From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 18 - August 1994
See Home Page at http://www.ivymag.org/
CCHs(1)
Dear Ant,
The original CCH's as given by LRH were communication, control
and havingness. The IVy article reverses Communication
and Control. The article states, 'these processes start by
getting the person to Control items in his environment, then into
communication with them and finally ... etc.' (Printing omission
between 'then' and 'into' just above is not what
my letter is about.)
The article then continues saying, '... the progression through
Control, then Communication, to Havingness takes place nonetheless'.
I realize that in these days of independent thought one has the right
to one's own considerations. However, it should equally be possible
for me to indicate technical errors and outpoints.
The major outpoint in the above IVy 17 statements
is out sequence. It not only implies, but very clearly states
that 'the processes start by getting the person to Control, and
only then does he get into Comm with the item(s) in the environment',
etc.
The original concept of ARC is that R is obtained and increased
by getting into C with the Time, the Place, the Form, the Event, the
Subject, the Terminal, the Goal, the Purpose, the Identity, etc.,
whatever the case may be. To the degree there was/is/will be no
comm, there was/is/will be no R. Similarly control
is established, maintained, and increased by comm.
One does not, as the article states, start off by controlling before
one goes into comm with the item which is being controlled.
There are other items in the article concerned where I don't
necessarily
agree with the author. There have also been other articles in other
IVy's, or The Free Spirit's, or other magazines
about which I can say the same. When disagreements concerned personal
interpretations of the technology, I have usually not made any
originations
about them. Such discussions serve very little purpose. Who am I to
say that I'm right and 'they' are not? However, with cases
of immediately demonstrable technical outness, things lie somewhat
differently. I have in the past indicated specific goofs (among
others,
also in earlier IVy's); this is no reason for me to apologize,
I'll blame my past technical training and hats for this (joke).
As the example in question deals with some of the most basic data,
it won't hurt any feelings (I hope) to bring it to the readers'
attention.
All the best, O.J. Roos, Holland.
(1)IVy 17, page 35, column
1, para 3, line 10 on (A View from the Bridge reprint).