PDA

View Full Version : Ethics Gradients.



Feral
9th August 2009, 01:31 PM
It occurred to me today while I was doing my regular autopsy of my many wasted years in Scientology that I had success using the ethics gradients, as well as interogs and the other tools of "ethics officers".

For those not indoctrinated or lucky enough to forget here are the gradients of ethics;

1. Noticing something non optimum without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently.

2. Noticing something non optimum and commenting on it to the person.

3. Requesting information from ethics personnel.

4. Requesting information and inferring there is a disciplinary potential in the situation.

5.Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.

6. Talking to the person derogatorily.

7. Investigating in person by ethics.

8.Reporting on a post condition to ethics.

9. Reporting on a person to ethics.

10. Investigating a person by interrogating others about him.

11. Asking others for evidence about a person.

12. Publishing a interrogatory about a person that points out omissions or commissions, of ethics offenses.

13. Assigning a lower condition by limited publication.

14. Assigning a lower condition by broad publication.

15. Investigating a person thoroughly in his or her own area.

16. Interrogation stated to be leading to a Court of Ethics.

17. Interrogation in a Court of Ethics.

18. Sentencing in Court of Ethics.

19. Suspending a Court of Ethics sentence.

20. Carrying out a Court of Ethics discipline.

21. Suspension or loss of time.

22. A Committee of Evidence ordered.

23. A Committee of Evidence publicly ordered.

24. Holding a Committee of Evidence.

25. Findings by a Committee of Evidence.

26. Submitting findings of a Committee of Evidence for approval.

27. Waiting for the findings to be passed on or carried into effect.

28. Suspending findings for a period of time.

29. Modifying findings.

30. Carrying findings into effect.

31. Publishing findings.

32. Demotion.

33. Loss of certificates or awards.

34. Denial of auditing or training by a Comittee of Evidence for a considerable period of time.

35. Dismissal.

36.Expulsion from Scientology.

Here was my clanging epiphany that another Ex told me I HAD to post;

They are not gradients of ethics at all.

To me they seem to be gradients of mind control.....Damn!

I hate that!

Has any one else had thoughts about this specific part of LRons tech?

Lesolee (Sith Lord)
9th August 2009, 03:58 PM
Has any one else had thoughts about this specific part of LRons tech?
Not until you maliciously restimulated it! :bigcry:


Just kidding. :)

Div6
9th August 2009, 04:50 PM
Well, a couple of thoughts come to mind:

1. Nowhere does it advocate physical abuse, restraint or emotional abuse.
2. Placed against the backdrop of the stated "purpose" of ethics (to get tech in) it would seem that the "gradients" would drop once "tech" was in.
3. One point of serious mis-application is when the expected out-come is "better stats". Hubbards organizational skills are severely deficient in actual "know-how" for increasing statistics. This is a whole nother subject, but in a nutshell "management by statistics" is psychotic in Hubbards organizations.
4. InB4Veda This is a "PR" policy, meant to show the "harmless" and "reasonable" nature of Scn 'ethics'. Nowhere in this PL does it say to "manufacture evidence" or "destroy them utterly", which are 2 core tenants of the Scientology canon.
5. Maybe for the lulz we can have the Anons pass out an ethics interrogatory about DM. Might turn a few heads.

Veda
9th August 2009, 06:35 PM
-snip-

4. InB4Veda This is a "PR" policy, meant to show the "harmless" and "reasonable" nature of Scn 'ethics'. Nowhere in this PL does it say to "manufacture evidence" or "destroy them utterly", which are 2 core tenants of the Scientology canon.

-snip-



Feral's appraisal as being gradients of mind control would seem to describe it well.

Does anyone have a date for this? And where, and as what, it was issued?

It's definitely an incomplete statement and, I think, meant to be. (I'm assuming it's a non-confidential "remimeo" issue.)

Wouldn't describe it as "PR" policy, although, if the dichotomy of PR/Intel is used, I guess it would fall on the side of "PR." However, it's not really for display to 'wogs' and to 'raw meat', as are the 'Creed of the Church', the big plastic "Think for yourself" sign, or the essay 'What is Greatness?', or, for that matter, any of the widely publicized Dianetics and Scientology books. It's a little bit too close to the dark core/sucking vortex for that. Probably, the schematic of the "Scientological Onion' would be useful... Somewhere around "Layer Two": http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

Ted
9th August 2009, 06:57 PM
It occurred to me today while I was doing my regular autopsy of my many wasted years in Scientology that I had success using the ethics gradients, as well as interogs and the other tools of "ethics officers".

For those not indoctrinated or lucky enough to forget here are the gradients of ethics;

1. Noticing something non optimum without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently.

2. Noticing something non optimum and commenting on it to the person.

3. Requesting information from ethics personnel.

4. Requesting information and inferring there is a disciplinary potential in the situation.

5.Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.

6. Talking to the person derogatorily.

7. Investigating in person by ethics.

8.Reporting on a post condition to ethics.

9. Reporting on a person to ethics.

10. Investigating a person by interrogating others about him.

11. Asking others for evidence about a person.

12. Publishing a interrogatory about a person that points out omissions or commissions, of ethics offenses.

13. Assigning a lower condition by limited publication.

14. Assigning a lower condition by broad publication.

15. Investigating a person thoroughly in his or her own area.

16. Interrogation stated to be leading to a Court of Ethics.

17. Interrogation in a Court of Ethics.

18. Sentencing in Court of Ethics.

19. Suspending a Court of Ethics sentence.

20. Carrying out a Court of Ethics discipline.

21. Suspension or loss of time.

22. A Committee of Evidence ordered.

23. A Committee of Evidence publicly ordered.

24. Holding a Committee of Evidence.

25. Findings by a Committee of Evidence.

26. Submitting findings of a Committee of Evidence for approval.

27. Waiting for the findings to be passed on or carried into effect.

28. Suspending findings for a period of time.

29. Modifying findings.

30. Carrying findings into effect.

31. Publishing findings.

32. Demotion.

33. Loss of certificates or awards.

34. Denial of auditing or training by a Comittee of Evidence for a considerable period of time.

35. Dismissal.

36.Expulsion from Scientology.

Here was my clanging epiphany that another Ex told me I HAD to post;

They are not gradients of ethics at all.

To me they seem to be gradients of mind control.....Damn!

I hate that!

Has any one else had thoughts about this specific part of LRons tech?


I believe I first saw this above as part of a PL on the Student Hat Course. At the time I wasn't reading it as effect or a victim so it always appeared to me as a bit of LRH policy that simply didn't work. Now you have caused me to realize that poo always flows downhill, and the so-called gradients were meant for use on me, not by me. :lol:

The other thing is, "time is an entered arbitrary." One can go from #1 to #36 pretty damn fast skipping nearly all the useless interim steps! It just depends on who is pissed off at you, and who is trying to cover their own damn ass! :lol:

Dulloldfart
9th August 2009, 06:57 PM
Does anyone have a date for this? And where, and as what, it was issued?

It's a PL, called "ETHICS REVIEW," from 1965 I think. The "Ethics" and "Review" are on different lines and in different fonts, not both on the same line, although it is referred to as if they were. Like "Targets, Defence" as a PL is really "Defence Targets" although no-one calls it that. But not exactly the same as there is no comma in the "Review" title. :)

Paul

Telepathetic
9th August 2009, 07:07 PM
Does anyone have a date for this? And where, and as what, it was issued?[/url]

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 APRIL 1965 ISSUE III

ETHICS
REVIEW

(Correction to HCO Pol Ltr 24 April 1965 and additional ethics data)


___________________________________________
I had a hard time remembering and following the sequence set by that policy letter.

I did find though a PL that has come in very handy over the years:

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 OCTOBER 1962

CAR WASHING:D

TP

Lesolee (Sith Lord)
9th August 2009, 07:51 PM
Well surely Ethics Gradients are fully written up in the Ethics book.

I just checked my brand new Basics version. It's not indexed, that I can see. And I went through the whole book looking and I just can't see it. :confused2:

Maybe I have an MU and missed it. :eyeroll:

Dulloldfart
9th August 2009, 08:08 PM
Maybe I have an MU and missed it. :eyeroll:

Maybe they took it out because they don't apply it. The contents of that Ethics book change with every edition.

Paul

nw2394
9th August 2009, 10:46 PM
Feral's appraisal as being gradients of mind control would seem to describe it well.

What a load of bollocks. Yes it most certainly is about control. But are you seriously suggesting that a society should not have laws against such things as murder and rape? Are you suggesting that a company should not be able to dismiss an employee for persistent pilfering? Are you seriously suggesting that a parent should not have an expectation that a young child should be home at a reasonable hour? Or are you suggesting that a sporting organisation should not be able to suspend or fine a player for breach of whatever its rules are?

If you are not suggesting these things, perhaps you can explain why Scio should not have similar things?

I am not arguing that these things can't be over applied - just like having a police force can be over done and make a society into a police state - but you appear to be arguing that the very existence of such "ethics gradients" is wrong - which is ludicrous to my mind - a position only tenable to someone who thinks of themselves as an anarchist.

Nick

Zinjifar
10th August 2009, 12:17 AM
What a load of bollocks. Yes it most certainly is about control. But are you seriously suggesting that a society should not have laws against such things as murder and rape? Are you suggesting that a company should not be able to dismiss an employee for persistent pilfering? Are you seriously suggesting that a parent should not have an expectation that a young child should be home at a reasonable hour? Or are you suggesting that a sporting organisation should not be able to suspend or fine a player for breach of whatever its rules are?

If you are not suggesting these things, perhaps you can explain why Scio should not have similar things?

I am not arguing that these things can't be over applied - just like having a police force can be over done and make a society into a police state - but you appear to be arguing that the very existence of such "ethics gradients" is wrong - which is ludicrous to my mind - a position only tenable to someone who thinks of themselves as an anarchist.

Nick

Groups and societies do need 'rules' and even 'penalties'. The problem is that Scientology as a group/society/movement is inherently malicious, arbitrary and unjust. Whatever rules Scientology would run would be abhorent because Scientology is not about 'rule of law'; it's about having a good excuse for doing any damn thing you can get away with.

Zinj

nw2394
10th August 2009, 12:46 AM
Groups and societies do need 'rules' and even 'penalties'. The problem is that Scientology as a group/society/movement is inherently malicious, arbitrary and unjust. Whatever rules Scientology would run would be abhorent because Scientology is not about 'rule of law'; it's about having a good excuse for doing any damn thing you can get away with.

Zinj

Whether or not it is "inherently" malicious is open to debate as far as I am concerned, but I have no disagreement that it has become quite psycho in actual fact.

If it is "inherent", IMO it is the fact that organised Scn has, or thinks it has, a monopoly on "tech" or salvation or however you describe it. Sometimes, in the FZ, especially with people recently out, you see attempts to exert control in the same sort of way - but eventually people realise there is no monopoly out here - people either get along or not - but either way excommunication and such like carry little weight.

Nick

Zinjifar
10th August 2009, 12:50 AM
A 'justice system' that includes the concept of 'Kha Khan' *will* be inherently unjust.

Zinj

Dulloldfart
10th August 2009, 12:55 AM
A 'justice system' that includes the concept of 'Kha Khan' *will* be inherently unjust.

Zinj

Maybe, but I never ever saw that concept applied in reality. If the top dogs wanted you dead (i.e. off-post, declared, whatever change in status they wanted), you were out, Kha Khan status or not.

Paul

Feral
10th August 2009, 01:03 AM
What a load of bollocks. Yes it most certainly is about control. But are you seriously suggesting that a society should not have laws against such things as murder and rape? Are you suggesting that a company should not be able to dismiss an employee for persistent pilfering? Are you seriously suggesting that a parent should not have an expectation that a young child should be home at a reasonable hour? Or are you suggesting that a sporting organisation should not be able to suspend or fine a player for breach of whatever its rules are?

If you are not suggesting these things, perhaps you can explain why Scio should not have similar things?

I am not arguing that these things can't be over applied - just like having a police force can be over done and make a society into a police state - but you appear to be arguing that the very existence of such "ethics gradients" is wrong - which is ludicrous to my mind - a position only tenable to someone who thinks of themselves as an anarchist.

Nick

OK, maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough.

I'm not advocating anarchy and I'm not talking about laws and restrictions.

I've never seen the ethics gradients used for anything other than to get stats up.

An example; I had a friend who went to the org after course to pick up his son, couldn't find him and he was misdirected for two hours by the SO crew.

His son was being signed up at the age of 16 for a billion years, when the parents saw and reacted to the deception the ethics gradients were rapidly applied and they were told within the week they were facing a sec check, at their own expense, (FPRD style $30,000) and a com ev.

The gradients are not used to prevent social crimes, in fact the tech the church uses to handle actual crimes is PR and 'cover up' tech....after the fact. See the crimes within the CofS thread if you're in doubt.

I don't think they are over applied, they are mis applied to achieve stats, not ethical behavior.

But in the world of LRon that's the same thing, innit?

scooter
10th August 2009, 01:24 AM
I have usually only ever seen ethics gradients used in orgs to either "get" someone that a senior is pissed off with or to shut someone up.

A few times they have been used to actually ferret out the truth about something but that's usually been later overturned by higher-ups.

I won't speculate on Hubbard's intention for writing them but I do know how they've been practiced - as a control mechanism to keep the troops in line, not to provide any real justice.

I suspect that, like a lot of cult writings, the effect is totally reliant on the purpose of those applying it.

Voltaire's Child
10th August 2009, 07:12 AM
It occurred to me today while I was doing my regular autopsy of my many wasted years in Scientology that I had success using the ethics gradients, as well as interogs and the other tools of "ethics officers".

For those not indoctrinated or lucky enough to forget here are the gradients of ethics;

1. Noticing something non optimum without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently.

2. Noticing something non optimum and commenting on it to the person.

3. Requesting information from ethics personnel.

4. Requesting information and inferring there is a disciplinary potential in the situation.

5.Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.

6. Talking to the person derogatorily.

7. Investigating in person by ethics.

8.Reporting on a post condition to ethics.

9. Reporting on a person to ethics.

10. Investigating a person by interrogating others about him.

11. Asking others for evidence about a person.

12. Publishing a interrogatory about a person that points out omissions or commissions, of ethics offenses.

13. Assigning a lower condition by limited publication.

14. Assigning a lower condition by broad publication.

15. Investigating a person thoroughly in his or her own area.

16. Interrogation stated to be leading to a Court of Ethics.

17. Interrogation in a Court of Ethics.

18. Sentencing in Court of Ethics.

19. Suspending a Court of Ethics sentence.

20. Carrying out a Court of Ethics discipline.

21. Suspension or loss of time.

22. A Committee of Evidence ordered.

23. A Committee of Evidence publicly ordered.

24. Holding a Committee of Evidence.

25. Findings by a Committee of Evidence.

26. Submitting findings of a Committee of Evidence for approval.

27. Waiting for the findings to be passed on or carried into effect.

28. Suspending findings for a period of time.

29. Modifying findings.

30. Carrying findings into effect.

31. Publishing findings.

32. Demotion.

33. Loss of certificates or awards.

34. Denial of auditing or training by a Comittee of Evidence for a considerable period of time.

35. Dismissal.

36.Expulsion from Scientology.

Here was my clanging epiphany that another Ex told me I HAD to post;

They are not gradients of ethics at all.

To me they seem to be gradients of mind control.....Damn!

I hate that!

Has any one else had thoughts about this specific part of LRons tech?

Many of them strike me as things that would be pretty good if people would apply them. I've seen people apply the "notice something non optimum without mentioning it" thing and then escalate it - many a time in non Scn venues.

However, having said that, I do think that any of this stuff can be a two edged sword.

Another observation and here's where you and I would agree--The ethics penalties, misdemeanors, crimes, high crimes-- those contain a number of extremely control oriented things. I have always been in emphatic disagreement with the idea that not reporting PTSness is a CRIME.

Panda Termint
10th August 2009, 07:36 AM
Dearest Feral,
You've obviously been away from CofS lines for some time, you must have missed the Golden Age of Ethics Gradients!
Macsavage discovered that the first 31 gradient steps had all been introduced by namby-pamby, panty-waist dilettanti and had them stricken from the record.

It now goes like this:

DM: If I see/hear/read/imagine that someone has any counter-intention to MY command-intention,
32. Demotion.
33. Loss of certificates or awards.
34. Denial of auditing or training (Delete the following namby-pamby crap! by a Comittee of Evidence for a considerable period of time.)
35. Dismissal.
36.Expulsion from Scientology.
He added the newly discovered, non-pantywaist Hubbardian Gradient
37: Unleash the hounds of hell.

This has brought about a new Golden Age of Ethics for all scientologists and saves a lot of wasted time. :D
PS: The "punch in the mouth" gradient is still there, it's unstated but understood as a 0 step.

scooter
10th August 2009, 07:56 AM
Dearest Feral,
You've obviously been away from CofS lines for some time, you must have missed the Golden Age of Ethics Gradients!
Macsavage discovered that the first 31 gradient steps had all been introduced by namby-pamby, panty-waist dilettanti and had them stricken from the record.

It now goes like this:

DM: If I see/hear/read/imagine that someone has any counter-intention to MY command-intention,
32. Demotion.
33. Loss of certificates or awards.
34. Denial of auditing or training (Delete the following namby-pamby crap! by a Comittee of Evidence for a considerable period of time.)
35. Dismissal.
36.Expulsion from Scientology.
He added the newly discovered, non-pantywaist Hubbardian Gradient
37: Unleash the hounds of hell.

This has brought about a new Golden Age of Ethics for all scientologists and saves a lot of wasted time. :D
PS: The "punch in the mouth" gradient is still there, it's unstated but understood as a 0 step.

:omg: :thumbsup: :wink2: :hysterical:

nw2394
10th August 2009, 01:33 PM
I don't think they are over applied, they are mis applied to achieve stats, not ethical behavior.

Certainly stats are linked to ethics in a way that is unhealthy.

Nick

Francois Tremblay
17th August 2009, 09:59 PM
I'm not advocating anarchy

As someone who *is* advocating anarchism, I can safely say that what nw2394 said is "a load of bollocks," to borrow his phrase. There's no reason to defend Scientology on the basis of a corrupt social model.

dchoiceisalwaysrs
18th August 2009, 07:18 AM
I guess I am just a squirrel. I though Ethics was supposed to be personal thing, and never could get why one would have a Court of Ethics!
Wouldn't that be part of a Justice system?:confused2:

Maybe it had something to do with arguing with one's alter-lronego often known as the CoS.:duh:

Zinjifar
19th August 2009, 12:35 AM
Obviously you have a misunderstood on Scientology. What's 'personal'????

Zinj

Feral
19th August 2009, 04:32 AM
I guess I am just a squirrel. I though Ethics was supposed to be personal thing, and never could get why one would have a Court of Ethics!
Wouldn't that be part of a Justice system?:confused2:

Maybe it had something to do with arguing with one's alter-lronego often known as the CoS.:duh:


That's how it should be if you take all the Hubbard explanation of the difference between ethics and justice.

Maybe he forgot....

dchoiceisalwaysrs
19th August 2009, 05:04 AM
Obviously you have a misunderstood on Scientology. What's 'personal'????

Zinj


I'd say the good will brought into the CoS was personal
And so was the good will that got individuals out.!

dchoiceisalwaysrs
19th August 2009, 05:07 AM
That's how it should be if you take all the Hubbard explanation of the difference between ethics and justice.

Maybe he forgot....


Or he just may have had alterior motives!

Alanzo
19th August 2009, 05:16 AM
It occurred to me today while I was doing my regular autopsy of my many wasted years in Scientology that I had success using the ethics gradients, as well as interogs and the other tools of "ethics officers".

For those not indoctrinated or lucky enough to forget here are the gradients of ethics;

1. Noticing something non optimum without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently.

2. Noticing something non optimum and commenting on it to the person.

3. Requesting information from ethics personnel.

4. Requesting information and inferring there is a disciplinary potential in the situation.

5.Talking to somebody about another derogatorily.

6. Talking to the person derogatorily.

7. Investigating in person by ethics.

8.Reporting on a post condition to ethics.

9. Reporting on a person to ethics.

10. Investigating a person by interrogating others about him.

11. Asking others for evidence about a person.

12. Publishing a interrogatory about a person that points out omissions or commissions, of ethics offenses.

13. Assigning a lower condition by limited publication.

14. Assigning a lower condition by broad publication.

15. Investigating a person thoroughly in his or her own area.

16. Interrogation stated to be leading to a Court of Ethics.

17. Interrogation in a Court of Ethics.

18. Sentencing in Court of Ethics.

19. Suspending a Court of Ethics sentence.

20. Carrying out a Court of Ethics discipline.

21. Suspension or loss of time.

22. A Committee of Evidence ordered.

23. A Committee of Evidence publicly ordered.

24. Holding a Committee of Evidence.

25. Findings by a Committee of Evidence.

26. Submitting findings of a Committee of Evidence for approval.

27. Waiting for the findings to be passed on or carried into effect.

28. Suspending findings for a period of time.

29. Modifying findings.

30. Carrying findings into effect.

31. Publishing findings.

32. Demotion.

33. Loss of certificates or awards.

34. Denial of auditing or training by a Comittee of Evidence for a considerable period of time.

35. Dismissal.

36.Expulsion from Scientology.

Here was my clanging epiphany that another Ex told me I HAD to post;

They are not gradients of ethics at all.

To me they seem to be gradients of mind control.....Damn!

I hate that!

Has any one else had thoughts about this specific part of LRons tech?

The way this always worked out in my mind as a Scientologist was, once the ethics gradients have begun on you - if you do not do what you are told - these steps will inexorably lead to your expulsion from Scientology.

And that means that your eternity is being threatened as soon as the ethics gradients had begun!

All someone had to do was notice something non-optimum about you without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently for you to start to be cut off from the Bridge!

The ethics gradients are actually a very cruel form of mind control by threatening the very existence of the your brainwashed followers to gain compliance to your orders on making you rich.

Outethicsofficer
19th August 2009, 07:25 AM
The way this always worked out in my mind as a Scientologist was, once the ethics gradients have begun on you - if you do not do what you are told - these steps will inexorably lead to your expulsion from Scientology.

And that means that your eternity is being threatened as soon as the ethics gradients had begun!

All someone had to do was notice something non-optimum about you without mentioning it but only inspecting it silently for you to start to be cut off from the Bridge!

The ethics gradients are actually a very cruel form of mind control by threatening the very existence of the your brainwashed followers to gain compliance to your orders on making you rich.

Yeah Alanzo, I have and I agree with your observations above. Only since I arrived at this point did I even bother to look at the doubt formula newly.

Step 3. Decide on the basis of "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" whether or not it should be attacked, harmed or suppressed or helped.

Nowhere did Hubbard allow that one may decide to just ignore it, let it be or whatever, no it came down to deciding to attack it, harm it or suppress it and lastly help it.
So not to draw too long a bow, if we were to apply that step to the church from our POV, it allows us to attack it, harm it or suppress it since we have obviously decided it is not to be helped. But wait a minute isn't that where they get upset with us. Shit per the doubt formula there is no room for simply stepping away!!! It is right there in the formula.

So I conclude Hubbard just loved a fight.:omg:And he loved seeing others lock horns, that is where he got his kicks,IMO.
James

Comments please.

Happy Days
19th August 2009, 07:37 AM
I guess I am just a squirrel. I though Ethics was supposed to be personal thing, and never could get why one would have a Court of Ethics!
Wouldn't that be part of a Justice system?:confused2:

Maybe it had something to do with arguing with one's alter-lronego often known as the CoS.:duh:

Yep that's how I understood it as well...

However, having reflected over the many months I've come to the conclusion that there really is no "you" in the church it's us or them (SP's)... so that takes the personal aspect right out of the picture..

You just head right into justice actions and do not have the opportunity to think for yourself ... that's dangerous business for the Church, if you start doing that :coolwink: ... so they hammer you and demean you so you just sucuumb and pull into line... great stuff aye :no: :no: :no: