6210C09 SHSpec-200 Future Org Trends

     If scientology organizations did nothing cohesive and had no central
control, but only had people doing processing, and if, combined with this
situation, there were other people with a vested interest in making slaves, we
could get thrown on the dung heap and scientology could end up being practiced
with electric shock by governments.  On the other side, we could have a
completely different picture: a well-unified scientology with sufficient
international esteem and force to overcome any attempt to use it wrongly.

     Buddhism, for lack of a plan, ended up being an enslaver of people.  Some
thought needs to be given to scientology's future to make sure that
scientology doesn't end up like Buddhism.  In Buddhism, nirvana became like a
GPM.  Look at a picture of nirvana sometime.  It looks like someone surrounded
with valences -- a GPM.  Lamaism, with more ghosts and devils, became like
another GPM.  Zen Buddhism was based on the idea that if you are hit, you
know.  Much of it is a dramatization of Axiom 10.  The Indian rope trick is
mass hypnotism.  The East never had a technology that did anybody any good.
They knew a few answers, but they all wound up in the soup.

     So this is the first time on this planet and maybe in this universe, when
sentient beings could better themselves without worsening someone else.  We
are looking at tremendous force, not as in bullets, but force of knowingness:
theta force.  In this universe, one is used to seeing good people being
squashed.  It starts to look like goodness is weak, not a force, and that evil
is strong.  That is this universe's lesson, but it is not true.  The reverse
is true, even though this universe would like us to believe otherwise and
seems to provide numerous "proofs" to the contrary.

     If you block a theta comm line and tap it, you can suck a certain power
off it that is residual in it.  But it will explode in very short order.

     The way an organization gets in bad shape is by individuation.  An org
commits overts against other orgs and gets into a games condition with them,
then starts considering itself strange and different.  Then it can't
communicate anymore or function anymore.

     This cycle is an interesting phenomenon which one can see every day.
Overts are followed by the still after the confusion -- the withhold.  The
quiet moment on the battlefield is the one that sticks.  So the stable datum
is likely to be whatever someone thought after the fight was over.  This is
not necessarily what holds it still at all.  One dramatizes the withhold.  It
is not the overt but the withhold that is the source of action.  For instance,
Bill shoots Joe and doesn't tell the police.  He fires; Joe falls; Bill feels
remorse and says, "I mustn't tell the police," and that, not the shooting, is
what he dramatizes.  As time goes on, he is no longer sure what he mustn't
tell.  To get rid of the source of pronouncement of his guilt, he commits more
overts [-- against the police].  His "I mustn't tell the police" equates to
individuation from the police.  He also mustn't be Joe, the victim.  That is
another individuation.  He might be able to tell you the withhold, "I mustn't
tell the police," but he will probably not be able to spot or as-is the [prior
overt], since it is at the level of action.

     Committing an overt results in an individuation.  The more separate we
are, the less we can communicate and the less we can understand.  If you want
a laugh, get someone to "explain" something to you in an area that he has
overts on.  Using symbolic logic, where instead of numbers you are using
meanings, all mathematics can be derived from ARC.  In the absence of ARC --
i.e.  when there are many overts -- there is no understanding or knowledge.
Overts lower A, which lowers the other two: R and C.  Someone who is totally
stupid in an area has overts in that area.  In the absence of ARC, there can
[by definition] be no knowledge.

     You can always apply these mechanics backwards.  You can make someone
feel that he has done something if he has a withhold about it.  If we tell
someone that we will burn him in the electric chair, he will dream up a crime
to fit the punishment, even if he continues to protest his innocence. [Cf. the
Jews in German concentration camps, who felt they must have somehow betrayed
their Fatherland.] Also, if you tell someone not to touch something enough
times, he will start to believe that it is dangerous, whether it is or not.
This is because you have told him not to communicate with it, and the
definition of dangerousness is "not to be communicated with".

     Logic is two-poled.  There are two sides to an equation.  The mind also
operates on a two-poled basis.  Thus, when describing scientology to someone,
if you keep on saying that it isn't like this, that, or another thing, he will
get the idea that it simply isn't.  You have to dream up something scientology
is just like, so there will be a datum of comparable magnitude.  You will find
that the more ARC he has towards the thing you compare scientology with, the
better he will understand scientology. So the best strategy is to compare
scientology to himself, his highest ARC terminal.  This will intrigue him, at
least.  "You want things better, right?  So does scientology.  You probably
have a lot of basic wisdom about life, some buried, but really there.  You
have observed things.  Scientology ia like you.  You like to be free.
Scientology wants that." You would be surprised how effective even so crude an
argument could be with people.  It doesn't even matter if his understanding of
scientology is correct or not.  He will get some A, R, and C.

     In the absence of any ARC, you have no observation and no knowledge of
the object or thing.  Something you feel something about, have a tiny reality
on, and have communicated slightly to the vicinity of -- that thing would be
something that you would understand only slightly, but you would know it
existed.  There is an understanding that goes along with each step of the tone
scale, up to total ARC, which is total understanding.  This leads up to being
part of everything, which is the booby trap of nirvana.  The reverse of
individuation is enforced association.  One can obsessively become something.

     There is a cycle here.  Overts first lead to individuation, then goes on
through the cycle to obsessive identification with the thing overted against.
[For more detail on this cycle, see pp. 242-242a, above.]  PC's associate
themselves with their own oppterms, in varying degrees.  This phenomenon
occurs throughout existence.  "What you resist you become," is here more
accurately stated as, "That against which you have overts, you become." One
becomes more and more individual and individuated up to a limit, at which
point, the harder one tries to individuate, the more one becomes a sort of
fake version of that against which one has overts.  This shows up in dynamic
assessment [See pp. 305-308.] and clearly shows up with the item.  This is how
the person rockslams.

     If an organization overts against another one, it becomes more and more
individuated, until it becomes a lower-level beingness.  A thetan will run a
whole cycle this way.  That is why you get the "dead thetan" at 2.0.  He is
obsessively being what he was once part of.

     We must keep the above mechanism of individuation in mind and look at the
organizational plan that says that one scientologist is a field auditor and
another is a staff member.  This plan gives us a source of inadvertent
withholds.  If we are planning anything broad in the way of organizations, we
have to eliminate any incipient individuation, or we will get a fake
scientology.  Scientology must be a single org in which the members freely
participate.  [Yet] scientology orgs must never individuate from scientology.
They must never be allowed unhandled overts, or scientology will crash like
every other attempt to help Man.  The HCO 10% tends to further individuation,
since it makes "HCO" different from the org.

     Philosophers say that every organization's ethic is strongest at its
inception, but actually, there ia no reason why its ethic shouldn't get much
higher.  To accomplish this, you must set it up such that organizations are
not made different from each other, in order to avoid the incipient
inadvertent withhold which would lead to no true scientology being in
existence.

     [Here, LRH goes into describing at some length an ideal scene for lower
level scientology organizations.]

     Looking further ahead, when you have cleared everyone, the scientology
centers will be political centers and scientology will be the government.

