One of the irksome things about the current Scientology orgs is that Ron did not carry very much of the auditing tech or the basics discovered in Scientology into the 3rd dynamic (1st dynamic is self, 2nd is family, 3rd is groups, etc).

Modern org policy mainly consists of practical business techniques, things that Ron learned in the Navy, and stuff dredged up out of whole track organizations plus a smattering of scales and some attempts to improve communication. That's all well and good, but where is the real tech and the high powered insights?

Let's see if we can really apply a few of the things we learned about the 1st dynamic to the 3rd.

In the area of problems, we know that the PC (preclear) is usually burried under the weight of old solutions that he's still holding in place and which generate tons of new problems for him (which then must be solved in turn, etc.). We handle this by undoing solutions and taking apart the opposing forces that are locked together in the problems rather than by layering more solutions on top of the mess.

Ron once described policy as a series of workable solutions to organizational problems. So we should be working to take apart these problems and undoing the solutions rather than building upon them.

This means "the less operating policy, the better". I put it in terms of operating policy because we also have useful knowledge and ideas presented in the form of policy, and of that we want more rather than less. The target would be to have less rules and more understanding.

Now situations do exist that have to be handled, and we do need to use policies and orders to cool down the confusions and hold the problems in check. That is our first action. But we can't just drop it at that point because that will encourage a new generation of problems. Instead, we add a second step, which is to go back and see if we can't find some way to undo the source of the trouble and discard the policy. Or at least shift over to a more basic solution instead of handling a surface manifestation.

And then we go a step further and review the policies we did keep and reduce them to the absolute minimum. And at the same time, we find out as much as we can and publish key data so that we can operate from greater understanding.

In the area of communication, we know that communication is the universal solvent and that when the PC starts withholding and blocking communication, its going to accumulate mass and back up on him and kick him in the teeth. It doesn't mean that the PC has to blab all of his withholds to every passerby, but he can't be actively hiding everything or he's going to sink under the weight of it all. This indicates that things like confidentiality and hiding stuff for PR reasons are dangerous to the health of an organization.

If you think about the average PR personality, it should be obvious that their communication, although high in quantity, is generally poor in content and somewhat undesirable. This is actually a very poor level of communication and these salesman types are generally looked down upon with a bit of distaste. The truth of the matter is that the communication isn't real and the affinity is kind of false and people notice that. It's out ARC (Affinity, Reality, and Communication).

A person can communicate a lot and they can promote things with true ARC instead of this false PR crap. The same is true of organizations. You do need to promote and advertise and put out lots of communications. But if you get totaly PR oriented, people smell a rat. They are much happier learning that you are working actively to fix things that are wrong rather than hiding them.

But in terms of grades 0 (communications) and 1 (problems), the orgs are only slightly screwed up and perhaps better off that the average in the society.

Its grades 2 (overts), 3 (ARCXs), and 4 (service facsimilies - makeing yourself right) which are grossly out in the orgs.

At first glance, grade 2 looks hopeless. The org almost never admits to mistakes, makes amends, or even imagins that it has done something bad. It is all extremely well justified.

But you could help a PC with a case like this. Let's say that you've got someone who's made lots of mistakes, gotten things screwed up, and turned into a bit of a con artist. And furthermore, there are angry people hunting him down looking for blood. How would you get grade 2 in on him? It seems like there is just too much and its too dangerous and overwelming. But it could be done on a gradient. You'd find out what small thing he could confront taking responsibility for and start with that and gradually build up until his lines were clean again.

You can't just cave in to somebody who's looking for vengance, because they're out for blood and can no longer deal with you on a rational basis. But most people are not fixated on vengance and will cut you some slack if you make an honest effort to reform. So you attempt to deal on a reasonable basis, admit the mistakes and find out what you can do to remedy the situation. You watch out for the occasional guy who'se too viscious to come to a resonable settlement, but you don't assume that everybody is like that.

So what kind of actions might start an org on the road to recovery? What gradient of responsibility could be confronted to start with?

A complaint department might help. Big stores have these and it doesn't cave them in to let people bitch about things and exchange a few defective toasters or whatever. It acts as a bit of a safety valve and maintains good customer relations.

The org already has a post which almost does this. It is the chaplin, and sometimes a good chaplin will actively work to right wrongs, but they do not have a lot of authority and are quite constrained by the existing tech and policy. This could be beefed up. They could be given full authority to override policy in individual cases. They could actively strive to clean things up. They could even be advertised as a complaint department.

You would have to make it safe for people to complain to them. They probably need a special dispensation to keep things told to them in confidence from the rest of the org as priviledged communications, much like a priest or lawyer would protect his client's withholds. These chaplins would have to be highly trained as auditors and highly trained on policy as well (the same is needed for ethics officers).

Many things could be done to compensate for mishandling. Best might be to give someone an academy training level because that will raise the recipients understanding and responsibility whereas a free intensive of auditing can sometimes encourage the person to take less responsibility and make the org responsible for his case and abberations.

Appologies and admission of error can also help a lot. The chaplin could even write letters of appology on the org's behalf to non-Scientologists in cases where they have been harmed by things such as wrongful disconnection etc.

But this also needs to be carried up to a higher level. There should be a senior chaplin at the international level who has the power to get policy changed when necessary and who keeps an eye on the whole subject. His job would be to really make Scientology into a safe environment.

At one time Scientology was banned in Victoria, Australia. Eventually the org bit the bullet and cancelled the fair game law, sec checks, and disconnection. As a result the ban was lifted. Even though these things have gradually crept back in, the cancellations let in a breath of fresh air and were of great benefit. From that perspective the ban served a useful purpose, but it would have been better if the org had confronted what it was doing and cancelled these without the need for heavy outside pressure.

Once the org began to take some responsibility it would become easier for it to take some more and begin to tackel some of the bigger out points. If they could bend just a little and admit some mistakes and make good on them without the roof falling in, then it will be easier for them to confront the bigger sore spots and handle them.

Next in the lineup is grade 3 which deals with ARCXs. Here we have some extreme ones between the org and the freezone, the org and the middle class, the org and the psychs, and the org and "wog" society. The very usage of the term "wog" in Scientology is symptomatic of the deep ARCX and its use is also a mechanism that further encourages the ARCX.

There are a number of factors underlying this. One problem is, of course, the various witholds. Members who believe in the subject don't want to admit to the more brutal or unreasonable actions that sometimes take place. At the same time, they feel that they will be attacked or ridiculed for their beliefs.

Furthermore, Ron encouraged fighting psychs and squirrels etc.

And then there are the basic disagreements as to social values. Those lead to breaks in reality. The Scientologist is generally trying to look at things from a multi-lifetime view and it comes in conflict with middle class values. This doesn't mean that the middle class is suppressive. They are a productive and stable backbone to the country.

Instead of attacking, you find what goals you have in common and promote those. And you work to increase communication and understanding between the two sides.

It is actually a bit of a mistake to primarily push Dianetics instead of presenting Scientology to the society. The culture has grown a lot since the 1950s and there is a great deal of acceptance of metaphysical concepts. And the average Scientologist has much more of a metaphysical rather than a psychological slant on things. A bit more promotion on past lives and operating with the viewpoint of an immortal spirit instead of as a body would make the Scientologists much more comprehensibile to the public at large.

And again, I would beef up the chaplin to handle these things. What is really needed is a chaplin's office of comparable size and power to the ethics office. This would act as a balancing influence. A large org would need both a public chaplin and a staff chaplin, because there are screw ups and wrongs that need to be righted in both areas.

As to service facsimilies, it should be obvious that the tech itself is currently used by the org to make itself right. This is why the tech has to be considered perfect and defended against all doubts or criticism. Delivering the tech and freeing mankind justifies all possible overts.

Let's stop worshipping the tech and start learning to think with it. Let's realized that its flawed and admit the imperfections and then promote it anyway because its the best we've got.

A service fac wouldn't blow that easily, but we can make a start.

At the highest level, we would also need a powerful chaplin's division in OSA whose duty is to make peace rather than war. If you have an army, you must also have a diplomatic corps.