6308C27 SHSpec-299 Rightness and Wrongness

     People use mental technology the way they do, in this universe, because
they don't know what they are doing.  The purpose of mental technology must be
one of survival, with a consequent necessity to dominate, so it must consist
of being right and [making others] wrong.  Survival, rightness and wrongness,
and domination fit together.  Apparent contra-survival actions are the
thetan's effort to be right.  This is the lowest ebb of aberration, because
the thetan can't do anything else but survive.  In order to survive, you have
to be more right than wrong, so you get obsessed with being right.  The
beginning of succumb is the recognition that you are wrong.  This is not
sensible, but it is the way a thetan behaves.  Therefore, if an individual is
surviving at all, he must be right, even if it is only an insistence on being
right.  A = A = A.  If an individual is undertaking an action and is
surviving, then it must be a right action.  A thetan has to enter a basic lie
on the scene to worry about his survival.  This is idiocy, because there is no
reason for a thetan to worry about survival.  A thetan first worries about the
survival of something else -- something that can be threatened with
non-survival.  Then the thetan identifies himself with that thing.  This is
the first lie.  When he starts worrying about his own survival, because he has
taken the idiotic step of identifying himself with his creations, he enters
into the necessity to dominate to ensure his own survival.  There is no reason
why, if you are protecting sand castles, you have to take the idiot step of
becoming a sand castle, and you can go on protecting them indefinitely without doing this.  But once you have identified yourself with a sand-castle and are worried about your own survival, you enter into the necessity to dominate to continue your own survival, to be tougher than the other tough boys on the beach.

     You don't even have to become a sand-castle to start the game of
domination, if that is what you want to do.  The game of domination consists
of being right and making the other fellow wrong.  That is all there is to
it.  It's a silly game, really.  For instance, Russia and the U.S. are each
devoting so much of their production capacity to defend themselves from each
other that they are failing, economically.  People justify all sorts of
insanity on the basis of rightness and wrongness.  Even a skid-row bum is
being a bum in order to be right.  Everyone has tried to make him wrong for
what he does, so he has to continue to be right.  If he admits he is wrong,
[he feels] he will die.  You may be confused, just watching what is being
done, because some of it could have good results, but the basis can still be a
nutty rightness.  People assert nutty rightness, because everyone is always
making then wrong for the nuttiness.  If someone agrees that he has been doing
something wrong, he is liable to collapse, since he has identified wrongness
with succumbing.

     Behavior doesn't necessarily have everything to do with the whole track.
Behavior is behavior.  People have tried to aberrate it one way or another.
They have tried to make people behave some other way, but the science of life
still remains the science of life.  The factors of life still remain the
factors of life, and if you were to delete all the GPM's and incidents and
everything else, you would not have removed the basic laws on which
scientology is built.  GPM's, etc., merely use the existing laws of life to
enslave people.  They simply enforce, exaggerate, and destroy freedom of
choice over the exercise of the ability to be happy, powerful, etc.  They
destroy the ability to be self- or pan-determined.  They make people one-sided
about everything.  They use basic laws, unwittingly, to exaggerate certain
things, which then lead a person to enslave himself.  The basic mechanism of
enslavement is:

     1. Insistence upon surviving, followed by

     2. The necessity to dominate, followed by

     3. The necessity to be right or wrong,

     4. Which then becomes as irrational as the original postulate to survive,
        and then

     5. The person becomes more and more degraded.

The postulates made by the individual go downhill to the point where you would
be amazed at what the individual is doing to be right.

     When you get down to very aberrated rightness, you are dealing with
death, because at that level, cessation of survival is so imminent that it
gets dramatized before it happens.  In that way, the individual is still right
by succumbing.  Currently, there are three organizations under attack:

     1. Scientology.

     2. Buddhism.

     3. Theosophy.

The U.S. government is supporting the Vietnamese government in its attacks on
Buddhists; it has attacked the Theosophists recently, and it launched a raid,
via the FDA, on the FCDC, in Washington.  But these are the only three groups
that believe in reincarnation, i.e. they are the only groups that don't
believe in death forever.  In attacking them, the U.S. government is asserting
a rightness about death.

     To get some sort of aberrated behavior of this kind straightened out with
someone, you would have to get him to tell you how the behavior makes him
right.  You would get an automaticity for starters, which would finally run
out.  Then you could see how it makes someone else wrong.  When that is all
run out, the individual will have far less inclination to do the behavior that
he previously had to do to be right.  The strongest intention in the universe
is the intention to be right.  The diagnosis of how you could make a person
wrong depends on what that person most insists upon.  That is what you can
make him wrong on.  [This would be getting a person's goat.] Behavior doesn't
consist of an aberration that someone is dramatizing.  It consists of an
aberration that a person dredges up in order to make someone else wrong.
That's behavior:  It works, too.  Making someone wrong all the time does worry
him.  Furthermore, one can be made wrong to the point where one inverts, goes
into agreement with what is being said by the person who is making him wrong,
and now makes the former wrongness an obsessive rightness.  The "right" label
gets identified with the wrong action.  A government may be made wrong about
bringing in law and order, to the point where it now exercises criminality,
using the label of law and order.

     The issue of rightness and wrongness has been further booby-trapped by
guys on the whole track who implanted people with GPM's that contain the
words, "right" and "wrong".  However, when making himself right and others
wrong, an individual is not acting because of the GPM.  That just intensifies
the action.  If you try just simply to run someone on right and wrong for very
long, you run into the GPM and can't keep on in that line, ordinarily.
Getting in an itsa line on the aberration will de-intensify its power,
however.

     If a guy has accidents frequently:

     1. Find out what he is having (wrecks, accidents, injuries, etc.).  This
        doesn't take very long.  You have to isolate what it is that the guy
        is doing.  The obvious action may not be his intention.  Maybe it is
        not his automobile accidents that are making him right.  Maybe it is
        getting injured.  When you have the right thing, he will run easily.

     2. Ask the PC how (an auto accident) makes him right.  You will get an
        easy itsa line.

     3. Ask him how (an auto accident) would make them (or another) wrong.
        You will get another avalanche.

     4. Ask (2) again, then (3), etc.  Keep it balanced, and you will avoid
        bumping the GPM as hard.

     This process is below the level of recognition or cognition.  It
undermines neurosis.  Neurosis is defined as an anti-survival action that is
compulsively undertaken by the individual.  The only qualification to this
process is that we have to be capable of communicating with the person and
listening to him. And we have to get our hands on him first.  But on a
cold-bloodedly practical basis, service fac processes are a more practical
mental technology than the alternatives: implants, drugs, electric shock
treatments, etc., just because of the backlash from angry thetans who want
revenge on implanters.  The hole in implanter tech is that the survival of the
implanter can, in the future, be threatened.  Implants can be undone.  Many
implant set-ups have been destroyed.  Implanters do implanting because they
are trying to be right and to make others wrong.  That's all.  It is a mere
dramatization.  When you see someone acting simply to be right and to make others wrong, you will see a worsening condition.  You are looking at the last dregs of domination. The person who is being "right" is, in fact, getting worse, as are the people in his vicinity.  Implanting works only over a short-term period, e.g. 100,000 years, which is short-term, on a galactic scale.  Implanting worsens not only the people implanted, but also the implanter and everyone in the vicinity of these people.

     What is true of neurosis is also true of psychosis.  Psychosis has the
same mechanism at a lower level, and it gets treatment from psychiatrists at
the same low level of make-wrong and Q and A.

     The overt-motivator sequence also fits into this effort to dominate and
be right.  When you get two people, each insisting on his own rightness, their
ideas eventually commingle, and they can't tell who is doing what.  This is
because both are saying, "I'm right and you're wrong."

     If a "science" is dramatizing an unknown one of its parts, it is not a
complete technology.  It is impossible to have a science of life under these
circumstances because you can't fully understand something that you are
dramatizing a part of.  A science of life should be a complete understanding,
and since one is dramatizing at least a part of living, one can't have a total
understanding of it.  [In other words, "being right" should be one of the
parts of a mental technology.  However, if "being right" is being dramatized
by the practitioners of a mental technology, then clearly they don't have full
understanding of the mind.] This is a particular problem with the science of
life.  Hence there is a tendency to withdraw from life.  A total cessation of
the dramatization of the game called "life" would put one in a confused state
of thinking that the way to do it is to separate oneself from life by going
off to a cave and meditating.

     But a person that can't experience easily has to experience,
compulsively.  The final challenge of a science of life is, "Does it produce
life?", not "Does it produce death?"  If you know all the answers, you can
live.  It is remarkable to be in a situation where this can be sorted out.  As
one goes along, getting more understanding, one doesn't have to work so hard
to experience existence; one doesn't have to be convinced that one is
surviving, being right, dominating, etc.  When a person is no longer able to
select his own behavior, he must obsessively be right by doing something
wrong.  It is OK to be right, if you are being analytical.

     However, there is a level at which rightness and wrongness cease to be
analytical and become obsessive.  It is below that level that we speak of
aberration.  You can find what the person is doing that he doesn't like to do,
then ask the person how that makes him right.  Everyone has a few of these
actions.  They generally arise from some overwhelm of the person's
self-determinism, where he has accepted another's rightness.  The person is
out of valence and dramatizing someone else's aberrations.  [You could perhaps
pick this up on Flow One of Level 4 triples.] But we aren't interested in
other people's aberrations.  The dwindling spiral is really entered where the
person accepts inability, weakness, stupidity, etc., as a way to be right.
Any dramatization of mental science that brings about further disability is
wrong for the civilization that uses it.  Anything that brings about more
life, livingness, and beingness is right for that person or society.

     Anything that is crazy in a person was OK at some higher level.  All
madness is an exaggeration of some ability or capability.  For instance sexual
misbehavior is a lower-scale dramatization of the ability to create.  It
becomes aberrated in the following way:

     1. It was really right.

     2. It was a method of survival.

     3. It was a method of domination.

     4. It was a method of being right in order to make others wrong.

     5. Then one got enough overts such that the communication line switched
        around.  What was right about it is now wrong about it, and vice
        versa.

The sexual misbehavior or other aberrated behavior is practically
unrecognizable from its [original] state, as far as the person's behavior is
concerned.  When you understand this, you understand much of the nonsense that
you previously only protested against.  The explanation for the behavior that
is offered by the individual so obscures what he is really doing that it gets
confusing.  The main line of human behavior is along the lines of:

     1. Survival.

     2. Domination

     3. Rightness and wrongness.

However, when an auditor invalidates another's assertion of rightness, it only
drives the PC downscale and cuts the only communication line that can help the
PC.  "A dramatization of rightness and wrongness is not the answer to a
dramatization of rightness and wrongness."