Treason Formula – Forgotten Facts

Tuesday, 22 June 2010 23:18

I would like to mention two points that seem to have gotten lost in the C of S. Understanding them made it easier for me to help people who had undergone “Ethics treatment”.

Definitions first: A formula is “exact method or form of words prescribed as a guide for thought, action, expression or statement” (Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language). Although exact, a formula is of general character. It is applied to something specific – a specific situation, circumstance or state of affaires.

“CONSISTENCY - The whole of it should concern itself with the same general scene, the same subject matter. This is known as CONSISTENCY. One does not have a Situation about books, data about bicycles, stats of another person, a WHY about another area, a different subject for ideal scene and handling for another activity.” -- L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 17 FEBRUARY 1972, PROPER FORMAT AND CORRECT ACTION

Once you have specified what you are applying a formula to, you stick to that when you proceed through the steps of that formula.

The lecture “A talk to Department Thirteen” from 16. September 1970 contains an example dealing with the condition of Treason. (If you manage to listen to a copy, please note that there are several edited versions, one version omitted so much of the story that I had difficulties to find out what LRH was talking about at all.)

What had happened? The Treasury Sec of the ship had smuggled cigarettes through the customs and that had come to LRH’s attention. He was not amused.

“… after they recruited, why, they say, “All right, you’re the Treasury Secretary, now go to work.” And the fellow says, “Well…money.. I don’t know what to do…I put it in my pocket….I take it to the bank…..” “You get your GDSes up”, uh, the CO says. “Get your GDS up, up, …. There we are. Get your GDS up”, and so on. The guy says, “Up ub bub ub uhhhh. There’s a machine here. Maybe I write something on this machine, maybe. Maybe I doodle on it uh.. uh…uh…”, right?

"All right, now I can tell you exactly why the world turns criminal, and that is the major breakthrough and that’s what’s going to carry us forward. The world turns criminal because the guy hasn’t got any purpose. So it isn’t that he goofs on post. This Treasury Sec was appointed, was not grooved in, he has no purpose for his post, he moves over into treason in that he doesn’t know what he is. He doesn’t know that he is the Treasury Sec because he doesn’t know what it is. And he will shortly get into a frame of mind of sticking the dough in his pocket. Or he’ll go out and steal automobiles or he’ll do something like that.” -- L. Ron Hubbard, Lecture of 16 Sept 1970, Talk to Dept. 13

Please note that the formula for the Treason Condition, “Find out that you are”, is applied to something specific, “Treasury Sec” If one omitted that area of application, this person could write about being a spiritual being or anything. The cycle could turn into a wrong Ethics Condition, by being applied to something else. And for that other subject it might or might not be the correct condition at all.

By not defining what exact area or activity a formula is applied to the door to plain idiocy is opened. Each step of the an applied formula has to be consistent with the subject the condition is done on.

When he got grooved in and trained on his post and knows what a Treasury Sec is, then can he find out (and now understand) that he is the Treasury Sec. Now he can be against being himself the Treasury Sec (Enemy) and solve that, and then he can look at the pro’s and contras of him filling this post (Doubt) etc. Each of the steps would be consistent with the same subject.

Here are some actual examples from “ethics”-handlings inside the C of S:

A staff member had been assigned a Treason Condition for being repetitive late for post – this staff member “did the formula” and found out that “he is a spiritual being”. Surprisingly, he continued to be late for post. This cycle repeated a few times and finally the “Ethics Officer” said that “Ethics doesn’t work on this guy” and kicked him off staff. Crazy! Looking into it I found that this guy was listening to and playing music half the night. He used the night for following that purpose since he didn’t want to give it up and during the day he didn’t have the time to do his music . And after accumulating lack of sleep for some days, he would then “sleep in” and be late for post. Please note that in his formula he had applied this formula for a different dynamic without the “Ethics”-Officer or he himself noticing it.

Another example: A student missed out on his course schedule and was assigned “Liability”. When he reached the step “Make up the damage one has done by personal contribution far beyond the ordinary demands of a group member.” he “donated” money for the org for a special project. Now let me ask you, what was the damage he had done? First, I wouldn’t be able to tell from that, if any damage had been done at all. He might have had valid reasons to miss out from course and a much greater damage could have possibly occurred if he had come to course! After this has been cleared up and it had been established that he had created a damage, the question would come up: “What was the damage?” How could one tell if he made up the damage, if one has not found out what damage was done?

In that case of this student I would say, that he has lost some time in his progress. Now it becomes obvious how he can make it up. By speeding up, by putting in some additional time, not by donating money for a special project. That “handling” was not consistent with the damage.

Another example: A person swindled taxes by making false entries in his books. He was assigned Liability and in order to “make up the damage” he donated this amount to the IAS! If he had stolen the money from the IAS, I would agree that he returns this money. That would be making up the damage! Needless to mention that he still lived in “suspense” regarding the Tax Office.

Another Example: A person assigned himself “Liability on his First Dynamic” for not keeping his integrity concerning a certain matter. And then he went around and asked the group for “okay to re-enter”!?! He had changed the Dynamic even within the formula. Being a matter of his First Dynamic, it was him to decide to be in peace with himself, not some other person.

Just knowing these two points,
1) specifying what one is doing a Condition about and
2) sticking to that subject when doing its formula, had made some of my friends change from “allergic to Ethics-treatment” to using ethics formulas as helpful tools in their daily live.

Written by Worsel