By Bernie Wimbush
We read in the paper of some old veteran being attacked in his or her own home and robbed of a few cents by a bunch of teenagers, and it’s so easy to call for a good flogging, bring back the cane and that today’s youth are all bad.
Wasn’t it Socrates who made the derogatory comments about ‘today’s’ youth a couple of thousand years ago? And so nothing has changed.
In the early history of Australia we were a convict colony. Good old mother England didn’t know what to do with all the naughty girls and boys (and adults) so sent them to Australia. Studies were done of these poor wretches and it was discovered that no amount of floggings, solitary confinements or hard labour made one iota of difference. What was discovered was that if a convict was taught a trade from which he could earn a living he or she didn’t offend again.
Reminds me of a process whereby the handling of a continuous overt was to find the problem the being was trying to solve and fix that.
When we are trying to survive we are going to run into situations we don’t know how to solve and sometimes we get it wrong don’t we? Isn’t the definition of an overt related to non-optimum solutions across the dynamics? Isn’t this subject about mistakes rather than bad people?
In British law there was a principle of “The rule of Thumb.” This allowed a husband to beat his wife providing the stick was no thicker than his thumb. I really can’t see that working with my wife. But not considered an overt back then. Perhaps if there had been more emphasis on communication?
So knowing the principle of the Service Fac, if you tell someone they are wrong, don’t they justify their actions and insist on their rightness? And do it again?
So in auditing we find an overt and handle it. That is the end of it. The PC will forget about it in a few days if not immediately, will he not? I have heard of PCs being sent to Ethics for correction after an overt has been handled in session. Doesn’t auditing work?
And what happens when you tell someone to stop? Apart from LRH’s comment that that is an act of suppression, we are in the right/wrong area again. Try getting him to explain how he was being right (using good TRs and no make wrong) and see what happens.
Isn’t the truth that crime and overts result from illogical ideas in the mind, held in place by mental charge? And isn’t auditing the only thing that fixes that?
So over to you. Does punishment fit with Scientology?
You have no rights to post comments
Comments
Your perspective is, to my mind, a bridge,that I din't even recognize existed.
I had wrongfully assumed that metering out punishment, would generally work, as
it certainly did for most of us as schoolkids, when we offended.
I recognize now, that it ONLY works, IF
it is instrumental in helping the being
to spot that they were in fact, acting
against their own best interests and /or
that of their dynamics.
For that realization to occur, there needs be sufficient awareness in the being in the first place. Without that
self realization, no amount of cajoling,
persuasion, or punishment can ever be
effective, and the ser facs and overt/
transgression/ motivator compulsion are
fixed to continue in a spiral of illogical madness.
This is such a fine piece of detective work, Bernie, that you can be assured,I will share it very broadly.
Thanks again,
Calvin.
RSS feed for comments to this post