6110C04 SHSpec-62  Moral Codes: What is a Withhold?

     No one is non-security checkable.  It's just necessary to find the areas
where he has what he considers to be overts.  If he doesn't read on a standard
sec check, it just means those things aren't transgressions against his moral
code.  A criminal's moral code is about the reverse of a law-abiding
person's.  All pcs have moral codes against which they have transgressed.
You'll only get withholds off a case when you locate the code against which
the PC has transgressed.

     A withhold is an unannounced transgression against a moral code by which
the person was bound.  A moral code is that series of agreements to which a
person has subscribed in order to guarantee the survival of a group.  Man has
learned, down the track, that where he has agreed on proper conduct, he has
survived, and where he hasn't, he hasn't survived.  So people agree on what is
moral, i.e. survival-conducive actions.

     The U.S. was founded on an agreement, the Constitution.  Wherever it has
been breached, the country has gotten in trouble.  The reason for the trouble
is that there aren't any other agreements than the basic agreement.  There
aren't modified agreements.  You start with a moral code, which eventually
gets interpreted and altered, and people no longer knew what was moral.  It
thus got to be a confusion.  People tried to enforce it, but the confusion
increased.  Finally, people dispersed and left the group and formed or entered
other groups.  There, they got new moral codes, which eventually got diluted.
Time marched on and more confusion entered, etc., etc.

     The cycle of action of civilizations is:

           1. An agreement on optimum conduct

           2. A disbanding of the group

           3. A formation of a new group with a new agreement on optimum
              conduct.

           4. A disintegration of this agreement.

           5. Etc., etc.

The disintegration occurs because of the individuation that results from
overts.  Moral codes can also disintegrate when attacked by another code that
gets imposed on them, e.g. by colonialists on native peoples.

     One reason auditors find scientologists harder to audit than
non-scientologists is that when you flub you've transgressed against the
survival codes of the group.  This is why the last two pages of HCOWW Form 3
straighten out old-time scientologists who natter about scientology.  The most
important code to the person is the one by which he is currently living.  If
you transgress against the code of your group, you tend to feel like an
outsider.  If the group is scientology, the transgression prevents one from
making progress in auditing.

     A transgression of a moral code separates the transgressor from free
communication with the group.  The seriousness of the transgression is
monitored by the degree of cut comm and impossibility of communicating, which
is accomplished by pretending to be a member of the group when he's
transgressed.  He individuates and thus the group disintegrates.

     Another element of this is co-action: mutual action toward a common
goal.  The crew of a ship is no good until it has been through some common
danger.  A business group could get cohered if management let everyone in on
the attacks against them; otherwise not.  A group becomes a group when it
encounters danger to its survival.  The common denominator of the moral codes
and of transgression is, "One must not injure the survival of a fellow group
member."

     Therefore a manager or leader of a group tends to be isolated from the
group because of the occasional necessity for injuring the survival of a group
member who has transgressed against the others.  If the leader has led a
slightly detached life so he hasn't been affected by the offender's
transgressions, he commits an unmotivated overt when he kicks him out.  He
gets these undisclosed overts against ex-group members.  He seldom tells the
group why the ousted group member has to be ousted.  because he thinks it will
be too enturbulative.  This is so widely true that man has accepted the idea
of the loneliness of command as natural when it isn't.

     You can change a group's leader, but if the new leader changes the mores
of the group, there will be trouble.  The leader of the group can destroy it.
This leads to the popularity of such things as socialism and communism.

     Why is the old soldier always degraded?  It's not because the military in
itself is bad; it's because he's a group member who is no longer part of the
group.  His old mores no longer apply.  He is degraded not even because of his overts.  He is degraded because when a person is no longer a part of a group, he feels automatically that he must have overts against it and was driven out of it, even if he didn't have any overts.  Because the result exists, people feel that the crime must have existed.  people will feel responsible for effects they haven't really caused.  This is the same mechanism.

     So you'll find yourself processing someone at times who feels he has
tremendous overts against a group which you as an auditor can't find on the
meter.  It's simply because he is no longer a member of the group, whose
purpose may have ended.  He'll be very happy to get off his transgressions,
because it will make his no longer being a member OK.  It justifies the state
he's in.

     What actions are necessary to cohere a group?  Co-action in the direction
of survival with two or more people inevitably results in a social more.  If
one of the group dies, the other (in a group of two) will feel he must have
transgressed and will be glad to find what his overts were so that it makes
sense to be no longer a member.  The co-action doesn't even have to be toward
mutual survival.  It can be opposed, e.g. two fighter pilots who are enemies.
They will have a certain fellow-feeling, and if they withhold their failure to
kill the other from their own groups, they've got a bit individuated from the
groups, etc.  So this gets complex, on the basis of agreement.

     What is agreement?  It is two or more people making the same postulate
stick.  If they go into mutual action toward survival, they have co-action,
and they confuse one with another.  They don't quite distinguish whose is
whose, and they misown action in their vicinity.  Engine drivers start
sounding like engines after awhile.  They can be un-identified by having them
get the idea of mutual action with the motor.

     That is the source of overt acts: you have mutual action with something
else, you do something cruel to that with which you have mutual action, and
you experience the somatic.  That's the exact mechanics of the overt-motivator
sequence.  After you've had a lot of group co-action, you embark upon a cruel
action to that with which you have co-acted, and you will get the somatic.
The group dramatizes it with, "You must be punished for your act," but that's
not part of the mechanism.  Religionists who push the Golden Rule are forcing
into existence something that already exists.

     Overt/motivator sequences become very pronounced when cruel actions
against one's group members ars engaged in while withholding.  One is really a
member of the group but engages in a cruel action against another member and
tries to back out.  Why does one try to withhold?  It is because he doesn't
want the effect of the co-action.  He tries to individuate, disowns the
co-action in an effort to avoid the motivator.  He doesn't want the somatics
of co-action that experience has taught him will inevitably occur.  We're down
to fundamentals of non-differentiation and identification.  He identifies his
action with every group member's action, so he withholds self in an effort to
escape.

     If you ask him to recognize his co-action with the group member he has
injured -- the co-action prior to the overt, the overt will blow.  The more
commotion, action, withholds, and nonsense preceded his overt act, the more it
will hang up and the more he will try to withhold it.  He can only suffer from
his overt because of former co-action.  Because he is involved with mutual action toward survival, every time he has tried to back out of mutual action, he has sought to deny the mutuality of the action.  He thinks he can avoid the
overt-motivator sequence by denying it, so he individuates.  You have to knock
out the individuation before he can walk out.  The action he takes to escape
punishment is the action which settles in the punishment.  Withholds and
overts will become visible as you uncover the confusion and co-action which
preceded the overt.  When he blows the withhold, he can move again on the time
track.  Every time he withholds, he parks himself on the time track, so it
eventually becomes one big Now, which is the Reactive Mind.

     He has never really succeeded in individuating from any group he has
belonged to.  Therefore all groups newly formed are formed by transgressors,
so if scientologists could get off that mechanism, they could form the first
true group since the beginning of the universe!

     One reason a withhold sticks on the track is that it's a no-action -- a
no-motion point.  When the PC has a picture where nothing is happening, get
the earlier commotion or confusion, and the overt will show up.

     One can withhold oneself as well as data, thoughts, or deeds or objects.
Withhold of self is the commonest.

     When you clear somebody, you clear the identities which the person has
teamed up with and their withholds and now-I'm-supposed-to's.

     There's a process that hits at this.  Find something the person has
identified with something.  Tell him to think of a mutual action with first
the one thing, then the other, and the identifications will spring apart.
Fifteen or twenty other subjects will emerge as you go; don't Q and A with
them; stay with the original two.  A broader, simpler process would be, "Tell
me a group you are no longer part of."

