A sad case

Some time ago a contributor let us down with regard to a book promised. It took over three months, including some letters containing poor ARC, to get it sorted out.

Group integrity

Some have disagreed with me but I regard "us" (IVy readers and other "free scientologists", and similarly minded people) as a group. We have a broad common goal: to get or keep self and/or others surviving well/better using some of the principles of scientology (very roughly worded — its a very general common goal). Maybe some of us want to clear the whole planet, maybe some a few friends, there is a broad gradient within the general goal. We all (or most of us, I have not counted heads) have the broad goal.

To achieve our various goals easily fast and harmoniously, I believe a high degree of communication, trust and co-operation is needed. And a much higher degree of integrity than the "church" exhibited. Let's hope hope that instances as described above are rare. Lets not ignore "bad indicators" of out integrity in the group, but handle on an appropriate gradient.

The negative

This magazine tends to avoid the negative. We think in terms of "What you put your attention on you get" and we want the effect of the magazine to be a raising of your tone level, and greater desire and ability to achieve your own personal goals.

Nevertheless, a low level on Ron's gradient of 'ethics' (Levels of Ethics Actions, in HCO PL 29 April 1963 "Ethics: Review" In Green Vol. 1 page 397) is " 2. Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person" so I will remark on one here. (I know, I know, it does not apply to you, but perhaps to other readers). It is the use of out ARC communications.

I was shown some of the correspondence in the "sad case" mentioned in the previous column. I was astounded that two scientologists could write such letters. They appeared to be aimed to decrease ARC, to invalidate the other, and to make the other wrong. "I'm not interested in your personality or your personal projects" — "I couldn't believe that you were going to use group natter and bank 'agreement' to solve a grievance". That is one excerpt from each participant. My opinion is that if those and many similar out ARC sentences had been omitted, and there had possibly been added a few lines indicating the granting of beingness, the matter would not have taken four months (and my intervention) to handle.

To collect his experience, Ulrich Kramer has been many places and had many experiences. That someone (I fear an IVy reader) should send anonymously someone's years out of present time derogatory 'ethics' remarks on him to the organizer of his recent workshop, I consider a little less than the best contribution to this group's efforts to help individuals and the planet. I would not disagree with the word 'cowardice'. Fortunately it did not prevent many getting gains from the workshop, and a significant increase in the desire to audit people.

And my pet abhorrence. People who (hopefully through ignorance) use bits of scn to control and invalidate others (including, very sad, 2Ds). Blatantly, its saying things like "That's your service fac', "You need auditing", and other invalidations. It can also be done covertly. My prize goes to something that happened to me 30 years ago. A room mate told me: "I will only talk to you when your Tr 1 is in", and from then on ignored me when I wanted to talk about something he was not willing to confront.

That's the end of the sober, sad, and serious pages - Let us let Ralph Peacy and Jim Burtles end the magazine with something more up lifting. (I will stop confronting our navel).