6309C25 SHSpec-310 Summary II: Scientology 0

     [Note: Summary I was probably 6306C19 SHSpec-276 "Summary of Modern
Auditing", pp. 421-423, above.]

     In the material covered since 24Ju163, plus CCH's and touch assists, we
have basically all the material in scientology.

     Every level of scientology contains, in vignette, all the levels of
scientology.  Scientology 0 deals with the problems, confusions, and
wrongnesses of existence, with the identification of those zones of chaos,
falsity, and upset.  People go around thinking that healing, including mental
healing, is all solved.  Scientology 0 points out that they are unsolved
areas.  This level is easy to work with, because all you have to do is to find
falsities and wrongnesses.  It is a matter of degree how much you reveal and
point out.  You don't want to open up too much Scientology 0 too fast.  This
requires judgment.  It is a level that has no TA in it, unless you talk about
false solutions.  It is better to talk about solutions than problems.  Don't
imply that there are only problems.  This gives the audience no TA.  The last
stable datum anyone can get in is a tolerance of a terrible condition.  It is
best to talk about false solutions, but this is Scientology I.  Scientology I
gets the false solutions off.  Scientology 0 just recognizes existing chaos.
A typical question on Scientology 0 would be, "Do you find your home noisy? Do
you like your job?" The idea is to give the person the idea that his life
might be better.  That is the sole therapeutic action of Scientology 0:  hope,
instilled by identifying problems and giving a faint hope for change.  This is
quite workable.  This level says:

     1. There is a problem.

     2. Maybe something can be done about it (hope factor).

A view of Scientology 0 is a view of the world as it exists.  We need this, as
a legitimate level of inspection.

     Scientology 0 is in processing, to the extent that, in order to find a
service fac, you have to find what problems the PC has.  That is the
Scientology 0 factor, at that level.  A little of this goes a long way.

     In all auditing, you have to keep the H-factor in.  Scientology 0 is very
acceptable on a public level, if you keep it very mild, as far as the degree
of hope you offer is concerned.  If someone comes in with all sorts of
problems, take only one and tell him that maybe you can do something about
it.  Pick out some small possible gain and put some hope in on it.  A person
can have this.  He can give up just a little of his service fac, so this gets
around the service fac a little.  Don't promise the sun and the moon.  That is
too much.  It is unacceptable. It threatens his service fac.  So what you've
got to do is to take one thing and put in a very little hope.  That is
acceptable.  That is confrontable.  You have to judge what is confrontable,
and give him neither too much nor too little.

     If you ever gave somebody a drill on Scientology 0. you would give him a
long list of confusions and have him pick out the one or ones that people
could confront.  There always something that you can get a PC to confront, on
any dynamic.  The trick is that there is something to be done about any
condition, that the person can do.  The elements of hope are:

     1. There is something that can be done about it.

     2. There is something that you can confront and do about it.

In processing, if the PC gets in trouble, just getting him to tell you about it can raise his tone level, because that is doing something about it.  In Scientology IV, never force the PC forward.  If the hill is too steep, don't push.  Be willing for the PC not to do it.  But at Scientology 0, find something that a person can do and get him to do it.  Remember gradients when giving advice to people.  If you advise people this way, your advice will be followed, and you will win.  Don't ever suggest that they do something that they "know" "can't be done".

     Nobody ever gives anybody anything they can do, in social work.
Consequently, you get socialism and total indigence.  And you get social
workers who go terribly downtone, because they have given the client an
overwhelm and ARC broken him by telling him something that he knows can't be
done, because of some stable datum that he has adopted.

     At Scientology 0, it doesn't matter if you put the itsa line in or he
does.  Even in R3SC, you can offer things to the PC that you noticed had
gotten TA and run them.  They may be quite confrontable things and therefore
not really the service fac, but you could get TA running them.  A person who
can only confront getting mad at the auditor, can confront getting mad at him
because he is the person's best friend.  This is the secret of the ARC breaky
PC.  He is ARC broken in the world at large, and it is safe to get mad at the
auditor.  People may get mad at their friends, because that is all that is
safe.  [Perhaps marital squabbles exist by virtue of this mechanism.] The
Scientology 0 aspect of existence is that you don't tell people about problems
that you know are unreal to them, that they can't do anything about, and
expect them to be enthusiastic about doing something about them.  People
aren't even capable of observing an existing condition.  They destroy one's
stable datum that "seeing is believing", or that if people just saw something
with their own eyes, they would believe.  They don't even see.  That's the
trouble.  Don't ever bother to try to prove anything to a person with a fixed
idea in an area.  Even if he sees it, he won't believe it.  There is no
ability to observe.  There is only a generality or service fac, instead of
observation and judgment.  This person is incapable of asking, "What is the
situation?" The easiest thing to relay, then, is an idea that doesn't violate
the reality and confront level of the person who is receiving it.  If he can't
look, he can get something trustworthily looked at.

     Someone who can confront only in a small area will be able to be
effective only within that area.  When his confront comes up, he will get
larger problems to handle.  He will solve these problems, if they are the real
problems, and not some lower-scale mockery.

     To have real justice, you have to have the real situation actually looked
at, as unbiasedly as possible. If all during your career in this universe you
had only operated on the real facts, you would be in fine shape.

     If you are going to have a group operate on any cleared level, you've got
to take the service fac out of the group, as far as you can.  The
characteristics of a service fac are:

     1. Non-observation

     2. A generality substituting for judgment.

You can't utterly remove those on an absolute basis from all situations
everywhere, but you can go a long way in this direction.

The formula for successful handling of a case or of a third dynamic is:

     1. What is the situation:

     2. What part of it is potentially confrontable?

     3. What part of that can someone actually do something about?

Neglect of this can give you case failures.  That is the usual reason for case
failure:  Someone made an inadequate observation of the confusions of the case
and didn't handle the case on the basis of what the auditor and PC could
confront.  The auditor should look over two aspects of a case:

     1. Problems and difficulties that he can see in the case.

     2. The ones the PC can see.  These are often quite different.

There is a certain level of PC difficulties that the auditor thinks is
confrontable, and then there is what a PC thinks is confrontable.  If the
auditor pays no attention to the PC's view of problems and difficulties, he
will have some loses.  There is also the question of what the auditor can
confront about the case, vs.  the PC's view of what part of his problems, as
he sees them, he can confront.  Then there is also the level of doingness the
auditor can confront and the PC's idea of what he can do about those
difficulties he can confront.

     Thus there are six factors in the auditor-PC relationship at Scientology
0:

     1. Difficulties the PC is in that the auditor can perceive.

     2. What the auditor can confront.

     3. What the auditor is capable of doing about it.

     4. The PC's estimation of his difficulties.

     5. Which difficulty is confrontable for him?

     6. What is he willing to do about it?

You can get case failures by mis-estimation of any one of these.  This becomes
quite important when you can't get TA action.  Then a little discussion with
the PC can be very enlightening.

     The greatest use of this survey is in odd advices to PCs.  Advice is
something we ordinarily ignore because of fear of evaluating.  But Scientology
0 is the level of giving advice.  Using the above survey would make you a very
successful advisor, whose advice would always be followed:

     1. Get an estimation of the problem situation.

     2. Find what part, no matter how small, he could confront.

     3. Get what of that he can do something about.

     4. Get what he could do about that.

     5. Tell him to do it.  When you find out what the PC can do, be militant
        about his doing it.

He will think you are a genius.  But you are just getting him to actually
estimate the situation and do what he thinks he can do about it.  When someone
acts on that, he gets a larger reality, more confront, etc.  The cycle can be
repeated, after being successful once.  The only difficulty is that PCs'
confidence can rise faster than their real doingness.  Sometimes PCs
overestimate their confront ability, so undercut what they think they can do.
Just get them to do that point that they can do, and you will have agreement,
because you haven't told them anything that they think is false.

     Scientology 0 is the level at which one gets an estimation of the case or
situation.  If you can get the other guy to estimate the situation, you seldom
have to.  Scientology 0 deals with confront.  Life is successfully lived with
Scientology 0 well in.  You probably came downscale just because it was out.