From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 9 - November 1992
By Raymond Kemp, USA
Significances and Systems versus Data
It would be nice, I feel, if these columns in "Ivy" drew a response,
which could be handled in a letters column. I may be drawing down some
unwanted variants to my viewpoints as expressed, (after all, so few of
us are perfect), but good healthy debate is stimulating.
Having said that, and being in the middle of the quadrennial insanity
called the Presidential Elections, I have to say that in general it
would seem that most Americans do not know how to debate anyway,
usually resorting to name calling and mud slinging rather than getting
down to specific issues.
One interesting observation is the Perot phenomenon. He has been
scorned all over the media as a quitter, for backing out of the
"Race", yet the facts are, that he not only never declared himself a
candidate for the office, he stated categorically that he would only
consider it, if he were placed on the ballot in all 50 states. This
only was completed in September, three months after he was accused of
quitting. As I write he now states that he will poll his supporters,
and if they say run, he will.
Acceptance of comm.
I am not espousing pro or con politically, but what we see here is a
phenomenon that is universal. People in general can not accept what
another person says, they can only accept what -they- feel is the -
significance- of what someone says.
Ron had the same difficulty. He was accused of creating -jargon-, by
the people who had their own jargon and much of the general criticism
was brought about by his own staff, who set up policy based on what
they stated LRH said. The whole subject of disconnection, is a case in
point. As actually intended, it is a powerful tool, provided one
understands what it is one is disconnecting from. Pam Kemp was
probably the first person to actually pull that mess apart, and put it
back together again into a tremendously workable piece of technology
(see "You Live as You Think"). (See also "IVy" no 4 Dec 1992, page 6
and 7.) She also did the same thing for LRH on the Drug Rundown which
prior to her write up, which came out as an HCOB, people were ordered
to cold turkey (Abruptly and without aid such as vitamins.> quit -
before- they could be handled.
In a recent "Ivy", Otto Roos jolted me into a greater understanding of
the Organizing board, by supplying the data on the correlation between
the levels of the Divisional system and the Factors.
My point is, that it is the -data- that leads to understanding, not
the significance of the date, or even the information (two different
things), that needs to be understood fully. If one only "cognites" on
the significance, then there is no real expansion of knowledge.
One of the most difficult course put out by LRH was the Data Course,
the Logic course, the Data Evaluation course .. call it what you will.
Ron once said to me, and I assumed at the time that he was joking, but
now I am not so sure. "This course will either drive students totally
sane, or make them more insane, and I am not sure which".
Observably it was not, and, even now, is not a popular course.
I wonder how many people realize that you can take any lecture by LRH,
and evaluate it, and discover that he spent 50 minutes of an hour
lecture talking about a situation and endeavoring to explain it in as
many ways as possible, before spending the last ten minutes on laying
out the Tech to handle. Yet a majority of the students only remember
the "process" or the "run down".
There was a recent period when a SHSBC student did not even have to
listen to the "2,000 Hours" of lecture unedited ... what a waste of
gold! Fortunately I understand that students now read transcripts, (I
hope unedited) and listen to the tapes.
We have all become aware of Japan's rise in the economic world
village, and of their immense success in manufacturing and marketing
of superior quality products, yet little notice has been taken as to
how this arose. Usually it has been explained away by such things
(significance) as "Low Wages, cheap labor, and so on".
Factually, in 1950, an American was invited to Japan to re-organize
Japans industrial procedures, and he threw out the "Everybody Knows",
and instituted a system called Total Quality Management. Among other
things he threw out exhortations to work harder, he cancelled
inspection as a way to obtain quality, and he removed any idea of
annual performance evaluations. He then went on to insist that the
worker was never at fault when errors arose, but the system was poor
in that it allowed an error to occur and go undetected. He also
insisted that -profit- could only come from continuous improvement in
Now there is an interesting parallel, in that if you look at the
Policy of the Church organization, you see immediately where they are
headed as an eventuality, but if you read or listen to the -data- that
LRH put out, you discover that he was saying exactly the same thing,
and in many cases what he said is in direct opposition to what is
A quick two examples. He said that dissatisfied public should be
refunded without delay. He said that the way to handle entheta was not
to attack it but to place so much theta on the line that the entheta
would blow off.
Data and significance
Somehow these, and many other things became turned around in their
application. How and why, is a matter of interesting conjecture, but
is in the realm of -significance-. The data remains the same.
So what is more important, the -significance-, the label, the name of
the system, or the actual simple data, that it is possible for people
to get better and expand?
What is the most important, the -naming-, and defending of a system
name, or the striving for continuous improvement of the product, in
our case happier and saner people who openly communicate?