Responsible for Your own Condition?

[EZ Linus]

Hi there.

It's been a long time since I have posted here. I have been working on my book that I mentioned when I first signed on. Now, I'm hoping for a little help/tip.

Can anyone tell me where Hubbard actually wrote being responsible for your own condition? Was it from History of Man? Is it from a red on white? We've all talked about it so much and those of us that were in had it drilled into our skulls, but where exactly did it come from?

Any reference to it would be very helpful.

Thanks in advance.

 

[WildKat]

That's a good question.

I didnt keep any Hub references but I know there are others here that have them. Or the Independent groups would definitely have them. I tried to Google it and came up with nothing.

But I would also like to explore this question, because the concept of everyone is responsible for their own condition is one of the ideas I took to heart when in the cult, and probably one of the last to be let go.

 

[hummingbird]

But I would also like to explore this question, because the concept of everyone is responsible for their own condition is one of the ideas I took to heart when in the cult, and probably one of the last to be let go.

Huh. It was so pervasive when I was in that I never thought to ask "where is it written?"

It's a dual-edged sword. It is usually used by ethics officers and your "superiors" to blame you. Sometimes crap just happens, but in the cult you always pull bad crap in.

But in a way, I think of it at times, and find it liberating. I'm in control of my life. If I don't like the way something is going, I have the power to change it. Most times. :wink2:

 

[WildKat]

It's one of those double-edged swords.

When you're young and life is on the upswing, you can say "I'm powerful, the Tech is working, things are going great for me!" I see a lot of young Scientologists on this kick. They're full of hope about how the Tech will fix everything, and most things naturally go well anyway... because they're young and full of life.

But when life is on the downswing, maybe you're aging and getting body problems, life's not so much fun. Well now you either have to find the SP responsible or start doing the "figure-figure" on what YOU did to "pull it in". It's never about the Tech. It's about what's wrong with you, or where are the SPs?

It's brutal, and either side of those two extreme examples are not QUITE the truth.

Life is more just a mix of good times, bad times, things you do that cause things, and things other people cause. It's all woven together, and no simple Hubbard "rule" explains it all.

 

[EZ Linus]

Yes, I Googled it first and could not find where he actually wrote it anywhere and started to wonder - GAH! I hope it wasn't just some verbal data that we all just obeyed and Hubbard never even wrote it!? But I truly believe he did. And I really do need to find the source for the purposes of the book because this motto is exactly the crux of all that is poisonous to those of us that had to shed this concept - namely to stop blaming ourselves for random things that just happen in the universe -- anything from catching a cold to getting cancer. I have been out for well over 10 years and have had a horrible time with letting go of this concept. I've even been more fucked up about it in the case of having been sexual assaulted. Oh, I have pulled that in. But I never think to myself, with all the accolades I have gained in my life (all the accomplishments) that, that is because of ME. Scientology has done wonders for my confidence.

 

[pineapple]

I don't know where you'll find the exact phrase "you're responsible for your own condition," but I think I remember first encountering the idea in the book The Phoenix Lectures. (No longer available, unfortunately.) This is where LRH talks a lot about responsibility and service facsimiles. The idea is that the individual is using his aberrations; he has the computation that he must have some disability in order to survive, that at some level he has made a postulate to be aberrated.

At the time I thought this was some really cool stuff. And reading about serfacs even now, yeah, I'd still say there's something to it. I've definitely seen this sort of thing, and not just when I was in scn. I see it pretty frequently in the real world.

A google search turned up this, from Marty Rathbun's site. (No I'm not a Marty-ite or a freezoner or an indy or any kind of scngst and haven't been one for over 35 years.) I thought this was a good read.

Wherever that zone or area is you’ll see the individual worsening. He is on a dwindling spiral. But he himself is generating it.
-- HCOB 5 SEPTEMBER 1978

https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/more-on-service-facsimilescomputations/

Then there's also the overt-motivator sequence. This is the idea that one commits an overt, then feels that he must justify it somehow, and so becomes motivator-hungry and starts pulling in motivators. So if bad shit happens to you, that MUST mean you've done bad shit yourself (since LRH said so). This I find much less convincing than the serfac stuff.

Note that LRH said different in DMSMH. There he said that it was only what is done to the pc that aberrates him, what the pc has done himself is of no concern.

I hope that helps. Can't give you a ref with the exact phrase, but I think these are likely areas where you might turn something up.

 

[renegade]

IIRC, it is in the PTS/SP course pack and the HCO green volume.

The issue is for HCO to declare different types of ptses.

type A is connected to a family member antago to scn,
type B, I don't remember this one
type C is not responsible for their own condition but blames the auditor or scn. (Not verbatim)

There's more types in this issue. One was asking for free auditing for celebrities, another was not in scn on their own determination, etc.

There is also an HCOB about blaming something else is granting it power over you. I believe this one has the responsible for your own condition in it.

 

[Dulloldfart]

. . . but where exactly did it come from?

Maybe Hubbard took it from Invictus, the last two lines of which are:

. . .
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invictus

Paul

 

[DagwoodGum]

The irony here is that there exists no other organization on earth that insists upon superimposing it's will through its endless double speak policies, proceedures, books, bulletins ad infinitum upon your condition that walks away in the end and tells you it's all on you, your responsibility while holding itself faultless.

 

[Enthetan]

Part of it may come from HCOPL 31 JANUARY 1972,

Data Series 22
THE WHY IS GOD

When beings operate mainly on illogics, they are unable to conceive of valid reasons for things or to see that effects are directly caused by things they themselves can control.
The inability to observe and find an actual useable Why is the downfall of beings and activities. This is factually the Why of people not finding Whys and using them.

(snip)

By believing that it is the fault of other divisions or departments, a staff member does not look into his own scene. "The reason 1 cannot load the lumber is because the Personnel Section will not find and hire people." It does not seem to occur to this fellow that he is using a WHY which he can't control so it is not a Why for his area. It does not move the existing to the ideal scene. Thus it is not a Why for him. Yet he will use it and go on nattering about, it. And the lumber never gets loaded. The real Why for him more likely would be, "I have no right to hire day laborers. 1 must obtain this right before my area breaks down totally," or "My department posts are too specialized. I need to operate on all-hands actions on peak loads."

It's actually a useful piece of advice, when applied correctly. When looking at a problem, or a bad condition, the most useful thing you can do is ask yourself "OK, what part of this is something which I have control over? Is there something about this which I can fix?". Then fix that piece, and take another look at what ELSE you might be able to fix.

Applied badly, it is a tool for sociopaths to conceal the fact that they've been screwing you over.

An example of a similar principle is the famous "Murphy's Law" ("If anything CAN go wrong, it WILL"). From one way of looking at it, it is a statement of pessimism. But the originator of it was an engineer. To an engineer, what Murphy's Law means is:

"If there is a way for something to go wrong, then it will eventually happen. So your job is to minimize the ways that things can go wrong."

If a part CAN be installed backwards, it will be. So design the part so it won't fit if somebody tries to install it backwards.

If a disaster will happen if power is turned on while a certain hatch is open, then design the equipment so that you can't open that hatch without first disconnecting the power. And so on.
​

 

[Dave B.]

Good to know, Hubbard was responsible for the warrants on him, hiding from the law, his shitty health, his stroke and an ass-full of Vistaril.

Winning!

 

[renegade]

Good to know, Hubbard was responsible for the warrants on him, hiding from the law, his shitty health, his stroke and an ass-full of Vistaril.

Winning!

Funny how that doesn't apply to LRH or DM. It's someone else's fault then.

 

[Terril park]

I don't know where you'll find the exact phrase "you're responsible for your own condition," but I think I remember first encountering the idea in the book The Phoenix Lectures. (No longer available, unfortunately.) This is where LRH talks a lot about responsibility and service facsimiles. The idea is that the individual is using his aberrations; he has the computation that he must have some disability in order to survive, that at some level he has made a postulate to be aberrated.

At the time I thought this was some really cool stuff. And reading about serfacs even now, yeah, I'd still say there's something to it. I've definitely seen this sort of thing, and not just when I was in scn. I see it pretty frequently in the real world.

A google search turned up this, from Marty Rathbun's site. (No I'm not a Marty-ite or a freezoner or an indy or any kind of scngst and haven't been one for over 35 years.) I thought this was a good read.


https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/more-on-service-facsimilescomputations/

Then there's also the overt-motivator sequence. This is the idea that one commits an overt, then feels that he must justify it somehow, and so becomes motivator-hungry and starts pulling in motivators. So if bad shit happens to you, that MUST mean you've done bad shit yourself (since LRH said so). This I find much less convincing than the serfac stuff.

Note that LRH said different in DMSMH. There he said that it was only what is done to the pc that aberrates him, what the pc has done himself is of no concern.

I hope that helps. Can't give you a ref with the exact phrase, but I think these are likely areas where you might turn something up.

HCOB 5 SEPTEMBER 1978

First read this decades ago as a newbie E/O. Vaguely
grokked it back then. Now several decades of life
experience later I consider it one of the most insightful
things Hubbard wrote. Thanks for the revisit

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

I don't know if this paste will contain an active link to the pdf but I think the general pervasive concept of a Thetan being totally responsible for their own condition is fairly well encapsulated in this small pamphlet:

"Control & The Mechanics of Start Change Stop"
_____
[h=3]scientology - matrixfiles.com.[/h]www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/.../CONTROL%20AND%20THE%20M...
SCIENTOLOGY. Control & The Mechanics Of Start-Change-Stop. Edited from the tape lectures of. L. RON HUBBARD. CONTROL AND THE MECHANICS OF ...

 

[JustSheila]

HCOB 5 SEPTEMBER 1978

First read this decades ago as a newbie E/O. Vaguely
grokked it back then. Now several decades of life
experience later I consider it one of the most insightful
things Hubbard wrote. Thanks for the revisit

Then you agree that Hubbard did some really awful things or he wouldn't have ended up dead and alone, screaming at ghosts with needle marks in his arse?

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Hi there.

It's been a long time since I have posted here. I have been working on my book that I mentioned when I first signed on. Now, I'm hoping for a little help/tip.

Can anyone tell me where Hubbard actually wrote being responsible for your own condition? Was it from History of Man? Is it from a red on white? We've all talked about it so much and those of us that were in had it drilled into our skulls, but where exactly did it come from?

Any reference to it would be very helpful.

Thanks in advance.

"HCO PL 27 Oct 64"...Referenced for definition of "Responsible for Condition Cases"; Page 349, of Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary Copyright © 1975 L. Ron Hubbard. All Rights Reserved.

Face

EDIT PS: I first read and *rated this PL not all that long after it was first issued.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I like the basic concept of You are entirely responsible for your own condition - but with reservations - I don't believe that means that if your car gets hit by a drunk driver and you end up in the hospital with multiple cuts and contusions it is your fault. That is crazy town think. That's where IMO Scientologists err - they take it to extremes that make no sense. If I fuck up on a job, that's my bad, and viewed in that light - taking responsibility for things in my own sphere of influence, it is a good thing. Beyond that - it is Koo Koo.

Mimsey

 

[Gib]

I like the basic concept of You are entirely responsible for your own condition - but with reservations - I don't believe that means that if your car gets hit by a drunk driver and you end up in the hospital with multiple cuts and contusions it is your fault. That is crazy town think. That's where IMO Scientologists err - they take it to extremes that make no sense. If I fuck up on a job, that's my bad, and viewed in that light - taking responsibility for things in my own sphere of influence, it is a good thing. Beyond that - it is Koo Koo.

Mimsey

yep.

Responsible for own condition was a scapegoat by Hubbard on why the tech don't work. LOL

And what are the scapegoats by Hubbard, why PTS/SP tech. One comes to mind being "open minded". LOL

 

[WildKat]

yep.

Responsible for own condition was a scapegoat by Hubbard on why the tech don't work. LOL

And what are the scapegoats by Hubbard, why PTS/SP tech. One comes to mind being "open minded". LOL

Yes, that one was a doozy. Hubs made it bad to be open minded and also reasonable.

 

[Out/Int]

I could not find the reference by L Ron Hubbard but I found this little video where he talks about responsiblity....

https://youtu.be/6hbn1SE_BUA


and then I found this :wink2:

https://youtu.be/AULOC--qUOI