((My comments in double parentheses - Homer)) THE THIRD PARTY LAW EXPANDED FG - 1 No date. Copyright (C) Frank Gordon Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes (Frank is a retired research biochemist. He has an early HDA ((Hubbard Dianetic Auditor)) from Wichita and a BScn from Phoenix (Ross Lamoureaux) ((?)). He is interested in applying scientific methodology to the humanities, and tapping the vast experience base in the Independent Field.) RON HUBBARD described a phenomenon which he called the Third Party Law as a way of viewing and resolving apparently intractable disputes, quarrels, and wars. It directs attention to the unknown third party or "hidden promoter" who benefits from a continuing conflict, and to the discovery of this being as a way to resolve the dispute. The emphasis is upon a being or identity and not a disagreement about approach or ideology. It somewhat parallels the view of venerable books like "The Merchants of Death," which were about arms dealers. The arms dealer would sell one country a submarine, scare another into buying two, and then the first into buying three - escalating the conflict and lining his pockets. Hubbard concludes with the statement, "There are no conflicts which cannot be resolved unless the true promoters of them remain hidden .. It is worth working with in any situation where one is trying to bring peace." Extension of the Third Party Law: I have run into another way of looking at the Third Party Law in "The Mental Hospital," a sociological study by Stanton and Schwartz, Basic Books, New York, 1954. Here the pattern works in reverse: two people in authority over and important to a Third Party upset him by their disagreements about him. Thus, "pathologically excited patients were quite regularly the subjects of secret, affectively important staff disagreement; and, equally regularly, their excitement terminated, usually abruptly, when the staff members were brought to discuss seriously their points of disagreement with each other." So, here are two comparable patterns: (1) A and B are fighting because of the covert activities of C; and (2) C is upset because of the disagreement of A and B. The application of this to a triangle of three countries, like the U.S., Russia, and a small third world country like Nicaragua or Viet Nam, is obvious. A small country is inclined to "play off" two Super-Powers against each other in order to get aid, and at the same time is internally agitated by them. Recognizing both ends of this stick is helpful in resolving the situation. In the first article cited, Hubbard does not mention the motives or emotional state of the Third Party. It could be a feeling of exclusion from the relationship, the jealousy of an estranged spouse, a financial motive, or some combination. The observation about staff/mental-patient relations enlarges our view of this area. In chemistry, there is a phenomena known as "resonance." A compound gains stability (and flexibility) in relation to the number of possible configurations which it can assume. This kind of variability in the patterns formed between A, B, and C could stabilize what popular wisdom calls the "eternal triangle" and the Catholic Church celebrates as "The Trinity." G. Gurdjieff in his "Tales of Beelzebub to his Grandson" refers to these factors as "The Holy-Affirming, the Holy-Denying, and the Holy- Reconciling." The Third Party Law and the Schism: This calls to mind the interesting question as to whether the Third Party tech would work to heal the current breach between the Church of Scientology, and what is essentially the Independent Church of Scientology; assuming that such a healing were desirable. The theoretical relation between viability and optimum randomity (see Dianetic Axiom 76), would indicate that it is not. ((Dianetic Axion 76: Randomity amongst organisms is vital to continuous survival of all organisms. (Randomity means unexpected effort coming in from the environment. Too much or too little randomity leads to death. The implication here is that those who would wish a monopoly on truth, are trying to create an environment for themselves where there are no unexpected surprises or efforts coming in. It's a form of catatonia, a being 'safe' by being catatonic or still, and making sure everyone else is being still too.)) A single monolithic entity, like the dinosaur, or the Church of Scientology, is more vulnerable than a widely scattered species with varied ways of handling similar problems. In this case, also, the single monolithic entity has the inherently unstable 19th century pattern of an aristocracy patronizing spas for their "health" while being served by an underclass of indentured servants following complex rituals. ((PDC 20 - "So anybody that knows these techniques, is actually himself under a certain responsibility. That's to make sure that HE DOES NOT REMAIN A SOLE PROPRIETOR. That's all it takes. Just don't remain a sole proprietor. Don't ever think that a monopoly of this subject ((Dianetics and Scientology)) is a safe thing to have. It's not safe. It's not safe for man. It's not safe for this universe. - LRH)) What might be done, however, is to reduce the conflict (like reducing an engram) to a level of friendly competition, thus promoting mutual survival and profitable interchange while ceasing to enrich the legal profession. Organizational Third Partying: In the process of maintaining internal order and discipline, any organization may open itself up to 3rd party disruptions. In the Church of Scientology, ethics chits and knowledge reports were and are 3rd party operations, open to this kind of abuse. In HCOPL 11 Sept 65, "Ethics Protection," Organizational Executive Course Vol 1, p.174, Ron states: "..a staff member can get away with murder so long as his statistic is up .. To do otherwise is to permit some suppressive person to simply Ethics chit every producer in the org out of existence." This clearly recognizes the possibility of abuse, while the next quote on p.176: "No person may be penalized for issuing an Ethics chit." guaranteed that it would happen. And it did. The above patterns, unless they are modified by an immediate and open confrontation with one's "accusers," is malignant; and is very similar to the formalized hidden complaint and gossip pattern of the "mental health system," with its two major mantras: (1) cover your ass, and (2) "confidentiality." Auditing and Third Parties: In auditing, anything which prevents the freeing-up of the self-determinism of the pc, or which interrupts auditor pc comm lines and Affinity, Reality, or Communication, can be viewed as a 3rd party. Various old reactive commands: "Don't say anything about this," "It's none of his business," and just plain "Shut up!" combined with pain and mis-emotion ((emotion below 2.0 Antagonism on the Tone Scale)) can act to break the comm line between auditor and pc. One approach I've used in biofeedback work ((for example, solo on the E-meter)) is finding questions covering suppressive 3rd parties. E.g., I feel it's difficult for me to be intimate with anyone. So, a possible question was: "Who or what doesn't want me to be intimate?" and this revealed father, mother, and others. Then I ran into related areas: "...to be at home, ...to feel happy," etc. I ended up with quite a list: "Who or what would like to see me dead, fail, 'cut down to size,'" etc. "Who or what would like me to be sick, diseased, a scapegoat, crazy," etc. ((There is a similar rundown in the Tech Volumes, that went like this (from memory)... List 'What are they trying to do to me?' to a blow down item. Suppose the item is 'trying to kill me.' Then list 'Who or what is trying to kill you?' to a blow down item which will be the SP on the pc's case. Then run, 'Who or what are YOU trying to kill? Often the TRUE items that come up are a hell of a lot more subtle than the obvious one above, so it may take your pc a while to get it. One item that many people miss is, 'They are trying to get me to kill myself!')) After 3 pages of questions, I then began to run this generally on the e-meter and got very good TA and a loosening needle. You might call this a very sloppy S&D, ((S&D = Search and Discovery, namely for SP's to which the pc is PTS, a Potential Trouble Source)) but I see it as looking for times when I agreed to survival suppressors like those illustrated on the graph in the 1st book. Possible Further Patterns: Let us consider the possibility that in many situations this is effectively a "3 terminal" universe. With constantly shifting coalitions, we have a broader view of politics. Even with only 3 terminals, there are 3 different pairs of 2 against one, and the struggles of each to get another on his side. There is also the positive and desirable 3rd party, who serves as a referee, a marriage counselor, or some form of reconciling force. Another pattern is the individual who serves as a communication particle, a kind of ping-pong ball, for two others. Here 2 terminals use the 3rd as a "go-between," messenger, or pawn in their game. In this case, the auditor wants to move the participant ((pc)) from being a comm particle, to being a terminal able to hold a position and give and receive communication. The communication drills (known as TRs) and Control/Communication/Havingness drills help the participant achieve this ability to hold a position as a stable, causative terminal. ((People often choose to become comm particles because they consider it too dangerous to either originate or receive a communication. As a CARRIER of communication ONLY, they consider that they are not held to blame by either party for merely conveying the ideas or bullets of one to the other. However messengers who carry bad news are often attacked before the source of the bad news, so its a bad bet.)) Frank Gordon ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Homer Wilson Smith This file may be found at homer@rahul.net ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/act/fg1.memo Posted to usenet newsgroup: alt.clearing.technology