No matching fragments found in this document.
Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.
One above has been done.
Two has been achieved by many.
Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a
proper manner and observing that it works that way.
Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world.
Five is consistently accomplished daily.
Six is achieved by instructors and supervisors consistently.
Seven is done by a few but is a weak point.
Eight is not worked on hard enough.
Nine is impeded by the "reasonable" attitude of the not quite bright.
Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity.
Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down
in
any area.
The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it
works in
Three above can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b)
Further, the
not-too-bright have a bad point on the button Self-importance, (c) The
lower the IQ,
the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation, (d) The
service facs
of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good
or bad
and seek to make it wrong, (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and
perpetuate
the bad.
Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert to
Seven,
Eight, Nine and Ten.
In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm
lines wide
open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve
truth. A third of a
Century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to
accept
suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had
long run
value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic
suggestions
and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to "eat
crow".
On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions
and
writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the
complete
destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a
group of
people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable
"technology". By
actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of
human
beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could
have
gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to
continue to do
so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as
"unpopular",
"egotistical" and "undemocratic". It very well may be. But it is also a
survival point.
And I don't see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have
done
anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity
endorses
degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles
with stone idols
and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax.
Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group
had not
supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it
remains that if
in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group
efforts, one can
safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I
can only say this
now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-
ordination of
what has been done, which will be valuable-only so long as it does not seek
to alter
basic principles and successful applications.
The contributions that were worth while in this period of forming the
technology
were help in the form of friendship, of defence, of organization, of
dissemination, of
application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great
contributions and