Conditions

[Aliceinwonderland]

:)

The "conditions" can be used on just about anything that one is doing in life, correct? There is "conditions by dynamics" (at least there was in the 70's) and so, why not conditions by identities?

If one can recognize a few identities that one is using to solve problems, play games, or just get along and is having a couple of those identities clash with each other, why not find out what condition those ID's are in?

I don't think a "static" has any condition (that I know of - how could it?). So, all conditions can only apply to identities and where they stand at that moment.

Also, since I've seen identities that are at cross purpose with each other (on the same individual) the conditions would be on each other. Like, let's say the person created the identity of the "protect" identity, which comes alive anytime it feels mentally threatened (on all flows). But somewhere along the line, that person developed the identity of "outgoing schmoozer". One could ask what condition the "protect" identity was to the "outdoing schmoozer" and vice versa. One could even ask what condition the identity was in, in accordance to the dynamics its supposed to handle.

I suppose someone has already done the above, but I haven't seen it - has anyone else?

:eyeroll:

Lyn

[grundy]

I dont think it would be something that could be done in the CofS because it would, it seems to me, create valences.

Conditions by dynamics is still done, as well as exchange by dynamics.

[Alan]

:)

The "conditions" can be used on just about anything that one is doing in life, correct? There is "conditions by dynamics" (at least there was in the 70's) and so, why not conditions by identities?

If one can recognize a few identities that one is using to solve problems, play games, or just get along and is having a couple of those identities clash with each other, why not find out what condition those ID's are in?

I don't think a "static" has any condition (that I know of - how could it?). So, all conditions can only apply to identities and where they stand at that moment.

Also, since I've seen identities that are at cross purpose with each other (on the same individual) the conditions would be on each other. Like, let's say the person created the identity of the "protect" identity, which comes alive anytime it feels mentally threatened (on all flows). But somewhere along the line, that person developed the identity of "outgoing schmoozer". One could ask what condition the "protect" identity was to the "outdoing schmoozer" and vice versa. One could even ask what condition the identity was in, in accordance to the dynamics its supposed to handle.

I suppose someone has already done the above, but I haven't seen it - has anyone else?

:eyeroll:

Lyn

The conditions are in fact dichotomous.

Example:

Confusion (if confusion condition handled - would bring about) = Order.

Treason (if treason condition handled - would bring about) = Trust

Enemy (if enemy condition handled - would bring about) = Friend

Doubt (if doubt condition handled - would bring about) = Certainty

Liability (if liability condition handled - would bring about) = Asset

Non-Existence (if Non-E condition handled - would bring about) = Existence

Danger (if danger condition handled - would bring about) = Safety

Emergency (if emergency condition handled - would bring about) = Stability

Normal (if normal condition handled - would bring about) = Not normal

Affluence (if affluence condition handled - would bring about) = Scarcity

Power (if power condition handled - would bring about) = Weaknesses

Etc.

The conditions are very flawed as in most situations you have no true idea of what or who is doing the condition.:omg:

Alan

[nexus100]

The conditions are in fact dichotomous.

Example:

Confusion (if confusion condition handled - would bring about) = Order.

Treason (if treason condition handled - would bring about) = Trust

Enemy (if enemy condition handled - would bring about) = Friend

Doubt (if doubt condition handled - would bring about) = Certainty

Liability (if liability condition handled - would bring about) = Asset

Non-Existence (if Non-E condition handled - would bring about) = Existence

Danger (if danger condition handled - would bring about) = Safety

Emergency (if emergency condition handled - would bring about) = Stability

Normal (if normal condition handled - would bring about) = Not normal

Affluence (if affluence condition handled - would bring about) = Scarcity

Power (if power condition handled - would bring about) = Weaknesses

Etc.

The conditions are very flawed as in most situations you have no true idea of what or who is doing the condition.:omg:

Alan

Wow. I had discarded the conditions, but still had a nagging feeling I shouldn't. My reasoning for discarding them had been as yours at the bottom of your post, unless you know who you are then what is the point of applying a condition to something. And if you know who you are you know what to do. Having a line on a piece of paper become King-not a good idea. The best tools work easily and they help get stuff done and help one feel accomplished. Bad tools become a pestilence to the spirit. Anyone who has used Microsoft Help can attest to that.

[Dulloldfart]

:)
I suppose someone has already done the above, but I haven't seen it - has anyone else?

:eyeroll:

Lyn

While I was in the SO at SH in the 80s I heard about someone who got into a heap of ethics trouble for assigning conditions to his BTs. I don't know if this was done on a group basis or an individual one. I suppose now you could open up a spreadsheet and keep track of them all on an individual basis...

...OK, hi #193, how's it going now? Did you apply Non-E to those guys in the other testicle?...That's great. I'm upgrading you to Danger. How are you going to apply the first step, "Bypass habits and normal routines"?...Yeah, that's fine, you get on with doing that and I'll check back with you later.

...All right, #194, what's the latest? Have you finished your amends project yet so you can go round getting signatures?

And so on. Could be a full-time job.

Maybe one should assign a BT assistant to do it, keeping the admin in an entity-friendly place of course. :)

Paul

[Cat's Squirrel]

The conditions are in fact dichotomous.

Example:

Confusion (if confusion condition handled - would bring about) = Order.

Treason (if treason condition handled - would bring about) = Trust

Enemy (if enemy condition handled - would bring about) = Friend

Doubt (if doubt condition handled - would bring about) = Certainty

Liability (if liability condition handled - would bring about) = Asset

Non-Existence (if Non-E condition handled - would bring about) = Existence

Danger (if danger condition handled - would bring about) = Safety

Emergency (if emergency condition handled - would bring about) = Stability

Normal (if normal condition handled - would bring about) = Not normal

Affluence (if affluence condition handled - would bring about) = Scarcity

Power (if power condition handled - would bring about) = Weaknesses

Etc.

The conditions are very flawed as in most situations you have no true idea of what or who is doing the condition.:omg:

Alan

Thanks Alan, it 's a great insight. My first thought on seeing this was that it couldn't be right because the top two conditions appear to turn into downstats; affluence => scarcity, power => weakness. But the other possibility I can think of is that you move from personal to transpersonal when you handle these, i.e.

Personal affluence => I have nothing of my own, but I need nothing because I draw from moment to moment on the bounty of the All which is everything.

Personal power => I have no strength of my own, but I need none because I draw from moment to moment on the strength of the All which is all-powerful.

Don't know if this is true, but it sounds right to me. I like the phrase "the All,"
but others may wish to substitute their own word or phrase for spiritual reality.

[Spork]

While I was in the SO at SH in the 80s I heard about someone who got into a heap of ethics trouble for assigning conditions to his BTs. I don't know if this was done on a group basis or an individual one. I suppose now you could open up a spreadsheet and keep track of them all on an individual basis...

...OK, hi #193, how's it going now? Did you apply Non-E to those guys in the other testicle?...That's great. I'm upgrading you to Danger. How are you going to apply the first step, "Bypass habits and normal routines"?...Yeah, that's fine, you get on with doing that and I'll check back with you later.

...All right, #194, what's the latest? Have you finished your amends project yet so you can go round getting signatures?

And so on. Could be a full-time job.

Maybe one should assign a BT assistant to do it, keeping the admin in an entity-friendly place of course. :)

Paul

Here's a quick way through your OT levels. Apply "conditions" and assign all your BTs to the RPF.

Shouldn't need the OT levels at all in fact. "Ethics Tech" alone should suffice. It works, doesn't it?

Why not?

[nexus100]

Thanks Alan, it 's a great insight. My first thought on seeing this was that it couldn't be right because the top two conditions appear to turn into downstats; affluence => scarcity, power => weakness. But the other possibility I can think of is that you move from personal to transpersonal when you handle these, i.e.

Personal affluence => I have nothing of my own, but I need nothing because I draw from moment to moment on the bounty of the All which is everything.

Personal power => I have no strength of my own, but I need none because I draw from moment to moment on the strength of the All which is all-powerful.

Don't know if this is true, but it sounds right to me. I like the phrase "the All,"
but others may wish to substitute their own word or phrase for spiritual reality.

What gorgeous statements! They sum up what I've been feeling.

Thank you!

[Pierrot]

:)

The "conditions" can be used on just about anything that one is doing in life, correct? There is "conditions by dynamics" (at least there was in the 70's) and so, why not conditions by identities?

If one can recognize a few identities that one is using to solve problems, play games, or just get along and is having a couple of those identities clash with each other, why not find out what condition those ID's are in?

Well... - you could use the conditions on identities, why not. However - you would specialise in "beingnesses" instead of considering the conditions of existence which are be, do and have, which would cover the full spectrum. Every dynamic, and its sub-sections, has a hat which leads to a product, via doingness.


:) I don't think a "static" has any condition (that I know of - how could it?). So, all conditions can only apply to identities and where they stand at that moment.

:D does the static exist? lol - AXIOM 2 "THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS. " AXIOM 11 "THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD" i.e. as-is-ness, alter-is-ness, is-ness, not-isness. Again - the conditions of existence - hence be, do, have.


:) Also, since I've seen identities that are at cross purpose with each other

(snip)

AH ! purpose that's a key world, and we find it in the admin scale - which might be seen as an expression of be, do, have.

goals
purposes..........................BE
policy

plans
programs
projects...........................DO
orders

ideal scenes
stats...............................HAVE
valuable final products

now, of course one could work out the admin scale on every and each dynamics, if and as needed. Actually - I wouldn't apply apply the ethics conditions without at least having a slight idea of what admin scale I'm applying those on. And knowing on Admin Scale belonging to whom ...

Especially in the CofS, lol! - Q&Aing on conditions with the Ethics Officer's or MAA's whose Admin Scale might be completely opposite to one's own can lead some straight into Integrity Breaks, Treason then Confusion. (I got expelled from the CofS in the 80s by a MAA... - she couldn't "handle me", as I showed her my admin scale with full ethics conditions write-up, with alignement for the greatest good etc and that didn't fit her admin scale to post me on some moneymaking post... my goal then was "to become ClassVIII" which was then paid for. Funny to be expelled from staff for that ;-) anyway, since then I never considered Ethics Conditions without Admin Scale as well.


:) I suppose someone has already done the above, but I haven't seen it - has anyone else?

:eyeroll:

Lyn

Just to mention - great Alan for pointing those dichotomies out ;-)

[Tanstaafl]

The conditions are in fact dichotomous.

Example:

Confusion (if confusion condition handled - would bring about) = Order.

Treason (if treason condition handled - would bring about) = Trust

Enemy (if enemy condition handled - would bring about) = Friend

Doubt (if doubt condition handled - would bring about) = Certainty

Liability (if liability condition handled - would bring about) = Asset

Non-Existence (if Non-E condition handled - would bring about) = Existence

Danger (if danger condition handled - would bring about) = Safety

Emergency (if emergency condition handled - would bring about) = Stability

Normal (if normal condition handled - would bring about) = Not normal

Affluence (if affluence condition handled - would bring about) = Scarcity

Power (if power condition handled - would bring about) = Weaknesses

Etc.

The conditions are very flawed as in most situations you have no true idea of what or who is doing the condition.:omg:

Alan


Confusion handled would bring about orientation but not necessarily order.

Treason is too similar to Liability - you're taking resources from the org but are not producing sufficient to be in fair exchange.

Personally, I can't see how one can do Enemy before Doubt. :confused2:

Handling Danger would not necessarily bring about safety - it would bring about removal of danger. Short and long terms need to be factored in.

Alan, I think your examples are not valid as they are not put in any kind of context. Having said that, I think the conditions are bollocks (happy to be proved wrong). The fact that staff auditors only need to do 25 hours to stay in a Normal condition demonstrates it's a fix. AFAIK you can have an HGC with one auditor and he can stay in Normal for years when he is actually in Emergency. Of course, the ultimate proof is to look at the orgs after over 40 years of applying this stuff.

[Roland ami]

Actually you do handle BT's with conditions - find out what you are, and find out who you are. Presumably once they are in liability you are done with them....

Roland

[Pierrot]

Actually you do handle BT's with conditions - find out what you are, and find out who you are. Presumably once they are in liability you are done with them....

Roland

lol, good one ! - .... after they are out of liability they are into non-existence :D

[gomorrhan]

Mary Freeman's Integrity Program specializes in discovering what identities a person is using as a substitute to confronting a given situation with full presence as "true self". Her expansion of the training on how to use the conditions, and how to get the results of having used them (in the past, they have sometimes been seen as a trifle glib by many). Having done her program, I can definitely say that I'd never had similar cognitions or life-change when doing them in the Church, and had essentially written them off as unworkable, being that a person would need to have the product of OT VIII in order to truely "find out who they really are", etc.

My opinion is that a being who has identities in conflict is essentially a being who has GPMs. The solution to GPMs is to do the grades, and then it gets murky, as LRH abandoned that research line in favor of shortcuts like Implants and entity tech (which don't bring about responsibility and awareness IMO of the user, but instead induce "other-determinism" and battle with such things, getting out of valence, etc.). LRH had a few methods that help (R6EW, Criss-Cross, Line-Plotting), but can also get you into trouble as they are tricky and prone to error. The Grades will release from GPMs, but only full address of them will prevent eventual slide back into dramatization of those GPMs. Metapsychology has "Unstacking" to handle this area, and reports I have gotten on it are that it works very well and the write-up is only about ten pages (can't be that complex!).

That being said, careful analysis of your purposes and activities in life does usually expose "identities" that are working at cross-purposes to your conscious goals, and this awareness can be used to tackle the intentions underlying the sabotage in session using the intention as an item in a NED Assist. (Attitudes, Emotions, Sensations and Postulates are addressed through NED)

[Alan]

Confusion handled would bring about orientation but not necessarily order.

Treason is too similar to Liability - you're taking resources from the org but are not producing sufficient to be in fair exchange.

Personally, I can't see how one can do Enemy before Doubt. :confused2:

Handling Danger would not necessarily bring about safety - it would bring about removal of danger. Short and long terms need to be factored in.

Alan, I think your examples are not valid as they are not put in any kind of context. Having said that, I think the conditions are bollocks (happy to be proved wrong). The fact that staff auditors only need to do 25 hours to stay in a Normal condition demonstrates it's a fix. AFAIK you can have an HGC with one auditor and he can stay in Normal for years when he is actually in Emergency. Of course, the ultimate proof is to look at the orgs after over 40 years of applying this stuff.



Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!

There is a condition below confusion.......

Absence (if an abscence condition is handled - would bring about) = Presence.

Suggest you take specific areas of your life - break them up into orders of importance.

Then apply the conditions.

The reason the Ethics Conditions have been so badly applied in Scio is because the basics of the EO are out.

The correct way would be to find when the person was last doing well.....find what happened and rehab the highest condition.

Clean up the wrong items and wrong ethics conditions.

Usually the person can quickly and easily straighten out the rest of what is out.

The Ethics conditions are at best a rough guideline to achieving what you want out of life.

Scio uses them as a weapon of control and domination.:omg:

Alan

[Rene Descartes]

:)

The "conditions" can be used on just about anything that one is doing in life, correct? There is "conditions by dynamics" (at least there was in the 70's) and so, why not conditions by identities?

If one can recognize a few identities that one is using to solve problems, play games, or just get along and is having a couple of those identities clash with each other, why not find out what condition those ID's are in?

I don't think a "static" has any condition (that I know of - how could it?). So, all conditions can only apply to identities and where they stand at that moment.

Also, since I've seen identities that are at cross purpose with each other (on the same individual) the conditions would be on each other. Like, let's say the person created the identity of the "protect" identity, which comes alive anytime it feels mentally threatened (on all flows). But somewhere along the line, that person developed the identity of "outgoing schmoozer". One could ask what condition the "protect" identity was to the "outdoing schmoozer" and vice versa. One could even ask what condition the identity was in, in accordance to the dynamics its supposed to handle.

I suppose someone has already done the above, but I haven't seen it - has anyone else?

:eyeroll:

Lyn

Awesome idea!! I think I'll try it. Then I will too. And so will I. And after that I will.

Rd00

[Rene Descartes]

The conditions are in fact dichotomous.

Example:

Confusion (if confusion condition handled - would bring about) = Order.

Treason (if treason condition handled - would bring about) = Trust

Enemy (if enemy condition handled - would bring about) = Friend

Doubt (if doubt condition handled - would bring about) = Certainty

Liability (if liability condition handled - would bring about) = Asset

Non-Existence (if Non-E condition handled - would bring about) = Existence

Danger (if danger condition handled - would bring about) = Safety

Emergency (if emergency condition handled - would bring about) = Stability

Normal (if normal condition handled - would bring about) = Not normal

Affluence (if affluence condition handled - would bring about) = Scarcity

Power (if power condition handled - would bring about) = Weaknesses

Etc.

The conditions are very flawed as in most situations you have no true idea of what or who is doing the condition.:omg:

Alan

So much for infinite valued logic.

Rd00

[Rene Descartes]

While I was in the SO at SH in the 80s I heard about someone who got into a heap of ethics trouble for assigning conditions to his BTs. I don't know if this was done on a group basis or an individual one. I suppose now you could open up a spreadsheet and keep track of them all on an individual basis...

...OK, hi #193, how's it going now? Did you apply Non-E to those guys in the other testicle?...That's great. I'm upgrading you to Danger. How are you going to apply the first step, "Bypass habits and normal routines"?...Yeah, that's fine, you get on with doing that and I'll check back with you later.

...All right, #194, what's the latest? Have you finished your amends project yet so you can go round getting signatures?

And so on. Could be a full-time job.

Maybe one should assign a BT assistant to do it, keeping the admin in an entity-friendly place of course. :)

Paul

:roflmao:

AWESOME STORY!!

Rd00

[Rene Descartes]

LRH said -

goals
purposes..........................BE
policy

Not sure why LRH would totally overlook the obvious that a goal = HAVE

Rd00

[Alan]

Awesome idea!! I think I'll try it. Then I will too. And so will I. And after that I will.

Rd00

:roflmao:

[Dulloldfart]

LRH said -

goals
purposes..........................BE
policy

Not sure why LRH would totally overlook the obvious that a goal = HAVE

Rd00

Have - Do - Have doesn't look as imposing.

Paul

[Smitty]

Mary Freeman's Integrity Program specializes in discovering what identities a person is using as a substitute to confronting a given situation with full presence as "true self". Her expansion of the training on how to use the conditions, and how to get the results of having used them (in the past, they have sometimes been seen as a trifle glib by many). Having done her program, I can definitely say that I'd never had similar cognitions or life-change when doing them in the Church, and had essentially written them off as unworkable, being that a person would need to have the product of OT VIII in order to truely "find out who they really are", etc.

My opinion is that a being who has identities in conflict is essentially a being who has GPMs. The solution to GPMs is to do the grades, and then it gets murky, as LRH abandoned that research line in favor of shortcuts like Implants and entity tech (which don't bring about responsibility and awareness IMO of the user, but instead induce "other-determinism" and battle with such things, getting out of valence, etc.). LRH had a few methods that help (R6EW, Criss-Cross, Line-Plotting), but can also get you into trouble as they are tricky and prone to error. The Grades will release from GPMs, but only full address of them will prevent eventual slide back into dramatization of those GPMs. Metapsychology has "Unstacking" to handle this area, and reports I have gotten on it are that it works very well and the write-up is only about ten pages (can't be that complex!).

That being said, careful analysis of your purposes and activities in life does usually expose "identities" that are working at cross-purposes to your conscious goals, and this awareness can be used to tackle the intentions underlying the sabotage in session using the intention as an item in a NED Assist. (Attitudes, Emotions, Sensations and Postulates are addressed through NED)

I am glad Mary Freeman found a modification of doing ethics conditions to make them helpful to more people. My own view on conditions is that each one is individual and needs to be dealt with as it is, and not by any rote formula, as Hubbard seemed to think. Hubbard did a bullshit job on us with "ethics conditions" and it seems that a few of his disciples (not Mary) want to continue the tradition of delusion and slavery.
Smitty

[gomorrhan]

My knowledge of current Church practice isn't good, I only know what I saw and what people have reported, but it sounds like condition assignments are used by the Church to put people in a status where they can be used for manual labor, or to control their activities, rather than to help the person spot something that they needed to fix to get on with their life. Like any other tool, it can be used to help or hinder dependent on the intention of the person using the tool.

[Vinaire]

:)

The "conditions" can be used on just about anything that one is doing in life, correct? There is "conditions by dynamics" (at least there was in the 70's) and so, why not conditions by identities?

If one can recognize a few identities that one is using to solve problems, play games, or just get along and is having a couple of those identities clash with each other, why not find out what condition those ID's are in?

I don't think a "static" has any condition (that I know of - how could it?). So, all conditions can only apply to identities and where they stand at that moment.

Also, since I've seen identities that are at cross purpose with each other (on the same individual) the conditions would be on each other. Like, let's say the person created the identity of the "protect" identity, which comes alive anytime it feels mentally threatened (on all flows). But somewhere along the line, that person developed the identity of "outgoing schmoozer". One could ask what condition the "protect" identity was to the "outdoing schmoozer" and vice versa. One could even ask what condition the identity was in, in accordance to the dynamics its supposed to handle.

I suppose someone has already done the above, but I haven't seen it - has anyone else?

:eyeroll:

Lyn

Most of the time a person slips in and out of various identities fluidly. Unwanted conditions are caused only when one gets stuck in identities.

I would think that the condition formulas would be applied toward the purpose of not sticking in identities and regaining one's power of choice.

.

[Vinaire]

The conditions are in fact dichotomous.

Example:

Confusion (if confusion condition handled - would bring about) = Order.

Treason (if treason condition handled - would bring about) = Trust

Enemy (if enemy condition handled - would bring about) = Friend

Doubt (if doubt condition handled - would bring about) = Certainty

Liability (if liability condition handled - would bring about) = Asset

Non-Existence (if Non-E condition handled - would bring about) = Existence

Danger (if danger condition handled - would bring about) = Safety

Emergency (if emergency condition handled - would bring about) = Stability

Normal (if normal condition handled - would bring about) = Not normal

Affluence (if affluence condition handled - would bring about) = Scarcity

Power (if power condition handled - would bring about) = Weaknesses

Etc.

The conditions are very flawed as in most situations you have no true idea of what or who is doing the condition.:omg:

Alan

Anything you can think of can be presented as dichotomous, such as, to be or not to be.

I don't understand the point being made above. How does having a dichotomy lead to something being flawed? :omg:

I am not making any judgment about the conditions here. They may be flawed for all I know. It is just that what is written above doesn't make any sense.

The purpose of the applying the condition of confusion is simply to get oriented in present time.

.

[Vinaire]

Wow. I had discarded the conditions, but still had a nagging feeling I shouldn't. My reasoning for discarding them had been as yours at the bottom of your post, unless you know who you are then what is the point of applying a condition to something. And if you know who you are you know what to do. Having a line on a piece of paper become King-not a good idea. The best tools work easily and they help get stuff done and help one feel accomplished. Bad tools become a pestilence to the spirit. Anyone who has used Microsoft Help can attest to that.

The purpose of TREASON condition is simply to recognize the post one had agreed to hold. One has gone into treason to the hat one was supposed to wear.

.

[Tanstaafl]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!

I can loan you a mouse trap if you need one or have you just been eating a lot of cheese lately? :)


There is a condition below confusion.......

Absence (if an abscence condition is handled - would bring about) = Presence.

IIRC Hubbard stated that disassociation is below confusion. Not that he is right - just mentioning it. I think it's on the Super Power bulletins.


Suggest you take specific areas of your life - break them up into orders of importance.

Then apply the conditions.

The reason the Ethics Conditions have been so badly applied in Scio is because the basics of the EO are out.

The correct way would be to find when the person was last doing well.....find what happened and rehab the highest condition.

Clean up the wrong items and wrong ethics conditions.

Usually the person can quickly and easily straighten out the rest of what is out.

The Ethics conditions are at best a rough guideline to achieving what you want out of life.

Scio uses them as a weapon of control and domination.:omg:

Alan

Sounds sensible. I agree.

[Pierrot]

LRH said -

goals
purposes..........................BE
policy

Not sure why LRH would totally overlook the obvious that a goal = HAVE

Rd00

is that so obvious? if you have it already why is it a goal then?

a dreamer would dream of an ideal scene, would find out what to do to achieve that, then he'd find out the identity he'd need to be to get it done. That identity would have a goal, purposes and a way to go about it.

whatever - I'm just writing about how I use it, when I do.

[Vinaire]

While I was in the SO at SH in the 80s I heard about someone who got into a heap of ethics trouble for assigning conditions to his BTs. I don't know if this was done on a group basis or an individual one. I suppose now you could open up a spreadsheet and keep track of them all on an individual basis...

...OK, hi #193, how's it going now? Did you apply Non-E to those guys in the other testicle?...That's great. I'm upgrading you to Danger. How are you going to apply the first step, "Bypass habits and normal routines"?...Yeah, that's fine, you get on with doing that and I'll check back with you later.

...All right, #194, what's the latest? Have you finished your amends project yet so you can go round getting signatures?

And so on. Could be a full-time job.

Maybe one should assign a BT assistant to do it, keeping the admin in an entity-friendly place of course. :)

Paul

I can't see how one can assign a condition to another with respect to their first dynamic. That would be extreme evaluation and very wrong. The first dynamic is quite subjective.

Yes, with respect to third dynamic one can be assigned condition quite objectively. Entities do not seem to be part of one's third dynamic.

.

[Vinaire]

Thanks Alan, it 's a great insight. My first thought on seeing this was that it couldn't be right because the top two conditions appear to turn into downstats; affluence => scarcity, power => weakness. But the other possibility I can think of is that you move from personal to transpersonal when you handle these, i.e.

Personal affluence => I have nothing of my own, but I need nothing because I draw from moment to moment on the bounty of the All which is everything.

Personal power => I have no strength of my own, but I need none because I draw from moment to moment on the strength of the All which is all-powerful.

Don't know if this is true, but it sounds right to me. I like the phrase "the All,"
but others may wish to substitute their own word or phrase for spiritual reality.

I don't think that conditions were mocked up that way. One can certainly have one's own explanations.

.

[Kathy (ImOut)]

There is a condition below confusion.......
snip
Alan

Here's my definition for the condition below confusion:
All fucked up and don't know the way home.

[Vinaire]

Confusion handled would bring about orientation but not necessarily order.

Treason is too similar to Liability - you're taking resources from the org but are not producing sufficient to be in fair exchange.

Personally, I can't see how one can do Enemy before Doubt. :confused2:

Handling Danger would not necessarily bring about safety - it would bring about removal of danger. Short and long terms need to be factored in.

Alan, I think your examples are not valid as they are not put in any kind of context. Having said that, I think the conditions are bollocks (happy to be proved wrong). The fact that staff auditors only need to do 25 hours to stay in a Normal condition demonstrates it's a fix. AFAIK you can have an HGC with one auditor and he can stay in Normal for years when he is actually in Emergency. Of course, the ultimate proof is to look at the orgs after over 40 years of applying this stuff.

Conditions make sense only against the Admin Scale that one has agreed to.

One is in treason when one has betrayed the trust that was put in one because of one's admin scale.

One is an enemy when one is overtly attacking and undermining the admin scale one agreed to.

One is in doubt when is not certain whether one should follow the admin scale one has agreed to.

.

[nexus100]

Here's my definition for the condition below confusion:
All fucked up and don't know the way home.

"I go to parties, sometimes until 4.
It's hard to leave when you can't find the door."

Joe Walsh

[Zinjifar]

Here's my definition for the condition below confusion:
All fucked up and don't know the way home.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3052QFRu-1Q

Zinj

[Vinaire]

Actually you do handle BT's with conditions - find out what you are, and find out who you are. Presumably once they are in liability you are done with them....

Roland

I would think that one would let the entity determine its own condition.

.

[Vinaire]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!

There is a condition below confusion.......

Absence (if an abscence condition is handled - would bring about) = Presence.

Suggest you take specific areas of your life - break them up into orders of importance.

Then apply the conditions.

The reason the Ethics Conditions have been so badly applied in Scio is because the basics of the EO are out.

The correct way would be to find when the person was last doing well.....find what happened and rehab the highest condition.

Clean up the wrong items and wrong ethics conditions.

Usually the person can quickly and easily straighten out the rest of what is out.

The Ethics conditions are at best a rough guideline to achieving what you want out of life.

Scio uses them as a weapon of control and domination.:omg:

Alan

:confused2:

.

[Vinaire]

So much for infinite valued logic.

Rd00

You are right. It is binary (Christian) logic.

.

[Vinaire]

My knowledge of current Church practice isn't good, I only know what I saw and what people have reported, but it sounds like condition assignments are used by the Church to put people in a status where they can be used for manual labor, or to control their activities, rather than to help the person spot something that they needed to fix to get on with their life. Like any other tool, it can be used to help or hinder dependent on the intention of the person using the tool.

Did Hubbard come up with conditions, or did he borrow it from somewhere?

He seems to have often misapplied them.

.

[Zinjifar]

You are right. It is binary (Christian) logic.

.

Not 'semitic' ??
(as opposed to 'vedic' of course :))

No binary/black/white/right/wrong/yadda/yadda logic here :)

Zinj

[Vinaire]

Not 'semitic' ??
(as opposed to 'vedic' of course :))

No binary/black/white/right/wrong/yadda/yadda logic here :)

Zinj

"Semitic" seems to be a very charged word.

.

[Zinjifar]

"Semitic" seems to be a very charged word.

.

'Charged' is when you pick your scabs.

What is poking them with a sharp instrument?

Or, a not-so-sharp one?

Zinj

[Free to shine]

The only condition that appealed to me was find out who you really are.

I have been doing that ever since and it's a wonderful journey. :coolwink: :happydance:

[Vinaire]

The only condition that appealed to me was find out who you really are.

I have been doing that ever since and it's a wonderful journey. :coolwink: :happydance:

That is the condition of ENEMY.

The discovery is one is one's own enemy.

.

[Free to shine]

That is the condition of ENEMY.

The discovery is one is one's own enemy.

.

Yes I know that Vinaire. :D

Though not "is one's own enemy" - more like "can be". That's the discovery part. :coolwink:

[Pixie]

Most of the time a person slips in and out of various identities fluidly. Unwanted conditions are caused only when one gets stuck in identities.

I would think that the condition formulas would be applied toward the purpose of not sticking in identities and regaining one's power of choice.

.

Er.. power of choice?? I must have missed that. As I said in an ealier thread, take the condition of doubt point three, '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'.. that gives us.. two choices, harm or help, no other choices? That's madness. What about back off or leave alone? What about all the other things one could do?

The purposed of the conditions was to not only control people but to pigeon hole them into little boxes and label them.. confused.. whatever. Telling people they're stuck in 'identities', that's cult talk in my view. If we look for something 'wrong' with us we are sure as hell going to find it, we're like that humans, quite powerful really if we'd only trust ourselves a bit more, have a little more faith in the self. If we are all individuals, how on earth can one put people into such few 'states'? It's like trying to convince someone they have a 'case', try to convince them there's something wrong with them to take their dosh, trying to tell them the way it is instead of helping them look within, it's nuts. Conditions my :moon:

[Vinaire]

Yes I know that Vinaire. :D

Though not "is one's own enemy" - more like "can be". That's the discovery part. :coolwink:

I think one is being one's own enemy (unknowingly) when one is in that condition of ENEMY. The moment one recognizes that one is actually being one's own enemy, one finds oneself in the condition of DOUBT.

.

[Vinaire]

Er.. power of choice?? I must have missed that. As I said in an ealier thread, take the condition of doubt point three, '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'.. that gives us.. two choices, harm or help, no other choices? That's madness. What about back off or leave alone? What about all the other things one could do?

The purposed of the conditions was to not only control people but to pigeon hole them into little boxes and label them.. confused.. whatever. Telling people they're stuck in 'identities', that's cult talk in my view. If we look for something 'wrong' with us we are sure as hell going to find it, we're like that humans, quite powerful really if we'd only trust ourselves a bit more, have a little more faith in the self. If we are all individuals, how on earth can one put people into such few 'states'? It's like trying to convince someone they have a 'case', try to convince them there's something wrong with them to take their dosh, trying to tell them the way it is instead of helping them look within, it's nuts. Conditions my :moon:

I have been a word clearer. I must have word cleared the conditions many many times on many many people. Everytime I word cleared the conditions on somebody I myself looked at the conditions from their viewpoint. Here is the summation of my understanding:

When one is too disoriented then one is in the condition of CONFUSION. The formula of confusion brings one out of that disorientation.

The stable datum on a dynamic is the hat (beingness or admin scale) one had adopted. If one has been unknowingly acting in betrayal of that hat then the application of the condition of TREASON will bring it to a knowingness level.

If the person is unknowingly acting per some hat that is undermining the hat that one had originally adopted then the application of the condition of ENEMY will bring it to a knowingness level.

Now that he has become aware of the two hats that are opposed to each other he must choose between them. He needs to apply the formula for the condition of DOUBT at this point.

And so on up the conditions. But these earlier conditions have been the most misunderstood in Scientology. I wondered why they were not explained any better.

.

[Tanstaafl]

Part of the problem with conditions is that, AFAIK, the only practical examples of working through them (or a few of them) are on the four conditions tape where Hubbard talks of a young guy who's being wild and his uncle stops his financial support - a very common example of how they should be used in life. :whistling:

For something so fundamental to the Scn third dynamic it is crass that he left them so open to interpretation and failed to provide numerous practical examples covering different areas of life. This fact makes me lean towards the idea that they were designed as a 3rd dynamic control mechanism rather than to genuinely help people be more successful.

[Free to shine]

Er.. power of choice?? I must have missed that. As I said in an ealier thread, take the condition of doubt point three, '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'.. that gives us.. two choices, harm or help, no other choices? That's madness. What about back off or leave alone? What about all the other things one could do?

The purposed of the conditions was to not only control people but to pigeon hole them into little boxes and label them.. confused.. whatever. Telling people they're stuck in 'identities', that's cult talk in my view. If we look for something 'wrong' with us we are sure as hell going to find it, we're like that humans, quite powerful really if we'd only trust ourselves a bit more, have a little more faith in the self. If we are all individuals, how on earth can one put people into such few 'states'? It's like trying to convince someone they have a 'case', try to convince them there's something wrong with them to take their dosh, trying to tell them the way it is instead of helping them look within, it's nuts. Conditions my :moon:

Excellent post, I totally agree!

[Vinaire]

Excellent post, I totally agree!

I totally disagree. :duh:

There is no excuse for blatant misunderstanding.

.

[Neo]

Excellent post, I totally agree!


I totally disagree. :duh:

.

Given that the conditions, especially the lower conditions, were so poorly explained, and therefore left open to interpretation, as Taansy also noted, it left it all to open to being abused. It became a means of control. This is how I saw it being used. I never saw any worthwhile products from the application of 'lowers'. I'm not saying there weren't any, just I didn't observe these.

So I would agree, totally :duh:

[Neo]

I totally disagree. :duh:

There is no excuse for blatant misunderstanding.

.

But there are excuses. LRH got it wrong.

[Vinaire]

Given that the conditions, especially the lower conditions, were so poorly explained, and therefore left open to interpretation, as Taansy also noted, it left it all to open to being abused. It became a means of control. This is how I saw it being used. I never saw any worthwhile products from the application of 'lowers'. I'm not saying there weren't any, just I didn't observe these.

So I would agree, totally :duh:

I agree that lower conditions were not well explained and were blatantly misused even by Hubbard.

One should know clearly what one is agreeing to.

.

[Vinaire]

Er.. power of choice?? I must have missed that. As I said in an ealier thread, take the condition of doubt point three, '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'.. that gives us.. two choices, harm or help, no other choices? That's madness. What about back off or leave alone? What about all the other things one could do?

Sure, those choices are available too. The formula concerns the beingness one had originally chosen and the beingness one got "brainwashed" into. If a person gives up beingness itself then one would be out of the game as static.


The purposed of the conditions was to not only control people but to pigeon hole them into little boxes and label them.. confused.. whatever. Telling people they're stuck in 'identities', that's cult talk in my view. If we look for something 'wrong' with us we are sure as hell going to find it, we're like that humans, quite powerful really if we'd only trust ourselves a bit more, have a little more faith in the self. If we are all individuals, how on earth can one put people into such few 'states'? It's like trying to convince someone they have a 'case', try to convince them there's something wrong with them to take their dosh, trying to tell them the way it is instead of helping them look within, it's nuts. Conditions my :moon:

There is blatant misapplication of conditions in Scientology. That is why I wondered if LRH was the source of these conditions, or if he got it from somewhere else, misunderstood it, and then misapplied it.

.

[Vinaire]

But there are excuses. LRH got it wrong.

Knowledge is neither good nor bad. Its application is.

I am calling out knowledge as I see it.

.

[Cat's Squirrel]

What gorgeous statements! They sum up what I've been feeling.

Thank you!

You're welcome, but unfortunately I don't live in the transpersonal state (yet) though I am capable of parroting the words of someone who apparently, at least for a while, did.

@Vinaire; maybe, but what counts is what works. I believe there's a lot more potential in the Tech (including the ethics tech) than has ever been explored thoroughly.

[Vinaire]

You're welcome, but unfortunately I don't live in the transpersonal state (yet) though I am capable of parroting the words of someone who apparently, at least for a while, did.

@Vinaire; maybe, but what counts is what works. I believe there's a lot more potential in the Tech (including the ethics tech) than has ever been explored thoroughly.

Conditions Tech is the most squirreled tech in Scientology. Even Hubbard squirreled it. Shame on him.

Ethics has served mostly to degrade people in Scientology due to its squirreling.

It is the most glaring failure of Scientology. I can't say enough.

.

[Royal Prince Xenu]

My own "doubt" formula:

My friends do not dictate to me who else I'm allowed to have as a friend.

[Free to shine]

I totally disagree. :duh:

There is no excuse for blatant misunderstanding.

.

Who has misunderstood what?

[Neo]

My own "doubt" formula:

My friends do not dictate to me who else I'm allowed to have as a friend.

Good for you :thumbsup:

It didn't need a 'conditions formula' to tell you that, though.

[Alan]

But there are excuses. LRH got it wrong.



I don't think LRH got it wrong at all........it was as he intended it to be......A Domination/Subjugation Control Mechanism.

Ethics is similar to the Code of Honor......a luxury set of formulas that must not be enforced.

Enforcement would immediately violate ones basic ethics. :duh:

Alan

[Neo]

But there are excuses. LRH got it wrong.


I don't think LRH got it wrong at all........it was as he intended it to be......A Domination/Subjugation Control Mechanism.

Ethics is similar to the Code of Honor......a luxury set of formulas that must not be enforced.

Enforcement would immediately violate ones basic ethics. :duh:

Alan

Well, I was basing that on the delusional assumption that he was actually intending to help :duh:

When you look at it the way you explained, and I do agree, then of course, he got it very right. Goes back to motivation.

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Knowledge is neither good nor bad. Its application is.

I am calling out knowledge as I see it.

.

"Knowledge is a barrier to learning."

I do agree that application and intention are what make something "good" or "bad".

[Vinaire]

Who has misunderstood what?

Please see the following and decide for yourself:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=89282&postcount=46

.

[Vinaire]

"Knowledge is a barrier to learning."

...

That is an interesting viewpoint.

.

[Free to shine]

Please see the following and decide for yourself:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=89282&postcount=46

.

Yeah I knew it wasn't me. :D

[Alanzo]

I have been a word clearer. I must have word cleared the conditions many many times on many many people. Everytime I word cleared the conditions on somebody I myself looked at the conditions from their viewpoint. Here is the summation of my understanding:

When one is too disoriented then one is in the condition of CONFUSION. The formula of confusion brings one out of that disorientation.

The stable datum on a dynamic is the hat (beingness or admin scale) one had adopted. If one has been unknowingly acting in betrayal of that hat then the application of the condition of TREASON will bring it to a knowingness level.

If the person is unknowingly acting per some hat that is undermining the hat that one had originally adopted then the application of the condition of ENEMY will bring it to a knowingness level.

Now that he has become aware of the two hats that are opposed to each other he must choose between them. He needs to apply the formula for the condition of DOUBT at this point.

And so on up the conditions. But these earlier conditions have been the most misunderstood in Scientology. I wondered why they were not explained any better.

.

They have to do with fixing identities, Hubbard's real game the whole time.

That's why he didn't explain them very well.

[Vinaire]

Yeah I knew it wasn't me. :D

I know.

.

[Rene Descartes]

So is it safe or not safe to make the statement that everything is in one of the conditions that Hubbard laid out?

Is it safe or not safe to say that Hubbards tech is the answer to handling "bad" conditions?

I think I'll shall now go into the condition of "nap"

see you all later.

Rd00

[nexus100]

So is it safe or not safe to make the statement that everything is in one of the conditions that Hubbard laid out?

Is it safe or not safe to say that Hubbards tech is the answer to handling "bad" conditions?

I think I'll shall now go into the condition of "nap"

see you all later.

Rd00

Let's take the state of being "safe". You could easily assign any condition, from top to bottom on the scale, to that state depending on what you knew or believed you knew about the entirety of existence. Every condition on the scale assumes a status quo. If a soldier is plunking an enemy a day is he really in power? Is it a good idea to run the condition route on that? To assign is to create a world with limited vision and an assumed future. That may not be a bad thing, if that is what you want to do. But if you know, as Vin states, all this is illusion, that the earth could be targeted for an intergallactic freeway bypass, that just on the other side of Orion is the cutest little waitress...but I digress. You get what I mean.

[Rene Descartes]

I had a cognition while napping.

When I am in the condition of "sleep" I am in a lower condition in relationship to "awake".

When I am in the condition of "awake" I am in a lower condition in relationship to "sleep".

What does this tell me?

That in relation to some of this wonderful "tech" of Scientology I am even more glad that I jumped ship when I did.

Rd00

[gomorrhan]

Pardon the evaluation, there, Rene, but that sounds more like a bognition than a cognition. Your body requires sleep. If you refused it sleep, then you would be reducing your body's ability to heal, to aid in perception, or to function at all, eventually. We wear different hats at different points in the day. One needs to be flexible, able to enter whatever identity best handles a given situation from our viewpoint. One of these identities could be called "the sleeper", or whatever you like. The only time these identities are problematic is when they are unconsciously in action, or we are unconsciously repelled from occupying them. For example, if you were narcoleptic, and fell asleep without any control and without much warning, this would be a problem. Going to sleep at a scheduled hour, and waking up at a scheduled hour are not problems. Likewise, an inability to go to sleep, or an inability to become wakeful at the appointed hour each are problematic, as would be constantly waking up without volition interrupting sleep.

[nexus100]

Pardon the evaluation, there, Rene, but that sounds more like a bognition than a cognition. Your body requires sleep. If you refused it sleep, then you would be reducing your body's ability to heal, to aid in perception, or to function at all, eventually. We wear different hats at different points in the day. One needs to be flexible, able to enter whatever identity best handles a given situation from our viewpoint. One of these identities could be called "the sleeper", or whatever you like. The only time these identities are problematic is when they are unconsciously in action, or we are unconsciously repelled from occupying them. For example, if you were narcoleptic, and fell asleep without any control and without much warning, this would be a problem. Going to sleep at a scheduled hour, and waking up at a scheduled hour are not problems. Likewise, an inability to go to sleep, or an inability to become wakeful at the appointed hour each are problematic, as would be constantly waking up without volition interrupting sleep.

I believe identities are a problem when one is unknowingly being one and can't stop. Being one unknowingly could, of course, disallow one from being another. Process isn't identity, nor is action, just to clarify.

[Aliceinwonderland]

I'm not arguing with you, by the way. This is a VP I have based on how I it registers to me.

Valences are usually an "assumed" identity or "borrowed" might be a better term and then a person tries to make that work for themself somehow. I would think that doing conditions on a "valence", would help towards realizing that the valence or identity is not a "workable" one and that letting it go and allowing for what one "prefers" as their own identity(s) is more workable.

If a person assigns a particular valence "doubt" for example, simply because that particular valence actually has a lot of doubts, then the person looks through the doubt "steps" and applies them to that particular "valence". It would be my guess that the person looking at that particular valence is then going to start asking questions and having realizations as to how workable that valence really is. Maybe they can use parts and pieces of it, but let the rest go. Or maybe they can let the whole thing go.

By the way, I just thought if this recently, so I haven't really gotten it all worked out - I'm throwing it out there to see other people's views.

:)
Lyn

[Alanzo]

Pardon the evaluation, there, Rene, but that sounds more like a bognition than a cognition. Your body requires sleep. If you refused it sleep, then you would be reducing your body's ability to heal, to aid in perception, or to function at all, eventually. We wear different hats at different points in the day. One needs to be flexible, able to enter whatever identity best handles a given situation from our viewpoint. One of these identities could be called "the sleeper", or whatever you like. The only time these identities are problematic is when they are unconsciously in action, or we are unconsciously repelled from occupying them. For example, if you were narcoleptic, and fell asleep without any control and without much warning, this would be a problem. Going to sleep at a scheduled hour, and waking up at a scheduled hour are not problems. Likewise, an inability to go to sleep, or an inability to become wakeful at the appointed hour each are problematic, as would be constantly waking up without volition interrupting sleep.

So, "The Sleeper" who could not sleep and wake up on time would be in a condition of ENEMY and would need to cognite that he was actually being a "The Waker".

That way, he could FIND OUT WHO HE REALLY WAS.

[Aliceinwonderland]

The conditions are in fact dichotomous.

Example:

Confusion (if confusion condition handled - would bring about) = Order.

Treason (if treason condition handled - would bring about) = Trust

Enemy (if enemy condition handled - would bring about) = Friend

Doubt (if doubt condition handled - would bring about) = Certainty

Liability (if liability condition handled - would bring about) = Asset

Non-Existence (if Non-E condition handled - would bring about) = Existence

Danger (if danger condition handled - would bring about) = Safety

Emergency (if emergency condition handled - would bring about) = Stability

Normal (if normal condition handled - would bring about) = Not normal

Affluence (if affluence condition handled - would bring about) = Scarcity

Power (if power condition handled - would bring about) = Weaknesses

Etc.

The conditions are very flawed as in most situations you have no true idea of what or who is doing the condition.:omg:

Alan
Hi alan :)

Very interesting insight . I have noticed, hwoever, that whenever I've done the conditions, it always seemed the opposite happened later after doing conditions higher than the one I started out with.

For instance, if I was handling something rather complex and emotional, and I applied confusion to it - I would be much less "confused", but to have "order" I would go on up the conditions until there was actual "order" to whatever it was I was applying it to.

If I could apply "treason" and suddenly gain "trust" that would be great! But usually, at least with me, I find that trust is something gained after taking a good look at it and perhaps applying liability and doubt, all the way up to at least "normal". If I have any question about a treasonistic act, then to me its not complete trust.

Out of curiosity - how would "affluence" bring about "scarcity"? I would think that "enemy" and "doubt" brings more scarcity. And with "power" - the same basic question of "how". I would think that "power" brings "stability" if applied correctly.

I guess what I'm saying is that I see the conditions as a gradient towards a cleaner and clearer be, do and have when reaching the final steps. Like they work congruently with each other until goals or whatever are a done deal. I have a difficult time with thinking that if you absolutely handle a particular condition that you will automatically get its opposite just from that particular condition alone - if that makes sense.

So, if one could actually "label" a particular identity, by its basic "ability" and "attitude" why couldn't the conditions be applied to it?

Lyn

[gomorrhan]

Nope. The person who is being the sleeper would be in enemy, because he has identities in conflict. It is the being who is in the condition. The identities are merely projections, prisms through which we view or create reality. When the being spots that he is NOT the sleeper, he is the being who acts as a sleeper AND as a waker, he can stop the conflict by simply creating a plan for when to be the sleeper, and when to be the waker. I've done this, in my own life, and no longer use an alarm clock unless I'm exhausted from jet-lag, or from tying one on (while being "the drinker"). At all times, it is me being the various identities. Again, the only trouble arises when one doesn't realize he has identified so strongly with a given viewpoint/identity-package that he thinks he IS that thing. Happens in video games when people start jerking around as if they are being shot, or trying to peer around a corner when it's a two-dimensional television representation, etc. That can generate the fun of the game, but when it goes on "automatic" and the person no longer can divorce himself from that viewpoint at will, there is trouble a-brewin'.

[Aliceinwonderland]

Well... - you could use the conditions on identities, why not. However - you would specialise in "beingnesses" instead of considering the conditions of existence which are be, do and have, which would cover the full spectrum. Every dynamic, and its sub-sections, has a hat which leads to a product, via doingness.



:D does the static exist? lol - AXIOM 2 "THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES, AND OPINIONS. " AXIOM 11 "THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE ARE FOUR-FOLD" i.e. as-is-ness, alter-is-ness, is-ness, not-isness. Again - the conditions of existence - hence be, do, have.



AH ! purpose that's a key world, and we find it in the admin scale - which might be seen as an expression of be, do, have.

goals
purposes..........................BE
policy

plans
programs
projects...........................DO
orders

ideal scenes
stats...............................HAVE
valuable final products

now, of course one could work out the admin scale on every and each dynamics, if and as needed. Actually - I wouldn't apply apply the ethics conditions without at least having a slight idea of what admin scale I'm applying those on. And knowing on Admin Scale belonging to whom ...

Especially in the CofS, lol! - Q&Aing on conditions with the Ethics Officer's or MAA's whose Admin Scale might be completely opposite to one's own can lead some straight into Integrity Breaks, Treason then Confusion. (I got expelled from the CofS in the 80s by a MAA... - she couldn't "handle me", as I showed her my admin scale with full ethics conditions write-up, with alignement for the greatest good etc and that didn't fit her admin scale to post me on some moneymaking post... my goal then was "to become ClassVIII" which was then paid for. Funny to be expelled from staff for that ;-) anyway, since then I never considered Ethics Conditions without Admin Scale as well.



Just to mention - great Alan for pointing those dichotomies out ;-)
Hi :)

It would seem to me that an identity in and of itself has be do have within it. There is the decision to be a someone or something and then the intention and manifestation of the be turned into action and then the results or the have. I look at identities as sort of a packaged deal. Its own container, so to speak.

This might not be exact, but someone pointed out to me:

Getting the "Be" part straightened out:

confusion
treason
enemy
doubt

Getting the "do" straightened out

Liability
Non E
Danger
Emergency
Normal

And getting to the "have" part

Afluence
Power
(possibly) Power change

"Dynamics" to me are the "playing fields" - the identities are what is playing in those fields. If one can apply the conditions to the identities that are giving the most problematic situations, then the dynamics themselves might become easier to play in.

For instance - in regards to you and the MAA. I hope you don't mind me using that as a sample here. Suppose that the identity that the MAA had, when evaluating your particular "write-ups" and ideas, had been totally handled and she was not wearing the identity of the "church's supposed to's" and all the emotions and attitudes that go with that. Had she not had that particular identity, but instead an identity which had in it, the ability to grant beingness and just look at facts, then perhaps things would have turned out differently. That's just an example, by the way.

But, we already have conflicting identities within ourselves, which help to manifest others being a particular way or pulling in those people who will make certain identities right and others wrong (within the whole self), which only adds to the inner conflict.

I agree with you about the Admin Scale being put in there as well. I think this goes right along witih the "doing" parts and pieces of the conditions.

:)
Lyn

[Vinaire]

An identity is simply what one is being to accomplish something. For example, one is being a swimmer to accomplish swimming. "Swimmer" would be an identity.

.

[Aliceinwonderland]

Mary Freeman's Integrity Program specializes in discovering what identities a person is using as a substitute to confronting a given situation with full presence as "true self". Her expansion of the training on how to use the conditions, and how to get the results of having used them (in the past, they have sometimes been seen as a trifle glib by many). Having done her program, I can definitely say that I'd never had similar cognitions or life-change when doing them in the Church, and had essentially written them off as unworkable, being that a person would need to have the product of OT VIII in order to truely "find out who they really are", etc.

My opinion is that a being who has identities in conflict is essentially a being who has GPMs. The solution to GPMs is to do the grades, and then it gets murky, as LRH abandoned that research line in favor of shortcuts like Implants and entity tech (which don't bring about responsibility and awareness IMO of the user, but instead induce "other-determinism" and battle with such things, getting out of valence, etc.). LRH had a few methods that help (R6EW, Criss-Cross, Line-Plotting), but can also get you into trouble as they are tricky and prone to error. The Grades will release from GPMs, but only full address of them will prevent eventual slide back into dramatization of those GPMs. Metapsychology has "Unstacking" to handle this area, and reports I have gotten on it are that it works very well and the write-up is only about ten pages (can't be that complex!).

That being said, careful analysis of your purposes and activities in life does usually expose "identities" that are working at cross-purposes to your conscious goals, and this awareness can be used to tackle the intentions underlying the sabotage in session using the intention as an item in a NED Assist. (Attitudes, Emotions, Sensations and Postulates are addressed through NED)
I figured that the grades were applied to the different parts and pieces of identities.

I figured at one point (I haven't really done this too much on many people) that if one took two opposing identities and ran them whole track down to the original game, that "that" particular game would end and a new one could be created in present time (a much better one).

The identities which seem to be giving the person the most trouble, are the ones I'm talking about. I don't think its necessary to handle every little identity.

Lyn

[Aliceinwonderland]

I don't think LRH got it wrong at all........it was as he intended it to be......A Domination/Subjugation Control Mechanism.

Ethics is similar to the Code of Honor......a luxury set of formulas that must not be enforced.

Enforcement would immediately violate ones basic ethics. :duh:

Alan
I'd have to take your word for it on that one. I wasn't around when the ethics "first" were developed.

But, I "do" remember that there were people back in the early 70's that did not use the ethics conditions to punish. There were a handful of people that used them for the purpose of helping a person change their situations for the better, overall. It was through a couple of those people that I realized that these were simply a "way" to recognize where one was at in regards to their hats or dynamics. For me, when someone used it to fulfill their ser facs and so forth and cover up their MU's, I knew it was being misapplied. I consider ethics conditions to be neutral in and of themselves. Kinda like a "car". It just sits there until its used either for a good reason or a bad reason.

I figured - if these tools can be used for projects and all types of creations - why not identities? Aren't these creations (identities) for specific purposes? I don't know of "anyone" who doesn't have identities. As far as I'm concerned as soon as one even has a body, that's an identity in and of itself.

Lyn

[nexus100]

I don't think LRH got it wrong at all........it was as he intended it to be......A Domination/Subjugation Control Mechanism.

Ethics is similar to the Code of Honor......a luxury set of formulas that must not be enforced.

Enforcement would immediately violate ones basic ethics. :duh:

Alan

Agreed 100%. Hubbard wrote something like "People believe books before believing a person."

He used that like a dagger, plus made it a RULE to believe the book. So people went down the drain because the reason for living is life.

[Royal Prince Xenu]

...

Out of curiosity - how would "affluence" bring about "scarcity"? I would think that "enemy" and "doubt" brings more scarcity. And with "power" - the same basic question of "how". I would think that "power" brings "stability" if applied correctly.

Are you financially affluent? I can help fix that by introducing you to the Reges. They will solve your affluence dilemma very quickly indeed, allowing you to enjoy "scarcity" with the rest of us.

[Aliceinwonderland]

Are you financially affluent? I can help fix that by introducing you to the Reges. They will solve your affluence dilemma very quickly indeed, allowing you to enjoy "scarcity" with the rest of us.
I'm workin' on the financial parts and pieces :). In the middle of getting a business going.

Hey - I lasted a whole week training as a Reg....once.

There's more than one way to be affluent though - doesn't always mean money. Sometimes, it means cows!:omg:

[Alan]

Hi alan :)

Very interesting insight . I have noticed, however, that whenever I've done the conditions, it always seemed the opposite happened later after doing conditions higher than the one I started out with.

For instance, if I was handling something rather complex and emotional, and I applied confusion to it - I would be much less "confused", but to have "order" I would go on up the conditions until there was actual "order" to whatever it was I was applying it to.



Done correctly, on a specific area or identity you get ever expanding positives as you go up the scale.

Your PT Prime Identity is the most important target to get up the conditions.

Let's assume one is a "salesperson" - making few calls or sales. You find out where you are at (which hardly changes anything) - now you begin to put order in your calls, presentations and closes.

You rise to the next condition: Treason - You find out what you are - "A hater of people or a compulsive winner" Customers are people they also can be someone you want to beat!" - There are a lot of losing consequences to both those precepts.




If I could apply "treason" and suddenly gain "trust" that would be great! But usually, at least with me, I find that trust is something gained after taking a good look at it and perhaps applying liability and doubt, all the way up to at least "normal". If I have any question about a treasonistic act, then to me its not complete trust.



Each higher condition has most of the lower conditions being done naturally - thus you get each positive aspect expanding.




Out of curiosity - how would "affluence" bring about "scarcity"? I would think that "enemy" and "doubt" brings more scarcity. And with "power" - the same basic question of "how". I would think that "power" brings "stability" if applied correctly.



Usually when you get a positive it brings to view the negative - you maybe are in affluence on money, but in a scarcity in relationships or friends.




I guess what I'm saying is that I see the conditions as a gradient towards a cleaner and clearer be, do and have when reaching the final steps. Like they work congruently with each other until goals or whatever are a done deal. I have a difficult time with thinking that if you absolutely handle a particular condition that you will automatically get its opposite just from that particular condition alone - if that makes sense.

So, if one could actually "label" a particular identity, by its basic "ability" and "attitude" why couldn't the conditions be applied to it?

Lyn



When you are in Power - your weaknesses usually blow to view and if not handled will pull you back down the conditions.

Each upper condition gets its strength and power from the correctly applied lower conditions and at the same time builds upon the lower conditions positive aspects.

Alan

[nexus100]

Done correctly, on a specific area or identity you get ever expanding positives as you go up the scale.

Your PT Prime Identity is the most important target to get up the conditions.

Let's assume one is a "salesperson" - making few calls or sales. You find out where you are at (which hardly changes anything) - now you begin to put order in your calls, presentations and closes.

You rise to the next condition: Treason - You find out what you are - "A hater of people or a compulsive winner" Customers are people they also can be someone you want to beat!" - There are a lot of losing consequences to both those precepts.



Each higher condition has most of the lower conditions being done naturally - thus you get each positive aspect expanding.



Usually when you get a positive it brings to view the negative - you maybe are in affluence on money, but in a scarcity in relationships or friends.



When you are in Power - your weaknesses usually blow to view and if not handled will pull you back down the conditions.

Each upper condition gets its strength and power from the correctly applied lower conditions and at the same time builds upon the lower conditions positive aspects.

Alan

Alan, you devil. What the heck is the value of strength and condition in this arena? You know that is BS of the highest order. Why attempt to continue the mirage?

[Alan]

Alan, you devil. What the heck is the value of strength and condition in this arena? You know that is BS of the highest order. Why attempt to continue the mirage?



Knowledge and know-how begets more knowledge and know-how - something should get better! :lol:

Also the conditions are identity creators.......

[Rene Descartes]

So, "The Sleeper" who could not sleep and wake up on time would be in a condition of ENEMY and would need to cognite that he was actually being a "The Waker".

That way, he could FIND OUT WHO HE REALLY WAS.

You probably understand what I was trying to say. You tend to.

I mean if one wants to have fun with "conditions", in that perhaps having fun with "conditions" is one's *item*, by all means have fun.

Of course it is obvious that at times the concept can be absurd.

Like the times when LRH tech is used by the Church to control one's "condition" and by keeping all the good little girls and boys being good little girls and boys.

If one wants to placate their sensations and perceptions along the lines of conditions, fine by me.

I think I'd rather have fun with the analysis of spacation and an analysis of how the form of space, matter and energy are related, maybe a little bit of time thrown in there as well and maybe even how they relate to thought.

I guess that puts me in a lower condition regarding the condition of conditions.

Rd00

[nexus100]

Knowledge and know-how begets more knowledge and know-how - something should get better! :lol:

Also the conditions are identity creators.......

I think I've been squewered, but am not sure. Must have been a really smoooooth operation.

[Aliceinwonderland]

This makes total sense. So, basically, one is working on the expansion of the PTPI to get a job done, goals accomplished, projects completed, etc. I can see where the admin scale can come into play, but if the current ID indicates and is running smoothly then the admin scale becomes much easier. Its all done on a gradient, plus once someone has the conditions down "pat" to where they don't really need to think of them, its a natural ability to locate where that particular ID is at while functioning. This enables one to be able to change or "update" that particular ID at will in accordance to each situation - rather than an ID running on automatic and bumping its ethereal head on walls. I think I'm getting it much better.

Its totally okay with me to have identities :yes: Maybe its a precept, but I believe that to be with too few identities (especially uptone ones) creates not only loss of havingness but trouble in the long run. I have no idea what I'd do without them :laugh: I think problems are a good thing too - preferably good problems

:thankyou:

Lyn

[gomorrhan]

I don't think there's any problem with having identities: I agree that putting together PT viewpoints and abilities on a subject matter or project all the time would be cumbersome. The only problem I have with them is when they are unconsciously identified with, or when they become stuck (which may be two ways of saying the same thing).

[Aliceinwonderland]

So far, I just haven't been able to see what else we are composed of besides a conglomerate of identities. Other than the basic static - what else is there?

Lyn

[gomorrhan]

Depends on what you mean by what "we are composed of". Some people think we are spiritual beings, some people think we are physical beings with information processing capability. I believe we are physical beings with an emergent quality ("consciousness") which can regulate (when trying to do so, and in limited circumstances) information processing towards the goals it sets for itself, or has adopted from others (knowingly or not). I believe that we are "composed of" viewpoints abstracted from our experiences, along with the ability to create intentions, and that these intentions have the ability to control our bodies to a greater or lesser extent, as well as effecting, non-locally, quantum-level phenomena, although this happens at a level we don't consciously perceive.

[Aliceinwonderland]

Depends on what you mean by what "we are composed of". Some people think we are spiritual beings, some people think we are physical beings with information processing capability. I believe we are physical beings with an emergent quality ("consciousness") which can regulate (when trying to do so, and in limited circumstances) information processing towards the goals it sets for itself, or has adopted from others (knowingly or not). I believe that we are "composed of" viewpoints abstracted from our experiences, along with the ability to create intentions, and that these intentions have the ability to control our bodies to a greater or lesser extent, as well as effecting, non-locally, quantum-level phenomena, although this happens at a level we don't consciously perceive.


A "spiritual being" is still being a "something" - its an identity. A "physical being" is still being a "something" - its an identity. These have abilities, VP's, sensations, motions, etc. VP's are usually put into categories, which is how the identity is created. We have what I call "packages" of these VP's which are then put into action in accordance to whatever is perceived.

Without these VP's and the categorization of them, we'd be static, in my opinion. Also, ID's can range from the most simplistic to the most complex. You can have an ID which is so light its almost non-perceivable and then you can have an ID which is so full of stuff its like planet earth.

I guess you could say then, that an identity is really like a cluster of viewpoints placed together in such a way, that the idea of "survive" is put into place. IMO, the idea of "survive" is not for the "static" but for the ID's.

Lyn

[gomorrhan]

I'm not sure that the static exists, without the ID. People who have past lives will have more certainty on this, I don't. I am not certain that I exist, as static, without a body.

[Zinjifar]

Exist is a human word for something beyond human words.

Zinj

[Vinaire]

Static is just a concept. There is no permanency there.

.

[Rene Descartes]

Static is just a concept. There is no permanency there.

.

So static was conceptulized?

When is the due date?

Rd00

[Alan]

A "spiritual being" is still being a "something" - its an identity. A "physical being" is still being a "something" - its an identity. These have abilities, VP's, sensations, motions, etc. VP's are usually put into categories, which is how the identity is created. We have what I call "packages" of these VP's which are then put into action in accordance to whatever is perceived.

Without these VP's and the categorization of them, we'd be static, in my opinion. Also, ID's can range from the most simplistic to the most complex. You can have an ID which is so light its almost non-perceivable and then you can have an ID which is so full of stuff its like planet earth.

I guess you could say then, that an identity is really like a cluster of viewpoints placed together in such a way, that the idea of "survive" is put into place. IMO, the idea of "survive" is not for the "static" but for the ID's.

Lyn



Great summation Lyn! :)

[Rene Descartes]

AliceinWonderland (Lyn) wrote:

You can have an ID which is so light its almost non-perceivable and then you can have an ID which is so full of stuff its like planet earth.
==============

I like what you have posited above, very neatly put, really really far out and heavy.

Now assuming much of what you say is true and I like the viewpoint you present I wonder what might be one of the things that might be responsible for one wanting to willingly "hang on" to an identity?

Perhaps one of the things is the "have" that goes along with it.

Perhaps the love of the effect that was received (again the "have") while being that identity.

So now it makes me wonder, is it really necessary to rid one of all those identities?

Or to rid oneself of the lack of control and undesired randomity of them with emphasis on "undersired" because randomity is not always a bad thing?

Thank you Lyn,

Rd00

[gomorrhan]

It's not about "ridding" oneself of the identity. It's about ceasing being compelled to be that identity, or repelled from being another identity.

[Rene Descartes]

It's not about "ridding" oneself of the identity. It's about ceasing being compelled to be that identity, or repelled from being another identity.

What in tarnation?

Dagnabit, it sure as hell still sounds like when one becomes no longer compelled to be that identity then one has "rid" oneself of it.

So did LRH plan to use some processes like that to "cure" people of their homosexuality?

Rd00

[gomorrhan]

I don't really care what LRH's intentions were.

I have a few identities that I readily slide into, and from which I operate different parts of my life happily and without much friction. There are others that are more problematic (like: knight in shining armor, or the curious cat).

I would imagine that the only time a person should ever be processed on his homosexuality is if it is a problem or an "item" for him. And only, then, if it is his TOP item. Bypassing case to handle what you think a person should handle causes bigtime upsets. I need to remember that, myself, in personal relationships.

[Rene Descartes]

I don't really care what LRH's intentions were.

I have a few identities that I readily slide into, and from which I operate different parts of my life happily and without much friction. There are others that are more problematic (like: knight in shining armor, or the curious cat).

I would imagine that the only time a person should ever be processed on his homosexuality is if it is a problem or an "item" for him. And only, then, if it is his TOP item. Bypassing case to handle what you think a person should handle causes bigtime upsets. I need to remember that, myself, in personal relationships.

Okay just checking to see how much you are inclined to indoc by LRH.

You appear to have free thought units.

Carry on.

:thumbsup:

Rd00

[Aliceinwonderland]

It's not about "ridding" oneself of the identity. It's about ceasing being compelled to be that identity, or repelled from being another identity.


This is what I realized as well when looking at what "beings" seemed to be composed of while living "life".

For me, its all about updating, changing, rehabilitating and creating new identities. As soon as you update or change or rehabilitate an identity, of course, you've immediately created something a lot newer than you had before. One could consider they got rid of an old identity, and sometimes this actually does occur, but its been replaced by what the person considers as better. After one does that sort of thing, the admin scale is a great place to start as far as putting it to use.

:)
Lyn

[Aliceinwonderland]

AliceinWonderland (Lyn) wrote:

You can have an ID which is so light its almost non-perceivable and then you can have an ID which is so full of stuff its like planet earth.
==============

I like what you have posited above, very neatly put, really really far out and heavy.

Now assuming much of what you say is true and I like the viewpoint you present I wonder what might be one of the things that might be responsible for one wanting to willingly "hang on" to an identity?

Perhaps one of the things is the "have" that goes along with it.

Perhaps the love of the effect that was received (again the "have") while being that identity.

So now it makes me wonder, is it really necessary to rid one of all those identities?

Or to rid oneself of the lack of control and undesired randomity of them with emphasis on "undersired" because randomity is not always a bad thing?

Thank you Lyn,

Rd00

Hi Rene

In my opinion, as long as someone is in a be do have matrix, especially, on this planet, there will be identities at play.

The reason I mentioned conditions on identities is because if one were to be able to treat their identities just like they would a "post" on a job, most likely they could manage them better. They could create new ones and let old ones go or they could simply change a couple of things about the old one and do an "update" on it. That way all the skills and knowledge could be kept, but perhaps there might be a new attitude, which would make the ID work even better.

Also, what if a person is in a "valence". This person is trying to make an ID theirs that isn't totally theirs to begin with. But, if that person has succeeded to some degree in that valence, then why throw out the baby with the bathwater? They can keep parts and pieces, but realize that they are more or less copying someone else and then make the newer version totally their own.

Doing the conditions on the valence just might allow the person to realize that maybe they have been dramoing (let's say) enemy on themself, not to mention the other flows. From there they can go up and make new decisions when they get to liability and then to doubt, if need be or if it makes that far before a major change.

The idea of getting rid of valences and certain identities can be a rather "scary" idea because what "isn't" said, is that new id's or at least improved ones can be put into place as to continue playing a "better" game than before. At least a happier and more fulfilling one.

I remember in Scn that some people used to tell me that sometimes a person's problem is that they lack problems. Later on, for me, it became that the person lacks higher toned problems and something they "want" to work on rather than are obligated or forced. However, usually, a "problem" has at least 2 (or more) identities colliding with each other, which is why the problem is sitting there. Sometimes it can be two simple decisions pushing against each other, but most likely there are some id's behind those decisions as well. When the identities are sorted out and the counter-intentions are sorted out, usually the problem has a tendency to be handled much faster.

If one could recognize what condition a particular identity was in, in connection to another identity and other identities with other people, it might be more powerful than one might think.

:yes:
Lyn