Page last updated:
After a dozen books and a few thousand lectures (including Advanced Clinical Courses from the same period), Hubbard apparently decided that he had not covered it all after all and rolled out yet another “upgrade” to Scientology starting in late 1959 which eventually became part of what he called “ethics technology.” The introduction of this new technology also paralleled the formation of his authoritarian organization structure which culminated, in late 1960’s, into the creation of a quasi-military Navy-like Sea Organization that was to become the management body of Scientology.
There is one reference that summarizes this change quite well:
All that can be said about this reference right away is that it is not at all very clear. It appears in the beginning Hubbard is talking about a preclear who is getting “bad pictures”
…then he says that “This preclear BELIEVES that every cause brings about a destruction.”
…then he says that the PC “THINKS” that “all received communication will destroy him.”
…and in the end we somehow arrive at “Any process which makes the preclear create is a limited process and should be avoided.”
This sounds somewhat out of the blue (arbitrary) and illogical. Even in the most general view of this section of text – Hubbard starts talking about a specific case of a preclear who gets “bad pictures” and then somehow arrives at a general rule that should be applied to all.
The rest of the reference follows along the same illogical lines… Look at this:
First he says: “When one maligns another, he has not taken responsibility for the acts of that other person and so is separate from that other person.” – no disagreement here, but then the suggested process to remedy this is “What have you done to ___? What have you withheld from ___?” But WAIT! What about taking responsibility FOR THE ACTS OF THAT OTHER PERSON [such as by motivating the preclear to actually look at the actions of the other person]? Well… here we go… This is how responsibility became “skewed” in one direction.
Also notice how Hubbard says that “what COULD you do?” is a “limited” process yet thinking logically it is easy to see how “what HAVE you done?” is actually the limited and the LIMITING one since one could only look at the actual actions one took in the past as opposed to considering possibilities. The two questions do not even accomplish the same result in the end even though Hubbard seems to group them together as if they were two ways of getting to the same thing – they aren’t! And it has little to do with the so called “debris.”
On this point, it is also worth noting something out of our beloved Advanced Procedure and Axioms:
AXIOM 164. THE RATIONALITY OF THE MIND DEPENDS UPON AN OPTIMUM REACTION TOWARD TIME.
DEFINITION: SANITY, THE COMPUTATION OF FUTURES.
DEFINITION: NEUROTIC, THE COMPUTATION OF PRESENT TIME ONLY.
DEFINITION: PSYCHOTIC, COMPUTATION ONLY OF PAST SITUATIONS.
[Note, the above definitions are not actually correct for the conditions they describe; these are cited here in order to evaluate Hubbard’s actions in light of his own definitions.]
So in effect what Hubbard is doing by forcing Scientology practitioners to focus on the past situations only is effectively pushing them toward a psychotic state (according to his own definition above) which is exactly what happens with people in Scientology not using some form of Creative Processing which is geared toward possibilities and liberation of thought as opposed to getting fixated on something in the past. Since invalidation of Creative Processing in 1960, Scientology became all about fixating into the past as opposed to creating the future which is what really matters in the end. Security Checks, False Purpose Rundown, and even auditing “engrams” are perfect examples of that – though this is not to say that these three are on the same order of usefulness and efficacy.
Looking over one’s past actions and experiences is not bad and could be quite useful in itself. It is bad however when someone comes around and claims that considering possibilities is basically “dangerous” and one should look into the past only in order to find “responsibility,” yet if one is forced to only focus on the past as a way of “taking responsibility” then what happens with the present and the FUTURE?
Lastly, this sentence: “The preclear has creation tangled up with cause and cause tangled up with overt-motivator sequence.” First of all, what is “cause” if not creation of some kind? And people don’t necessarily have cause tangled up with overt-motivator sequence unless it is a bad cause. Where is overt-motivator sequence when shopping for groceries or plugging away at a 9 to 5 job or hanging out with your friends… engaging in sports, etc? – There are so many causative activities that do not have to have anything to do with the “overt-motivator sequence” yet Hubbard placed it at the center of Scientology practice.
In the end, it is strange that Hubbard even issued the CREATE AND CONFRONT convoluted bulletin referring to the First Melbourne ACC (Advanced Clinical Course) when he already explained the issue with Creative Processing and how to correct it in the following bulletin right before the First Melbourne ACC. Notice how much more clear and rational it is:
Please, see Step 6 PDF for clarification of what it is.
So the rationale in the above reference is that Creative Processing on FLOWS – DYNAMIC MOCKUPS – is effective and should be used; Creative Processing on STATIC MOCK-UPS should not be used. Static mock-up would be picturing objects and manipulating them somehow while keeping them “solid” such as “mock-up a box in front of you and keep it from going away” – would be a static mockup requiring someone to solidify a “mental image picture” of the box for example. A dynamic mockup would be mocking something up without trying to “hold” the picture. “What could you do to your house?” for example would be dynamic mock-up of someone picturing different things they could do without having to “hold” those pictures in place.
As a final note for this page, it will help to keep in mind the well known principle in Dianetics called The Introduction of an Arbitrary:
(November 1951) Advanced Procedure and Axioms: The Logics
LOGIC 14. FACTORS INTRODUCED INTO A PROBLEM OR SOLUTION WHICH DO NOT DERIVE FROM NATURAL LAW BUT ONLY AUTHORITARIAN COMMAND ABERRATE THAT PROBLEM OR SOLUTION.
LOGIC 15. THE INTRODUCTION OF AN ARBITRARY INTO A PROBLEM OR SOLUTION INVITES THE FURTHER INTRODUCTION OF ARBITRARIES INTO PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS.
[8 OCTOBER 1951] Thought, Emotion, and Effort: The Logics
The introduction of an arbitrary. Any time you have to throw an arbitrary into a situation to make it work, you’re going to have to have other arbitraries introduced in order to keep it resolved, and it’ll just go more and more and more complex.
Now, this system of logic I was just showing you here-the cone going into simplicities-that is driving toward natural laws. As soon as you start to introduce arbitraries into a problem, you just keep going into further and further complexities, gets tougher and tougher and tougher and there’s less and less alignment of data. And the first thing you know, you’ve got a completely out-of-vector problem that doesn’t align anyplace and nobody understands it…
Don’t ever let Dianetics start going in that direction.