By George

There is a somewhat whimsical reason for wanting to title my little piece of the pie as above, which I hope will become clear later on. The purpose here is to define Personal Ethics in the context of Scientology, so that Scientology is understandable and useable to the individual. Right off, please allow me to emphasize the self-determinism of personal ethics, and make the critical point that personal ethics empowers self-determinism.

L. Ron Hubbard’s definition of ethics, and its stark distinction from justice, is amongst the most easily, most readily accessible references. There’s no top-secret or complicated immensity about it at all. It is found in the published editions of the books Introduction to Scientology Ethics, at the very beginning of each edition.

"Ethics consists simply of the actions an individual takes on himself. It is a personal thing. When one is ethical or "has his ethics in," it is by his own determinism and is done by himself.

"Justice is the action taken on the individual by the group when he fails to take these actions himself." ("The Basics of Ethics", the very first page of text in the 2007 edition of ISE.)

"We are factually only here helping people to help themselves to better their conditions and the conditions of life. That is our total action." (ISE, 1974, "The Purpose of Ethics".)

How could this clarity of distinctions possibly be overlooked? Personal ethics are self-determined. That's pretty clear! In the Q’s and the Axioms and Logics of SOP 8-C, "self-determinism" is literally all over the place. This is what Scientology is all about. In The Factors, the first thing is the decision TO BE. (If that is not self-determinism, then I have no notion at all of what self-determinism is.)

To be very esoteric about self-determinism in the Grand Scheme of Things, Personal Ethics is self-defining. That's up-top esoteric: it gets right into axiom of Scn #35 "The Ultimate Truth is a Static." That relates Personal Ethics immediately to the "imponderables" of Ethics of All Creation. And there it is in the widely available Scientology 0-8.

My Class VIII OT auditor and I talk a lot, discuss things, exchange viewpoints, and recently, by my corrupting influence, we've been discussing Personal Ethics, its possible definition, and approaches to it. He took me a bit by surprise when he said, "The top of the Grade Chart is Source - Conditions - Existence." I didn’t get it. He said it again, "The levels of awareness at the top of the Grade Chart are Source - Conditions - Existence." I still didn’t get it. He said it a third time, "The levels of awareness at the top of the Grade Chart are: Source ... Conditions ... Existence." And I got it. (TR 3 - say it three times?) Plain as day, running right up the middle of the Grade Chart, the 1970’s Grade Chart with OT VII (fully exterior at will with perceptics, rehabilitation of intention), right between the processing side, and the training side, are the levels of awareness. And at the top are Source - Conditions - Existence.

My auditor then asked, "Auditing, training, and ...?" (That, I got immediately.) "Ethics," I replied. "It’s a triangle," he pointed out. Auditing, Training, and Ethics. Personal Ethics. (Who has a level of awareness, if not the individual himself? And by definition, of his own self-determinism?) This is the spine of the Grade Chart, and the proverbial backbone of the individual. This is what keeps him on purpose, when he audits, when he trains, and it keeps him on purpose in his own life, of which life, auditing and training are but a part, a function, his decision, and his alone, on his own determinism. This is the top of the Grade Chart, the plateau at the far end of the Bridge. Now, nobody dare forget the LRH distinction defining "ethics" and differentiating that from "justice"!

"Ethics consists simply of the actions an individual takes on himself. It is a personal thing. When one is ethical or "has his ethics in," it is by his own determinism and is done by himself."

"It is a personal thing." That’s what it says. Check it out. "It is a personal thing."

"... it is by his own determinism and is done by himself."

How much more clear can it possibly get? Not to be too blunt, but a lot of people apparently didn't get that at all. It isn't at all that anyone is a "bad person", but it is astounding how many seem to have discounted this. Scientology advises against discounting yourself! The Code of Honor states: "4. Never disparage yourself or minimize your strength or power." An individual trains, and audits, and develops personal ethics by himself, on his own determinism. Unfortunately, he also agrees to have his ethics broken by others, on his own determinism. Like the frog in slowly heatng water, he dies. Is it not a real tragedy, to see an individual make a small concession, then another, and another larger concession, all to the point where he is factually losing his self-determinism, instead of augmenting it?

The Defeat

L. Ron Hubbard, with hundreds of thousands of years of searching and with an iron will and VERY no-nonsense approach, probably saw that if everyone were left to their own self-determinism, the reactive mind would overwhelm. He wanted Scientology known and available world-wide. So he introduced his determinism into the equation, and he introduced finding an individual's ruin to motivate him into Scientology. The facts are that absent Scn, we would be in a big pot of duck soup, really the frogs in slowly heating water, trapped in a dwindling spiral, and with precious few even realizing that. Really. Looking back over history, one sees that there are many, many soldiers who, given proper leadership, fought for their freedom. And there are not a very great many leaders, but more than a handful have stood up for this goal and blessing of Freedom. Authors and artists have, sometimes very bravely, upheld standards and principles of freedom. And there are many men and women who have implemented principles of freedom and prosperity. All of us benefit in some manner, and the majority of us uphold these same principles. We do have many heroes and heroines to look up to. But precious few are those who took the tiger by the jaws and dared gaze into its gullet, dared step into the void to search for answers. Precious few.

Mr. Hubbard was not "fucking around" - everybody's freedom through Knowledge was far too great a stake to leave to mere hope and faith. So he implemented a command, he made an offer nobody could refuse. Think of it as tackling someone who is about to jump off a cliff. That's what he did. There have been great leaders in the past, but who knows of anyone other than this being, who can get literally billions of people to live by his word? To leave Scientology in the hands of the few curious enough would have been too slow. Those are a minority. The idea was, that the PC+Auditor > PC's Bank. But that is IN session. Outside of session, PC+Bank > PC. And in an organization, (PC+Bank) + (PC+Bank) = Bank Agreement. The idea was, that to counter that, and maintain purpose, there should be OT Presence in organizations sufficient to counter-balance the Bank Agreement, and keep things running. And initially, it worked. Enough individuals were achieving OT states to keep things flowing. But the Bridge broke down for various reasons. Technical errors in auditing, Too many new people. OT’s who did not develop their own Personal Ethics just went off to be football stars, or actresses. OT’s who did not develop their own Personal Ethics, and who still support the Co$ because (and this is important), they do not have anything of their own against which to evaluate the situation. The system of rules and regulations was misapplied to the point where they began working against the purpose of the organization. At this point, looking at the Co$, I think it is fair to say that the Bank won.

Ironically, the mandated drive of L. Ron Hubbard, placed in the wrong hands, came to defeat the Church. Now, we have a scattering of those who retain their own self-determined convictions. And we are very brave people. Many of us developed our personal convictions as a result of our involvement with Scientology, from processing, and from auditing others. We do not see everything clearly at all, perhaps, but we see a light in the darkness, and we will not be stopped, because we do not WISH to be stopped. It really is that simple. I’m not sure how to say this, but there is no opposing force to us, other than our own abberations, and lack of knowledge. And there is the germination of Personal Ethics. With a bit more clarification, I personally think we can put it all together, take a deep breath, and make this show go. A lot of people have done a lot of very, very good work in freeing the technology, and this work has gone unheralded. It will take patience, it will take resolve. In some instances, due to personal tragedies of fate or circumstance, it will take bitter determination and super-human strength, and we have seen that win.

The challenge we face is that it now up to us to be examples of the great men and women we so admire. We are to be Philosophers. We are to be great minds, and great souls. This is a huge individual challenge. But this can only be by choice of personal insight, and the wish of the individual. I cannot stress enough that even the mass movement of an army is accomplished by individual men. An unwilling slave is of very little use in combat, and frankly, no one wants to do that. Neither is this a matter of violent energy. To the contrary, it is a contemplative calm, a matter of study, and of grains of sand moved one by one to make a sand painting in a Buddhist Temple. It is a matter of getting as-is-ness, of auditing, of speaking with Knowledge, and it is a work of love and patience. Sand paintings are a drill, or even process.

As Scientologists, we have far greater Knowledge than has ever been available before. In history, it is rare to be able make such conclusive statements, but never before has anything been this clear.

Outside Scientology

One need not be "at the top of the Grade Chart" to be self-determined about one's own personal ethics. I have some non-LRH sources! One day in a friendly conversation, I asked the excellent lady who cuts my hair, "What is ethics?" She thought for a few seconds, and replied, "It's about how we treat each other." "Beautiful," I said. Ethics, I submit, is an intuitive, native sense. A friend of mine replied to the same question, "Isn't it the difference between right and wrong?" "Bingo," I said. In the light of all I know of Scientology and philosophy, these simple replies nearly brought tears to my eyes, for their correctness, their simple innocence, and their beauty. Try it, ask someone what ethics is. I have no doubt that I could survey 3,685 people randomly sampled (rigorous statistical sampling procedure) from the population, and get very similar answers. Now how could someone have that ethical view, get into the Co$, and lose that precious native insight, and even come to break their established moral codes, even to the extent of 'voluntarily' disconnecting from their own family? This is a serious question to find an answer to, and to offer a friendly remedy for. Which is what I propose to attempt, here, with your help. And I propose to keep it simple, to make it accessible, yet go into it in sufficient depth to interest even the most sophisticated OT, and to show why I like the title, "The Tenth Gate".

Your Invaluable Assistance

After reading this brief introduction, is your current view of "ethics" any different from your previous view? What was your previous view? What is your current view? I know this is a "loaded question," but if you can: Are you at all angry? (Describe?)


Ingrid Smith
+5 # Ingrid Smith 2013-06-05 16:36
Really excellent article. Before I answer your question I wanted to say a few things. I find many people seek another's determinism to live life by-when Ron left, he was replaced by a nutcase, who now determined life and if they manage to get out, they find another out here who tells them that both Ron and the nutcase were demonically controlling them and he knows the way, which is the ultimate recycling back into the same old same old- the "safe and comfortable" conrol that has been going on for eons. And like broken rubber bands that were stretched too far,regret having tried for the stars.

I have never seen anyone work harder at helping people become self-determined than Ron. He wanted us to have our own lives and exposed all the frauds who pretended to want that for us.I know, because I have a super duper radar for this-my self-determinism is very precious to me.

The change in my view is that I now validate my backbone and don't go pts on keeping it in like I used to-it is because of Ron's Tech I am able to do this. As far as any misemotion goes,I have had plenty,but I keep auditing on Solo-Thank God I have that.

One thing we can't escape is what he states at the end of KSW1"The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology" That is going to take a whole lotta backbone.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+5 # Sparks 2013-06-06 00:52
Yes, it's interesting seeing the flip side of the coin, e.g., those outside the Church who subtly make people wrong if they just want to apply Scientology without additives and significance chewing. It's done by subtle taunting -- that anyone who likes and admires the workability of the Tech and wants to simply practice it is referred to as brainwashed, and practicing undiluted, unmixed Scientology equals being "rote" or unliberated... or not free to observe and know any and all philosophies. In fact, the result of Scientology is an increased ability to communicate with anything without need to make it wrong or believe it.

Ah, the ability to see differences and similarities...and manipulation. Precious skill, observation.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+3 # George 2013-06-06 01:22
Ingrid - Spot on, and thank you. Very nice rubber band analogy. Scn is there to obviate the phenomenon of "seeking another's determinism", and end up with what you yourself describe. I'm intrigued by your sentence containing, ".. now I validate my backbone ..". Do you have a code you live by, even if not formally written out? Your LRH quote selection is very appropriate.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Ingrid Smith
+2 # Ingrid Smith 2013-06-06 13:47
George to answer the question of do I have a code on 'validating my backbone now"; not so much a code as an ability. Somehow, I was born with the ability to "see the emperor has no clothes on" and early on in life, as I would point this out I could get really invaidated and even though I could get very affected by the inval,I wouldn't "unsee" what I saw and I would stand by it-drove my parents crazy! I would introvert on this and wonder some times ( not all the time) why couldn't I just not unsee like everone else and maybe I'd be happier.

What Ron did is, through the Tech, gave me the ability to no longer go effect of others inval of my perceptions, which in turn has given me an ability to effectively TR3 or TR4 my comm and perceptions. And of course, through the fundamentals,I understand others ALOT more. As a consequence, I no longer argue or try and reason with SPs and lowtones, which is where I could really go pts before.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # George 2013-06-07 08:23
Ingrid - Thank you. Very clear and apropos example. Perceptics of a thetan are key - from Comm Course, furthered by auditing, to develop ethics, and goes way up. The hard part, bountifully provided by LRH through the fundamentals, is putting specifics to, or explaining the mechanisms of abilities - accurately explaining radar (for example of radar, assessing a person's tone on a particular subject, or in a location, of which tone voice modulation, eye movement, and other body language are a part, and if one tunes in to the tone, one can predict all the rest, and check one's guess as to tone against those). My guess is you have an inuitive grasp, as it were, and experience, and monitor changes in tone, so maybe that's another part of definable "code". One of mine I noticed is gauging another's comm lag - someone pointed it out to me a long time ago - very basic, but really pays off in not getting frustrated, and very indicative of many things.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Ingrid Smith
+2 # Ingrid Smith 2013-06-07 15:52
Just more on your section "the defeat" and on the subject of leadership, the tape 'Individuation" clearly states how we need to handle our leaders and one them is not becoming "yes" men. Leaders running around with O/Ws will eventually cave in and even go off and squirrel and that has already happened.I think for a brief moment in history we had a leader who understood this and that was Ron. Most leaders do not understand that this is needed and because of their altitude are not handled. I would love to see that particular cycle handled, because we can be assured of success
Here are some great quotes from that tape:
"Where your forward progress is concerned,you're not following a person. You're not following a person, you're sharing in the building of a new knowledge and a new world".....
"Theres a great deal of hammer and wrassle and bang where it comes to putting Scientology out through the world. And the people who carry the guidon, more or less, the people who are up there fronting and so forth, are ususally there because they can cover up what they themselves can cover up what they thenselves feel best an and still be effective on their job. You understand? So they're terribly good at it-awfully good at it. And nobody even tears the veil aside. But, you're Scientologists, you ought ot recognize whats going on"
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
calvin b. duffield
+1 # calvin b. duffield 2013-06-08 06:13
Oh yes Ingrid, you've certainly pointed up a few sources here, and you're also spot on about taking back your self determinism in spite of those seeking to put down THE source of the tech, for what I see as no more than attempts to avoid confronting /taking FULL responsibility for their as yet undisclosed overts against those who were rendered powerless to defend themselves.

The best indicator of this, happens to be none other than the time tested measure..
.... the person's chronic Tone Level!!

Check out any given person's response, by
simply asking them the penetrating question ... "Where is the love, ------?"

Done with the arrogant few, thank you!

ML, Calvin.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # Richard 2013-06-05 21:06
Excellent article and well timed. I was just today looking at conditions and ethics. I have heard this repeated at many seminars and then cross ordered while in the MAA office. I must admit I had a dim view of Scientology ethics as a punishment mechanism. I'll have to study this subject again to get a better conceptual understanding. On another note I am motivated to get something going with the right group. I could happily practice scientology every day outside of the church with the intention of bringing people out of the mud.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # George 2013-06-06 12:09
Richard - I mistakenly glossed over the Conditions many years ago because what I saw of the use of them seemed to me to be either inconsequential, or confused, or for punishment. Ironically, perhaps, the later (fat) editions of Scn Ethics books go into Conditions in greater depth than the original. These can be 'coached' by an auditor trained in their proper use and it is an intense series of steps that really opens the doors to their real use. It apparently is very easy to overlook their depth. They really go down to the heart of the being.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Ingrid Smith
+3 # Ingrid Smith 2013-06-06 16:48
I looove the conditions.I started using them alot as a field auditor for myself and others-it is what kept me afloat in those early years and from drowning as I had never run a business before.

I had PCs who had their own business's and they loooved the conditions too and as a result they could keep making money for the Bridge! To this day I have a successful field practice that also includes consulting with the admin tech, mainly for my entrepreneur PCs. I remember once, a PC arrived for session and she was freaked out as she had lost a major client and it put her in danger. We did the danger formula and literally as she walked out another client appeared magically.

Ron just kept putting "magic wands" in our hands.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # Richard 2013-06-07 16:04
There used to be some field practitioners that helped people apply ethics conditions in LA. I had some particularly good wins with one of them. As you say George it was as good as auditing. Around 2002 or so these groups were "shut down" in the LA area by the Church. I think the reason that was given was that the church was able to do the handling better as they were all "Flag Trained". Of course now we can see it as control in a bad way. I agree that when well applied the conditions are amazing. Last time I was at Flag the MAA there had me doing lower conditions for looking at the story of Jason Beghe online. It was "impressed" on me that I was in enemy or lower in my third dynamic. The actual cognition I had was that the MAA was forcing the condition on me and it wasn't the real condition. It was at this point I realized my self determinism within the church was done. As a result I left Flag that evening and never went back. This is ethics as punishment. Flag many times told me that by purchasing books, tapes etc would get me up the conditions. Such BS. I did reread the conditions since this post and I have noticed how fluid and applicable they are. I did a danger in my head and quickly handled a business situation. Thanks for the great post and the reminder of their use.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+5 # Sparks 2013-06-06 00:42
Now how could someone have that ethical view, get into the Co$, and lose that precious native insight, and even come to break their established moral codes, even to the extent of 'voluntarily' disconnecting from their own family?
That is a good question, and there are probably a number of answers.

Social beings tend to look to one's self for responsibility, too often (when lacking training) they do it as self-blame, instead of understanding cause and responsibility. Add to that part of case and charge (baggage) a technology (Scientology) that is so keen it can unravel eons of pain, suffering, agony, in relative minutes. A technology so wonderful that many embrace new friends and the group, and assume all are on the same page as the actual technology. Then add to that a person who pretends to stand for that technology, but secretly wants to manipulate others toward abusive arbitrary agendas (raking in the money, seeing others suffer, stopping freedom). That's a recipe for confusion and misconceptions.

We know now that the knowledge of Scientology within the organization is not being managed and led for its intended purpose. In fact, it's being used for the opposite. It is knowingly used to manipulate and introvert others.

It's a dandy pickle. The fox is in the hen-house, dressed in feathers and a beak, and even knows how to cluck!

Bottom line on how it happens, though, even if each circumstances and details be different for every person, is that somewhere along the line the decision had to be that somebody else knows better, sees better. It begins with self-betrayal.

But also, it's the heinous abuse of trust at work, a trust so earnestly given -- by staff and public alike. I grieved for the broken trust. It is not wrong to trust.

and then....any experience can be pulled out of with increased knowledge. The trust is still possible ---- with OBSERVATION and with the foundation of a solid friendship with one's self that will never be betrayed.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # George 2013-06-06 07:17
Sparks - You're seeing what I'm seeing, too. You said a lot. LRH said Scientology is part philosophy, part technology ("A Description of Scientology). It seems to me the philosophy part has been neglected, and Ethics is very, very much philosophy. One can't get to it without philosophy - good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, happiness and misery. You address the philosophy, even if many do not recognize Scientology as anymore than a group doingness. (Btw, the clucking fox in feathers and a beak ... LOL.) I see similarities in what you're saying and what Ingrid is saying. Lana's community has potential to sort this out and accomplish, and it prompted me. You're right about trust - please stay tuned for the remaining two articles. Trust me!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+2 # Espiritu 2013-06-06 02:42
After reading this brief introduction, is your current view of "ethics" any different from your previous view? What was your previous view? What is your current view? I know this is a "loaded question," but if you can: Are you at all angry? (Describe?)

These questions don't anger me at all.
This is a very good article on the subject of Ethics. While I can't honestly say that my view of ethics has changed as a result of reading it, it has inspired me to apply better what I know even more consistently and to keep on improving. For me the basis of doing this is Conscience and Honesty.....two concepts which have been around for quite a while. I think that it was Socrates who said something to the tune of: "To thine own Self be true. Then it must follow as the night follows the day, thou canst not be false to anyone." A very useful concept to apply to life. Wise words. ...Socrates- one of the philosophers who, as I remember, LRH credited in the original editions of Science of Survival and/or DMSMH.
And one thing that helped keep me from becoming intimidated by hitler-youth type MAAs giving mean, contra-survival orders was this little LRH quote from HCOPL 13 January 1979, ORDERS, ILLEGAL AND CROSS, How To Keep Out Of Trouble:

"1. If it seems kind of stupid it is probably off-policy or out-tech. Both tech and policy are anything but stupid. Most off-policy and out-tech orders are stupid because they are, at a glance, contrasurvival.
2. Require that one be shown in the exact issue or book what the policy or tech actually is. 3. Read it for yourself and don't listen to any interpretation that seems far-fetched.
4. Be sure the policy or tech you are being shown applies in the matter under discussion.".........
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # George 2013-06-06 07:19
Espiritu - Hey, man ... you're trying to steal a little section of my next article! (And so you prove that point, thank you.) The references you give are helpful, and also to the point of having something of one's own personal ethics to evaluate things by. Btw, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all in translation unless ou know Ancient Greek, and which translation you read can add or subtract nuance. The Christian Bible is full of wisdom, but also damnation. Hume and Descartes and others had some valuable insights. LRH gave those references for a reason, I suspect. Maybe I'm just suspicious.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # Espiritu 2013-06-07 04:39
Hi George,

I didn't mean to say that LRH quoted Socrates in SOS, but rather that he acknowledged his contribution to the development of Dianetics. Here is exactly what he said in the begining of the book:
"Acknowledgment is made to fifty-thousand years of thinking men without whose speculations and observations the creation and construction of Dianetics would not have been possible. Credit in particular is due to:"
(then follows a list of 24 thinkers and philosophers, including Socrates)
He also acknowledged his instructors at George Washington University and Princeton.
Anyhow, I didn't mean to steal from your next article. You must be thinking loud. :-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # George 2015-03-02 13:13

Yes. Scientology is summarized and organized data. If you look into Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, I think you may see what I made of it, that Aristotle talked all about men in different walks of life, at different ages, and their interactions with each other - a vast range and depth - but it took LRH to come up with an admin scale, arguably the most powerful collection of a dozen words in any language. Google Nichomachean Ethics and there is a site which has it reproduced for free - the first paragraph is really enough to give you an idea of what I saw. The rest is fascinating reading, and gives real insight into how difficult philosophy is, how much must be considered, and just how very astounding what LRH accomplished is.

P.S. I was just kidding with you about stealing - I hope I didn't offend you. I'm not a very considerate being, I guess - I am working on improving. I discovered three years after he lectured on it, that Trey Lotz had spoken at length on admin scales. I wrote an article about them and arrived at some of the same conclusions he arrived at, and then found his lectures. Talk about think loud - he does too! If he and Mary Freeman have been working on this for years, and I'm just catching up but seeing some of the same things, then we must be onto something about how to use the tech we have. And the faster more get there, wherever that is, the better!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
calvin b. duffield
0 # calvin b. duffield 2013-06-08 00:10
Great job you have done here on the "Good Traffic Cop" (Ethics) whose entire function (and let's not forget this)-is to make it possible for the TECH to be applied so as to deliver effective results. Without the presence of the metaphorical guy in the blue uniform, we tend to forget that driving (living) recklessly, or ignoring the road signs or speed limit, or worse, driving "under the influence"(ignorance) winds us up in hospital, or getting cold on the mortician's slab.

LRH makes the point very amusingly in his DVD "The Gradation Chart"-great viewing!

VWD, George and great comments by others!

ML, Calvin.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Tom Nielsen
+1 # Tom Nielsen 2013-07-22 10:57
A personal story of ethics. I was 400 lbs and decided to start an ethics cycle. This cycle is not complete but when I started the cycle a year ago I pulled in the way to get it done. Not before or since have people come to me with the solutions. It was amazing. I am now at 300 lbs one year later. I am not in anyway where I need to be ethics wise but I've started. It is amazing tech and it alone can bring a person light years ahead of where they were. Wonderful to read more and get more understanding. Thanks.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Thoughtful 2013-07-23 14:08
George, Just read your article. Really nice. My concept of ethics before Scientology was a bit confused to say the least. I knew there were established things we were supposed to do, like not take drugs. But I had no idea which if any of these were correct. The modern concept was that "being bad is fun." I had no firm idea of what personal integrity was and absolutely did not trust my own feelings about things. If someone in the CoS said "Black is white" my response was to say, "Well, maybe there's something about this that I don't know." Today, my response would be, "Bullshit! I see what I see." My concept of ethics is unbreakable. I see and understand the direct connection to "being bad" and pain and suffering. I have zero desire to follow bank think. And so by comparison to my former self, I am so much stronger there is little comparison. Ethics is a personal thing and I think it is an incredibly underutilized resource. The things one can do with the conditions alone are astonishing. For example, at the bottom of any condition of confusion is normally a Crashing MisUnderstood Word. Who bothers to find it? There is an LRH handling for CRMUs, which is reach and withdraw on something symbolic of the CRMU. Talk about producing case gain? Wow. Many people are very foggy on what the upper dynamics actually consist of, i.e. they are in confusion on the subject. But the formula for confusion is laying right there, can be applied at any time. What is anyone waiting for? Sure most people expect to do New OT VIII and THEN figure out the nature of the 6th dynamic, 7th dynamic, 8th dynamic, 9th dynamic... but the formula is waiting right there. What are they waiting for?

I see ethics as the a super powerful life booster that ANYONE can avail themselves of at any point in life.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # George 2015-03-02 13:36
Thoughtful - Thank you for your detailed reply. Scientology, just for being the truth, is a powerful influence. No one had ever put it all together before. Admin scales are ethics, to me, and those can (and should) be easily, easily coached to PC's in very short time, just to get the PC familiar with how to use one. I find it becomes intuitive after that. Believe it or not, I'm still working on finishing this article I started. I got excited when I saw the beginnings of it, and bit off a lot more than I could comfortably chew. Like the chihuahua out to capture Godzilla with a book box said, "Uh, oh! I theenk I need a beeger box!" It just keeps expanding, and it's hard to organize and condense - and get down to "how to."
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
+1 # Ian 2014-09-19 12:20
Good quote from Dianetics 55! on p 45 (2007 GAT edition) about this which is relevant:

Moral conduct is "conduct by a code of arbitrary laws." Ethical conduct is "conduct out of one's own sense of justice and honesty." When you enforce a moral code upon people, you depart considerably from anything like ethics. People obey a moral code because they are afraid. People are ethical only when they are strong.

Very telling about the state of things right now in the Church, work, government, the globe, etc....

Hubbard continues to say:
One could say that the criminals of Earth are those upon whom moral codes have been too forcefully enforced. (As an example of this, take the cliche object - the minister's son.) Ethical conduct does not mean promiscuous, abandoned or lawless conduct. It means conduct undertaken and followed because one has a sense of ethics, a sense of justice and a sense of tolerance. This is self-determined morality.

Hm, possible in this case that DM had moral codes too forcefully enforced upon him at the Church or elsewhere?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # George 2015-03-02 13:45
Ian - Exactly. Thank you for your help in this - it's not "my" project - it's everyone's, the way I see it. The reference you gave is spot on. I think I may have part II of my article, and maybe I can interest the proprietor here in attaching it under this one. It all has to do with admin scales - which to me, are a template for logic or ethics. It's very heavy philosophy, what an admin scale can be used for, stretching way back over ages. Scientology is an "applied religious philosophy" - "applied" and "religious" are modifiers to the noun "philosophy." Ethics is an integral part of philosophy.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote

Add comment

Security code

This Week


Powered by Google FeedBurner

Easy ShareThis

This is your blog


This blog was created as a safe space where independent Scientologists can meet, talk and post.

If you fit any of the following criteria, we welcome contributions from you for this blog. Have you experienced results from Scientology

  • Auditing
  • Training
  • Knowledge

Send articles, stories or successes to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


“As the only crime in the universe seems to be to communicate, and as the only saving grace of an awareness of awareness unit is to communicate, we can readily understand that an entanglement of communication is certain to result. What we should understand – and much more happily – is that it can now be resolved.”

L. Ron Hubbard
Dianetics 55!, Chapter Nine
Two-Way Communication

Help Support Us

Making Auditors


Standard Tech is alive, and ready to take you to greatness.

Learn More

Training in iScn


A note on training from the man who was there with LRH.

Learn More

Operating Thetan


Training's role in removing the counter-effort from living.

Learn More

FREE Checksheets


LRH Checksheets that made 1000s of successful auditors.

Download Yours