Woody McPheeters-condition of Treason



Anita Warren on October 17th, 2010
David, this gave me cognitions. Yes, yes, yes. This is very true. Thank you for posting this.

.The Bindu on October 17th, 2010
The “Conditions Formulas” represent vital understandings that are hugely helpful in life, and I agree with the author that they should not be “associated” with the abuse and mis-applications of the taken-over Church. It should also be fully understood that the CofS did not just “become” a cult. It was made into one due to the influence of the infiltrators who subsequently took it over. These infiltrators did NOT share the same goals or purposes of L. Ron Hubbard.

.Silvia Kusada on October 17th, 2010
Fantastic!! I’m glad Anita reffered me to your web site!!

Silvia Kusadahttp://www.silviakusada.wordpress.com

.thetagal on October 17th, 2010
Useful article. However many former Church members have had prior bad Ethics handling experiences. For those who have had such the best thing they can do is get a review in the freezone.

It is difficult to apply formulas if they have been misapplied earlier. My two favorite statements are, “Ethics exists to get tech in” AND “If tech is in, Ethics is unnecessary.” (class 8 tape)

.Hank Levin on October 17th, 2010
I understand from an old friend who was there that the very first person ever to be put in a condition of Treason was Woody McPheeters. The condition was assigned by LRH who was infuriated that Woody tried to talk his girlfriend out of accepting a post that would separate them. This (if it happened) was, at the very outset, a misapplication of ethics tech and occurred long before KSW. Remember Woody? He’s the person who eventually translated Scientologie (Scientology) written in German by A. Nordenholz in 1934 into English.

.Watchful Navigator on October 17th, 2010
Nice article – very important point. And I like your very appropriate comment, thetagal.

I just wanted to point out an important line in the Doubt formula, often overlooked as to its significance. When I finally got this, I realized that Liability does NOT NECESSARILY follow Doubt:

“8. Suffer on up through the conditions in the new group if one has changed sides, or the conditions of the group one has remained in if wavering from it has lowered one’s status.”

Even if you “changed sides” (in my view there may be no real change of “sides” – if you’re staying on LRH’s side!) – are you or have you ever been in Liability or lower to this new group? should be the question.

If the answer is yes, apply Liability or the lower condition that fits. If not, again, it says “suffer on up through the conditions in the new group…”

Unless you have betrayed LRH somehow or engaged in snide and bitter invalidation of other Independents, you’re probably NOT in Liability with me, with us – perhaps actually with no one! Consider your Liability formula signed!

Or rather, don’t hang yourself with one more solitary wrong condition. Look for the condition that actually applies and -then- simply “suffer” on up the remaining ones from there.

My opinion – hope it helps – at least to take a closer look at what is meant there.

.OldAuditor on October 18th, 2010
Watchful Navigator, when you speak of staying on LRH’s side, are you speaking of his more humane and rational side that he exhibited prior to developing OT 3 or his Commodore valence that resulted in innumerable cruelties and the destruction of working installations at Saint Hill and Advanced Orgs around the planet?

His earlier beingness is represented by the Creed of the Church of Scientology. His Commodore beingness is represented by the authoritarian dogma of Keeping Scientology Working. The two are quite contradictory.

I was trying to make the point that separation from the church is only a first step. You must handle all doubts about the origination and application of the tech and decide what worked and what didn’t for you personally.

It is a personal decision, not one you make by following someone’s well-meant recommendations. It is up to you to decide whether the tech is a scam, or whether LRH’s words represent Holy Writ and are not to be questioned, or whether you need to get out and look for yourself and see what has worked to improve abilities and what has been perverted into a means to degrade and subjugate others.

The churches concept of ultimate heresy is asking questions and expecting honest answers. You will not be out of doubt until you can laugh freely and ask all the questions you want.

.Robert Wilson on October 18th, 2010
thanks for the post

.Watchful Navigator on October 18th, 2010
Ah yes – point well taken. You seem to be stating that the Doubt formula can and should go far deeper than many realize – especially those who have not really researched the historic development of Scientology and the vast changes LRH went through – some good – some, well, very contradictory to the image we may want to have.

In this case it is very helpful and educational to work to clarify which “side” – even of LRH himself! – that you are taking.

I always feel badly for a person confronting this step – I became physically ill doing so – there can be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth on this point – especially if you had a lot invested in the “LRH was the perfect being” that church PR packaged and sold.

But “the truth is the truth -it’s what IS” as LRH himself has reminded us and it does no good to try to pretend otherwise.

So maybe the point I’d like to make is this: for those who merely took a look at what was going on, found it not okay with them, and left, there may be an “expanded” version of Doubt – not a change in formula, but a deeper re-evaluation of the whole subject done with free use of all the information that is out there.

(I should stop and warn that PTS/SP applies here. Evilly-intentioned persons put a wicked twist on Scientology and on some of LRH’s mistakes which can make him look like the devil himself. Reading this stuff isn’t productive either. A possible solution is the time-track approach (follows time-place-form-event with little or no HE&R) that can be found on freezone sites).

But I stand by my admonition to look over these formulas carefully. The lower conditions are powerful in themselves – the Confusion and Doubt formulas having uses for all manner of situations. But not all conditions apply in all situations and the lower conditions in my experience are simply not necessarily meant to be done in rote sequence – unlike the logical progression found in the Non-E through Affluence conditions.

In my work with persons coming out of Doubt and sometimes similarly, from Expanded Confusion, I find all sorts of confusions come up when it is rotely assumed that ALL the intervening lower conditions must be applied. That’s just not always the case and it even says so right there at the end of the Doubt formula.

Just something I believe the group has missed and has become one of those “everybody knows” propositions. A little common sense dictates that a person can have doubts about a group without ever harming either “side”. So an attempt to assign oneself Liability rotely, may be an unnecessary excercise in self-punishment and part and parcel of the anguish many have experienced in the misapplication of ethics conditions in organizations.

As you can see, I have already done my “Doubt” formula on whether or not to use these conditions and how to apply them. They have their place and especially the original 5 conditions are valuable tools for prosperity.

I recommend using the lower conditions with caution and eyes-wide-open discretion. These are the ones that have seen the most abuse in organizations. That said, I have found them to be highly workable with great results in those situations where they truly apply.

By abuse I mean two things – 1) wrong assignments and using them to justify cruel group behavior; and 2) brush-off conditions – example: the criminal exchange artist who comes out of session in Flag who is permitted to do Confusion thru Normal right there on paper in the waiting room (no real actions in the real universe) “so we can get him back in session and keep up the hours stat and reg him for more” – I’ve seen this happen and I’ve seen lesser, but widespread examples of this abuse in Org HCOs.

All I am saying here is – be sure they truly apply to you. If they do, do them for real in the physical universe – make up the damage to those very same that you harmed, to the greatest degree possible – and you will win.
.Acquiring freedom is a tough but wonderful experiece… « SILVIA KUSADA's Blog on October 20th, 2010
[...] Using Conditions Formulas as a newly Independent Scientologist [...]

.Cat Daddy on October 24th, 2010
“In fact, it appears that the cult practice of misassigning conditions and wrongly assigning penalties is a long term affair probably dating back to the initial release of KSW #1.”

I think this was the day Free Individual Determination died in the COS

Your comment is awaiting moderation.