Archive for the ‘ Articles ’ Category

Technical Remarks – by David Mayo

(Taken from a lecture by David Mayo given on December 2, 1993 – concerning how a personality is formed.)

I’ll be using the term “personality” in the usual sense of the word: a package of characteristics that typify a person and distinguishes that person from other people; it makes that person a unique person. Some of these are behavior patterns; some are emotional patterns; some are thought patterns; some are speech patterns and so forth. They make up a package of qualities that you tend to know as the person – it is what the person has become or is being.

Fundamentally, you could say that a person isn’t any of these characteristics that I described. For example, if you say an angry person, a person fundamentally isn’t angry – isn’t fundamentally an angry person. But a person can be angry. Or, as is stated in some languages, they have anger.  That is possibly more accurate, certainly it is useful or therapeutic to say have in connection with an emotion rather than to say be. In English we tend to use the verb be and say “I am angry”. Now if I were to say, “I am a man”, that would be more accurate than to say, “I am angry” – because “I am angry” says that is what I am: anger. It does tend to cause a misidentification. A person starts thinking of himself as the unwanted emotion or other unwanted characteristic.

If you say, “I have anger”, it, tends to give you a little more distance between yourself and the emotion that you are experiencing.  You could say: “I am experiencing anger”, or “I am experiencing fear”, and that would be better than saying “I am angry” or “I am afraid”.

You can use this. Actually some psychologosts and some New Age people use that differentiation as one of their main tools. They take a person and ask him what is the matter with him. He says, “I have a bad temper and I am often angry.” So they say: “OK, Say: ‘I have anger’ not ‘I am angry’. Say: ‘I have anger’.” They teach the person that whenever he is angry he is to pause and to say: “I have anger”, or “I am experiencing anger”. Sometimes, to go along with that, to say: “But, I am not the anger itself. I am me, but I am experiencing or I have this emotion.” Or, “I have such and such sensation”. To try to deliberately work on the amount of distance between themselves and the unwanted emotion or the unwanted sensation or feeling.

Similary you can say, “I am hungry” or “I am hot” or “I am cold”. You can argue that each of these things isn’t true, because you are not hot, you are feeling hot. Heat is not something that you are. You can perceive it and you can feel it, but you aren’t it. That’s a good example, but it goes further than that.

You could say, “I am a plumber”. By that you could mean that you know how to do plumbing; you could mean you do plumbing activities; you could mean that you earn your living by doing plumbing activities; you could mean that you are an amateur plumber, or you could mean that you know how to and sometimes do plumbing activities and when you do you feel like you are a plumber. But you are not a plumber, you are still you. You know how to or you are doing plumbing.

You could say, “I am a writer”. If you associate yourself with that activity enough, you could become what you think of yourself as doing. Or, you could say, “Now I am a writer”, and now that has become your identity; how you identify yourself. People say, “Who are you?” Instead of saying, “I am Mary or Pete”, you say, “I am a writer”, or you say, “I am the writer of such and such a book”. This would imply that the book was more famous and more important than you are and you define yourself to people by saying, “Well, you know that great book, well I am the writer of that book!”

So, one can identify oneself with an activity and then come to the conclusion that that is what one is. Other people can do the same thing, not only for themselves, but about you too. They know that you write things, so they say, “Oh yeah, the writer. You are the writer, aren’t you?” And you could say, “Yes, but I also ride bicycles and I can do a little sewing and sometimes I cook”. But, to them you are the writer; you aren’t any of those other things. And they expect you to act like a writer. More accurately, they think you should act the way they think a writer ought to act, or, whatever it is that they have decided that you are.

Other people’s expectations about oneself are modified by ones’ personality, or ones’ identity, or ones’ profession. These things are really what one does. They are either ones’ professional action of what one does or they are a common action of what one does. If you go jogging in the morning, people could identify you as “the jogger”. Maybe you do a lot of other things and have a lot of other characteristics, but that’s what they see you doing from day to day. That’s what they see you doing each morning: they see you jogging, so to them, you are the jogger. If you were going to deal with that person, you would notice that they talk to you and they treat you as if they expected you to be a jogger and to have an interest in those types of things.

One can get stuck with, or fixated in, a personality or identity. If you were going to write a book, then it would be fine to say that you are a writer while you are writing it, while you are publishing it, while you are collecting the royalties, and while people are talking to you: “Oh, I read your book and it was fantastic, how did you think up that story?” But, you wouldn’t want to be a writer all the time. If you are able to be a writer, and stop being a writer and be something else, that would be fine – just as you don’t want to be stuck with being angry, because that could become your personality. Some people are in situation or in a condition where they think that they are a bad or a crotchety person or a cranky person. Other people feel that they are a stingy person or a mean or a selfish person.

A person can become stuck in the role that they have being doing a lot. When a person performs an action many times, it can become habitual. In other words, it can become automatic. You set up a pattern, much like a loop tape that keeps going around and around, playing the same things over and over. That’s the pattern that performs the action for you. Sometimes you have to start it, and sometimes you can stop it, but once you have started it, it repeats this pattern over and over. Then you have it as a habit or as an automatic action. At that point, it becomes a personality or an identity or a part of your personality or a part of your identity.

If you took up writing, and wrote a book and some articles and another book and some articles, then, at that point, you might be able to just  pick up a sheet of paper and a pen and just write a story – or, take your typewriter or computer and just bash out a story. Then you would probably feel that you were a writer, because you could do those things automatically. You don’t have to think: “Oh, I am going to try and write a story. What will I write about? What will I put in it? What will I write it with? Is there anything to write on around here? Maybe I should get a computer and write it on that? No, I’ll use this paper.” That’s when you are still trying to do the action. But once you have got it down to a point where you can almost do it without thinking about it, it is at least is somewhat automatic.  At that point, you start identify yourself with it – even if it a bad emotion.

If you get angry once or twice, you don’t think that you are an angry person necessarily, you think that somebody provoked you or something provoked you. But if you get provoked a lot and become angry a lot and it keep on happening, maybe it becomes more and more frequent, then it becomes a pattern – a continuing pattern in your daily life. About that time, you think that you are an angry person or a short tempered person. So do other people – and they may tell you so. They may say, “You are angry or you are an angry person.” At this point everybody is convinced that this is what you are. So, you become identified with that and to that degree you are stuck with it.

This whole cycle starts much earlier than that. The way it really starts is that you are you plus whatever personality or identity you happened to have developed up to date. That is what you have become. Then you encounter something. It starts with a first encounter: a particular object, or a particular person, or a particular situation. There is a first encounter. For the sake of this example, say, this particular object. You see this object and perceive it and become familiar with it and you say: “Oh, that’s what that is: that object.” You interact with that object: you do something with it. You look at it. Maybe you saw it in half and nail it together again – or whatever it is that you do with it. But you do something with that object. Now you are interacting with it.

Over a period of time if you interact with that object many times and especially if you do it on a continuing basis, you start developing automatic actions or automated activities with regard to that object. It gets to a point that when you see the object, you automatically do the things that you do when you see the object.

If you see a red traffiс light: you take your foot off the gas, you put your foot on the brake, and you stop the car. You do the things that you do when you see a red light. After you have being driving around traffic lights for a while, it becomes quite automatic. You see the light turn red, (or you see a red light), and you pull up and stop. Just as automatically, you wait until it turns green before you go. You do the various things: you take your foot off the brake, you put your foot on the gas, you make sure that the guy in front of you, (if there is one), gets going. You adjust your speed so as not to run into him and not to get run into by the guy behind you, and so on. So, there’s an automatic series of actions and they are all based on seen a red light or a green light.

At this point you’ve built up a series of automatic actions with regard to that object. There is nothing wrong with that – it’s perfectly OK to do that. In fact, it’s a good idea because it leaves your attention freer to do other things like watch out for other motorists and other obstacles and other conditions. It is good to be able to automate things. Having automated it, though, when you see a red light, you stop. Now, if it got to a point where you couldn’t prevent yourself from doing that, you could make a mistake. If it got to be totally automatic, every time you would saw a red light you would try to stop – but maybe somebody has a red flashlight, or maybe you are driving on a road and there is a railway line nearby and there is a red light on the railway line, you shouldn’t stop if there is a red light somewhere else. Do you see? Having it totally automatic isn’t good either, but partly automatic is good. So, to repeat:

There’s a first encounter with an object; a series of action or interactions done in regard to that object; and these can become automatic.

Around the time that these actions become automatic, you can start to assume the identity of that activity.

The example I just gave about red traffic lights and green lights isn’t sufficient, but if, you’ve automated all of these actions connected with driving a car – at that point, you would be “a driver” or “the driver”. So now you have an identity: driver. Again, if you can be a driver, and stop being a driver at will, everything is still fine. But if you get to where you can’t stop being a driver, that is not so good.

How a person can get into trouble with this is that when he does something bad and when he repeats doing something bad. For example, early in a person’s life he may, for the first time, tell a lie. For the sake of an example, we’ll say, a child doesn’t do his homework and is questioned about that and decides, in order to avoid trouble, to say, “I did do the homework but I lost it”, and hopes to get out of trouble that way. That’s a bad example because it probably wouldn’t work. It is very unlikely that it would work. But if a kid came up with a story that sounded plausible and that got him out of trouble for not having done the homework, and especially if the story would work not just once, but many times, he has got something very “useful”. He has got a lie that gets him out of doing homework and gets him out of consequence for not having done his homework. If he can’t stand doing homework, it is a pretty “valuable” solution for him to carry around. It is also reprehensible and it can’t be communicated about. If it is discovered he will get into even more trouble, so now it starts getting quite solid.

When a person repeats a pattern of action, they start to assume the identity of that action, or connected with that action.

In that case, after the kid has lied about the homework a few times or many times, (but it only takes a few times), the kid will assume an identity and will consider himself to be a liar. Now, the person is labeled, (or a better word), is branded a liar. The person feels that is irrevocable. It is irrevocable because they can’t change the fact that they lied and they can’t change the fact that they lied more than once and perhaps many times. So, they know that they are a liar. The same things would happen if a child saw some money and learned that money can buy candy. He sees the money but can’t ask his parents for it because his parents aren’t there. But he wants candy.

It’s the first encounter with the object. It’s unattended money. There is nobody around to ask, “Could I have it?”. He is tempted, so he takes the money and go buys the candy. He does that a few times and starts thinking of himself as a thief. He can become branded as a thief. Now, if he is caught, the actions of other people can either help to undo it, or they can force it and brand him even harder. If he is discovered in the act, or if he is found out, his parents berate him and beat him up and give him a hard time and scream and say, “You are a thief and I am going to throw you out of my house”, or say, “Don’t you ever steal again you rotten thief”. This will reinforce the kid’s own branding of himself as a thief. He doesn’t feel like: “I am Johnny”, or that “I am Mary”, or that “I am a little girl”, or that “I am a little boy”, or that “I am the son or daughter of this family”. He can carry that with himself through the rest of his life.

The more convinced a person is that he is an identity, the more he tends to act out that identity.

It is a vicious cycle. This kid gets to leaving school age and is interested in getting a job so that he can earn some money and do the same things that other people do: buy a house, maybe. The easy way for him to solve the problem is not to get a job, but to go and steal some money. It is already justified, because in his own mind, he already knows that he is a thief. He tends to feel hopeless about it and tends to feel that he can’t change it. Why he feels that he can’t change it is because he has already done it. He can’t reverse it. He can’t go back and not steal the things that he has already stolen. So, he feels that he is irreversibly a thief.

That’s why you can bring about a considerable amount of relief when they have sufficient confidence to confine in you and tell you about bad or unethical things that they have done. It tends to reverse that mechanism. In fact, when a person fully views unethical activities that they have done, then they feel that they are no longer that identity. Up until this point, they are convinced that they are that identity.

If you find somebody who is an angry person, you can undo that by getting him to tell you about times when he expressed his anger at somebody – when he was being angry. You can also, to a limited degree, get the person to differentiate between having been angry, or having had anger, and get him to realize that he is not the anger, although he was exhibiting it. Likewise in the case of the thief, you can get him to look at the fact that, yes, he did steal these things, and what did he steal and who did he steal them from. Get him to differentiate and come to see that, yes, he stole this and this… maybe he stole six things. He did those actions but he is not a thief. At the time of action, (while he was stealing it), yes, he was a thief. But he isn’t a thief all the time and he doesn’t have to go on being a thief in the future. So, you get separate instances of time and a separation out from the identity.

The cycle is:

  • The first encounter with the object, person or situation
  • Engaging in an activity; especially a repeated action
  • The assumption of an identity

If you get stuck with it – it is a mistake, because it is not what you are. It is something that you thought you became because you did it. If the repeated action is an unethical one, it is more probable that the assumption of the identity will be permanent, or virtually permanent.

A rule can be made from this: people tend to become that which they do.

If you do something a lot, you are likely to end up becoming it, or thinking you became it. The truth is you can do something a lot without being that activity; you don’t have to have that as your identity. I can do a lot of plumbing without thinking of myself as a plumber. If somebody said that I was a plumber, I might feel I had to explain to them, “No, I’m not a plumber, although I do know how to do plumbing, and I can fix that tap – but I’m not a plumber.”

David Mayo


Question: Say there was a person who really considered himself as a murderer, and it started when they were little and they had been doing it all of their lives, it would seem like it might take a long time to go through it with them to get to the point where they would say, “Ah hah! I’m not a murderer, I’m just a person who has done all these murders.”

Answer: Yes, it would take a lot. Especially with something as harmful as murder, as it is something that you can’t rectify. They can’t go back to the people that they killed and say, “Sorry about that,” and pull the knife back out so that pop, up they come, and they start walking again. It can’t be undone. If it is something that hasn’t caused permanent harm, then it is far more easy to handle by just looking at it subjectively.

You will find as more of a common example, somebody who feels that they are a liar. You could ask the person to tell you about each of the times that they lied. They’ll start out with the idea that they do it all of the time. They’ll tell you about times and they may tell you about half a dozen times – maybe seven, maybe eight times when they lied, but they are going to run out. They won’t be able to think of any more times. Then they will find another one, so maybe it is nine times that they have lied. Even that changes their perspective. They have gone from, “I’m a chronic liar”, to “Well, I can remember having lied nine times and it is suddenly is like, “Well, that isn’t as much as it looked like earlier.

Service Facsimiles – by David Mayo

From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 5 – March 1992

(First published by The International Society of Independents, 431 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, CA, USA as Update Series 1 on December 16th 1986).

The term “service facsimile” originally meant a facsimile (or mental image picture) that was of service or use to the preclear. A key point made on this subject was that a service facsimile is a mental mechanism used by the individual to explain failure. Perhaps that is the main purpose of a service facsimile. That is a relatively simple and easily understood idea.


However, when running service facsimiles, auditors generally spend a lot of time clearing what is meant by “service facsimile” and “computation” and getting across the idea that the auditor expects the pc to give the auditor a computation in answer to a listing question (even though these listing questions do not ask for a computation). Despite the time and effort spent on such “clearing”, when listing to find a service facsimile, the pc very often doesn’t answer with a computation. As this is a listing action, the auditor is then in the predicament of either having to reject the pc’s answers (items) or risking ending up with an item that is not a computation.

But that isn’t all there is to it. The meaning of the term “service facsimile” has been changed over the years. There are at least two (and possibly more) different mental mechanisms referred to as service facsimiles. This has caused an inordinate amount of confusion to technical personnel. It has also resulted in at least one unusual solution in auditing. Possibly none of the versions of the service facsimile are routinely fully run out due to these confusions.

As a facsimile?

The first type of “service facsimile” discovered, described and addressed in auditing was a facsimile that the pc (reactively) thought was of use or service to him. Hence the term “service facsimile”. Injuries or illnesses, especially in childhood when an ally was present, can result in such a “service facsimile”.

Sympathy Engrams

Service facsimiles have also been called sympathy engrams. An example of this is an incident in which a child breaks his leg and is given sympathy, looked after and taken care of by an ally. If care and attention were unusual for that child or if the ally was not usually an ally, then the broken leg would seem to be valuable to the child’s survival and the facsimile of that incident would be kept around ready to be called into play in the future when there seemed to be a need for it.

No computation

One could then say that the facsimile in the example above, was “reactively computed” to have survival value. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there was an actual computation, just that the service facsimile seemed to have survival value. As such this would be more accurately described as a reactive assumption rather than a computation. The idea that a service facsimile is a “computation generated by the pc not the bank” is a later additive which is not correct. This, in itself, could explain why so many auditors have so often had to work so hard to get pc’s to answer with a computation when asked for a service facsimile.

Chronic disabilities – ally presence

The type of service facsimile described above is best found by asking for a chronic disability and then running out the incident of its inception. E.g., if the disability is a lame leg, one would run out the entire incident when the pc got the lame leg, paying particular attention to any ally present at the time and an “ally computation” in that incident or as a result of it. When that disability has been run, ask for another, as there may be more than one. (One could also ask for a “fixed condition” rather than a chronic disability).

This type of service facsimile is best handled by running it out – as a secondary or engram – since it is a facsimile.

Other tyes

Another type of “service facsimile” was mentioned by Hubbard. Hubbard stated that the present time “Term” and “Opterm” package were the pc’s service facsimile. It is not clear how or why he considered that to be so, nor did he make any further clarification of this. Furthermore, no technique was given to handle this phenomenon.

The next type of “service facsimile” is a computation or, perhaps more accurately, an assumption. It is not a “service facsimile” in the original meaning of that term and it is not a “facsimile”, by definition. This is what came to be called a “service facsimile” in about 1963, but it is really a computation or an assumption. This type of computation is illogical analytically, is considered sensible reactively and is considered essential to one’s survival or at least to enhance one’s survival. Such a computation was thought to have been formed during a period of confusion and low analytical ability. A well known (but unreal) example of such a computation is : “All horses sleep in beds”. It has also been described as an “idee fixee”.


There have been different methods of finding this computation type of “service facsimile” over the years. In my experience the most useful were released in 1963 (during the same time period that this computation “service facsimile” was being described, and shortly thereafter). Some could argue that these methods of finding service facsimiles do not always result in a computation as the item found. True. But running the item found by these methods usually gets enough charge off so that the computation comes into view and blows by cognition during the running of the process. At least this is an approach that adheres to the Auditor’s Code rather than evaluating for the preclear by “clearing” that a “service facsimile” is a computation and that he is expected to give computations as answers (even though the listing question does not specifically ask for computations).

The more recent method of finding service facsimiles by listing from each command of the service fac brackets is the least workable, in my experience. This is partly because of the excessive amount of “clearing” (evaluating) what the auditor is asking the pc to find in answer to the listing question, including having to explain to the pc that he needs to answer with a computation. The nature of the computation the pc is supposed to have is also “fed” to the pc by the wording of the bracket commands, used as listing questions. For instance, “What do you use to make others wrong?” really feeds the pc the cognition that he is using something to make others wrong. It’s like the question, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” So, in a sense those listing questions require that the pc cognite on his service facsimile “in advance” i.e., while looking for what the service facsimile is and before having run the charge off it.

Then the change (circa 1978) of trying to run out the service facsimile dianetically after it had been run in the service fac brackets, is an unnecessary action. It probably follows from a confusion of the original idea of a service facsimile (sympathy engram) with the later idea of a service facsimile as a computation.

Method of handling

In my experience, the most effective method of handling a “computation” type of service facsimile is by using the PreHav scale. Start by assessing for a PreHav level (doingness) and then list from that as follows. Assess: “In this lifetime have you mainly__________(PreHav levels)?”

Then using the item so found, list:

“In this lifetime what have you__________(PreHav level found)?”

Example: If the PreHav level assessed out to “Failed to control” then the second question would be “In this lifetime what have you failed to control?”, which is listed to find the item. If the item was “My emotions”. Then the item to be run in the brackets would be “Failing to control my emotions”. (Yes, we know that that item is not a computation).

During the running of the item in the example above, as charge comes off, one or more computations will come to view and blow off.

Another meaning

There is yet another meaning that developed for the term, “service facsimile” which might be best described as considering a ser fac to be an impulse or an intention, e.g., to make self right, to make others wrong, to dominate others, etc. Al – though this is far removed from the original meaning of the term “service facsimile”, during the 1980’s the expression “make wrong” was used so interchangeably with the term “serfac” that the two became almost synonymous. This same concept was also referred to as an “evil intention”. Whether you consider these to be “service facsimiles” or not, they would probably respond best to expanded dianetic techniques.

Three kinds of serfac

So there are at least three different types of “service facsimile”, the facsimile, the computation and the intention. These different types of aberration require and respond best to different methods of handling.

Additional points:

Not everyone has a service fac. Making a pc look for one (or in some instances even asking for one) can start an endless search – for something not there.

It is noteworthy that over time there has been a shift in attitude that parallels the shift in definition of service facs. from a benign attitude toward the pc or the pc’s case to a more accusative attitude, one where in the pc (or his case) is accused of “willfully and knowingly making others wrong”, etc..

Not only individuals have service facsimiles; groups and organizations can, too. In fact, one of the characteristics of any cult or mass movement is that they are “service facy” – the more fanatical, the more “service facy” they are.

By David Mayo, USA

Thoughts on the Grade Chart and Abilities – by David Mayo

Past and Future – by David Mayo

It is the time to look at what have accomplished in the Independent field and at the Advanced Ability Center over the last few years and to take a look at what lies in store for us in the future.

As you remember, 1983 was a significant year: the year when it became possible to get auditing and training outside of the C of S. It was a year of great courage on the part of many. We stood up and asserted our right to practice our religious philosophy in the manner that we felt was the most ethical and beneficial. With the help of many others, I began delivering auditing and training at the Advanced Ability Center. I had several purposes in mind. One purpose was to make high quality tech available and affordable at a safe location. That purpose was achieved very early. As soon as we opened up the doors, the Advanced Ability Center became very busy with people from all over the world.

My second purpose was to continue in any way I could to the creation of large numbers of Independent Centers. And indeed, 1983 and 1984 were periods of great expansion. Independent Centers and Advanced Ability Centers came into operation all over the world. To name just a few, there are AACs in Switzerland, Palo Alto, Italy, South Africa, Australia, Florida, Michigan and Arizona. There are also many independent auditors and centers in other locations. There are no longer only a few places where one can receive auditing and training, but many, often conventionally close to home.

But there is much more that can be done and needs to be done. The C of S is trying to maintain that part of the tech is a religious trade secret belonging to them alone. We must disprove this claim in court. This is an issue that affects all of us. If we do not successfully meet this challenge, our ability to freely apply our philosophy will be severely hampered. As you know, the C of S won a preliminary injunction in November of 1985, which has prevented the Advanced Ability Center from delivering AAV – VII. This has hurt the AAC financially and the AAC is having to cut down it’s overhead by reducing the number of its staff and by getting less expensive premises.

In the midst of this bad news, however, there is some good news. Just last week the injunction was put before an Appeals Court and the resolution of this matter in the direction of religious freedom looks very promising indeed. You can be sure that all your support and the support of the legal defense fund is been put to good use for our future philosophic freedom. If we continue to press for our religious and philosophic rights and continue to support our cause vigorously through legal defense fund contributions, and in other ways, we will surely win the freedom to use the materials of our religious philosophy.

I think that the tech needs the further refinement. At the lower levels it needs to be written in language that can be readily understood, to facilitate dissemination. At the upper levels, more research and development is needed before new levels can be released. In order for the tech to win the widespread acceptance it deserves, it needs to be subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Despite the C of S PR line, the issue of whether or not OT powers can be stably produced is as yet unproven.  Also it appears that there may be some technical bag as yet undiscovered and unresolved that has resulted in the severe conflicts of recent years. Overall, the subject of scientology became progressively more and more materialistic and less and less spiritually oriented. This needs to be reversed.

I have decided to take responsibility for the tech and to become more accessible to all independent centers and auditors. It is now time for me to devote myself fully to the hat which I am best qualified to wear: that of technical consultation and research. This is my own purpose line, and in truth, I have gotten far too involved in running a center and the legal battles. In fact it is long past time for me to get on with it, as many of you have pointed out to me and rightfully so! I feel very excited about the future. Soon, I plan to devote my time to the research and piloting of tech. I intend to put out a technical newsletter, to spend time with all the AACs and other independent centers in helping train more auditors, and to open up my lines to more technical consultation than has been possible up to now. Work along these lines is, it seems to me, the most valuable contribution I can make to the work we are all engaged in.

It looks as though 1986 will be another significant year in the evolution of our philosophy. With your continued support via the legal defense fund, it can become known as the year when we won a definitive victory in safeguarding our freedom to use our religious materials. Even dearer to our hearts, I think, is that 1986 will become known as the year when our attention went back onto the philosophy itself: onto use further development.

David Mayo.

Disillusionment – by David Mayo

When I first became interested in Scientology I felt a huge resurgence of hope about the future and what it held. Prior to that I’d had a lot of questions about life, about its meaning and purpose. Questions such as: “Why are we here? Is there an overall purpose to the scheme of things? Is there a god? What happens when you die? Where did we come from?” …the usual questions. It’s not that I got answers to those questions, but I did have the hope it would be possible to attain the answers.

Then, certain things happened that didn’t seem to be consistent with that hope. In other words, I expected a tremendous amount from scientology – I expected the tremendous amount from the people involved with it; I thought they would be ideal or perfect beings. I assumed that anyone involved with this movement would be unaberrated and rational. When the first major divergence from the stated aims and goals of scientology occurred – a disagreement over  a policy letter which turned into a bitter feud – I got quite a shock, what we’d call a secondary.  My most immediate reaction was: “How could this be happening in scientology?” After such an incident, one could start to question the validity of the tech. I think that’s a natural thing – to question whether it’s so or not and whether one’s aspirations are toward things which may not come about and could end up in a betrayal of expectations. I remember going out then, taking a walk and suddenly realizing that my havingness was down. I started noticing things around me and my havingness came up. This was a rehabilitation of the earlier point when I’d realized that the tech DOES work.

Over the years the organization which was promoting scientology often acted in a manner inconsistent with its goals and purposes. Today I hear in various letters and conversations that some people have decided they don’t want anything further to do with scientology. I wanted to go into the reasons for that.

For some any further involvement with scientology is too emotionally painful. Many people have withdrawn or departed from the subject entirely, having wanted and expected so much and then having been let down. That situation, however, is not optimum. A friend of mine went through such a reaction and I watched it happening. This person felt that the tech didn’t work – that it was all just subjective. He thought that people’s cognitions and gains were simply imaginary. This attitude was quite at variance with what I’d known of this person and what he’d experienced earlier. In listening further and asking questions, what surfaced was this person had wanted more than just the gains he’d received. He had wanted additional gains so much that he had felt betrayed when they did not occur. His solution to this huge reality break was to say, “Well, I didn’t think that the tech worked in the first place.” – an example of rationalization.

Some people who worked in the sea org for many years – 10, 15, 20 years – came to the realization that the sea org was not carrying out the original goals and purposes for which they had joined. Feeling reflected in thoughts such as “What have I done? I’ve wasted those years of my life,” often followed. Some then got into a hectic frenzy of trying to make up for the lost time. It’s very hard to make up for lost time – it tends to park one in the past. The rational reaction would be to simply accept what had happened and go on from there, having gained valuable understanding from these experiences.

So I that one of the reasons people become disillusioned and tend to become inactive due to an ARC break of such magnitude that they feel their only course is to withdraw. They try to hope their experiences didn’t happen and try to show that they were right for doing what they did – even though they now think they shouldn’t have done it, whether it was joining the sea org, or buying auditing, or whatever.

Interestingly enough, another person going through that particular phase told me that he didn’t think that the tech worked. He was, however, using the tech to handle his dilemma by withdrawing in order, as he put it, destimulate.

The way to handle disillusionment with scientology is not to withdraw or rationalize, or try to change the fact, that one has been hurt. The solution is to become more involved and to understand the factors that brought about the situation. That’s the ultimate solution.

David Mayo.

Winter ‘85/’86

Integrity – by David Mayo

One of the biggest problems we have to face in the future is that of disseminating – I tried doing so recently and quickly discovered that there were very heavy obstacles to overcome;  obstacles created by a multitude of unsavory incidents which have tarnished the once-gleaming reputation of scientology.

I was told, when I was a staff member, that the negative stories I had heard were all black PR and that our “enemies” had generated these false reports. The handling whould be to tell someone who had heard such stories that they were false. After I left the sea org I heard other stories from people who had no previous contact with scientology. These were true stories which came from people to whom these incidents happened – incidents which were inconsistent with the basic philosophy of scientology.

There are many reasons why such incidents and situations came about – maybe we came into scientology for the wrong reasons; maybe we came in hoping that somebody else would give us all the answers, would make the decisions, and that we wouldn’t have to evaluate data, and yet would still know that we had the truth. If that were the case, one would have been sitting aside one’s own ability to determine the truth of data and, in so doing , would be giving away responsibility. It wouldn’t matter if the data were true or not – it would still be an act of irresponsibility, an act of assigning cause and responsibility for one’s decisions, purposes, and goals to another person. And it would be assigning how one is going to conduct oneself in life to another person.

It’s also possible that one came into scientology to look for the truth and to evaluate each datum for oneself. Then, after studying and evaluating the data, one may have come to a dilemma when faced with the price of the next intensive, thinking, Well, wait a minute, this doesn’t make sense.” But at such point, if one is told, “That’s the way it is. You either go along with it or you miss out,” what coice does one have? If there were no alternative, one could say that there is no choice but go along with the program.

Unfortunately, when one sacrifices one’s integrity in order to get a service which would raise one’s integrity, integrity is defeated – the service is not delivered. Actually, the existence of such conditions is sufficient to prevent the tech from working at all.

Here’s a classic example – an exaggerated version of this type of situation. On a particular day, the CofS was conducting a large, senior-exec Comm Ev. The executives were told to either toe the line or lose their eternity. Faced with such a choice, which magnifies the problem much more than mere high price of harsh ethics, the decision one should make becomes obvious.

Faced with the coice of agreeing with things that one doesn’t really agree with in order not to lose one’s eternity, it becomes clear that either way one would lose one’s eternity – and that the only way to maintain one’s integrity would be to simply say NO.

What’s actually harder to handle are the little things – the prices were just a little too high, not too much too high; or, that the reason to do this or that was because there were enemies (albeit unseen) who were out to destroy Scientology. But then one could say “Who am I to say, maybe these enemies exist somewhere else on the planet… or off the planet… or maybe on some other time track… or as part of an engram.” Had they been handled as part of someone’s engram, we might be in a very different situation than we are today.

The point is that it’s much easier to make a small compromise of one’s integrity or to accept a small untruth, in order to gain something seemingly much more important. I feel that’s a trap because it’s the small instances of losing one’s integrity that add up to one’s becoming the effect of further  oppression in the future. The solution to this sort of thing is to maintain one’s integrity in the present, day to day, and moment to moment. Now that’s a very high thing to ask for because none of us, myself included, has reached that level yet. But it is possible to increase one’s level of integrity – to spot instances where one has sacrificed integrity and do what is necessary to regain it.

It goes a lot more basic than this too. We’re all familiar with the eight dynamics, and that the 7th and 8th dynamics possibly seem less tangible than the others. The 7th dynamic relates to being and spiritual entities including oneself and others. There are some things which have happened which negate that very idea. For example, when I fell from grace, and when I chose to leave, I ceased to be a person – in print. I was described as a “squirrel”, or as an “alter-of-tech”, or as one with bad motives.  The descriptions failed to regard me as an individual, as a person. I’ve seen this de-personalization happento a large number of other people too – a disregard of the person as an individual and an effort to move him into some abstract identity – usually a negative identity.

Now we could make the same error and say that what is wrong is “the management” – which is also an abstraction. But I don’t feel that is actually what went wrong. I feel anything that went wrong with the management happened late in the sequence of things. I think the cause of it was already present long before.  If such tactics were simply the fault of some people called “the management”, our stating  this might have brought about some betterment of the condition. That certainly did not happen. If we de-personalize the trouble, we’ll make the same error now.

The 7th dynamic as a concept is workable and it gives hope – that is, we need to regard people as beings – not as SP’s or PTS’s or people who bought the enemy line. If you regard people as beings then it’s possible to get into communication with them and find out what happened to cause him to act in a way which is puzzling or with which one is in disagreement. It’s easy to use communication as a solvent.

This brings us to the 8th dynamic. I feel that in the past, we tended toward the belief that we didn’t need to worry about what is the 8th dynamic. At present, it’s been relegated to an area of lower importance.  There are statements about the the 8th dynamic, ranging from the idea that the 8th dynamic is a supreme being, to the possibilities of supreme beings, to infinity, to a much less tangible idea that the 8th dynamic might encompass all that is not contained in the other 7 dynamics. I feel that this selection of possibilities is actually a negation of the idea of the 8th dynamic. This is not any different from formulating what one believes on any of the dynamics. I think that we must formulate our own personal beliefs, and communicate about them with other people, and listen to others communicate about their personal beliefs.

This negation of the 8th dynamic has at times led some scientologists to believe that they were gods – or gods in the making. As soon as they reached OT, they would be a “god”. And yet none of us have any real proof that there is a supreme being. However, negating that possibility made it possible to set ourselves up in a position of arrogance. Believing that the organization of which we were a part was right, could make no error, and therefore could not be questioned or checked. I feel that this is why many people have become disillusioned with the tech and I feel this arrogance made it possible for sadness and disillusionment to occur over the last few years. If one negates the idea of a supreme being – one is negating the idea that there could be an overall purpose to the scheme of things.

There are other ideas along these lines – the idea that there is such a thing as good, or ultimate truth, rightness as compared to wrongness. I think there is something to believe in called “justice” or “good”, and I do think people will rise to make truth known, whether by facing it themselves or by communicating it to others. I think it’s possible for those things to become ascendant over the tendency toward evil. There is also such a thing called “hope” – and a future. I think it’s up to us to bring it about.

We all have a tendency to expect people to be more enlightened than they actually are because who wants to  listen to someone who has human foibles and weaknesses? People want a leader or a guru – I know I have and often still do. It would be so convenient if we could plug into somebody who could tell us the answer to a problem or situation. But it would also be a lessening of responsibility.

I used to pray to God when I was a kid and ask, “Sould I or should I not?” If there is a God, and if He’s as wise as He’s supposed to be, He would leave that decision to the person asking it.

So the ultimate message is that one has to look at life and make one’s own decisions about all aspects of it. We feel that we have a tremendous amount of freedom in the independent field. In order to safeguard that freedom we must make a consistent practice of evaluating our beliefs and decisions – making sure that they are truly our own, and that our actions align with those beliefs.

Goals And Happiness – by David Mayo

When we speak of goals, we are talking about a person making a decision to be something, to do something or to have something and seeking to bring that about. Most simply stated, a goal is a decision or a postulate; the two tend to be synonymous.

Recently people have asked me why we don’t currently audit people on goals. This is an interesting question, in that, although we don’t use processes that are called “goal processes”, you can’t actually audit anyone on anything but goals.

Because people are trying to accomplish various things in their lives, the auditing which they receive should be in the direction of helping them to accomplish those goals, or in the direction of removing obstacles that would prevent them from accomplishing those goals.

At times, auditing has been viewed as an effort to get rid of something unwanted. Or auditing can be seen as an effort to get rid of what is referred to as the “bank”, or to handle a “case”. These are only some aspects of what we are trying to do in auditing. Far more importantly, we are trying to help people create new abilities or rehabilitate and increase abilities that they already have. Thus the real purpose of auditing has to do with bringing about the accomplishment of one’s goals.

There was a specific auditing procedure done a few years ago called “Goals Processing” – a special technique that often interested people because of it’s name alone. “Goals Processing” suggests help in the accomplishment of goals, but that wasn’t really what this procedure was designed to do. In that process, a person listed goals which he had had in the past, the auditor would find the most charged one and then would run it out. The theory behind this technique was that if a person had a goal which became havily charged in the past, he would get stuck in the past on that goal; either stuck still trying to achieve a long ago goal; or perhaps stuck in the failure of trying to achieve that goal, which would influence  his actions in the present.  As such, the use of this process was somewhat limited because it depended on whether the individual was stuck in the past on a goal or not.

Many people hoped to find out precisely what their goal was by doing “Goals Processing”, and then to be  able to accomplish that goal. There were some people who would try to find their goal as if there was some magical thing that was their GOAL and if they could just find out what IT was, life would somehow go better. And to some degree there is some truth to that, provided you realize that a person’s goal is whatever he chooses to make it – whatever he wants to do at the moment, or for a lifetime.

Discovery and accomplishment is in the realm of positive gain and it is in that direction that auditing best done. If a person has auditing goals for improving specific abilities the auditing is more likely to be successful. Too much concentration on getting rid of things tends to be limiting.

To achive true happiness by the accomplishment of one’s goal, one must understand the composition of happiness. There is one definition of happiness that states that happiness is the overcoming of obstacles toward a goal. That can be true, but happiness doesn’t necessarily occur just by overcoming obstacles. There has to be a bit more to happiness than that. In order to bring happiness, a goal must be worthwhile or of value – and it must be beneficial to others. This immediately takes a goal, or happiness, out of the realm of being a selfish, or purely self-interested matter.

I heard a radio commentary recently where someone referred to the Sixties as being the “me” decade because at that time people were involved in finding themselves and being themselves. But, being one’s self is not enough to make one happy. One must also do something of value, and in order for that to occur, it is necessary to interact with and help others.

There are some things that enter in to whether or not a person will successfully achieve his goals. A person’s basic personality and outlook on life are important to reaching goals. If someone decides to see out towards a goal which is greatly at variance with his personality and the things he likes, it is unlikely the goal will be achieved – a lot of reasons for not doing things toward the goal will come up and he will do what he really likes doing instead. Such a goal is not actually a personal goal, it is an idea that the person has decided to adopt. An obvious example of an adopted goal would be a person accepting what others want him to do as a goal.

The matter of establishing a goal is simple, if one approaches it simply. But, people sometimes set goals based on what they feel would be pleasing to or approved by other people. And that is a mistake. In order to successfully set a goal, one must be sincere.

For you to be successful in your goals, it’s necessary for you to determine what you really want to do. Then figure out how others could benefit from your achievement. If you do this, you will come up with a goal that you can achieve and the doing of it will be pure pleasure.

It has long been known that people are not acting at their full potential (or to the full capacity of their abilities). I think that to a large degree it is not just because of engrams and aberrations. I think it is also because they haven’t formulated a goal that is something that they would like to do and that is beneficial to others. I think this is the key to happiness: Set out to do something that you are capable of doing and would enjoy doing and which helps yourself and others at the same time. Then you will have a happy life.

There’s an intimate connection between setting your goal, achieving it, helping other people, happiness and aliveness. And I think a very simple route to being more alive is simply to review what one is striving towards.

Often when we talk about a process or a drill, it is agreed that the E.P. of it shouldn’t be known. But, I’m going to suggest a drill and, in case also tell you what the E.P. is likely to be, because it will be useful.

When determining a goal, go through a series of goals and ask yourself:

  • Is this goal beneficial to myself?
  • Is this goal beneficial to others?
  • Is this goal something I would like doing?

You will look at various goals, and probably end-up by realizing that you had a goal all along, that you were working on it, and that you “knew” it all the time.

Although this might sound like there isn’t any discovery or learning involved in this little exercise, there is in that you now can be certain about what goal you have. [Attempt], whether or not it’s the right thing and within your ability to achieve, and you can enjoy working towards it.

I hope these words are helpful.

From AAC Journal 1984-86

On Men And Gods – by David Mayo

LRH has long been known as an extraordinary, remarkable man. And rightfully so. His insights and, indeed, his genius have correctly been lauded and respected.

At a certain point this simple acknowledgement of genius became something else. There evolved a period of deification, wherein LRH, a very remarkable man, became, somehow, a god. This very unfortunate change in consideration concerning LRH was, in many ways, doomed.

As LRH pointed out so aptly, no man is a god; nor is he perfect.

When a later period of discovery arose, there was talk of imperfections in the man. The man who was spoken of as a god. For many, the resulting disillusionment was terrifying and profound.

Some then chose to insist that he was perfect, was without flaw, was yet a god. Others chose to dedicate themselves to his destruction. Of course, neither of these extreme positions serves LRH, or any of us, well.

LRH once remarked that the tech is a culmination of some 10,000 years of thinking man. We at the AAC are eminently thankful for LRH’s unparalleled contribution to this technology, and will always be so. And we shall continue to serve LRH, and the image of LRH, and the technology itself best by just continuing with a steadfast, standard application of the technology.

Finally, I believe that this is at once our most important role and our most significant responsibility.


Source: The journal of AAC vol 1 No 6, October/November 1984

The Importance Of Training – by David Mayo

Source: The journal of AAC vol 1 No 5, July/August 1984

On Goals & Purposes – by David Mayo

Source: The journal of AAC vol 1 No 3, April 1984