International Viewpoints (IVy), Issue 35 - January 1998
By Ray Kemp, USA
An Understanding of the Saga of Princess Diana
"If one fails to use his technology in every-day life one can become too enturbulated to do one's job" Taken from an LRH Lecture.
FIRSTLY LET ME say that I am by choice a Royalist, and nothing here will be intended as a criticism of Princess Diana. However, tragic as the recent events were, if one is to gain a better understanding, then emotional reaction must be put aside, and the observed public hysteria must be recognized for what it is. By the way, grief is also an effort to reverse time, and sometimes that effort is an effort to lessen overts or unkind thoughts.
Diana was from the start a person in need of help. Such help as only a trained Counselor could have given. She was, to say the least, a neglected child, born into a dysfunctional family, in a section of society where it would seem that dysfunction is the norm.
Like everyone else she had a "case", and, like everyone else, this case controlled her life, her actions, and her outlook.
As to the details of that case, without actually auditing her we can never be sure of its details, but some
aspects, some vital aspects are, and were observable.
The "coy" look, out of the corner of her eyes for example, is seen in cases where the reactive bank masses are carried in front of her body -- in order to communicate she was, apparently trying to look around those masses. (see Scientology 0-8 for this phenomenon).
She was bolemic, and herein lies the biggest clue. Bolemia as a condition carries with it certain syndromes. Firstly there is a Havingness problem. Just as an alcoholic "can't have" alcohol -- they have to hide it or get rid of it, and do so by putting it inside the body. So too a bolemic can't have food. The solution there is broadly speaking, to eat (hide) it, and then regurgitate it to get rid of it. The bolemic condition is actually one manifestation of a "can't have" condition.
Everyone has a level of acceptance of mass, and significance. Too much, or too little, being outside these self-established (by Bank), parameters, falls into the "can't have" area. Money, love, affection, clothes, condition of physical items around one, all are monitored by the individual's level of Havingness. Couple this with a person's level of self-esteem or self-worth, and you start to get an overall "personality", which is what the O.C.A., (now O.P.A) graph is targeting to indicate.
In Diana's case, look at what her can't-have levels affected: Clothes, food, affection, men, sex, self discipline, life style, marriage.
What she could have is equally obvious -- children, and in her upbringing of these boys, she showed remarkable talent, and great wisdom.
Her bolemia, being seemingly totally ignored, or made nothing of, drove her already shaky self-esteem further down-tone, provoking emotional instability and even apparent near suicide attempts, and a disastrous marriage. She changed in the later years, so what happened?.
Well there lives in Canada another remarkable woman who has been pioneering work on "Eating Disorder Patients".
Her approach, and highly successful it has been, is to recognize the underlying lack of self-esteem, the constant
need for re-assurance, and the need to constantly, as she puts it, "touch, hug, and love" the patient.
The physical techniques including constant validation and hugging, is of course a form of repairing Havingness. Non-critically, I did not see any evidence of a full "Remedy of Havingness" which in our profession would be the ideal scene and goal of therapy.
However this Canadian lady did contact and treat Diana, and certainly improved or handled her bolemia and this of course would, and I am sure did, raise her self-esteem.
However there is still the question of her level of Havingness. Her life then became involved with others who were victims of low self-esteem; sick kids, the homeless, AIDs sufferers, land mine victims -- in every case people with low and damaged levels of Havingness. And her interface with them is also interesting...in every case we see her hugging, touching, giving physical contact, all being basic Havingness not only for the victims, but for herself.
In her "love life" we see the same actions, touching, hugging etc. indicative of constant repair of a lack of Havingness condition, yet nothing that could be called remedy. Her men very soon were dropped off or cast away. The life she wanted was outside her levels of Havingness.
The public's havingness
The public in general blame the Paparazzi, and certainly the latter, for the most part are despicable in their
activity, but again one has to realize that they are trying to deliver what the public want, and what the public
want, is an indication of what the public level of Havingness is, too.
Diana's death is a great loss -- especially to the children, but a lesson can be learned here. One's reactive mind can and does rule, and ruin the lives it is connected to.