"Find out *that* you are"

[Ulf K. Maier]

Pidgin Ron

In HCO Policy Letter of 16 October 1968 aka Flag Order 1474, re. "Treason Formula", L. Ron Hubbard wrote (emphasis in original):

"The formula for the condition of Treason is 'Find out that you are.'"​

Question: What the hell does that mean?

Find out that which you are.

Meesster Roan dinna spic a fairy gud inglis.

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

I can honestly say that I've never had a win doing ethics - ever. I have always felt worse afterwards or before going in - always.

Maybe it's a havingness thing.

Personally, I think the ethics conditions are way too overused and in most of the cases I have seen have been used in lieu of having any auditing available.

It's Ethics, Tech, Admin. Period.

Ethics ONLY exist to get tech in.

Another quote is "anything wrong with a being is a technical matter". I don't remember the reference.

I have seen "ethics" handling all kinds of shit and all of these have been squirrel handlings as there were absolutely ZERO tech terminals any where to do anything. I've seen handlings on "drinking", "gambling", etc.

None of these ethics particles were on course, etc. None of the "out ethics" ever hit anyones lines that I knew of. It appeared to be a moralistic judgmentalist "cleaning up the field" thing.

Here's the scoop: anything "wrong" with a being is a technical matter.

Trying to handle "drinking", "gambling", "whoring", "robbing", "murdering", "nose-picking", "jay walking" or anything else with ethics is completely and 100% squirrel if there is nothing technical applied.

The only time the ethics would be necessary is if any of that bullshit were interfering with a course or auditing schedule...or, god forbid, actually managing by statistics and finding a "PTS" situation.

That is the ONLY time that ethics would ever apply - all other applications are squirrel.

How "ethical" is an org with zero tech terminals? As if a group like that could ever discern the difference between ethical and un-ethical conduct.

Scientology, in the main, is a psuedo-ethical enterprise. A group that wouldn't "jay walk" as that was "against the law" and is so worried about public opinion regarding conduct in the field is the same group that would take a person's last dollar, the same group that would reg away a person's rent check or grocery money. Which one of those scenes would create a PR flap if the lord all mighty "public" found out about it?

Anyone who would not jay walk as it is against the law is 100% out of communication with their environment if they thought that would upset anyone - anyone who would take a family's budget and strain or break it is 100% out of communication with their environment if they thought that wouldn't upset anyone.

And that's another absolutely insane button for Scientology - "public opinion". What I have found out that means is anybody that is NOT on Scientology lines...in other words - WOGS! Wog opinion is this much sought after goal...something to be courted and wooed. Yet, that is psuedo-ARC as the general "think" on wogs has been well documented elsewhere. If your an actual public your opinion is bank and reactive.

I can't recall the reference but writing is done to an individual, not some nameless group, and when formal auditing is done it's to be done for the pc - not for stats or some other bullshit. Each of these is a 1st dynamic,individual address...but when it comes to "public opinion" that is some nebulous group or herd that exists in a smoky elsewhere. I think it's one of the major reasons why PR misses so bad that the surveys I've ever conducted always indicate that Scientology is reviled by any segment of "wogs" sampled. It's psuedo-PR in that PR would literally mean Public Relations and if you've ever had the misfortune of being a Scientology org public you would know exactly what the relationship will be for anyone caught in that trap. Yet this PR is never addressed to an individual - it's always addressed to "the public" and appears to be speeches delivered because some idiot thougth they sounded good.

Here's what Scientology thinks of its "public": if you're a wog then you're a dipshit dead being in the graveyard at the end of existence. A complete nutcase locked away in the dwindling spiral to MEST and Total Failure insane asylum called Earth. The end of all this amnesia and pain is MEST - that's what you become. Your a seething mass of softened up injected theta beings whose every word or action is merely keyed in restimulation stimulus response. You're a can't have, stops motion, dub in of a dub in Black V case criminal, artist, pervert (you have to be all these things because that's who've been sent to Earth to die and you're a composite collection of said subjects).

If you're Scn public then you're all of the above but you know it. You're the elite - easily in the top 10% of Earth. However, you're out-ethics scum bags who are shirking the responsibility of clearing the planet. So if you're not going to do the work then you're going to pay for it - and since we're talking about total eternity the price tag is rather steep.

From there you're Class V staff and you're either not good enough to make the Sea Org grade or your shirking your responsibility and you're out-ethics because you won't dedicate every breathing moment to the cause. However, the public can lick your boots and had better not be caught giving a staff member a problem.

From there is the Sea Org and it's heriarchical ego mess.

Here's another rotten button from Scientology - help. This is an enterprise that advertises help but once approached that table is immediately turned and turned into "how can you help ______". That blank can fit "the org", "the Sea Org", "clearing the planet", "Ron" - on and on. This is psuedo-help.

Now let's take a look at the actual science and logic of the body politic. There's enough content on this message board to document the psuedo-science and psuedo-logic regarding the ad hominem baaaaad psychiatry, etc. The single source of all aberration is ______ (in that blank goes: engrams, SPs, psychiatrists, BTs, Mis Us, missed w/hs, GPMs, etc., but basically what ever topic happens to be the content of the current text - you pick it).

Now, much to my chagrin, I've learned that Scientology is completely and wholly devoted to the ego and dressing up that ludicrous entity. I've discovered that all of the "OT powers" that I was slavering over are factually just the Siddhis and that the Siddhis and the ego are psuedo-spiritual. They are THE BIGGEST BLOCK to spiritual enlightenment!!!!!

In short, perhaps everything I was doing in Scientology may be IMMENSE damage in regards to spiritual enlightenment.

My experience has been psuedo-ethical, psuedo-affinity, psuedo-help, psuedo-logical, psuedo-scientific and psuedo-spiritual. So much psuedo that the new theme song is Phil Collins "Sussudio" - Su Su Sudio - Oh Oh.

It's almost comical.

Dude!

This is the most BOMB rant I've read in a long time.

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

You are correct:

An example - Say in a marriage breakdown, all is going along hunky-dory - Normal & above, they have their agreements/hats/doingnesses.

One starts to drop part of these 'hats' or doing other things. The decline into Emergency and if that continues - Danger naturally happens. If this continues, the communication lessens - the individual is not providing 'what is needed & wanted' - That is Non-E. Of course the logical step would be to get in comm and find out what is needed & wanted and supply it thereby reverting the downturn.

If the decline continues, then it becomes even more damaging where one would not be part of that group (Liability) and making of amends or making up damage done would go a long way of getting back in the 'good books'.
Then one would of course apply Non-E and again get in comm & find out what is needed & wanted and move on up the conditions again.

The problem within the 'Church' is that simple Emergencies/Dangers have been mis-labelled Enemy or Treason and the consequent results are nasty

Sounds like you gave a bunch of intro lectures on the conditions formulas.

We already know what the Tulpa said - we all lived it.

But what do YOU think?

Oh,

 

[Quicksilver]

Sounds like you gave a bunch of intro lectures on the conditions formulas.

We already know what the Tulpa said - we all lived it.

But what do YOU think?

Oh,

You misunderstand me, and no, I didn't give a bunch of lectures.

Good try, though

 

[FlunkedForLaughing]

When I tried to apply "find out THAT you are", and tried to say something positive ("oh yes, now I see that I REALLY AM the super salesman"), it never worked for me.

When I applied it to the negative ("Oh yes, I now see that I REALLY AM a screwed-up salesman who's not good at closing and is trying to blame the customers for everything"), then it worked because now I had something to work on. I could easily move to the next condition and do a doubt formula to see if that's what I wanted to be. No I didn't want to be that. Good. Now I can do the next condition and make up the damage. For me the conditions flowed rather nicely from one to the other.

Finding out THAT I was (the negative thing) gave me something to handle.

Finding out THAT I was (the positive thing) always felt weird to me because it was just an exercise in writing something on paper that someone else wanted to see. It didn't really handle anything. It was so unreal to me to suddenly say "Okay everyone, I somehow didn't know I was the super salesman, but now I really know it. Yes, that's me, the super salesman! I am announcing that fact publicly to both sides. Alrighty then, I'll work late tonight and everything will be back to normal". The underlying problem was never fixed.

 

[uniquemand]

The answer to this is whatever you think it is. Since it is meaningless, it's essentially a thought-stopping technique. It's an order to decide to be. Essentially, the reason it's so hard to wrap your head around is that it is a split infinitive. "Find out that you are" should lead to "I AM".

 

[Panda Termint]

LOL, that's easy for you to say, you know the answer!

 

[Leon]

Find out that you are.

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Two and a half pages of complete twaddle. Quite clearly you guys don't understand the first thinga bout the ethics conditions, and I would say that does not surpprise me at all since you all learnt your stuff in the Church of Scientology.

Notice - from the quote Alanzo gave - that the Treason condition gets flipped directly into the third dynamuic: "Find out that you are the . . . (letter reg) or whatever. What total crap.

The formula needs to be fully applied on the first dynamic only. Also the guy needs a bit of setting up for it - meaning he needs to do such conditions below Treason that are applicable to him before he will get a good grasp of this one. No doubt some of you would find those lower conditions very illuminating.

But to stay with the Treason formula. The "betrayal after trust" refers to the guy as an individual who at some stage decided to BE. And then later reneged on that and wanted to NOT BE. But he couldn't ever fully NOT BE could he? So now he is caught between two conflicting postulates and he doesn't know if he is Arthur or Martha or he is a piece of meat or a chunk of spirit or whatever.

Doing this formula fully, with all of its associated steps (which I will not go into here) gets the person to realise at long last that he/she really and truly IS. He exists, and he knows it, not as a platitudinous robot of being an operating circuit mouthing the words, but with a certainty.

It's a wonderful milestone on the trip of moving up the conditions and getting into a good condition as yourself - not as a cog in someone else's machine or game, but fully and purely as yourself.

Soderqvist1: How can you claim it is a milestone?
When after forty years or so, there is no demand for it on the market!
L. Ron Hubbard was a second year dropout, he has no competence, but you are like him as a Rondroid by claiming things without evidence. You could start by showing that properly done ethics condition deliver results which is impossible without, or at least is to some help and is needed. But you cannot do that because it will be inconsistent with why it is not on the market. Thus L. Ron Hubbard, and his pulp fiction is self-defeating all you need to do is activate some of your brain cells!

 

[Rene Descartes]

I think, you supose to fill the blank. Find out that you are _____
I am ______

Not doing one's job is treason? Not showing up for one's job is treason?

Betrayal = Desertion

Treason is more along the lines of purposefully and secretively leading your allies into an ambush to be slaughtered by the enemy.

This is even more reason to deep six these Ethics.

They consider that calling the cops on a child molester in the church is treasonous to the church.

Another prime example that shows that LRH was the man who put the "Scientology" in "Scientology Ethics".

Rd00

 

[Smilla]

In HCO Policy Letter of 16 October 1968 aka Flag Order 1474, re. "Treason Formula", L. Ron Hubbard wrote (emphasis in original):

"The formula for the condition of Treason is 'Find out that you are.'"​

Question: What the hell does that mean?

It is important that you do not know or understand the answer to your question.. Ignorance is strength.

 

[LongTimeGone]

Okay, Leon. I'd say math is an exact regimen that closely parallels function in this place. It describes operations as they are and that is why it is useful. Math can and has led to understandings beyond present reality.

Dynamics interpret function. From the get-go one is deciding who one is as a base to use the stuff. Not such a hot idea since one is also ONE. It appears the effort of "tech" is to describe a reality and fit one into it. That seems pretty obvious from over here. I'm really not trying to be a pain, but equating math and dynamics is a stretch and a half.

I see what you are saying:

m = ∫d(1-8) > St+0.5

LTG

 

[LongTimeGone]

It is important that you do not know or understand the answer to your question.. Ignorance is strength.

Exactly. This thread proves to me that no one seems to be able to agree on what any of this means.

Heaven forbid that anyone believes that he deliberately wrote them to be obsure and open to a plethora of mind numbing interpretations.

In my opinion, the ethics cycles are supposed to prove to you that you are too dumb to understand simple concepts. Because of this confusion, you do not deserve to have a sensible opinion on anything and must just accept that L. Raving Blubbard was a genius with an IQ that far exceeded that of mortal man.

I find THAT I am dumb - Take over my life Ron.

LTG

 

[guanoloco]

Exactly. This thread proves to me that no one seems to be able to agree on what any of this means.

Heaven forbid that anyone believes that he deliberately wrote them to be obsure and open to a plethora of mind numbing interpretations.

In my opinion, the ethics cycles are supposed to prove to you that you are too dumb to understand simple concepts. Because of this confusion, you do not deserve to have a sensible opinion on anything and must just accept that L. Raving Blubbard was a genius with an IQ that far exceeded that of mortal man.

I find THAT I am dumb - Take over my life Ron.

LTG

Well, if I were Ron I would assign you lowers.