6504C27 SHSpec-59 Awareness Levels

[LRH makes several observations on recent organizational out-points.]

Wherever the public impinges on the organization, it enturbulates and
erodes. It is the public that is in a confusion. We are putting the stable
datum of an organization or a scientologist into the middle of the confusion.
An individual cannot stand alone against the public in the midst of this
confusion. He will get knocked appetite-over-tin-cup by the public, unless
backed up by the organization. Every scientologist and org in the world is
connected with the suppressive thing called "the society", so they would skid
if left by themselves. You are dealing with a psychotic society. "There are
thirty-two levels below 0, and the average public is at least fifteen levels
below 0....And neurosis starts at ten [levels below 0]." It goes only a few
levels down, then becomes psychosis. "Psychosis is an inability to observe.
And that's your public."

Last year, when LRH first had a total reality on the exact character of
the reactive mind; on exactly how it was there and exactly what it was
calculated to make an individual do, he was shocked. Knowing that shock is an
indication that there is something wrong with what he is shocked with, he went
over the structure of the bank, suppressed, challenged, and ARC broke it. The
shock was not actually with the reactive bank, but with the pretenses that had
been made, about the character of Man. "I haven't cognited [heavily] for
ages." LRH can't get his own TA up. Masses affect his body, but not him.

Here is some more data that LRH has found, on the subject of clear: A
clear's time track is gone, so the eidetic memory talked about in Book One is
there only if he puts it there. A clear recalls, not with pictures, but by
knowing. "Pictures are completely unnecessary for any kind of a recall at
all. [This is] probably the only change there's been, from the definition of
a Book One clear." There are also energy phenomena, mentioned several years
after Book One, like heating things up by looking at them. A clear can make
something warm by staring at it. As a person goes on up, he takes both the
new abilities and the lost disabilities for granted. The negative gain is
gain by absence, and the positive gain is regaining his natural abilities,
after all, so he may not notice the change, unless he mocks up what was wrong
with him last week. So don't expect your PC always to be telling you what a
wonderful auditor you are. That is a bank phenomenon that will destimulate in
three to ten days. The person's increased awareness may not be all pleasant.
He can look at some dynamic or sphere of existence and see it clearly, with a
shock.

"The common denominator of behavior is degree of awareness." That is what
is held in common by all life. There is no such thing as being aware or not
aware. It is all degrees of awareness -- a gradient, like all the scales:
The difference between person A and person B is degree of awareness, or
awareness of different things. There are certain things of which one would
become aware in order to get, or as one got, a case advance. If you skip one
or two or three of those, you can't become aware of this higher one. LRH
plotted the Scale of Awareness to get the bridge down to homo sapiens, not
having noticed the gap that he had created, between himself and the low-level
PC. That is how he got thirty-two levels of awareness below Level 0. He suddenly found himself looking at the human race and it was a horrible shock. It felt weird. He got over it in about twenty-four hours, realizing that if you could deal with the average public PC, you could process a dog. "You are at least ten or twelve levels below communication, with the average public PC." The problem is: How do you process, when you don't have a comm line? Another problem is that as someone comes up in awareness, he goes through anti-social bands, as well as inoffensive ones. There are bands amongst them that are passive and propitiative. These are resting places, in which society doesn't worry about you; i.e. it doesn't try to suppress you.

These lower levels are jammed together, and it is a bit hard to tell the
order, down near the bottom. The Awareness Scale measures what a person could
become aware of. "If you find a person anyplace on [the Awareness]-Scale, ...
then the next action which you have to do ... to give him a case gain, is to
make him aware of the next level above that." For instance, someone below
suffering might have a case gain by being made to suffer. You wouldn't
necessarily process him up to this awareness. The lowest type of process you
would use is mimicry. He would be aware that he was doing it because you were
doing it.

"Awareness is always a matter of increasing perimeter [of reality]." You
get concentric circles of awareness. For instance, a psycho is only aware out
to his fist. Beyond that is delusion. Awareness can invert and "increase"
into delusion, which puzzles you, since the person seems to be getting
nuttier. Delusion is inverted awareness. "You've got to increase his
awareness in the direction of sanity or reality." Process in the direction of
something real. A person who is improving gets more and more aware of what is
going on, inside a wider and wider perimeter. You could get a guy aware of a
wall two feet in front of his face, and it could be a vast improvement. You
can do this with 8C, increasing the distance to the wall when the PC touches
it. Communication begins to come in.

"You can have action without awareness: [I.e. you can have the situation
where] what the individual is aware of and what [he] is doing are not the same
thing -- ever." Hence you get long-term headaches. "Therefore the
observation of conduct ... will not diagnose [a] person, unless you have a
little, secret [awareness] scale of your own. In other words, you'd have to
know the secret of what the MEST universe dictates, as a gradient scale" of
awareness. Observation of conduct will not lead to a solution of the
situation, and Man falls down in thinks that it will. The field of
psychology, etc., being entirely based on observation and labelling of
conduct, comes up with inaccurate diagnoses and messed-up solutions. You
can't watch a patient and decide that he is a "gymnastico potico" and a
firebug who is compulsively attracted to water on that account. The reason
this girl keeps going to the water fountain is because she is thirsty. She
may be stuck in a French Foreign Legion engram in the Sahara. Therefore, the
remedy might have nothing to do with water, fire, etc. The moment you grasp
this principle, you get the stable datum: "Don't draw and conclusions from
conduct." All unexpected conduct tells you is that "you don't know about
something. But that is something to know." Labelling is bad science and
leads to no solution. "All science [is, is the discovery that, or all science
had to find out, to become science is that] when something isn't working, you
haven't got the answer." This explains the advance of the physical
sciences. The mental sciences got parked, by substituting authoritarian
statements for searching for a workable answer.

If, as an auditor, you base what you do on what the PC is doing, you will
go nuts, too. For instance, if the PC is nattering and the auditor agrees
with the natter and takes the PC's data as a truth, nothing happens. Conduct
can be used only as an indicator that, since the PC "is behaving in some way
[that] you didn't expect, ... there is something about him that you didn't
know." That you can ask the PC, regardless of whether it is a missed withhold
or not. "What don't I know about you?" will resolve the situation.
Labelling it won't. Never just label conduct that you don't understand. Know
that you don't know what is going on and find out. Also consider what the PC
can find out about himself.

The nuttier someone is, the harder he is to handle. He is less aware and
you are less aware of what you don't know about him. Also, the nuttier the PC
is, the harder it is to get his attention so that you can find out what he is
aware of and what is going on and what you don't know. The "don't knows" are
fabulous. You have to push to get the person to become aware enough -- to get
him high enough on the Awareness Scale -- so that you can find out enough, So
you can find out what you don't know about the person. The game would be,
"What can I find out about this person, and what can he find out about
himself?" By increasing that awareness scale, the person will get saner and
saner, more and more aware, more and more himself. He can hit dynamic
situations which he becomes aware of with a shock.

"You have to eat humble pie to begin this subject at all. You have to
know that there is something in the universe you don't know. And that, for a
person who is 'way down scale, is the most dangerous utterance that he could
possibly make." He is so totally sealed off from things that "if everyone
realized how blind he was [he thinks], they'd just eat him up. So he
compensates for his unawareness by automatic mechanisms of pretense. [He
lacks the] courage ... to say, 'Well, I don't know anything about that.' And
yet he can't resolve any situation until he says, 'Well! Whaddya know! I've
got an area where I don't know.'" Therefore, "When you see somebody behaving
oddly, ... the only thing you know is that ... there's something you're
certainly unaware of and [that] he is probably unaware that he is unaware of.
He'll cover that up with a pretended awareness which doesn't exist [i.e.
delusion]."

Having gone through despair on the subject, a person can come up to a
realization that "there is something you can know ... about anything you
confront.... You can know that you don't know, and that is the first thing
you should know about it." Now you can take the action necessary to find out,
and, in the process of finding out, the whole thing will clarify.

The amazing thing about aberration is that if you did find out about
something, e.g. the internal government of Russia, it would either go clear or
collapse. Just finding out what a situation is as-ises that situation.
Running an engram out of an organization or an individual is just continuing
to pull into view what people didn't know about the individual or
organization. The only way in which you could fail to pull something into
view is to suppose that you knew all there was to know about it and that there
was nothing more to learn. A clear has become broadly aware of where he is
unaware. When he spots something like this, he decides that:

1. He should find out.

or 2. It doesn't make any difference.

You can decide whether it is worth finding out, and if you do start finding
out, it will collapse.