Freezone Dianetic Center of Monterey

Policy Letter

March 1, 2007 R

 

What Do I Bring to the Group?

 

In researching my and others' experiences with forming and maintaining cohesive and loyal group members, I have found a main denominator that makes or breaks the group. When it is out the group fails. When it is properly addressed, then any other outnesses can be improved to the degree that the group can be made more than stable, with the increasing ability to achieve the established goals of the group that would then expand the group's successes exponentially.

It is axiomatic that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If one member of the group is not following standard policy, alter-isness and not-isness step in, creating havoc and confusion for the rest. One's weakness is passed onto others who become similarly weak, without proper inspection of who oneself is in regards to maintaining the integrity of the group's goal. This weakness can manifest as Third Partying & other O/W phenomena. It is more common than not to fail to question the integrity of the data and/or individual originating the data. This ultimately results in a total loss of control for managers, who themselves may be the squirrel source, and a scapegoat is then selected for the group's sacrifice as the promised solution to the problem, which it very rarely is. It is the beginning of a very quick end for the group, since the answer was wrong to begin with and actually helped to immediately cave in the group.

A successful group recognizes this danger and is prepared to handle the perceived weakness upon discovery to stop the contagion and maintain the group integrity and strength. Soldiers learn this early on in their training. We've all known the stories that when one guy screws up in training exercises, the whole platoon has to pay a stiff, often painful or exhausting penalty for this. It is the group that pays because it is the group's survival that suffers, so the group must learn that each member is responsible for the group, just as the group is responsible for the member because THE GROUP IS MORE POWERFUL THAN THE INDIVIDUAL. Notice that the platoon does not simply discard the individual. The individual screws up. The group learns the lesson. Failing boot camp is only the last resort.

The lesson is not to be taken lightly here. On a battlefield, if one guy is standing next to a hedge singing to his heart's delight while in the vicinity of the enemy, who happens to be standing just on the other side of the hedge, he's just given away his groups position and the group is lost. This, all because he failed to accept self-discipline and responsibility for his actions which were made more unreal to him because no one else felt correct enough in himself to correct him, if they even noticed. This limitlessly applicable lesson often fails to translate to those of us in the civilian population which is a tragic loss for any group's survival.

 
The solution is here. It had been buried, but it is now rediscovered. I found it while word clearing the Enemy Formula outlined by LRH in HCO PL 6 Oct 1967 (Vol. 0, P.238).

It is: 1. "Examine oneself and one's mind or have it examined to be sure that one's attitude is not based on prejudice or aberration or mere similarity to something else."

 
2. "Decide if one's reaction to the individual, group, project or org is based on one's personal fear or the urging of others or on actual menace.

 
3. Assume the Condition of Doubt and apply its formula."

 
The first step means exactly that. Get yourself into session! What are you thinking if you're acting as the enemy? What are you actually thinking if you're accusing or coloring another? What are you thinking if you're not as-ising the truth as a group member?!

MAKE SURE YOUR VIEWPOINT IS CORRECT. It is vital to recognize that this does not specify that only the accused one apply this condition. If the condition of Enemy has been recognized, then the group, as individuals and then as a whole, must fully apply this formula. Otherwise, we fall into fascism and are no better improved in our society than the most ignorant, untechnological and primitive.

 
The second step is to really evaluate the accusation and its effect on you and the group to see how valid that fear should be. (The words Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind here....) Here is where you apply a gradient scale to evaluate: from concern to worry to fear to terror to numbness.

 
The third step speaks for itself and can be found in a fairly consistent form in the same referenced PL or other LRH Ethics sources.

 
This version of the Enemy Formula is expanded, more broken-down to the finite, than his revised formula of the one command: "Find out who you really are," which was issued only days later that same year. It is interesting to note that he called this only a modification of the earlier formula. It does not cancel the earlier and it is tragic that this earlier formula has not seemed to have made it into later publications on the ethics formulas.

 
Therefore, when a person assigns or colors another in the group as "enemy", then everyone must immediately assign this condition to himself, apply the three steps mentioned above, including Doubt through all of its steps, as written in the above referenced HCO PL.

 
By forcing the entire group to "suffer" through this short period of increased enlightenment will help keep the accusers muzzled and allow for the right investigations to occur to discover the real outnesses and sources of.

 
This vital data is further understood by HCO PL 20 October 1967 (Vol. 0, p. 244) "CONDITIONS, HOW TO ASSIGN," where it states:

 
"It is more than policy that one gets the condition he fails to correctly and promptly assign and enforce.

 
It's a sort of natural law. If you let your executives goof off and stay in, let us say, a Danger Condition yet you don't assign and enforce one, they will surely put you in a Danger Condition whether it gets assigned or not.

 
Remember that when your finger falters 'on the trigger'."

 
A singled-out Enemy application while the rest of the group sits around disinterestedly is no different.

 

Valerie Hastings-Parker