Unreality and Service Facsimiles

(This was originally published by Plain Old Thetan on March 9. 2010)

One of the most easily comprehended and applied Scientology tools are the ARC triangle. It is so elementary and is introduced so early on in one’s Scientology experience that I don’t think a rehash of those basics is merited here.

The thing I’m learning from publishing my Treason Condition Assignment of David Miscavige is this: the suppression of parishioners’ communication lines has resulted in a situation where parishioners can’t do a “sanity check” with their fellows to see if their opinions or conclusions regarding the radically altered atmosphere inside the Church, especially in the upper orgs, is simply a personal conclusion attributable to case, or if others have come to the same conclusion – that something is terribly, terribly wrong.

This is where the R point of the ARC triangle comes into play. R…reality…is defined by LRH: “Reality is fundamentally agreement. What we agree to be real is real.” (Ref: Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought)

What I’m discovering is that people read the Treason Condition Assignment I wrote on David Miscavige, and experience relief. The response, especially from long-time Scientologists, is “I thought I was the only one bothered by that stuff.”

Part of that, of course, is that people are now communicating about their disagreements with the way the Church of Scientology is being run and by whom.

But even more so, I think, is that these people (myself included) have been practicing long-term not-isness.

To understand not-isness, it is necessary to understand a lesser-known piece of Scientology technology: the four conditions of existence.

The four conditions of existence are defined in Scientology Axiom 11:

The considerations resulting in conditions of existence are fourfold:

a.AS-ISNESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.

b.ALTER-ISNESS is the consideration which introduces change, and therefore time and persistence, into an AS-ISNESS to obtain persistency.

c.ISNESS is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an AS-ISNESS. This is called, when agreed upon, reality.

d.NOT-ISNESS is the effort to handle ISNESS by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an ISNESS.

Now, I know that some people haven’t been audited, like I have (12 years) or audited other people, like I have (22 years) or C/Sed Clearing Auditors (16 years), so some of this may seem foreign.  But I can attest as both preclear and auditor that as-isness happens. The reason I got the life-changing gains I got in auditing and the reason my preclears got the life-changing gains they got in my auditing them was because of as-isness. The fixed ideas or behavior patterns they had, disappeared. So, for me, as-isness is proven.

If you didn’t experience as-isness in your auditing, it’s not because as-isness doesn’t happen. It’s because it was prevented from happening. Ron covers this quite well in, for example, HCOB 26 Apr 1971 I TRs AND COGNITIONS.

Another phenomena can occur when the auditor and preclear have agreed not to discuss certain topics. It’s called “tacit consent”, and Ron covers this in DMSMH as well as SHSBC lecture 57 (6110C05) SEC CHECKING: TYPES OF WITHHOLDS.

There are a myriad of other reasons that explain why a preclear didn’t as-is or cognite.

The important thing, for case gain to occur, is that as-isness occurs.

This leads next to alter-isness. Alter-isness is the result of introduced change. In everyday parlance, alter-isness is called alteration. This is what David Miscavige has done (or allowed, or encouraged to be done) to Scientology. Even worse, the person or persons enacting the alterations remain hidden, compounding the situation. It’s best explained in Axiom 29:

In order to cause an as-isness to persist, one must assign other authorship to the creation than his own. Otherwise, his view of it would cause its vanishment.

The frustrating thing, for me, and most long-time Scientologists that I know, is that David Miscavige cleverly assigns authorship of the alterations to L. Ron Hubbard.

The one that particularly grinds my gears is the assertion that the “Ideal Orgs” program follows the LRH policy exactly. They’ll never tell you what that policy is, of course. But I’ve figured out that the single bulletin that we’re being told is being “operated on” is HCO PL 12 March 1975 II THE IDEAL ORG (Formerly LRH ED 102 Int, 20 May 70). It can be found in the “new” Management Series volume 1.

I’ve read this issue. It’s 2 pages long. On page 2, it says “Such an ideal org would be built by taking what one has and step by step building and smoothing, grooving in and handling each of its functions, with each of the divisions doing more and more of its full job better and better.” This is routine LRH advice, echoed in many places, where one moves step-by-step toward an ideal scene. (Refs: HCO PL 30 December 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, HCO PL 18 Feb 1972 THE TOP TRIANGLE)

Nowhere in this issue is mention made of extorted donations or huge expensive renovations or a Golden Age of Tech or retraining or repurchasing your materials or dropped statistics or lowered production or Scientology shrinkage.

This is why long-time Scientologists (whether they are aware of it or not) find the “Ideal Orgs” program suspect. It’s because it isn’t LRH. Yet, someone is claiming that it is.

And that leads next to isness. Now, many people will say “that’s what we need, something we can all agree on…what is”. The problem is that an isness is a continuously altered as-isness. The as-isness has already got one lie running to make it an alter-isness, but continuous alteration allows for a multitude of lies to be introduced.

You don’t have to look very far for examples of this. Just try to absorb the news about the U.S. Congress. Try to figure it out. You can’t. The lies the politicians told this morning are supplanted by the lies they told this afternoon, only to be replaced with the lies they’ll tell on tonight’s news.

I find it no wonder they can’t get anything done.

The same applies with David Miscavige. The more he lies, the more people get disillusioned.

“But it’s just PR,” some say.

But I say that LRH says to never use lies in PR. (Ref: HCO PL 13 August 1970 II THE MISSING INGREDIENT)

And Scientologists, whether they know the reference or not, know that lying is not the way to disseminate Scientology.

Which brings up the fourth condition of existence: not-isness. In everyday parlance, not-isness would be called “denial”.

Now, the definition of NOT-ISNESS would simply be a definition of “trying to create out of existence, by postulate or force, something which one knows priorly, exists.” One is trying to talk against his own agreements and postulates with his new postulate, or is trying to spray down something with the force of other Is-nesses in order to cause a cessation of the Is-ness he objects to.” (Phoenix Lectures 23 July 1954 ISNESS)

So there are really two conditions of “Not-isness”: there’s just vanishment or the other one, which is what we mean, which is an Is-ness which somebody is trying to postulate out of existence by simply saying, “It isn’t.”

A not-isness, in our terminology, would be this specialized case of an individual trying to banish something without taking responsibility for created it. (Phoenix Lectures 23 July 1954 THE FOUR CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE, PART III)

And finally, and most importantly, Ron says when talking about Axiom 17 that

“The Static, in practicing Not-isness, brings about the persistence of unwanted existences, and so brings about unreality (in other words, it’s Not-isness that gives us unreality), and that includes forgetfulness, unconsciousness and other undesirable states. (Phoenix Lectures 20 August 1954 AXIOMS, PART I)

So, it would appear that the most dangerous condition of existence for an individual is Not-isness. In fact, the practice of Not-isness prevents inspection.

The result is that there’s no need to “Look” or even “Listen”. Failure to look is something that LRH says is a bad thing. (Ref: Lecture 2 March 1960 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCIENTOLOGY AND OTHER STUDIES, Lecture 30 September 1953 THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY)

Simply stated, if one can’t confront a confusion, one doesn’t inspect a confusion, and he gets overwhelmed by that confusion…instead of as-ising it.

What he does instead is put an irrational fixed idea in place to confront the confusion. (“The only way to get the government out of debt is for the government to spend more money.”)

An uninspected fixed idea held in place to hold back a confusion is called a Service Facsimile. (Ref: HCOB  5 Sep 1978 ANATOMY OF A SERVICE FACSIMILE, HCOB 1 September 1964 ROUTINE THREE SC,  HCOB 16 October 1963 R3SC SLOW ASSESSMENT)

So, the continual practice of Not-isness eventually ends up being a Service Facsimile.

This is why the indoctrinated robots (both parishioners and staff) in places like Flag are so frustrating to deal with or communicate with.

So here’s the bottom line: the reason we’re having a tough time appealing to existing online Scientologists in our communication is that we’re fighting Service Facsimiles.

As any experienced Scientologist can tell you, trying to communicate to, yell at, reason with, out-logic or out-clever a Service Facsimile is a waste of time.  Service Facsimiles are handled with a combination of Grade IV, NED Service Facsimile handling, False Purpose Rundown, and if needed, Expanded Dianetics Whole Track Service Facsimile handling.

I’d love to get my hands on the folders of parishioners or ex-parishioners now complaining of “no-results”. Chances are their Service Facsimile handling was botched or never run.

Plain Old Thetan

8 Comments

Fellow Traveller  on March 9th, 2010 Edit comment

No. You’re wrong!
(sorry if that is not as funny to you as to me initially).

Outstanding analysis, POT. So much truth here.

The road to truth is paved with, well, truth. The road to hell or oblivion may just be a superhighway paved with service facsimiles.

OldAuditor  on March 9th, 2010 Edit comment

Well, I have service facsimilies I haven’t used yet.
So there!

lunamoth  on March 9th, 2010 Edit comment

POT,

Thank you for your analysis of the situation from a technical viewpoint.

What would be truly helpful now would be understanding how one effectively deals with someone dramatizing this particular serv-fac. My own (non-technical) observation has been that each has to come to the cognition themselves.
I’ve learned the hard way not to try to “force” someone to look and have adopted the position of waiting for them to come to see it themselves. But it’s frustrating to be so passive, and in the mean time damage is being done to important relationships because of the ‘out-R’.

Does the tech provide a way to expedite this process in others? Do you think that’s even possible?

Marta  on March 9th, 2010 Edit comment

Wahoo, POT! And thank you Old Auditor for posting this. LFBD, ping, FN. LFBD, ping, FN. ditto, ditto, ditto, Floating TA!

Look, look! There is no wizard afterall! Look, the emperor has no clothes!

Look, look, look at the actions behind the PR. Listen to the message behind the words. How is it that way, how isn’t it that way. Breathe. Look. Breathe. Differentiate. Be. Look. Be. Communicate. Namaste.

Plain Old Thetan  on March 9th, 2010 Edit comment

Lunamoth: LRH provides for the handling of service facsimiles via simple 2WC in the materials on Crashing Mis-U finding. The difficulty I see with applying it is that the person you’re using it on HAS TO BE IN-SESSION. In other words, they have to think it’s a problem worthy of resolution. (e.g. interested in own case) This is why service facs aren’t addressed on the modern Bridge until Grade IV. The case has to be unburdened enough…enough free theta restored…to allow the person to LOOK and SEE. By the time a preclear reaches Grade IV properly, a track record of wins and successes have been established that are enough to overcome the preclear’s hesitations at addressing his serfacs.

lunamoth  on March 9th, 2010 Edit comment

Thanks for your response, Plain Old Thetan.

I can see clearly that the motivation to solve the problem and the free theta are both critical to resolving the serv fac issue.

In real life, under the conditions one normally encounters, I find it’s just better to never approach the beast (the serv fac). Just don’t wake it up! I have had more success with granting of beingness and rightess to the other person, no matter how incorrect I think their viewpoint is.
It gives others the space to magnanimously grant me the same right to my own viewpoint, if they can. IF they can.

John Doe  on March 10th, 2010 Edit comment

Thanks for this. The phenomena of Service Facsimiles is, to me, the factor that makes life on earth so unpleasant at times.

So, please, continue. The more light that shines on this subject, the better for all.

Tom  on March 11th, 2010 Edit comment

Yes, you have touched on something very important here, and Ser Fac handling is very much a “lost technology” within the current regime. This is a link to a talk the former Snr C\S Int gave on the subject back in 1986, giving a technical summation of what he had seen as regards this.
http://www.lightlink.com/archive/ivy/iv-05-01.txt

I found it to be quite fascinating, given how many ser facs get dramatized each day by people who should know better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *