last one is what sent him down into his own little insanity of “swatting all those flies on his body.”
Hubbard, himself, was the exemplar of negative tech and negative applications.
So much of early Scn was positive and capable of producing positive results, but Hubbard himself, turned it negative in both structure and application.
Rog
Topic: Rehabilitating "Lower Ethics Conditions" by defining the positive (Read 127 times)
previous topic - next topic
