FOREWORD
In December 1952, L. Ron Hubbard gave a series of lectures for the Philadelphia Doctorate Course, presenting the theory of Scientology, the Science of Knowing How to Know, together with the principles governing the application of Scientology in auditing (spiritual counseling).
He had also written a textbook to accompany the lectures, which was then published as "Scientology 8-8008," and came to include some later material.
The present text, based
on the lectures themselves, is similar to that textbook, but goes deeper
and with more detail into some aspects of the human spirit, especially
with regard to what is called "one´s own universe."
It is not an original
LRH text, but rather a "BOTWO," "based on the works of." The title
"Scn. 2-2002" is in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the original
PDC.
As the subtitle "The
Fileclerk´s Guide to the PDC" suggests, it is not intended as a substitute
to studying the lectures themselves, but rather as an introduction to awaken
the reader´s curiosity and cause him/her to study the lectures themselves
- which is a grand and rewarding endeavor; or if the reader knows the lectures
already, the text will function as a review.
The writing tries to
emulate LRH´s style, and from time to time commenting or explanatory
remarks were inserted, which usually go to the end of the paragraph where
they appear.
Unfortunately, there
is no glossary that goes with the text, meaning that the reader who is
unfamiliar with some of the technical terms utilized will need an auxiliary
publication to look up the definition of such terms. This might make it
a bit difficult for beginners, but actually the intended public of "Scn.
2-2002" would consist of readers that are already familiar
with some fundamentals of
Scientology and Dianetics and the basics of L. Ron Hubbard´s works.
This text is written with a positive intention, with the desire to make knowledge of a scientific, spiritual and religious nature more widely available. None of the data presented have been based on material deemed confidential.
June 2001,
The Fileclerk
INTRODUCTION
"If you had a Doctor of Philosophy,
you would expect a Doctor of Philosophy to be able to philosophize. But
I'm not just talking about philosophy for the sake of philosophy. I'm talking
about it very specifically with regard to auditing and in regard to learning
material and data."
L. Ron Hubbard, PDC-14
SCIENTOLOGY, A LIVE SCIENCE
A live science is not a static
science. A live science grows. You have watched the sudden fusion of Western
mathemathical thinking, organization, logic and electronics with the data
which was left in India about 8200 years ago, which was relatively unanalyzed,
but was a tremendously valuable mass of material.
It needs a dichotomy to
work something out. Two things must come together to work something out.
There was that big body of data and all of a sudden we ran into it with
electronic material and Western logic, plus the Western belief that it
could be done and it wasn't complicated.
Monotored by something above
them, it was possible to codify in terms of MEST the capabilities of theta.
And that is the trick here: how do you codify in terms of MEST a capability
which is only a small part MEST? And that's been quite a trick putting
it together and codifying it. And that codification continues.
A live science is one which
can still change. It has not reached the end of the cycle of action.
The lectures form a bridge
between the experience of man as he walks around and pretends to be active,
and so forth, and the level at which we're operating.
THE SUBJECT OF SCIENTOLOGY
All these phenomena are discoverable.
So I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm actually asking you to find
out what you've been agreeing with all this time. And examine the track
of agreement, so that then you can undo that track of agreement. In other
words, let's see if we can't disagree with this universe just a little
bit.
Not necessarily to destroy
the universe. The universe is a good thing. I know a lot of people that
ought to inherit it.
You'll run into people who
tell you, "Yes, that's the way I solve my problems, I step out of my head,
think of the answer, and step back in again." But they kept it kinda quiet,
because this would have made them strange and peculiar and they didn't
wnt to be thought of in that category.
Furthermore, they had no
technique that would heighten the condition, make them even more separable
and less dependent on a body.
We are dealing now with a
precise subject. Because past studies have not been precise, it is very
simple for a student to make a very bad mistake in studying Scientology
and try to fit it into a frame of reference. There is none. Scientology
is its own study.
Now, you do have a point
of reference to study it from. That's you, and you have another point of
reference from which to study, that's the other people you know. And just
looking at them as "X"s, let's see if we can solve the "X".
Authoritarian material has
a tendency to close lines of investigation. However, that person who is
the best observer will get the most out of these lectures.
We're just asking people,
"This is the definition. Now, look and see if you can observe this. If
you can't observe this, perhaps it isn't there, but if you can observe
it, then it's there." To observe is quite a trick. It's a sort of a clean
slate principle. As a net result it's actually too simple to observe and
it escapes many people. It goes clear beyond them to observe, just look
at something. So therefore a great deal of this data may appear to you
to be incomprehensible. If it appears to be incomprehensible for a moment,
please do me this favor: and that's, ask yourself, "Have I got this mixed
up in some body of knowledge somewhere? Have I taken it over and planted
it someplace else? Am I trying to look at it through the eyes of ...?"
I'm not asking to look at this subject through my eyes.
There are two subjects here
that I'm going to be talking to you about, just two, and one is "Scientology,
a precise science of universes and beings therein, of beings who make universes."
Now, that's one subject. And then there's "Hubbard's opinions of this subject."
And boy, I got some wild opinions. You oughta hear them sometime. But that's
a different thing and you can tell very easily when I swing over into my
opinion.
There's a lot of viewpoints
that I have that you might not have at all. If I have a lot of axes to
grind, they're very obvious axes - extremely obvious. And they actually
don't influence this data at all. What I give you as fact is fact. What
I give you as opinion - you're welcome to it or not as the case may be.
But I'm not asking you to agree with me. For God's sakes, don't do that!
Just go look.
You needn't even vaguely
confuse me or my personality with Scientology. It doesn't work because
I say it's so. It works because it works. Freudian psycho-analysis works
because Freud said so, that's the essential difference. It doesn't mean
that just because I have opinions you don't agree with, this makes me a
bum, by the way. But neither does it validate or invalidate this material.
What's true along this line,
the Logics and Axioms, is true, particularly the Axioms, for Homo sapiens.
FUNDAMENTALS OF SCIENTOLOGY
I said that there were several
echelons and that we were going through the second echelon of knowledge
with Effort Processing, and we were slightly into the fringes of a third
echelon. Well, we just busted through the roof of the third echelon. What
lies in the fourth echelon? I don't know. But I know that visible and usable
and for the first time really satisfactorily usable, on a broad level,
is this Q-1.
With this, your preclear
stops asking that inane question, "Why are we here? What is the reason
for all this?"
Scientology has been a progressive development and examination of the agreements which came to bring about the MEST universe, and then became the science of how agreements are made, and then became what are the beings who make these agreements. And how you can start all this, from these basics. That's where we are now.
There's actual data that goes along with the subject of being a Theta Clear. If he knew this instinctively, he would not be here in the MEST universe. It's actually a dirty trick to make a Theta Clear out of somebody without passing him the data that should go with it. He doesn't automatically know. His knowingness is high, but that's potential knowingness. So you, particularly as an auditor, have to know the most astonishing subject. I don't think this subject has ever been taught here on Earth before. Fortunately, very few subjects are as elementary or as basically simple in their parts as this. So on the one hand, when you say what this subject is, you can expect people's hair to stand on end. And then if you went ahead and explained its various component parts, and it might only take you three weeks, they would suddenly realize that the subject was knowable.
You'll find that all these
agreements are very accurately statable - and experienceable, which is
more important. And they're experienceable by a preclear ten minutes after
you start processing him. He won't know what's happening. But you as an
auditor will know what's happening. You've gotta know what's happening,
because all sorts of things might start to occur, on which you would have
no check or track if you didn't know what you were doing. Remark: like
the preclear doing a bunk, an instance that is covered under "cautions."
We have won techniques which
have a workability and if adhered to, and if practiced well, can do the
job. You can make something more than Homo sapiens and in my opinion it's
about time.
METHODOLOGY
The logic of putting Scientology together had as its first criterion application. What were we trying to do - that was fairly well thought out, we were trying to help beingness. There's a good cause and effect definition. It wasn't a slop-around of, "Well, let's be scientific, and let's fool around and let's see if we can make a lot of money," or "If I could only do ...". No, it was just a clear-cut statement. It presupposed that something could be done. And it had to assume, also, that the something which could be done would be, basically, simple. These were unwarranted assumptions. But it's a universe that's made by postulates. So we just postulated that before we began, and it's been going ever since.
To cause things one must be cause, and the primary requisite of cause is a statement of intention and goal - a clear statement of what you're trying to do. "What am I trying to do?" If you can't answer that, you'll foul up.
Take the highest truth which
you can state understandably and with accuracy and which you can relate
to the remainder of the body of data which confronts you, and evaluate
with that datum. And if it has limitations and doesn't expand the scope
of what you're trying to do, you're going to have to find a higher level
truth.
If any of this stuff had
to be thought about lengthily and so forth, nothing would have happened.
The only place where it had to be thought about is - compare it. You compare
one flow to another flow, you'd have to kind of mock up a couple of flows
and hook them together. That's what's known as inductive thought.
How could you investigate
anything if you were postulating all the time? In other words, it'd be
impossible to find out anything by carrying on investigation which is occasionally
called "scientific".
Let's take the subject of
Scientology and let's see if there's any logic involved with it at all.
No mathematics could embrace the subject of Scientology but an invented
mathematics, that accepts gradient scales and "absolutes are unobtainable".
It is a method of thinking about things, and it is just as true as it is
workable, and no truer.
You've got to have inductive
and deductive logic. You've got to reach for an inductive, almost intuitive
datum, and grab it. And then dive - hit the deductive level, take all this
data around here and see how it works: does it fit?
Logic 9: "A datum is as valuable
as it has been evaluated."
A datum is really just as
good to an individual as it's workable. If it were going to be addressed
to aesthetics, does it produce an aesthetic effect? That means it's workable.
So don't get "workable" down there with digging ditches.
When we make that statement
about theta, we say, "All right, this is the theory, let's now see if with
it we can predict the existence of new phenomena which when looked for
will be found to exist." And sure enough, this predicts data. It predicts
phenomena and if you use it in auditing, it keeps increasing the individual's
capability up with a very sure, good, solid gain. So far, there've been
no exceptions to this. It's not a variable then, it's a constant.
For man, a datum is just
as good as he can experience it. And if he can experience a datum very
broadly, it could be said to be a good usable workable datum. And we might
have some thundering, fundamental, capital "T" Truth here.
You either know data or you don't. There isn't any half-way point about it, you either know what a cycle of action is or you don't. Because the answers which have been dug up here are not vague answers. If there exists a vagueness, it was either a vagueness of communication, which was not fully received, or you're fighting something that would make it seem non-survival to you to know that datum.
You can take this knowledge
- if you know this knowledge well, you do not have to parade this knowledge.
You can teach people the knowledge. If you do that, just teach them data
more or less like I do. The amount of interest that I've put into this
is very minor really. Make a wisecrack once in a while, throw some randomity
in - don't do very much. Give'em data - that's what's important if you're
teaching.
But if you're practicing,
don't give anybody any data at all. Put the aesthetic band on this thing.
The aesthetic isn't knowledge, it's putting it to use. And it's the amount
of interest which will be given to you because you know.
HISTORY TABLE
Here's a summary table of materials covered since 1950:
1950 - DMSMH - running of
engrams and locks and grief charges
1951 - Science of Survival
- the mechanics of what aberration is
1951 - Self-Analysis a better
appreciation of language
1951 - Advanced Procedure
& Axioms - establishment of the goal of self-
determinism as the most
valuable
1952 - History of Man -
discovering and resolving the problems relating to
the GE - and finding that
one has to process the pc and who is the pc.
1952 - Standard Operating
Procedure I - consolidation of studies and experimental and temporary techniques
1952 - SOP Issue 3 - removal
of any agreement with the MEST universe
The development of this whole
science actually could be measured by how well-developed the Tone Scale
was. In book one we had a Tone Scale. That's the first plate, the first
illustration in Book One. It's the Tone Scale in its embryonic form. And
then in Science of Survival we started to move out onto the line and we
really got behavior at these various levels.
The Chart of Attitudes in
the Handbook for Preclears is the most valid portion of that book.
Scientology 8-80 is a very
good reference book. But it was one of those things which happened and
then was all very quick and before the book got anyplace, why, results
were being produced otherwise.
It is an account of phenomena
which we have to have here, but we are no longer using the techniques of
8-80. They are old.
SANITY AND THE TONE LEVEL OF THE SOCIETY
If you want to hit a society
hard, just know what is being published in its public prints. It is not
different from the tone level of the society. It is the tone level of the
society, because it is very closely monitored by such things as advertisers
and sales of copies.
You will find that your
preclears will respond to the type of mock-up which you find in the daily
newspapers, as the chronic level of mock-up.
Look at that old Science
of Survival chart. You'll find that this is the mock-up he is dramatizing
most, so it must be just above and below this band that you must hit in
order to change his location on the chart.
I don't care what people
think of me - you can't be very well and still care.
The only real truth there
is on the track, is that there is no true datum. That's a good high-level
truth. Concepts such as codes of justice are made up on basis of workability,
but they're born out of a pretense, such as the divine right of the ruler.
And therefore, because they are born out of a pretense and then became
factual, you'll find people, whenever they have assumed an untrue datum,
are getting very serious about the truth of something. And the harder they
insist that something is true, the surer you can be that it's not. They
might not know that it's not true, but if you followed the reasoning all
the way down, you would find it fallacious.
Watch that fellow who yells
loudest in the crowd, on his track you'd find that incident right there
on whatever he's protesting against with a screaming fit.
This tells you that some
time on the track I must have been a psychiatrist, doesn't it? Well, that's
right. I was.
The sole test of sanity administered
by a psychiatrist is, "Is he in agreement with the MEST universe?" If he
is, why, it's alright, even if he is in apathy or strictly a fruitcake,
then he is deemed sane.
Just take a look at the
human race - we're trying to unhypnotyze people. We're trying to wake people
up, we're trying to make them more and more alert.
If you wanted to find the
way out, just look at the way that was blocked to everywhere.
With these lectures we part
company from psychotherapy in any way, shape or form that it has ever been
practices or existed. The primary motive of psychotherapy, and the one
thing that we took from Sigmund Freud in the early part of Dianetics, was
locating things in time, particularly the past. It does produce a limited
result. But the limitedness of the result depends upon the fact that it
is a dramatization of an aberration.
Creation, change, destruction
of space, energy, objects is above now Q1. And we spot location of energy
and objects in time and space as an aberration. But if permitted to dramatize
it, a person will quite often recover slightly.
Nobody who has not been
thoroughly educated in the field of the actual human mind has any business
whatsoever doing anything with it at all. That's the stand we're stuck
with.
MISUSE OF SCIENTOLOGY
Scientology is not, in itself,
an arbitrary fascistic police force to make sure that we all think right
thoughts. It's a servant of the mind, a servo-mechanism of the mind, it
is not a master of the mind. Scientology will decline, and become useless
to man, on the day when it becomes the master of thinking. Don't think
it won't do that. It has every capability in it of doing that.
Contained in the knowable,
workable portions before your eyes there are methods of controlling human
beings and thetans which have never before being dreamed of in this universe,
control mechanisms of such awesome and solid proportions that if the remedies
were not so much easier to apply, one would be appalled at the dangerousness
to beingness that exists in Scientology. Fortunately, it was intelligently
invented, and I say that without any possible bow. I say that because part
of its logic was: the remedy should exist before the bullet.
In the presence of an unlimited
weapon, central government ceases to exist, as in the historical examples
of the first use of horses in warfare, or the use of assassins in the Middle
East some 800 years ago.
If you release the remedy,
and if the remedy is fast enough before the forces of evil can muster their
machinations and use the overt act, the overt act can't ever be used. There
is only one thing that could happen to Scientology, and that is to say
that it would be buried. The remedy would be buried. If it ever went out
of sight, this world's done. All you've got to do is invalidate it and
put it out of sight and hide it, and it'll come up in the wrong place doing
the wrong thing, and mankind will find itself a slave.
So anybody that knows the
remedy of this subject, anybody that knows these techniques, is himself
actually under a certain responsibility - that's to make sure that he doesn't
remain a sole proprietor. Don't ever think that a monopoly of this subject
is a safe thing to have. It's not safe, not for man, not for this universe.
This universe has long been looking for new ways to make slaves. Well,
we've got some new ways to make slaves here. Let's see that none are made.
It's fortunate that we are
able to make Clears as fast as we can make them. Because Black Dianetics,
as most destructive things work in this universe, could work a lot faster
than the old-time techniques - work really fast. But nowadays you can use
Creative Processing: the process of using mock-ups will flip out a PDH
(pain-drug-hypnosis incident) without ever touching it or addressing it.
Isn't that fascinating. You can knock a PDH to pieces with 15 minutes of
processing, and it takes longer than that to put one in. We really do have
the remedy before the assault weapon is produced.
Did you ever read poor old
George Orwell's 1984? That would be the palest imagined shadow of what
the world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology
with no remedy in existence. Well, it's alright in this offhand age to
just brush things aside and say, "Well, it's of no importance, really,
let's not be dramatic the way people are being about the atom bomb." Actually,
the atom bomb is just a MEST weapon, it isn't as serious as this subject.
This boogyman does exist.
It's a very simple remedy.
And that's, just make sure the remedy is passed along. That's all. Don't
hoard it. Don't hold it. And if you ever do use any black Dianetics, use
it on the guy who pulled Scientology out of sight and made it so it wasn't
available. Because he's the boy who would be electing himself "The New
Order". We don't need any more new orders - all those orders as far as
I'm concerned have been filled.
THE FILECLERK'S GUIDE TO THE PDC
INTRODUCTION