6410C20 SHSpec-43 Levels -- The Reasons for Them

LRH had a cognition: Khrushchev was overthrown because Russia went into
a "compulsive duplication of Great Britain and the U.S. and tried to hold an
election."

The term "raw meat" applies to:

1. Lack of processing.

2. The PC's opinion of what he is.

Someone who has actually started on R6 must not be returned to clearing
or getting definitions audited, etc. He is sitting in an item and could pick
up some other item out of sequence -- some end-word that is out of sequence.
This could give him nasty somatics.

So there are solid technical reasons why PCs progress up the levels. The
original reason for levels was to stretch auditors out to what they were
capable of. It became obvious that PCs didn't gain well when run above their
level, despite their eagerness to be run on R6.

The reason why John Campbell parted company with LRH was his devotion to
the machine. He thought the ideal civilization was machines tending
machines. People who consider that they can formulate infallible plans for a
Utopia don't think that people should have power of choice, since it disrupts
the utopian plans. But the ideal plan has hardly been found, on the political
front, as one can see in any newspaper. Furthermore, since absolutes are
unobtainable, the ideal state will never be achieved. Beings are not all
alike, so who could judge when perfection had been attained? You would never
get complete agreement. Man is capable of his own judgment. This alone keeps
the absolute from being attained. For instance, what is the "perfect" piece
of music?

All the way down the line, the individual never completely loses his
individuality. Integrity to himself is the last resort of a thetan. The
individual can only be pushed so far. Richmond Kelly Turner commanded the USS
Astoria cruiser, in World War II. He was a Captain Bligh-type guy. Very
grim. LRH knew him. [Maybe the source of Mr. Roberts.] Nothing on the
Astoria worked. The crew was on a "white mutiny", in which the crew acts only
under direct orders, takes no initiative, and executes nothing that is needed
unless directly ordered to do exactly that. That was their way of getting
even. "A thetan never gives up." Russia is one big white mutiny. It is not
that there is anything wrong with having rules and having people comply with
them. What is wrong is using duress continually to deny people any judgment
or initiative with regard to the rules.

The gradient of ability, relative to rules, is:

1. Doesn't obey rules because he doesn't know them.

2. Total adherence to rules, based on understanding of them.

3. Varying the rules, based on a higher understanding.

What gets interesting and can get troublesome, is when you follow the rules
with variations. If you are trying to learn some subject, follow a plan, or
something. There are two conditions that are a variation from the "must do
it":

1. Total ignorance and rebellion, based on aberration.

2. Skill and judgment enough to know which rules can be varied and how.

This latter condition is reached when you know the game all the way around.
The amateur tries to find the perfect instrument to do it. The pro knows how
to make use of what he's got and the rules. In order to vary the rules
successfully, you have to know the rules cold. Otherwise you will fail,
because you are operating out of ignorance and rebellion. [LRH tells an
anecdote about an old Chinese carpenter who resists using a guard on his band
saw. He knows what he is doing.] You've got to earn the right to vary the
rules, in life or in auditing.

In confronting variation from the rules, the manager, supervisor, or
whoever, has to be able to differentiate between the two sources of variation:
ignorance or familiarity. If he doesn't, "judgment is denied the individual
[who could exercise it]," and the supervisor gets into trouble. Are you
dealing with ignorance or virtuosity? You can enforce the rule against the
person who varies it for the first reason, with impunity, because life is
assisting you by punishing stupidity and ignorance anyway. But don't shoot
the second type of variation down. This person has earned the right to vary
the rule.

Whether the person knows his business or not can be seen from his
results. If he is consistently getting results and protests the rules, we can
see that he is a virtuoso. If he is consistently unable to get results, he
needs more rules, not less, since his departure from the rules doesn't get
good results. The only way you will progress is over his dead body. But he
never dies, so you can't win using force and duress against ignorance. You
must educate. On the other hand, if you combat virtuosity instead of
ignorance, and you create leaders for a revolution that will unseat you.

The people who have been exported to this planet all fall into two and
only two classes:

1. Rebellious geniuses.

2. Stupid criminals.

There is no in-between. The latter rebel destructively and stupidly; the
former rebel intelligently. They give trouble to the stupid state, which
thinks that it has the perfect answer. One gives reactive trouble, and the
other gives intelligent, self-determined trouble. You had better recognize
the difference between the two. When you try to handle self-determined,
intelligent trouble with force, this is handling thought with mass, and it
doesn't handle well, since power of choice is the main power the person has.
So use duress on the former, but never on the latter. All protest is not the
former, exclusively. Our question in scientology is, "Why should some people
stay debased, stupid, and protesting?"

Becoming an OT has to do with power of choice and power of observation.
Therefore, no wave of a magic wand will produce an OT, since it would just be
another effect on the person. Buddha tried to wave a magic wand and produces
slaves -- a horrible example of a postulate gone wrong. The Asia Minor OT
[J.C.] who turned leaves into loaves and fishes, or whatever, just impressed
everyone to the point that they are still overwhumped. This is probably not
what he intended.

The unpopularity of scientology levels comes from an unfamiliarity with
the road to be walked. You've got to get the guy to where he can talk to an
auditor enough and tolerate control enough and be keyed out enough from the
mass that he is sitting in, and under enough discipline to confront the
objects in the bank necessary to run out to resolve his case. That may take
quite awhile. The easiest thing to do is to unburden the case by getting
locks off. You do this by:

1. Handling the auditing environment. First you unburden the session.
Then get the PC educated into what he is supposed to do and willing
to talk to the auditor. You have to explain this to him and show him
the auditing comm cycle. Get what auditing is over to the PC. This
is getting the PC "sessionable".

[LRH invents the term "sessionable".]

2. Handling the between-sessions environment.

a. Preparation. Handle PTP's at first just by finding out what
they are, before actually auditing them. We can ask the PC
what the parts of his environment are [Cf. expanded
dianetics]. This alone helps him to sort out his problems. It
gives some gain. Get the PC to straighten out his environment
so he is not sitting in his office with his house right outside
the window, while he is in the auditing room. This is not
auditing the environment. It is just getting the PC to
identify its parts. At this point, you don't want his problems
with his job. You just want his job named as a part of his
environment. You are getting him sessionable, which might take
several sessions.

b. Auditing. Then you ask the PC for problems with the parts of
the environment mentioned above. Find one that his attention
is stuck on. Ask him what communication he hasn't completed to
those terminals. You handle problems very lightly, but wind up
with the period between sessions being clean enough so that it
doesn't keep coming up at the start of each new session.
Again, this may take several sessions.

3. Beginning, approach to the bank. Now we are going into the PC's past
and future. In (1) and (2), above, we were broadening the perimeters
of the PC. We continue this now by beginning to handle the PC's past
and future, helping him to orient himself better. We could run,
"Give me something that happened in the past, with date and place."
This does the same for the PC's past environment that you have done
for his present environment. At what is now Level I, you begin ARC

straightwire: orienting the PC to his past -- repetitive processes.
If the PC gets to this point, he can be audited easily.

4. Clay table healing. Using this, you can straighten out the concern
that the PC has about the body.

5. On up the levels. In completing the levels, you are handling locks
on GPM's, so they get all straightened out, ready for R6. Someone
who hasn't been brought up through the levels isn't ready for R6 and
will get into trouble.