************************************************************************ The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers, which is available to all those who subscribe to the printed magazine, International Viewpoints. See Home Page: http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/ ************************************************************************ From: PJSpickler@aol.com Received: from PJSpickler@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id q.b7.2e93b4d3 (17228) for Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:57:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:57:32 EST Subject: IVySubs: Nothing personal To: ivy-subscribers@lightlink.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ivy-subscribers@lightlink.com ** ivy-subscribers relaying ** Hello, anyone! I've decided to seize the moment, or the day (carpe diem), and spend a few moments talking about the L. Ron Hubbard-generated Scientology Code of Honor. This code, due to its popularity, has been exercised both in thought and deed for quite a few years. I think the most important thing one could say about the code, or know about it rather, is something that Mr. Hubbard emphasized on more than one occasion. I repeat, on MORE THAN ONE OCCASION. Well, you ask, what is it he emphasized on more than one occasion? He emphasized that the Code of Honor is NOT a moral code. Long pause. Is not a moral code. Now you all know what a moral code is, and you know it's a code that delineates rights and wrongs and may even suggest punishments suitable to the violation of a moral code. The Ten Commandments, for example, is a moral code. The laws of most countries are moral codes. And the thing about moral codes that Mr. Hubbard emphasized is that a moral code gets enforced. And he made that point repeatedly: that moral codes are enforced; whereas, coming back to the Code of Honor, it is not and never was a moral code. It has some wonderful and lofty ideas or ideals within it, but these must be treated as a luxury that each person or group may wish to express. But not -- NOT, I repeat -- because the code is filled with "rights" (what is right) and in absence of those ideas other forms of behavior are wrong. No, I can't emphasize too strongly how much Ron went to the trouble in both staff lectures and in the original statement of the Code of Honor to point out that its use is a luxury, and that the whole idea of it gets destroyed if and when individuals and/or groups start enforcing it and turning it into just another moral code, which is just another name for a big fat old Service Facsimile in which an individual or a group uses ideas to make themselves right and others wrong. In fact, if you look at what the Church of Scientology has become, you will notice that both its founder and his church at some point in time commenced enforcing the Code of Honor on staff and public. One of the problems with that sort of thing is that there are four flows regarding something like the Code of Honor, and unfortunately those who try to enforce it usually have failed to notice the other three flows. Anyway, I'm hoping that this information about the Code of Honor will be well-received and understood by all the concerned parties. Every few years, now that I've been writing to and for the IVy list long enough to make that statement have some truth, it does in my opinion become necessary, in my efforts to help keep our lovely list as clear as possible, in spite of the degenerated democracy of the Internet, to mention the subject of the Service Facsimile. On the Scientology Grade Chart that is or was the main heading for what was called Grade 4. In the past, and with a high sense of humor motivating my sometimes-suspect efforts, I held a Service Facsimile contest for the list and those who were willing to get the idea to make sure not only that everyone would know what a service facsimile was but could spot one in action and could also notice if they themselves might be at times "service fac'ing" someone else or someone's writings on this list. So: one of the many definitions of the Service Facsimile, and that's about all I'm going to mention at this time, is what someone uses to make themselves right and another or others wrong. That's a somewhat limited but at the same time comprehensive definition of what a Service Facsimile is, and something that can be easily and even sometimes humorously observed, both in ourselves and in others. Service Facsimiles have the dubious distinction of ranking high in the list of harmful intentions or purposes, as well-delineated in the tech of that rundown called Expanded Dianetics. Anyway, there hasn't been any hue or great cry for another Service Facsimile contest to see who could come up with the quintessential service fac, but it always lurks in the background as a possibility. It was even said by someone that my starting a Service Fac contest on this list was my service fac to get even with all the people that were writing in using service facs. I took that with a grain of salt, but there's probably some truth in it. Anyway, that's probably enough said about this interesting and probably one of the most popular activities of the human race. I take it that all will understand that I have not created a new absolute in which there must never in any universe or at any time or any occasion when it's OK to make yourself right and another wrong. In this new paragraph let me also say that soon I shall get back to the previous posting, entitled "Is ARC still popular? it must be," and especially to talk some more about the 1958 Clear procedure. But just as a point of interest, and hopefully humor, on the subject of one of the activities that thetans do obsessively, compulsively, continuously, and unconsciously, namely, the action of "keeping it from going away," for some visible proof of the nature of this beast sometime or another take a look at what you have accumulated in your dwelling. If you have a garage, look in your garage; if you have a basement, look in the basement; if you have closets and storage rooms and an attic space, take a look in there. If you have a back yard or a carport or any place that can be called a space, just look around, and in no time at all, hopefully humorously, you'll get a look at the myriad of things that you are keeping from going away. This of course is the visible side of keeping it from going away; but in terms of what we used to and perhaps still call "case," you can be sure that its persistence is brought about because something or someone is simply automatically, unconsciously, obsessively and continuously keeping it from going away. And now you can see why that was such a powerful thing to handle in the direction of clearing someone. In the next posting, I'd really like to talk about this some more, and try to explain what I'll simply call "the NOTs effect" and why its presence cut short the longevity of the 1958 state of Clear. I'd like also to discuss the different processes that were used in that procedure and how they work together to help someone to the state of Clear. As procedures go in the history of Scientology, I've always thought of the 1958 Clear Procedure as one of the most pure and elegant approaches to the Scientology notion of helping the able to become more able. I close now with many thanks for your kind attention, and looking forward greatly to further moments here in the Philosophers' Corner. I remain insincerely yours . . . . ** Home Page: http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/ - with extensive links to FZ! ** ************************************************* From: PJSpickler@aol.com Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com (imo-r03.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.99]) by gem.lightlink.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA00045 for Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:06:33 -0500 Received: from PJSpickler@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.21.) id q.1a1.11202ece (2519) for Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:05:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <1a1.11202ece.2b870db4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:05:56 EST Subject: IVySubs: Another viewpoint To: ivy-subscribers@lightlink.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ivy-subscribers@lightlink.com Precedence: bulk ** ivy-subscribers relaying ** Hello! One of the super things about IVy subscribers' list is the diversity of viewpoint; and here's just a touch of that diversity. Well, recently Phil Spickler wrote to the list and had quite a bit to say about the Code of Honor and about Service Facsimiles. And here's another Phil Spickler who would like to say that he also thinks that it's OK if anyone enjoys enforcing the code of Honor to do so, especially if they can get away with it; and since service fac'ing is one of humankind's favorite pasttimes, one should certainly feel free to indulge in a bit of that activity if one takes it into one's head to do so. Now I also think it's true that L. Ron Hubbard once mentioned that the dwindling spiral of thetans losing all their gigantic and native power and sense of immortality started, eons ago, when somebody in playing the kinds of games that immortals with unlimited powers played convinced some other thetan that he had been damaged, which caused the other thetan to think, "Oh my gosh! Gee whillikers! Perhaps I've misused all my power, and I ought to cut back a little (or a lot)." And while that was happening, the thetan that had gone out of its way to convince the other that he had truly and really been hurt, damaged, etc. etc., while hidden from view had a real evil look on his thetan face, which included a big grin and a lot of laughter at having gotten away with it. And so we now have this notion that damage is really possible and that there really are victims, while in fact immortals, whether they're pushing around human bodies or dashing about through other universes and other spaces, can only apparently be damaged or injured, and then only by their own consideration. And so the rest is history, finally leading to delicate, easily-injured, squeamish, low-force human beings, who are forever crying, "I've been injured! I've been wronged! I've been harmed!" as just about everybody in the human sector is making somebody else wrong for something or other. Well anyway, if you like Mr. Hubbard's story, it explains how we all got to be human. I think it's pretty close to spot-on, but very unpopular, as human are daily encouraged to live by such lowly standards as security and "be careful" and "don't get your feet wet" and "don't take any chances" and "play it safe" and "don't ever use much force" and "be quick to cry 'I'm injured! I'm hurt!" I'm harmed! I'm a victim!'" Anyway, all you folks out there dig what I'm talking about, as well as Ray Krenik, who in one of his recent postings reminded me of how it all got started. Good evening, from Someone ** Home Page: http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/ - with extensive links to FZ! **