From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 1 - May 1991
The Black Panther Mechanism: A Dangerous Omission
By DA PROFESSOR, USA
[[FOOTNOTE]]From "The Heretic", Issue 12, May 31, 1987. Earlier in the
history of "The Heretic" policy was that all authors used pseudonyms.
This was possibly because active free scientologists in the USA were
more subject to attacks and embarrassemnts from the church than has been
the case in Scandinavia. Ed. [[I later found out that it was to avoid
people prejudging the article because they knew (good or bad) about the
author. Ant 3.sept.94]]
One possible explanation for the Church's persistent world view of US
vs. THEM, borne out by continual attacks, etc. when TRs and ARC would
handle most situations, can be found in the Tech Dictionary under "Black
Panther Mechanism," which outlines the possible methods for coping with
the environment.
Anything that prevents Gus from getting upstairs can, by this
definition, only be handled by attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb.
While this certainly is quite an improvement over the psych's "fight or
flight" response, it still is missing vital viewpoints.
The selection of "a particularly black-tempered black panther" as a
model and placing him in the artificial environment of a home obscures
other options. Just in case the Gentle Reader might try to think up any
other option, the definition goes on to say: "All actions can be seen to
fall within these courses." Where some see only problems, others see
solutions or opportunities.
I propose a new name and definition.
"The Grey Wolf Options": There are several ways in which a human being
reacts toward a possible source of danger. Let us suppose that a man
named Sam and a grey wolf inhabit the same wood. Both people and wolves
are prettty dangerous critters and they compete for food and cave space.
How can Sam resolve this situation?
1. he could _attack_ the grey wolf,
2. he could _flee_ from the grey wolf,
3. he could stay in parts of the wood to _avoid _the grey wolf,
4. he could _neglect_ the grey wolf,
5. he could _succumb_ to the grey wolf, or
6. he could _cooperate_ with the grey wolf.
Recognizing that the problem is not the wolf, that the problem is
staying alive in the woods, and that _the wolf shares the problem_,
allows the man and the wolf to form an alliance. The wolf brings his
intelligence, keen sense of smell and swiftness to the bargain. Sam adds
his intelligence, thumb, "ability to use tools" and fire. Together, they
survive much better than either could alone. Indeed, over time, what
could just as easily have been Sam's worst enemy, turns into "man's best
friend." This blind spot on cooperation is clearer in the definition
of ally in the "Tech Dictionary."
According to these definitions, an ally is someone who helps you when
you are weak (and _we_ are never weak, are we?), and is someone whose
beingness takes over the PC. In other words, that with which you ally,
you alloy. An ally is something found in reactive engrams, not in
analytical thought.
So now, what can or should be done about this? Perhaps an auditing
rundown or series of drills could be developed to bolster the being's
ability to recognize situations where cooperation is appropriate and to
exercise that option.
A model Grey Wolf process might start off with word clearing on the
above definition. This could be followed by having the PC spot times
when cooperation could have occured, should have occured, would have
occurred or did occur (a "coulda, shoulda, woulda" rundown). R3R any
reading items in order of read.
Perhaps this could be played against the CDEINR scale, the Know-to-
Mystery Scale or the Prepcheck Buttons. Another possibility would be to
have the PC spot the shared problem on the coulda, shoulda, woulda
rundown. This kills the wrong targeting on the grey wolf terminal.
This, of course, is only a rough outline. I invite you to generate and
test other rundowns that smooth over a PC's handling of his environment.