More on Service Facsimiles/Computations

At Kay’s suggestion I am posting below the HCOB I referenced in last night’s post, Anatomy of a Service Facsimile.  I encourage folks to read it in its entirety.   One reason I posted about it in the first place, and the same reason I check it out on most folks once associated with Scientology Inc is as follows.  I have found that a great percentage of people who once considered themselves members of corporate Scientology had to come up with the most fantastic computations in order to survive within the Scientology Inc community.

Attempting to scale the Bridge toward more freedom, self-determinism, and individuality folks within Scientology Inc find themselves in a culture continuously attempting to strip away those very abilities.  It is like a salmon attempting to swim upstream against the most violent currents.

In that culture one is never permitted to inspect or talk about the counter current – the one that is there every day continuously and forcefully being applied against one.

Now, compare that against this description from LRH on why and how one forms a computation/service facsimile:

It is a computation that the pc adopted when, in an extreme situation, he felt endangered by something but could not itsa it.

It is called a service facsimile because he uses it; it is “of service” to him.

Aberration, anybody’s aberration on any subject, has been of some use to them at some time or other. You can trace it back. It’s been of some use, otherwise they wouldn’t keep mocking it up. But now, if you put it up against survival standards, you’d find it very non-survival.

The pc adopted this because he couldn’t stand the confusion in a situation. So he adopted a safe solution. A safe solution is always adopted as a retreat from the environmental restimulation. He adopted a safe solution in that instance and he survived. His safe solution became his stable datum. He has hung onto it ever since. It is the computation, the fixed idea, he uses to handle life, his service facsimile.

Please look at this objectively for a moment. Who within Scientology Inc is not continually presented with extreme situations/problems by Corporate Scientology itself that he or she is NOT permitted to ITSA (talk to an auditor, or any terminal for that matter) about.

That leaves but one solution, the SAFE SOLUTION – the one that seems to handle life for him or her, but in actual fact destroys the person’s life.  Unfortunately, many of us hang onto those solutions unknowingly even long after we’ve left the environment where we formed them.  Fortunately, the Old Man gave us the remedy.

I truly believe that in this particular bit of technology lies the answer to much of what we are confronted with in pt.  It is what we face in dealing with Corporate Scientologists. It is what we face in coping with any remaining connection we might retain with Scientology Inc.  And for many of us, unbeknownst to many of us, it is what keeps us suffering even after we’ve departed that particularly suppressive third dynamic environment.  The proof of the pudding is, does it work?  Well, it has been working like gangbusters in these parts.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 SEPTEMBER 1978

Remimeo

Level IV Checksheets

Class IV Auditors

Supervisors

C/Ses

ANATOMY OF A SERVICE FACSIMILE

Ref: HCOB 22 Jul 63 YOU CAN BE RIGHT

HCOB I Sep 63 SCIENTOLOGY THREE CLEARING,

CLEARING, CLEARING, ROUTINE THREE SC

HCOB 23 Aug 66 SERVICE FACSIMILE

HCOB 30 Nov 66 ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE FACSIMILES

TAPE: 6308C27 SH SPEC 299 RIGHTNESS AND WRONGNESS

TAPE: 6309C04 SH SPEC 302 HOW TO FIND A SERVICE FACSIMILE

TAPE: 6309C03 SH SPEC 302A R3SC

TAPE: 6309C05 SH SPEC 303 SERVICE FACSIMILE ASSESSMENT

TAPE: 6309C18 SH SPEC 308 ST HILL SERVICE FAC HANDLING

FACSIMILE: A mental picture unknowingly created; a copy of the physical universe environment, complete with all the perceptions, at some time in the past.

SERVICE: A method of providing a person with the use of something; the action or result of giving assistance or advantage; work done; duty performed.

COMPUTATION: That aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be in a certain state in order to succeed.

SERVICE FACSIMILE: THE SERVICE FACSIMILE IS THAT COMPUTATION GENERATED BY THE PRECLEAR (NOT THE BANK) TO MAKE SELF RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG: TO DOMINATE OR ESCAPE DOMINATION AND ENHANCE OWN SURVIVAL AND INJURE THAT OF OTHERS.

Note that it is a computation, not a doingness, beingness or havingness. We could call this a “service computation” but we will maintain the term we have used to describe this phenomenon throughout the technology: “service facsimile.”

It is a computation that the pc adopted when, in an extreme situation, he felt endangered by something but could not itsa it.

It is called a service facsimile because he uses it; it is “of service” to him.

Aberration, anybody’s aberration on any subject, has been of some use to them at some time or other. You can trace it back. It’s been of some use, otherwise they wouldn’t keep mocking it up. But now, if you put it up against survival standards, you’d find it very non-survival.

The pc adopted this because he couldn’t stand the confusion in a situation. So he adopted a safe solution. A safe solution is always adopted as a retreat from the environmental restimulation. He adopted a safe solution in that instance and he survived. His safe solution became his stable datum. He has hung onto it ever since. It is the computation, the fixed idea, he uses to handle life, his service facsimile.

HOW THE SERVICE FACSIMILE BECOMES FIXED

An idea is the thing most easily substituted for a thetan. An idea doesn’t have any mass connected with it basically. And it appears to have some wisdom in it so it’s very easily substituted for a thetan. Thus the idea, the stable datum he has adopted, is substituted for the thetan.

How does this stable datum become so fixed? It gets fixed, and more and more firmly as time goes on, by the confusion it is supposed to handle but doesn’t. The stable datum was adopted in lieu of inspection. The person ceased to inspect, he fell back from inspecting, he fell back from living. He put the datum there to substitute for his own observation and his own coping with life, and at that moment he started an accumulation of confusion.

That which is not confronted and inspected tends to persist. Thus in the absence of his own confronting mass collects. The stable datum forbids inspection. It’s an automatic solution. It’s “safe.” It solves everything. He no longer has to inspect to solve, so he never anises the mass. He gets caught in the middle of the mass. And it collects more and more confusion and his ability to inspect becomes less and less. The more he isn’t confronting, the less he can confront. This becomes a dwindling spiral.

So the thing he has adopted to handle his environment for him is the thing which reduces his ability to handle his environment.

Those things which do not respond to routine auditing, that routine auditing won’t change, are rooted in this mechanism.

Therefore, it is important to find the idea on which he is so fixed. Pull the fixed idea and you free the individual for a broader perimeter of inspection.

In service fac handling the reason you get tone arm action when the fixed idea has been pulled is that the confusion which has been amassed and dammed up for so long is now running off.

RIGHT/WRONG, DOMINATE AND SURVIVE

Right and wrong are the tools of survival. In order to survive you have to be right. There is a level at which true rightness is analytical, and there is a level at which rightness and wrongness cease to be analytical or comprehensible. When it drops below that point it’s aberration.

The point you degenerate from survive to succumb is the point you recognize you are wrong. That is the beginning of succumb. The moment one becomes worried about his own survival he enters into the necessity to dominate in order to survive.

It goes: the insistence upon survival, followed by the necessity to dominate, followed then by the necessity to be right. These postulates go downhill. So you get an aberrated rightness or wrongness. The game of domination consists of making the other fellow wrong in order to be right.

That is the essence of the service facsimile.

The reason the service facsimile isn’t rational is because you have A=A=As along the whole line. Coming down the line it works itself back and forth in an aberrated A=A=A. If the individual is surviving he must be right. And people will defend the most fantastic wrongnesses on the basis they are being right.

In PT and at any point along the track, the fellow is trying to be right, trying to be right, trying to be right. Whatever he’s doing he’s trying to be right. In order to survive you have to be right more than you’re wrong, so you get the obsession to be right in order to survive. The lie is that he can’t do anything else except survive.

It isn’t that trying to be right is wrong—it’s obsessively being right about some-thing that’s obviously wrong. That’s when the individual is no longer able to select his own course of behaviour. When he is obsessively following courses of behaviour which are uninspected in order to be right.

There is nothing sane about a service facsimile, there is no rationality to it. The computation does not fit the incident or event occurring. It simply enforces, exaggerates and destroys freedom of choice over the exercise of ability to be happy or powerful or normal or active. It destroys power, destroys freedom of choice.

Wherever that zone or area is you’ll see the individual worsening. He is on a dwindling spiral. But he himself is generating it.

The intention to be right is the strongest intention in the universe. Above it you have the effort to dominate and above that you have the effort to survive. These things are strong. But we’re talking here about a mental activity. A thinking activity. An intentional activity.

Survival—that just happens. Domination—that just happens. Those are not intended things. But you get down along the level of intended and it’s right or wrong. The strongest intention in the universe.

It is always an aberrated solution. It always exists in PT and is part of the environment of the pc. He’s generating it. It’s his solution. Overwhelmed as he is by it, he is still generating it. It’s aberrated because it’s an uninspected solution. And it is something that everyone unintentionally or otherwise is telling the pc is wrong and causing him to assert that it is right. The perfect solution when he first got hold of it.

But now it monitors his life; it’s living his life for him. And it doesn’t even vaguely begin to take care of his life.

That is the anatomy of the service facsimile.

You are going to find these on any pc you audit. A service facsimile is the clue, the key to a pc’s case. The route to succumb which he blindly asserts is his route to survival. And every pc has more than one of these.

Fortunately, we have the tech to salvage him. We are the only ones who do.

L. RON HUBBARD

Founder

172 responses to “More on Service Facsimiles/Computations

  1. “There is nothing sane about a service facsimile, there is no rationality to it. The computation does not fit the incident or event occurring. It simply enforces, exaggerates and destroys freedom of choice over the exercise of ability to be happy or powerful or normal or active. It destroys power, destroys freedom of choice.”
    I like this part esp. But, the whole reference explains why current church members back the “ideal org” pgm with such ferver. Anyone who can read nead only read the LRH reference “Ideal Orgs” and a number of other LRH refs to know the program is completely off policy. The COB isn’t able to admit he is wrong so, these guys think for their own survival they must make him right. This somehow cancels out KSW or any loyalty they may have had at one time to the Ol Man. Thank God for those who can still see and are willing to do something about it. Laura Ann

    • martyrathbun09

      Yeah, think about the sheer quantity of insane variations of computation people carry around to justify fighting tooth and claw to defend such madness. “In order to build, I must destroy”, like in order to make the Idle org a reality I must wipe out the financial lives of as many people as possible.

    • Dear Laura Ann or Marty,
      Please post the LRH reference “Ideal Orgs” and a number of other LRH refs that refer to it or refer me to the posts if these have already been posted so that I can understand the exact points of violated LRH Policy regarding DM’s Idle Org evolution. I do understand the “have to have before you can do ” issues and LRH’s admonition about pursuing MEST. I also understand the Exchange 1 issues of donos to IAS and Idle Orgs.

      • gandiguy,
        When I speak of the “ideal Org” program I am talking about the regging of money for a building. (Volume 0) LRH ED 102 INT, subject: The Ideal Org, is the reference I was referring to. It lays out what an Ideal Org would consist of. It doesn’t say anything about buying a big expensive building as a prerequisite…The other refs I referred to are any refs in the green vols and mangmt series that deal with how org expansion occurs. Do you know of a reference where LRH says you must buy a big expensive building first? I’d love to read it.

      • Gandiguy, the Friends of LRH website is FULL of chapter and verse references about Ideal Orgs, and much more. I encourage you to read that, as well as any vol. 0 of the OEC books.
        The data is out there. Anyone who doubts it either has not looked, or will not. Please… Help yourself to the tech. It’s out there.

  2. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant Marty. A portrait of so many corporate scientologists:
    “The stable datum forbids inspection. It’s an automatic solution. It’s “safe.” It solves everything. He no longer has to inspect to solve, so he never asises the mass. ”
    That’s why we get in the church so many “rigid OTs” (a new ot level?)

  3. Tony DePhillips

    “It is a computation that the pc adopted when, in an extreme situation, he felt endangered by something but could not itsa it.”

    Ya think??

    • martyrathbun09

      Yeah. Here you go Tony. I guarantee you’ve got logic like this rampant in the Seattle field: my reality: Tony D and Marie Joe are a couple of the most dedicated Scientologists I know. Tony and Marie Joe are declared suppressive for criticizing Idle Orgs strategy; you may no longer speak with them, nor speak nicely of them and if you do you lose your family and jobT. Can’t ITSA that conundrum. How to survive in this culture?: Tony and Marie Joe = good peeps. Tony and Marie Joe are evil. Computation: In order to be good peeps, I must be evil.

  4. Conny Lundberg

    Excellent analysis of the situation that brings in this so called solution!!!
    This really explains why it´s so hard to bring a churchie to understanding about the situation in the church! Well, you could ask them how this is right over and over again and the compressed mass will blow and the confusion will lift thou even better to run it out standardly if you could get them in session;)

    • martyrathbun09

      Yes, HCOB You Can Be Right, is very useful in dealing with innies.

      • I’m glad I’m an outie!

        • martyrathbun09

          Or an exterior one. Now that is a whole other topic we can explore next weekend – how Int/Ext plays into all this.

          • Exactly Marty,

            Int/Ext play a important part in all this as well.

            I personally found there was a certain point while I was still *in* the organization that I found it harder to exteriorize.

            Also I noticed especially after the “Golden Age of Tech” that fewer cases were going exterior in auditing in general.

            Even on processes that usually produced exteriorizations routinely like SOP 8C, Op Pro By Dup, R2-22 etc.

            Part of the reason for this was that going ext was almost considered a crime due to the fact that there were so few auditors available who could audit int and PCs were usually punished by having to wait forever to get a review session.

            Worse because of the three swing “F/Ns” mandate it became difficult for auditors to get an F/Ning assessment on the int buttons or F/N the 53 afterwards per the End of Endless Int Repair HCOB.

            Needless to say this was a contributing factor to PCs or Pre OTs avoiding going ext or withholding the fact they had gone ext in auditing to avoid getting an Int RD or Repair of Endless Int.

            In other cases some “auditors” were gleefully auditing PCs and Pre OTs past exterior even when the PC or Pre OT had said they had gone exterior because the quote auditor unquote *suspected* that the PC or Pre OT was trying to “blow” the session.

            In other words like any other tech at the Church the handling of int has become so perverted that it is almost unrecognizable.

            Not only that but “auditors” and PCs and Pre OTs are trying to avoid exteriorization!

            The one thing that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that one is a spiritual being “timeless and deathless” as Ron says in Int Series 2 ‘Exteriorization and High TA’.

            • martyrathbun09

              Yeah, what would you expect from a joint whose mission seems to slam your anchor points as deep and dark as they can be driven?

              • Ya mean like interiorized with full deception😉

                • Theo sismanides

                  Awesomely defined EPs RJ: interiorized with full deception.

                  I bet we can find more such EPs produced by the “processes” of Scientology inc.”

                • RJ, you had me “ROTFL” with that one.
                  The main product of the CofS: “Interiorized with Full Deception” — it rolls off the tongue so easily, and catches the whole ambiance of the CofS so accurately. Wonderful.
                  Def: ROTFL == Rolling on the floor laughing.

          • Mrs. Friend of Ron

            Yay! Can’t wait for next weekend’s exploration. This is way better than all the tech training I’ve had!

    • You mean… Try the opposite? 😉
      I don’t know of any LRH advice that covers this but LRH’s personal secretary (Anne Grier?) used to tell us over and over one of her favorite LRH stories:
      She was walking down the drive one day at Saint Hill and LRH stopped directly infront of her and asked ‘What’s up Anne?!’
      Anne replied by telling him all about a huge un-resolveable problem explaining it in full detail.
      The story goes that LRH simply smiled and suggested ‘Try the opposite’.
      At that moment Anne relates that the entire confusion blew ‘all over the driveway’.

  5. I’m witchya.

  6. This is a HUGE issue in Scn, Inc. – been there, done that myself. Grade IV handles that.🙂 And when you look at your service facsimiles regarding Scn, Inc. you soon realize you just can’t stick around without them in place.
    Really the best ones are the ones that you use to make you holier than thou since you’re part of Scn, Inc. That one really protects you from hearing or seeing anything bad going on.😉

  7. I would absolutely love to see someone who thinks Scientology is a scam and a bunch of crap read this bulletin and then share their thoughts on it. What critics of Scientology wouldn’t realize is that this bulletin falls within one long and entirely logical stream of thousands of bulletins, books and lectures beginning from LRH’s first release. Each topic he wrote or lecture about followed from something earlier. Yet, critics assert that it is all psuedo-science or was all written in an attempt to con people out of their money. I have met a con man and no con man in the history of the world would have taken that much trouble to assemble a con so thorough. It would have been much, much less work to simply build the Sistine Chapel by oneself and then paint its ceiling.
    I am sure the Anonymous people or other LRH and anti-Scientologists read this blog and I will wager that reading the bulletin puts a little shake in their own stable datum.

    • The way you speak about anons may indicate that you have an attitude toward them which resolves all situations regarding them, and I invite you to observe it.
      Before Bert and I fully realized what was going on, we had some very serious attitudes toward anons (served up with gusto by the church of course.)
      Now I like to take each anon as an individual and see their good points as well as their bad ones.
      I am really not ragging on you, I am trying to say that I appreciate the varieties in people much more now that some of these attitudes have had a chance to blow.
      Well, maybe I am ragging on you a bit. Probably a SerFac there for me somewhere. LOL

      • martyrathbun09

        I don’t think he used the word “anon” did he?

        • He said, “the Anonymous people…” Was I incorrect in thinking he was referring to Anons?

          • martyrathbun09

            Yes, you were right – I didn’t go back and check. I think he made an excellent point. I usually refer to anti-Scientologists as anti-Scientologists so there is no confusion.

    • Incidentally, that HCOB was compiled by the late, great Phoebe Mauerer who was RTRC Dir for many years. LRH okayed it but Phoebe is the one who put it together based on his dispatches, bulletins, lectures and definitions. LRH had help from Day 1 to assemble tech and policy, in case anyone thinks he felt he had to do it all himself.

    • Great point, Joe! Talk about service facs – generated to hold back the huge confusion that would result in their heads if they actually confronted what Scientology is, and that it really might work.

      (Usual disclaimer repeated – I refer to the tools and tech of Scientology, not the current CofS).

      How much easier is it to just conclude “LRH was a con man” than to actually confront his work. Problem “solved”, no further need to look at that subject.

      Made me realize one of the things that’s so great about this blog is that it is
      for the most part a “service fac free zone”. Which is a pretty big deal, really, since these computations surround and impinge on us as we go through day-to-day living, right?

      This is one of the very few places where one is not communicating into, or through, a bunch of service facs. Unlike, say, what one encounters when trying to communicate with someone still drinking the DM KoolAid or with someone reflexively anti-LRH or Scientology but whose viewpoint is based solely on a non-confront of the subject.

      Maybe explains why I always get such a theta boost from visiting here.

      • Publius,

        Marty’s place here is hereby declared a “Service Fac Free Zone”!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

        You know though ii’s so very true. Sort of cozy.

    • Nicely stated Dan!

      Tommy

    • GetTheConcept

      “…no con man in the history of the world would have taken that much trouble to assemble a con so thorough.”

      Dan, that is what I think every time I read someone’s comment somewhere attempting to prove that LRH only did all this for money and power. I would think that if someone had the motivation to con people, part of that motivation would be to do as little work as possible. This obviously is not the work of a lazy person. Even if he could steal this work, it would still take an incredible amount of work to just select out what to steal.

      Dave F

    • Joe, that was bad-ass. Very same thought crossed my mind a while back. No one would go to all that trouble. No, the tech is for real.

      ML Tom

    • As a former anti-scientologist/anti-hubbardian I can attest that this site does shake one’s stable data. I’d read every bit of negative literature about Scientology and LRH, reveling in the nasty revelations, accepting what I read as well researched, always hungry for additional lurid disclosures.

      Then I read this site, started to re-evaluate my ill-feelings. I remembered what impressed me about the subject, so I went back to the beginning, reading stuff from the fifties forward. I can only conclude that LRH was sincere in his attempts to solve problems that have plagued mankind from forever. He was so well read and his reasoning was so lucid.

      Sure, there was a part of him that was an entertainer, and he liked to put on a good show. I don’t accept everything he said or wrote, but education demands the right to accept or reject the information at hand. Gotta have choice. Gotta be cause over the data.

      If someone reads and listens to LRH’s books and tapes, it’s hard to imagine him “stealing” all this material from other places. Sure, I’ve seen bunches of this stuff elsewhere. But, not as a complete body of work based on consistent principles that carried forward as his work did.

      As for science, and pseudo-science, who cares? Neither science nor logic will ultiimately solve the issues of what created this universe and how it was created. The forces of creation are not dependent on logic or science. And the advances of science and logic were more the result of soaring imagination rather than strict adherence to established form.

      But, the point I’m really making is that critics, if they want to be honest can be brought to understand what they only pretend to understand. A person who honestly wants to learn what Scientology was all about can’t help but discover incredible insights about existence in studying this subject.

      So, what’s the point of all the yapping if it isn’t to discover the truth, good or bad? Why be dishonest in trying to expose another’s “dishonesty?”

      Ultimately, the joke is on the person who is unwilling to honestly look and understand in the face of all the reasons he chooses not to.

      Michael

    • Mrs. Friend of Ron

      Sure hope it shakes some anti’s up, JH.

  8. A large part of the “Moving out of fixed conditions into ability to do new things” is the freedom to look at things from a different, fresh viewpoint. LRH: “An idea is the thing most easily substituted for a thetan. An idea doesn’t have any mass connected with it basically. And it appears to have some wisdom in it so it’s very easily substituted for a thetan. Thus the idea, the stable datum he has adopted, is substituted for the thetan.” I finally checked The Shack out of the library this week and just finished it. Of several passages that stuck me, I particularly liked this one: “Paradigms power perception and perceptions power emotions. Most emotions are responses to perception – what you think is true about a given situation. If your perception is false, then your emotional response to it will be false too. So check your perceptions, and beyond that check the truthfulness of your paradigms – what you believe. Just because you believe something firmly doesn’t make it true. Be willing to reexamine what you believe.”
    In spite of the fact that I continue to adhere to applying LRH’s workable tech standardly, I still prefer to continue to look, ever willing to embrace a shifting point from which to view.

    • martyrathbun09

      Beautiful

    • Marty, love the article.

      Athena – Great line – “I still prefer to continue to look, ever willing to embrace a shifting point from which to view.”

      I really think this is the essence of the viewpoint one assumes when on the road to discovery.

      Having come out of many sessions with that ‘ Wow! I KNOW blah, blah, blah’, only to discover that after a later session, my previous cognition paled in comparison to my new one. The resulting deeper understanding, greater ARC, greater KRC and an expansiveness greater than I ever imagined disabused me of the idea that one single cog in a session would shoot me up to total knowingness on a particular subject being audited.

      I liken it to fluidity – a stream of consciousness moving with the intention of knocking out false data, hard-held ‘facts’ – in essence ‘moving out of fixed conditions’, and the ability to create new games to play.

      Within the church this is called ‘other fish to fry’, ‘counter-intention’, and in earlier times ‘heresy’. Unfortunately, the blinders one has to wear while in the church seriously cuts off the fruits of observation and, that self/pan determinism we strive for is suppressed and in most cases totally cut off.

      It is an evolution, and blogs like this and the variance of viewpoints continue to rattle my long-held ‘knowingnesses’ and open the road to greater understanding.

      • I know what you mean on the cogs. I told my Sup one time, that you had to “learn” something about 100 times before you really got it. Like Ron says,”number of times over equals certainty and understanding.”

    • Floating Needle

      Very nice indeed!

  9. Marty,
    Yesterday I had the idea: ‘I have no ‘org’ to go to for help, I’m on my own’.
    Today you proved to me how wrong this idea is and how I had taken a loss on the MEST symbol of the real thing.
    This is my org. And somehow, when I need it the most, you pull out the exact piece of LRH for me to be able to move onwards and upwards. Or yet another person in my ‘org’ gives unselfishly of themselves to help others raising my tone-level up to soaring highs in an instant.
    Thank you for keeping me connected up to source throughout what has been two years of the most heartbreaking loss and disappointment that was the confronting that the ‘church’ was squirrel.
    I don’t claim to be free of all ser-facs but confronting the truth sure as hell blew all of the ‘justified thought’ I had accumulated through 20 years of ‘explaining away outpoints’ amidst confusions that would just not blow.
    And that’s a major stable win all by istself: It put my TR0 in on the world🙂

  10. Marty, This is brilliant. I always wondered why so many good people would look the other way and continue to support DM and the ‘Church’. The ‘old man’ nailed it years ago. DM is a walking Serv Fac and his pushing and forcing has created an environment where serv Facs are a necessity to survive. I think the ‘greatest good’ button is used as a serv fac. He forces others to adopt ‘greatest good’ as a justifier for not looking. You’re right, he knows what he’s doing. Love

    • HA!!! YES! “Greatest good”
      Totally nails that one! OMG… there are layers and layers of ’em, I’m sure. Like an onion. Any sane, thinking individual would run, post-haste away from the crap.

      The Co$ really IS an “implant station” of sorts, ain’t it? This is the blackest of Black Diantecs…. they don’t even know they reversed and flipped the whole damn thing!

      • Overall the ideaes any church tries or/and succeeds to force into ones head are called dogma’s.
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
        Definition of DOGMA
        1
        a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
        2
        : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

  11. Here’s an OSA and “Int” Computation: “Stats are better with Rinder and Marty gone.” That stops any inspection.

    ML Tom

    • martyrathbun09

      Actually Tom, “contradictoriness is essence” in computations. The core “logic” of the raw computation is something on the order of: in order to raise stats, we must destroy upstats.

      • Awesome! That nailed it. That’s exactly what I saw when I was bounced. Nice.

        ML Tom

      • dm is using all the tech (including the CC implant) to key people in.

      • For an O/W chain to accumulate there has to be a motivator chain: you hit me, I hit you, you hit me, etc. Flows counter flows and create ridges on which more flows accumulate. It looks like the Ser Fac hangs up according to the same mechanism but on a thought level. The contradiction of thought forms the ridge that keeps the computation afloat, timeless.

        Once in and having made many computations and overt/motivator chains defending COB, it becomes extremely hard to undo that. It’s even more complicated by the fact that many computations tell you to not look in order to see, to not question COB to be on the team, to work like a slave to go free, to be out ethics to get ethics in on the planet, to harm others for the greatest good, etc.

        • Erwin,

          I think these types of computations were rampant prior to the advent of Skippy the squirrel.

          Especially many GO staff in B1 operated on them particularly the “greatest good” which of course justified committing illegal acts.

          However after the coup it seems the whole damn organization uses them now to make themselves right and others wrong.

          Since part of the mechanics of a ser fac is non inspection.

          All the new management did after they took over was try to sweep the GO under the carpet and “move on”.

          Basically a *not is* which obviously didn’t and hasn’t worked.

          • I see it as contagion of abberation. GO started somewhat, OSA upped it just a little bit and now the virus is all over.

            And of course it’s a not-is which never works: the church is getting worse and goes down tone monthly. As-is can only be found outside.

  12. Scott Campbell

    Thus we have an explanation for David Miscavige’s behavior.

    From Advanced Procedure and Axioms: “The psychotic personality is distinguished by its irrationality and its perversion of values. The distinguishing characteristic of the computing psychotic is his utter inability to change his mind.” –LRH

    I’d say that describes DM and his Service Facsimile laden operating basis pretty accurately. Too bad he has a computation in place that he uses to justify not looking at his own failings.

    Probably “No case on post!” or some such.

  13. Geir Isene made the interesting observation that during the Tommy Davis/Jessica Feshback comm cycle with Larry Anderson, the two bots went nuts only at the point that Larry invalidated COB. As if they had snapped terminals with DM.

    On a grand scale, I’d say that the above valence shift is a serfac that runs rampant throughout Radical Scientology.

    If I’m duplicating the data on serfacs correctly, (I’m not a trained auditor, mind you), many people could quite possibly have a past-track serfac to be “taken care of by another” during a time of extreme stress, duress or confusion. And I see this serfac being carried forward in p/t regarding DM and “Command Intention”.

    A strong serfac to be sure. But, when I watched the Truth Rundown, I felt like I had just gotten out of session with a dial-wide F/N. I think it blew part of the church/DM serfac.

    Am I on the right track here?

    • martyrathbun09

      Michael Fairman and Jason Beghe have both reported similar reactions by Corporate Scientologists when the name Miscavige is raised. They defend him much more viciously and vehemently than they would ever defend LRH.

      • Interestingly enough, the “critics”often display something similar.They are loathe to criticize DM, but vehemently attack LRH when DM is mentioned as a bad hat.

        Typically it’s something like “Well DM is just following in LRH’s footsteps and doing what LRH wanted him to do. DM is just following LRH policy.”

        • martyrathbun09

          Yeah, I covered this in the post The Great Middle Path Redux – which you can find on the search feature on this blog.

      • Just think how powerful this church Ser Fac must be to cut so completely across all the dynamics. All of them.

        And cutting across all those dynamics (the drives of the person) consumes such an inordinate amount of the individual’s intention, attention and energy. Wow! That’s a powerful ser fac.

        All of us have lots of ser facs. Or did. I grant that some have gotten rid of most of theirs. We come into this life with a major ser fac driving our purpose. And we accumulate ser facs on various subjects and dynamics, each ser fac having degrees of strength, depending on the confusion, problem, force being solved. You can have little, ittie-bittie ser facs about who gets rights in the parking lot or great big ser facs about how the government should be run.

        But, to have developed a ser fac that trumps them all! Wow, oh wow! A ser fac that trumps your basic purpose in life!

        That’s one powerful mother.

        And if that’s what you’ve been handling on cases, Marty, no wonder people are having such fantastic gains! That’s an incredible amount of force and insanity being released.

        Fair makes me go exterior and makes me body disappear for a couple of moments. Good thing I’ve got some theta dental floss attached to the bottom of me skull or I might not find my way back.

        Michael

    • Scott Campbell

      Bryan,

      I got the exact same reaction when I was in a comm cycle regarding problems in the C of S with a “corporate scientologist” friend of mine at a coffee shop a couple of years ago.

      He asked me, “So are you disaffected with church management?” And I said, “Yes, more specifically David Miscavige’s management of the church.”

      With that, he abruptly stood up and said, “I’m sorry, I’m going to have to disconnect from you.”

      Snapped terminals indeed.

      • martyrathbun09

        Scott, I swear you could get away with ten minutes of natter about LRH and they’d listen to it; then have a psychotic break instantly upon the mention that David Miscavige has got an issue or two.

        • martyrathbun09

          The way to promote Source, is to support the Anti-Source.

          • Nail on Head! HIT!

          • Scott Campbell

            I’ve got other stories of this same indoctrinated “PRO-world” phenomenon swallowed by other Kool-Aid drinkers.

            For example when talking to a public who is a big CCHR supporter and who keeps his comm lines in with OSA, I was told of how the Sainted David Miscavige underwent “over 200 hours of FPRD auditing to ensure that he was totally clean” before going to handle the jury’s $39 million damage award in the lawsuit brought by Julie Christofferson Titchbourne during the Portland Crusade in 1985.

            Total bullshit.

          • Now that sums up the serv fac in question pretty damn well Marty!

          • And everyone wonders what happened to the “Friends of LRH” website? ROFL!!! Talk about flying into the face of the storm! They did… You do!

      • OK. Can someone please explain what a “snapped terminal” is. Sorry, I wasn’t a part of the Ivy League of Auditors.

        Does it mean that two people traded identities?

        Or does it mean that one guy snapped into the valence (character) of another guy?

        Or does it mean that the guy just “snapped” (gone crazy).

        Your help in understanding this is greatly appreciated.

        Ryan

        • The second one Tuning In.

          “Or does it mean that one guy snapped into the valence (character) of another guy?”

        • This may help: (excerpt from)
          SHSBC 59

          QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD: PREHAV, SEC CHECKS, ARC BREAK PROCESS

          A lecture given on 19 September 1961
          [… Snip …]
          “All right. Five years later we find the sergeant wearing his hat. See, we now don’t have any troops. The government has interfered and decided that in view of the fact that we’re getting rid of all the territories and turn the country over to the Ban the Bombers or something like this – in view of that, we don’t have any troops anymore, you see? We just have a skeletal force and the sergeant doesn’t have any troops, but he’s still got Captain Jinks. And this has been going on for about two years. And Captain Jinks says, “Sergeant, stand there,” and the sergeant goes off and wears his hat exactly in the same position and carries his stick in exactly the same position as Captain Jinks. He’s got a stuck flow in exactly the opposite direction. He’s snapped terminals in now to Captain Jinks. You got the idea?
          Just like you had these troops, who themselves never gave any orders, eventually all looking like the sergeant. So now you’d get the sergeant looking like Captain Jinks.”

          [… snip …]

  14. Independent Scientologist (Ron Matlock)

    The last two posts absolutely skyrocketed my understanding of what is going on within the church and the emotional turmoil I was experiencing just before I left last year.

    Thank you!

    Can’t wait to go look at more references on ser facs!

  15. Felicitas Foster

    Thanks, Marty. I always loved this reference and when setting up a PC I took a lot of time to make sure they understand that we were looking for computations. Have them come up with examples, let them demo it, read the computation reference from AP&A etc. When they have it they are toatlly eager to find the exact thing. Pleople will tell you years later how insidious it was and how big of a win they had when they finally found it – and how much their life changed. This is one of the things why it is so much gratifying to be an auditor.
    Thanks again for the perfect analysis and the lay out.

    • martyrathbun09

      Feclitas. Music to my ears. Yes, there is nothing like it when that happens; not even finding and blowing your own.

  16. martyrathbun09

    Don’t take my few hours of silence as lack of interest. I need a break – heading to the boat show to go fantasize for a spell.

    • Scott Campbell

      Knowing you, Marty, you’re fantasies will become realities sooner than later!

      Have fun buddy!

      Scott

  17. Basis of military command structure: Always follow the order of the senior officer in your chain of command.

    Penalties for non-compliance to orders: severe face-rip; court-martial; dishonorable discharge; military execution.

    Of those penalties, the severe face-rip is the one least likely to allow the soldier an opportunity to itsa the situation.

    Enter the Sea Org. LRH, former military, having commanded in extremely dangerous situations where non-compliance to orders could mean death, uses face-rip to get compliance, or just ‘cuz he’s pissed at an outpoint. Those receiving the face-rip cannot itsa the situation at that moment. Maybe later when LRH has a situation satisfactorily resolved, but not during the sit. As time progresses, other martial justice policies enter: courts, com evs, declares, expulsions. Purpose of justice: to get ethics in on an individual (or group) when the individual (or group) has failed to get ethics in on (it)self. Aberrated purpose of justice: to block lines of itsa.

    Stable datum: LRH is always right, LRH is command.
    Junior observation: LRH in a rant. Junior’s itsa cut.
    Safe solution: Be like LRH
    Computation: To survive, you’re always right while anyone junior to you is wrong. Doingness: If an error is perceived, you’ve got to chop up your juniors.

    I’m not commenting on any rightness or wrongness of any rant LRH may have gone on. I’m only commenting on how the adoption of that operating basis can create a contagion of aberration dramatized by the above ser fac computation. The dim one has clearly dramatized his ev purps on this computation.

    • martyrathbun09

      I think anyone who equates pre-1982 with post-1982 either wasn’t around pre-82, has a tremendous inability to differentiate, and/or simply has a below 2.0 agenda.

      • I agree Marty.

        After the coup took over everything changed.

      • There certainly may be a need to differentiate between pre-82 and post-82, but there is also a need to differentiate between the way Ron dealt with a junior and the way many, many stories indicate other execs dealt with their juniors. Stories of Ron being wrathful abound – as do the stories of how he’d come around later to a junior he’d been wrathful to and make the situation OK. That’s the Product Off/Esto system at work, minimally, but Ron’s innate decency and compassion in reality. So differentiate between that and the all too common stories of exec reactions of anger, face-rip, anger, denunciations etc., etc., with no patch-up later. Only severe MUs on the Product Off/Esto system and aberrations drifting down by contagion of aberration make that the stable datum of operation. This psychotic bullshit was a monkey-see-monkey-do behavior that was held in place by the untouchable datum that you couldn’t backflash a senior, no matter how stupid they were being, and if you KR’d an outpoint in a senior you could expect no end of trouble coming back at you.

        Differentiate between what I am saying and someone who is trying to throw LRH under the bus. Whether he was ever wrong in a moment of anger has no bearing on the point. The point in observation is how he handled things later compared to how others handled things later. The dim one is just the stellar example of how bad things can get when that computation gets dramatized.

        • martyrathbun09

          Corporate Scientology is destroying the subject and left unchecked will deny it to future generations. That is the situation I am addressing. That is where my energies have been directed and will continue to to be. Under LRH, Scientology flourished and expanded. It is on a quarter century decline since. Whether some people’s feelings were hurt because of the manner with which they were addressed by a man who was attempting to reverse Earth’s decline with the urgency of a man putting out a house fire does not have a lot of bearing on my mission.

          • “Corporate Scientology is destroying the subject and left unchecked will deny it to future generations. That is the situation I am addressing. That is where my energies have been directed and will continue to to be”.

            Perfect summary of what you are doing, Marty. This should be written, in big letters, under the title of your blog.

  18. I still get a chuckle when I remember one service fac handling years ago. I told my first husband exactly what was wrong with our relationship, and two weeks later in session I spotted that very wording as a major service facsimile. Talk about laughing over your own goofy computation!–that one was a howl!

    • And like most service facsimiles I’ve seen, if you carried the computation to its logical conclusion, there’d be no human race or no planet, whatever. (For instance if someone said, “In order to serve God, we must destroy all people who do not worship the way we do to make them see how powerful he is.” (Sorry, a dead person no longer is capable of seeing anything about God.) That’s what is meant about it being illogical.

  19. Simon Bolivar

    Oh my God, I blew one just reading this🙂
    Years ago I found a computation during an etichs cycle, it broke my case up and since then my life it’s been much better, even my body changed in better and my health was never so good. But now, by God, Marty you explained the WHY Cof$ is so keen on the “the greatest good” one that I always found to be too much. They cover up with it any wrong or bad situation they get into. Robbery, slavery, punching, killing, any overt is minor to their ser fac “greatest good”. My God (again) Hitler is a schoolgirl in confront.

  20. (transcription of executive briefing by COB on rightness)

    RTC
    Office of COB
    Briefing Transcription Dept.

    For Archives Only

    THE SIMPLICITY OF RIGHTNESS

    In HCOB YOU CAN BE RIGHT, the ‘you’ being talked about has to be referring grammatically to someone, so in order to avoid the inevitable potential confusions that arise from the use of small common grammar words, I proclaim myself as the ‘you’ being referred to.

    This should make total sense as not everyone is a ‘you’, otherwise the HCOB would have said “everyone can be right”. No, it says ‘you’. Obviously, YOU are not and cannot be ME so it would be impossible for anyone else other than me to be ‘you’.

    This should provide a needed stable datum and make everything a lot simpler.

    Thank me,
    COB

    COB:DM:dm:d:m

  21. One of the things that really boggled my mine when I began to study the Admin tech was this idea of the 2 to 1 Admin/Tech ratio.

    It never made sense to me and really felt that it was somewhat bureaucratic. When I was in Oslo a couple of weeks ago teaching Yoga, myself and Geir Isene spent a good while talking about this.

    One of the things I noticed at Flag (after I left) was how at the entire Base, maybe 15% of Staff were Auditors/Course Sup’s. Maybe even less, but I really couldn’t tell. This is just a best guess.

    It just seemed that there were WAY more people with yellow and blue shirts and brown pants than those with blue or gray pants.

    My point is this: I think the reason why the Church of $ can dramatize their Service Facsimilies so badly is that there aren’t enough Auditors to call the bullshit when they see it. The majority of the staff doesn’t even know what one is, never mind find one in a PC and run it.

    Obviously, reading this blog, I am aware that the suppression is coming from way up top. But still, they would have a hell of a harder time fooling an org with lets say 50-60% trained and interned Auditors than only 10-15%.

    Not to mention the fact that GI would probably go way up and there would way more theta circulating around the base.

    The main reason why I left the church so quickly was because of my Auditor training. If I had stayed in the HGC, there would be a good chance I would still be at Flag right now trying to “handle” (haha) things. When I started to read and duplicate the Tech, I looked around and was so blown away at how lots of things LRH was saying was being twisted. It was soooooo obvious. You would really have to blind not to see it. Thats when I found this blog and some great Auditors/friends and I was out of the place as fast as my legs could move.

    Peace,

    Brian

    • martyrathbun09

      With all due respect, wrong why in my opinion. Two to one works wonders when you are delivering to humungous amounts of people. In fact, I’d venture it will be quite necessary. I could certainly triple my own tech production with two admin personnel about now.

      • What if you had one admin and another amazing Auditor like yourself? Wouldn’t that be even more production instead of 2 Admin?

        I really liked this post by the way. I don’t think psychology or any other spiritual path has even a clue to what a service fac is. Its really interesting data and I think after reading this post I may have even realized one I had that hasn’t been run.🙂

        I really got a lot out this Marty and will be applying it in some capacity.

        Thx-

        Brian

        • martyrathbun09

          Brian,
          I could double my production and train two more auditors and we could nine x the deliver with two admin personnel. We could exponentially expand continually going 2 to 1. But, we’d probably need to have a great deal of the OEC in practice. We’ll see where things go. I am applying the datum LRH founded the entire subject upon, function monitors structure. We’ll see what structure is required to continue to the expand the function. You may in the end be right. But, my guess is LRH had it right. After all, during his time Scientology expanded so greatly it had a major impact on the world.
          Marty

      • You are right🙂 but Brian was saying that 15% of the staff are auditors and supervisors the other 85% were admin personnel, which is about a 5.6 : 1 Admin / Tech ratio. He was talking about a violation of the 2:1 Admin / Tech ratio policy, and even though he said he had disagreements with the policy, he did not say that the policy was the why for the outnesses he saw.

        • martyrathbun09

          Sorry, I hit reply when I read what I thought was the why finding on 2 to 1 tech/admin ratio.

        • Yes exactly, I was saying that 5 or 6 to 1 ration is the reason why the “church” can dramatize their service facsimilies.

          I agree with Marty as well in terms of his own production too. If he had the personnel to get 2 to 1, then I’m sure he would outproduce Flag.🙂

          -B

    • If you look at the actual policy letter concerning the admin:tech ratio, Ron does not say it has to be exactly 2:1, depending on the size of the group and perhaps some other factors, I don’t have it to hand at the moment. One definition of policy is “what works.” People should be able to perceive what works and see how policy fits and use it in a manner that does work.
      When we started our company we knew about the 2:1 admin to tech ratio, but in the real world of competitive manufacturing, we could not support the staff on that little amount of production. We pushed this the opposite direction and found the limit–that we could go about as high as 1:8 admin to tech and after that there truly was not enough support staff to keep the manufacturing staff going.

  22. Well, this takes me back quite a bit to when I first got into Scientology at the tender age of 20.
    After 25 hours of auditing I joined the Sea Org at Saint Hill UK.
    I had expected an uptone enthusiastic group but instead I found a group rarely above 2.0 on the tone scale.
    In contrast to that I had read all the books on Scientology and saw no possible way that it wasn’t workable.
    My conclusion after a short while was something on the order of “I don’t know wtf is going on here so I’ll keep my head down and go along with things while I figure it out” – yes, a safe solution.
    Then I saw OT7s with Dianetics folders and really started wondering what was happening.
    I observed more and more that the staff had little auditing and were oppressed into inverted dynamics.
    That was years before DM reared his excuse for a head and made matters 20 times worse.
    Flag was full of people walking around living in safe solutions to a dangerous environment.
    Perhaps “Heavy Ethics”, as instituted back in the mid 60s was a 3rd dynamic ser fac and the whole Sea Org was a safe solution?
    Does a religion dedicated to the betterment of mankind really need a para- miliary organization to keep it’s ethics in?

  23. Jethro Is In The Zone

    Several people in RTC/Int Mgmt have made statements such as “David Miscavige IS Scientology” or “David Miscavige is the Pope of Scientology”. These sorts of computations make self right and others wrongs, but more importantly they prevent one from inspecting the actual situation, i.e. the problem has to be elsewhere.

  24. Which brings to the fore an important point. When you watch the Church representatives ranting about this and that. When you see the apologists for the church, you’re not really looking at a being anymore. That’s part of the broken ARC I feel when I’ve watched one of the programs about CofS over the last several years. You’re watching an idea/computation that has supplanted the being. You’re no longer in communication with a being. You’re in communication with an idea that is being dramatized. And that communication with the idea only feeds back the “reality” of that idea–a false reality, a big lie.

    And no matter how much affinity you can generate, you can never fill an idea with more “space” than the idea’s basic structure. All the space of your affinity gets sucked down into that tiny space of the idea/computation.

    The affinity we can generate for another being has no bounds. Nor do the realities shared. Nor the communications originated and received.

    But the computations we witness that have supplanted the being offer no such rewards. Which leaves me experiencing an array of emotions under 2.0–anger and sadness predominating. But also a little fear for the actual being that has been replaced.

    I can’t help but think of how wonderful the beings are behind the computations. About how magnificent beings are when they’ve come to see who and what they are.

    Michael

    • Yes, Micheal,
      I think you understand.
      An OT is someone who is capable of maintaining ARC despite anything.
      As I see it the principle ser facs that have disrupted the progress of Scientology are those that inhibit ARC and make it ok to attack others if they disagree.
      We have had such things as a Class 12 proudly proclaiming that the whole Flag Land Base noticed when he said at “tone 40” “This is the session!” Personally I just say “This is the session” to inform the PC that the session has started. I see no need of using any “Tone 40”.
      I have often succumbed to the temptation to put down other Scientologists over the years. I won’t say that I have fully overcome it but at least I know now that it is not a pro-survival activity.

  25. One of your best post Marty, full of light and
    True. Tku!

  26. The biggest win in disconnecting from the Church is just to comfortably be right. There was a continuous assault, in the Church, on ones rightness and even though I felt I was in so many areas, I would still assert it to myself-OK lets see, I’ve audited all these years, lots of winning PCs and godamnit I’m OK. Now, I don’t even think about being right- it is no longer an issue. And, with real inspection, they are wrong.

  27. Michael Fairman

    I just got around to reading these posts on computations/service facsimiles.
    Woweewowwow! Marty and I handled this in one specific area that 10 years of solo NOTS, eligibilty, FPRD and review auditing made not the slightest dent!

    In simple, easy two way comm we found the computation and goodbye serv-fac. But even more amazing was that the win made it easier to begin looking at other areas (this was after I left Casablanca); and how this service facsimile was running my life across the Dynamics. And yes, kept me in the Church long after I could see things were not right.

    That win continues to propel me into the newly found freedom of my life. It was the crux of why the four days at Casablanca were so fantastic.

    Marty, you the man!

  28. one of those who see

    Marty, I love how you communicate to us about these technical matters. It is a huge win! Really, it’s a big deal to me. And I am trying to determine why. I think it’s that the comm level here is so much higher than in the church. I think I was in mystery alot of the time regarding my auditing.
    These last 2 posts are a definite read again and call a friend.
    “It is a computation that the pc adopted when, in an extreme situation, he felt endangered by something but could not itsa it.” My goodness!

    • Mrs. Friend of Ron

      Ditto One of Those,
      Really BIG DEAL huge wins for me too and many of us I’m sure.
      Comes to mind a former PC of my former org, whom I was trying to procure back in for more auditing. [We HGC auditors there spent more time trying to pull ’em in or back in than we spent auditing. Somehow they weren’t making a bee-line to our door.]
      Anyways, when I spoke to this former PC, she had already made these observations about the out-comm she found in the org. She simply preferred to stay away from the low comm level.

  29. Michael – Your win is awesome! Marty you are awesome!

  30. As an auditor at all grade chart levels for 25 + years, I can attest that Computations/Service Facsimiles is one of the most powerful subjects of LRH’s theory’s. Other than Dianetics, the former mentioned subject of Ser Fac’s is in my opinion- really demonstrates how the thetan/spirit/mind whatever one wants to call it really works.

    Very interesting blog. And BTW, when you L&N Grade IV Comp’s, you will be amazed how the e-meter reacts. Only other comparison is Ned for OTs.

  31. These technical posts will bring indies on up a little higher, to be sure.

    I was intrigued, Marty, by your statements a few posts ago regarding how you experience OT ability simply by getting into the spirit of play.

    Please feel free to share any data on postulates, too, down the line. It seems that I’ve lost reality on a lot of tech due to twenty years in the church. Every time you get a win, you turn around and the reg is standing right there, waiting to catch you.

    Postulates should be simple, with little or no effort, from what I recall. I’m wondering where one can find the best references by LRH on the subject.

    • Bryan, yeah, good idea. Unburdening oneself from non survival computations does wonders for restoring the ability to make postulates stick.

  32. A very important subject Marty as it forms so much of the aberrated interactions on the third dynamic (includes all wars between countries and ethnic and racial problems as well). I was on Level IV in 1972 when I first heard the tape “Rightness and Wrongness.” That lecture made a GREAT impression on. Sometime in 1973 while reading an HCO B, I suddenly flashed on my core service fac. I asked the Sr. CS of our org to take my exam so it would be in my folder. It is still as true for me today as it was then. Largely I stopped having to make others wrong in order to make myself right from that day on. Many times I have written the service fac handling brackets (right/wrong, etc) on a sheet of paper or a napkin and explained human behavior to non-Scientologists. I’ve never gotten a disagreement on this phenomenon. Can you imagine human interactions where folks didn’t have to degrade others in order “to survive better” themselves? Two things any sane group needs to agree on right off the bat. 1) To treat each other with respect and ARC. 2) To NOT dramatize service facs on each other. Which means you don’t have to be wrong for me to be right; you don’t have to succumb for me to survive and I don’t have to dominate you to be a strong being myself.

    • Joe, you are right on the money. It is amazing how prevalent – and easy to spot – they are throughout society and in daily life when you’ve undone your own.

  33. Marty,

    I must “correct” you on a major point here. The Church has not lost the use of Service Fac tech. They still employ it in Reverse Scientology very well.

    You are quite right that in all the years I was in, we never really addressed any Serv Facs ….. until I wanted to route out. Then, a major deal was made out of it in the auditing I was receiving. When sec checking didn’t change my mind, we started the TRD, a big part of which is handling Serv Facs (at least it was based on my experience). The subject was at first fascinating to me and my auditor was very caring in clearing up the LRH on the subject. He really had my attention……until we started to try to run the “serv facs” and “black PR” connected with KR’s I had written on some of the out-tech and off-policy stuff I was seeing. They apparently culled my folders for “enemy lines” and it looks like most of it came from valid factual KR’s I had recently written on the illegal and off-policy antics going on around me. Then, after a couple of sessions of this I blew up stating “Now we’re going to run as black PR and serv facs the subjects of KR’s I wrote???? This is nuts. I held my ground on that one and it was finally dropped.

    So, everything else was “OK”, but my objecting to what I saw and wanting to have nothing to do with it anymore (i.e., wanting to leave) was considered something to be resolved by addressing serv facs. How much more reverse can you get? I guess they figured if they could mis-direct me to “their concept” of what a serv fac was, I would fall into line again. Now that I look at it this very cleverly violates the auditor’s code as it is a subtle form of evaluation. Very insidious. I guess I should be glad I somehow didn’t fall for that or I’d still be there toeing the line. Glad I was too disagreeable to do that. I’m just mentioning this in case this has happened to anyone else in one way or another.

    Hy

    • Hy, You are damn right once again. It doesn’t get any more reverse than that.

    • Hy,

      That’s a pretty good description of what happened to me on the TRD as well except they by passed ser fac handling in my case.

      (Which if you know me is a glaring omission😉 )

    • Sounds like they had uninspected serfacs of their own there. From these posts I gather the CoS is largley running on serfacs at this time.

  34. This is an excellent post Marty. It is a very important subject.

    I have also noticed over the years that when people go up the bridge, a lot of attention is put on stripping Ev Purps and very little on stripping Serv Facs. Serv Facs are a cousin to Ev Purps and are easily mistaken for them. I would often hear people say that some trouble was caused by ev purps, when really it was serv facs. The behavior of OTs that people sometimes complain about comes about from the fact that they had gotten all the way up the bridge and were still using serv facs to control or dominate others. The tendency to unfairly control another, the failure to grant beingness, the repetition of bad behavior, the effort to dominate, and many other things all come from serv facs. In my experience, Scientologists usually aren’t motivated by ev purps, but often use serv facs. Nobody likes to be made wrong, or dominated, or hindered in their survival. It is easy to mistake someone trying to make you wrong for someone trying to destroy you but it is a different mechanism in play.

    An important understanding about serv facs comes from the Justice chapter of Advance Procedures & Axioms. LRH explains that when a person experiences an injustice and is unable to fight back, he forms a serv fac about it. The manifestation of this is that the person holds in place the damage or heavily charged ARCx that he experienced and will not let it go, because letting it go means that the perpetrator would then be ‘getting away’ with the injustice, and he can’t let that happen. Holding in place the grievance would be living proof that what the other person did to him was wrong.

    The hallmark of a serv fac is that the person gets to feel right without actually being right by getting a right result in an area. In other words, there is no reality check on what the person is doing, and bad results never demonstrate to the person that what they are doing doesn’t work. The person damages himself and causes himself great stress by doing this, but it is more of a priority to him that justice is done, and that is how he does it. The extreme example would be someone killing himself to prove that someone did him wrong. But a person dramatizing a serv fac is killing himself and his dynamics to one degree or another. It does tie in somewhat to an O/W phenomenon, but it doesn’t really resolve by pointing out to the person that he has overts and that is why he feels that way. That just makes him mad.

    Ultimately, all of these things lead back to GPMs. That’s why on the Ls, as soon as a computation or ev purp surfaces, it is immediately addressed. At the beginning of the bridge, the HCOB ‘You Can Be Right’ is a great tool to use.

    The Church in recent decades has specialized in treating people unfairly in small and large ways, and correctly applied justice has been completely missing from the scene for decades. Since people tend to generalize these injustices, they may believe that they are being made wrong by ‘The Tech’, or by ‘LRH’ or by ‘The Church’, and want to, in turn, make these things wrong. But those items are generalities and don’t really blow the charge. So then you get something like someone wanting to make LRH wrong, for example, and someone else feels this is an injustice and wants to make that person wrong for making LRH wrong. Then you get these right/wrong wars. But if you look a little past the rants, you can see the deep suffering that underlies it. And if you notice, people who rant don’t really get relief from ranting either.

    So this is why I say that this is such an important topic, and why it was so good for Marty to put a spotlight on this very underused tech. The application of this tech allows people to let go of the injustices that they have endured and to get back on track. It is not an exaggeration to say that relieving these serv facs enables the person to get his life back.

    The sense of relief that people experience from finding and blowing them can be spectacular.

    • Brilliant Trey. Thanks for pointing out the injustice factor. You have hit on the precise matter that re-kindled my purpose to apply Scientology again. The first Scientologists I met after my three years in the figurative wilderness had suffered the worst kind of injustice and had ultimately decided all about Scientology and LRH was bad. I tried to argue that it wasn’t the tech that had made them suffer, it was the fact that they were not SPs in the first place. On further contemplation of their situation I recognized it could never resolve along that line because there was no justice in Corporate Scientology. The last time there was a semblance of it – and even then it was only selectively available to those who were willing to compromise and agree to all manner of arbitrary behaviors – was the late eighties. There was no means for them to resolve the injustice with TRUTH, at least within the Corporate Scientology realm. By the late nineties it was virtually impossible to receive a comm ev in the church that was not already rigged to have a pre-determined result. This is no generality. And that makes the church of Scientology a proverbial service facsimile factory. So, the datum you have contributed to this discussion opens a wide door.

      You’ve hit on something else significant while you were at it. No amount of O/W handling will do a blessed thing against a Service Facsimile. Similarly, nor will FPRD, the handling of evil purposes and other non-survival considerations. Fact of the matter is, and I’ve seen this with my very eyes over and over again, the more FPRD the more solid and intractable can become the Service Facsimiles.

      As far as GPMs are concerned, in my view GPMs are created by service facsimiles. But now I’m getting into chicken and egg talk. Fact of the matter is, wherever one is on the Bridge – preferably Grade IV or above – service facsimiles (and all the stored confusion, mass and energy (whether you call them GPMs or no) surrenders to the simplicity of Service Facsimile technology.

      Thanks again.

      • Thank you so much Trey for this wonderful comment about justice and Marty for beginning this discussion.

        Lest we be short sighted and think only IN and around scientology does this type of injustice and subsequent suffering occur – let me assure you that in the oft-misunderstood buddhist communities – sec facs run WILD.

        Until this thread, I was bereft about certain situations wherein a long term meditator/student of the dharma would act/behave in a rude, no personality, no care fashion.

        I would go up against this is a caring way, in a yelling way, in ANY way to try try try to get through — and injustice would rein, most times.

        This has opened the door for me.

        AND LO and BEHOLD — I have a scant few of my vast scientology library but one I’ve held onto for all these years is “Advanced Procedures and Axioms.

        Thank you so much — you’ve both brightened my day!!

        Love,
        WH

        • martyrathbun09

          WH, If you need a Bridge over to using LRH, because of the way Scientology Inc has laid waste to his legacy, I have a suggestion. Don Miguel Ruiz’s The Four Agreements. He touches on the phenomena. Of course he has no solution beyond letting go of the need to be right, it may serve as a good segue and authority tag to introduce LRH’s work into the subject of solutions.

          • Thanks Marty. I’ll relook at Don Miquel – in part the problem is some feel they have a complete handle on what the Buddha said and pick and chose. The fact that he had apparently 84,000 teachings escapes them.

            What was helpful to me in this whole thread is that “arguing” with them is completely pointless. Duh … but it had escaped me. I naively thought that well – here are some people who are studying what I’m studying and therefore we should be able to COMMUNICATE.

            Not so much. Was heartbreaking and maddening to me.

            Now — it’s much easier to cope with.

            I’ll share a great little story a dear friend shared with me in a different post.

            Thanks Marty.

            WH

      • I agree Marty,

        The way they currently run FPRD which is now according to some drill they tend to by pass tons of BPC on ser facs because they do not handle them like we used to when the RD was first released.

        Also Ron says on various SH lectures that the ser fac is the two top RIs on the PT GPM.

        Also note as well that R3SC stands for Routine 3 Service Fac *Clearing* and at on time was considered an OT process.

    • WOW Trey!!!
      You are a man of few words…but when you cut loose its a real humdinger!
      Brilliant!

    • Exteriorized out of something

      Wow. I’n blowing charge. This post and your comment made me want to go in session again. This piece of tech can resolve my current issues and give me my life back. I think I need to get a “repair” from all the out-of-session auditing I’ve had. There’s hope. So spot on I feel the read without the meter. This indicated.

    • I agree Trey,

      Personally I think Grade IV is a very underrated grade and is the one most likely By Passed in most cases.

      This is why you see “OTs” running around making themselves right and others wrong.

  35. Theo sismanides

    Marty you just nailed it!! Not on computer now but just wanted to say that this is it! That’s what i wanted. More and more Tech. Wonderful just wonderful, man. We bring it to a new level!!!!

  36. Jonathon Barbera

    (1991)
    My first auditing session while in the Church of Scientology was on the final process from Grade IV (Service Fac handling).

    I experienced strange phenomena during session and the process was ended abruptly.

    I told the Examiner that I felt strange. PC Folder red-tagged. First C/S 53 indicated out-int.

    Only Class V Grad available was the C/S. She took me into session and asked point-blank if I had exteriorized. I told her no because I didn’t know what had happened during that session. (Still don’t.)

    Second and third C/S 53s indicated out-int. No repairs recommended.

    (1993)
    I returned to the Sea Org during the IRS’ Victory General Amnesty.

    PC folder containing first three C/S 53s lost “up-lines”.

    Fourth and fifth C/S 53s indicate “gone past Dianetic Clear” even though I had yet to run a single engram.

    Within weeks of being told I was already Clear, I was declared a SP.

  37. Hopefully this is enough on the subject to not obscure Marty’s and others comm about ser fac and how helpful this whole thread is.

    Recently I had quite an upset with a member of my buddhist community. I shared this upset with a dear friend, who rather than agree/disagree or add fuel to my “righteously indignant” fire she wrote me this:

    “A teacher tells a story of a student who had something very unpleasant said to him by another community member.  His wise teacher said when that happens – someone has shot an arrow at you and it falls at your feet.  If you then freak out, it means that you’ve picked up the arrow at your feet and started to stab yourself in the heart.”

    This was so perfect for me as I tend to take those arrows and just stab myself without mercy and the pain is terrible🙂

    Rather than just let the arrow rest where it fell. At my feet.

    A ser fac of mine appears to be in the neighborhood of “if I can get everyone utterly pissed off at me, I’ll prove how correct I’ve been”.

    Or something of that nature. Much better to let the arrows stay on the ground.

    Love,
    WH

    • WH — A beautifully written comment and nice parable to illustrate a fundamental truth.

      After reading this source reference which is the blog topic, and all the comments, I then came to Trey’s comment as well as Marty’s response. Then, the parable you communicate.

      Yes, I agree, it’s good to let those arrows lay where they may fall. I, personally, have had many arrows loosed in my direction. One thing I have found quite effective is to leave the shooter of the arrow in the very position from which the shooter has shot. That way I always know where the shooter is and what the shooter is doing or is liable to do. The arrow doesn’t hurt at all as long as I don’t pick it up and do something (anything) with it. It is the shooter who will get his comeuppance in the overall scheme of things, especially if it is an incorrectly loosed arrow. Otherwise, we get on with better things and move on up a little higher!

      Really love your comment … as I think you can tell. So much thanks … Hallelujah!

  38. Thanks Marty and everyone else for this communication. This has been one of the most enlightening and educational threads for me personally to date. I am quite honestly blown away; I’ve had mega-big questions answered here that have lingered since the mid-70s. Wow puts it mildly.

    Tom

  39. What a great two posts, Marty, about a subject that is the CORE of the tech.

    I am extremely fortunate to have had excellent training at a young age, before the stress of being on staff and dealing with the “blow-back” from Miscavige started hitting me in the face. No matter what anyone said about Ron, or “The Tech,” or Scientology, or Scientologists, I had this core of knowledge to keep me sane. And, I never accepted Ron only on his word (and of course, he never asked me too). I always reevaluated my involvement with the Church and with the subject. I always questioned its validity. Why? Because Christians “know” Christ is the Savior. Mormons “know” the Book of Mormon is real. Scientists “know” all is based on Matter. Psychologists “know” our actions are based on brain chemistry and natural selection. How could I be so lucky to have landed in a family that were Scientologists and “luck” into Scientology?

    So, it goes back to what I KNOW is true, and most of which is ONLY in Scientology. The paramount of those things is the Service Facsimile and the mechanics surrounding it.

    Service Facs are real. Dale Carnegie’s excellent book “How to Win Friends and Influence People” is a manual in how to get around other people’s Ser Facs and get along. Lots of people outside Scientology can explain the symptoms of a Ser Fac, but I have never seen the anatomy of one outside Scn.

    Service fac technology is incredible. This whole “thought-stopping” phenomena is really Ser Facs as described in the HCOB above.

    I had a single Ser Fac handled on my Grade IV (back when Ser Facs were run triple-flow – that was a trip!🙂 ), which was phenomenal and changed my life. I had a great auditor (I was on student auditing at ASHO, and my auditor was a close-to-graduating pre-Class VI), and she did a perfect L&N to get the exact Ser Fac. Magic. Truly magic.

    When I was on the BC, I studied, of course, the HCOB above and the tapes referenced and AP&A – the whole thing. In going through all this, I was doing demos to get some mass on it. I started demoing, and… lo and behold, demoed one of my own! Needless to say, a lot of charge blew and I was laughing pretty hard – and trying not to disrupt the theory room at the same time! More demos, more ser facs. More charge blown. It was a hell of an experience.

    Thanks again for spot-lighting this tech, and for showing how, once again, the CofM has abandoned LRH. Service Facs are real, and the information on how to work with them is real, too.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks a lot GH.

    • Marty, What Grasshopper said!

      Since I read the first post on Serfacs and the comments, some things in my life have changed for the better. Along with the shift in my viewpoint there has been an improvement in the way my wife and son regard me – they seem to be finding it easier to communicate with me.

      I think it’s because I am safer to communicate with because I am holding fewer counter-intentional considerations up against them.

      Thanks for posting the data! This blog has helped me a lot, but this was a major deal, these posts on Serfacs.

  40. A while back I had the thought that if “I decided” then “no one could ever commit an overt on me.” It was such a revivifying concept I found immense application for it. Every time I felt a pang of upset in life I realized I allowed that datum to drop out again. At CAUSE, one could never have an overt committed against them. I guess that is similar to the arrow Buddhist story above. It definitely ties into Serv Facs, IMHO. This has been one of the best blogs yet. They are all quite enlightening getting the multiple viewpoints from all of you fine individuals. This is refreshing in the extreme as with in the C of $ there was but one permitted viewpoint that everyone had to align with that no one dared to counterman. I now know it wasn’t LRH’s. Ahemmmm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s