No matching fragments found in this document.
some other programme. If one removes the factors that make the problem, one
can dispense with the programme that solves it. But this is so rare it is
non-human in most instances.
For instance, doctors are a public solution to the problem of human body
illness. If one removed this problem, one could remove the "doctor
programme" safely. That's why doctors sometimes fight us. We are thought to
be working to remove the problem to which they are a programme. One would
have to have more than a better cure. One would have to remove in the 4th
Dynamic (Mankind) the causes of illness. These would not be what people
think they are as the problem persists and so does the "doctor programme"
in the society. It can't be the right problem. Only enough is known of the
causes of illness to make the problem appear to be handled. Actually the
bad statistic of ill people is rising. We have entered the field in
research only far enough to know that suppressives make people ill but
that's a sufficient departure to make it an Ethics problem, not one in
treatment! By extension of this theory one might find this problem not
caused by Pasteur's germs but by suppressive groups. In that case one would
increase ethics programmes. Eventually, if this solved it, the "doctor
programme" would be diminished as no longer the only solution.
The above is not a statement of intention or a plan. It is an example of
how an old standard programme can become less important. Note that one
would have to (a) state the problem better than it had been stated, (b)
isolate causes of the real problem, (c) institute a "special project" to
handle those causes, (d) see if the problem was now better handled, (e)
abandon it if it didn't handle the problem or (0 make it a standard
programme if it did prove effective, (g) diminish the old programme.
So just dropping a proven programme (without going at it as above [a] to
[f]) can be a catastrophe as it can let in an old problem when one already
has quite enough problems already.
Abandoned programmes that were successful are currently the main cause
of orgs being in any difficulty.
You can always make an org run better by studying old successful
programmes and getting them back in.
If you were to take the above list at Saint Hill, the major SH
programmes since 1959, and simply revert them (make them more like the
original) and reinforce them, income would probably double.
If we abandoned as few as five of these the SH org would undoubtedly
collapse.
If we added six new programmes directly into the org without seeing the
problem to be solved we could distract staff to a point where the old
standard programmes would suffer and the org would collapse.
Sometimes, even in our orgs, we enter new arbitraries which make new
problems we don't need. Those are the sources we can do without. If we
didn't routinely abolish such org-generated problems we would fade away in
a year.
Therefore we cherish and forward the existing programmes we have and
study them continually to be sure they don't "go out".
___________________
This is not a list of the problems faced at Saint Hill, it is a list of
solutions. For these programmes may accidentally be solving problems we
cannot yet clearly state.
This is not a list of all major programmes in Scientology. These are
found in the Policy Letters of past years and particularly 1965.
This is a list of the major SH programmes for use by SH executives and
as an illustration to others on how to programme and to show them that as
Scientologists we use our knowledge of the mechanics of life, problems and
solutions, to govern programmes.
If all the problems we faced were only ours only we could of course
simply audit them out. But we exist in a 3rd and 4th Dynamic which is not
merely aberrated but quite batty. This thrusts problems on us (finance,
international ignorance and intolerance, religious and psychiatric cults,
suppressive governments, retarded or misused scientific technology, lack of
human dignity and a host of other factors).