From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 18 - August 1994
See Home Page at http://www.ivymag.org/
A View from the Bridge
By Eric Townsend, England
Chapter Six(a)(1)
Grade Two - Overts, Withholds and all that.
The state which the thetan achieves on Grade Two is known as Relief
Release. The ability to be gained on this grade is 'Relief from
the Hostilities and Sufferings of Life'. This all sounds very
promising but what area of existence needs to be handled to achieve
these desirable sounding benefits? The area to be examined and handled
is that of Overts and Withholds.
This quite complicated subject is another that is usually contacted
quite early in one's involvement with Scientology, usually under the
title of ETHICS. Unless one obtained a thorough grounding in the
subject
of Ethics early on, it is almost certain to be imperfectly understood
at an intellectual level, although the thetan probably recognises
what it is all about. Before we can look at what is dealt with in
auditing on this Grade, we need to go over the main terms to do with
individual ethics and look at how they relate to each other. In this
chapter it is only possible to give an introductory explanation and
you are advised to follow up any questions you have in the source
materials as it is a hazardous area to disturb and leave unhandled.
It is, however, a very interesting and rewarding area to study.
Overt acts - the thetan knows
The first term to consider is an OVERT ACT, often shortened to the
single word Overt. The shortest way of defining an Overt is to say
it is a wrong or harmful act. In other contexts this might be called
a Crime or a Sin. We can't, however, provide a clear cut list of what
are wrong or harmful acts. Both moral philosophers and most thinking
people are constantly wrestling with the apparent conflicts in this
area. Is it ethical to shoot a homicidal gunman, a military deserter
or an enemy soldier? Should one refuse money, weapons or drugs to
someone who may use them to harm themselves? How far is it alright
to go in restraining, punishing or deterring criminals, children or
mentally deranged people.
The Scientology answer to these awkward questions is based on the
application of the test of the 'least damage to the least number of
Dynamics'. The subject of the DYNAMICS is dealt with more fully later
on in this book, but for the moment the Dynamics can be described
as the various zones in which the thetan moves towards SURVIVAL. These
start with individual identity and move through family, community
groups and humanity to beyond the MEST universe. So the test of good
or bad is greatest or least good to the greatest number of dynamics.
This is not a new idea and can also be found in the work of the
English
philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Its application here at least
provides a basis for resolving the potential dilemmas in the area
of right and wrong actions. More difficult perhaps is obtaining
agreement
on the accurate measurement of good or harm to each of the dynamics
in any set of circumstances.
There is a deeper issue to consider, however. We may have a workable
formula for good behaviour but that does not mean to say that
everybody
has to follow it just because Ron Hubbard or Jeremy Bentham thinks
it is a good idea.
Ethics contra moral
This discussion of good and bad actions is part of the subject
generally
known as Ethics and Morals. Before we go on to look at the terms that
are usually associated with the idea of Overts in Scientology
(Withhold,
Missed Withhold and Motivator) we must look at exactly what the term
Ethics covers in Scientology.
A good starting point is to distinguish Ethics from Morals. In normal
language these two terms are often interchanged and supposedly mean
the same thing. In Scientology however a distinction has emerged which
is helpful. It should be said however that Hubbard himself was not
always clear in his distinction between them, as can be seen by
looking
at the six definitions of Ethics in the Technical Dictionary.
Number six, however, gives a clear definition of Ethics as 'that which
is enforced by oneself, his belief in his own honor, and good reason,
an optimum solution along the eight dynamics'.Although
there is reference to 'good reason' and 'rationality' in several of
the definitions, the meaning of ethics, as it relates to a single
individual, means it is still a matter of individual choice what
actions
he takes. This means no other person can enforce Ethics on an
individual.
Morals or a moral code are something which are agreed by the members
of a group to further their survival. As time passes new members of
the group inherit the rules agreed by the original founding members
of the group. These are often referred to as the 'mores' of the group.
Thus a group of stamp collectors may decide to set up a society to
advance their shared common interest in stamps. New members joining
the society are expected to follow the rules for conducting the
society,
set up by the original founders. This will include rules to govern
the conduct of individuals while they are being members of the
society.
Members of any group are expected to know and follow the code of
conduct
of that group. What happens when a member fails to follow the rules
of the group? The rest of the group will feel the need to protect
itself from the potential weakening of the group caused by the member
who chooses not to follow the rules. The group can introduce sanctions
or penalties to discipline the errant group member and bring him back
into line.
A Stamp Collectors Society does not have much power to enforce
sanctions
but it has the ultimate one of expelling the member who is not willing
to follow the rules. This is true of all societies and applies equally
in the operation of a nation state. In medieval states it was popular
with rulers to deal with a troublesome group member of noble birth
by banishing him from the state, that meant sending him into exile.
Less exalted citizens also got expelled from the state but more
permanently
by means of execution. Even imprisonment can be seen as a means
of temporarily excluding a non-conforming group member from the group,
in the hope that on release the offending group member will conform
more readily to the rules of the group.
The rules of a nation state are presented in the form of Laws. These
are enforced by the police and the courts. The laws of any country
are based on the moral code (mores) of that society, which it is
assumed
have provided a formula for survival over a period of time. In some
cases there is further enforcement of the mores of that society by
a religious belief system, in which case the moral law is further
supported by having some supernatural approval. Usually at this point
it gets Capital Letters added to it and becomes Moral Law.
This short excursion into moral philosophy has been necessary to show
how all groups, from the smallest to the largest, are based on
agreements.
The founding stamp collectors agreed the rules and constitution
of their society for its prosperous survival. In a similar way so
did the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. In both
cases the rules can be adapted and modified as time passes and
circumstances
change. It is, however, assumed in both cases that when new members
join they will accept the rules as they stand at that point in time.
The individual always has the right to decide whether to join or not
and whether to stay or not.
A being who thinks he is a human body may well protest that he did
not know the rules of the society he was born into before he arrived.
His viewpoint will have to be dealt with on that level, using moral
law to appeal to his reason or, if that fails, with criminal laws
which enforces sanctions which we hope are designed to do no more
than enable him to 'see reason'.
From our viewpoint as spiritual beings, able to operate outside MEST,
we have the ability to know the mores of a society when we choose
to enter it. We also have the responsibility to ourselves and our
integrity not to stay in a society with which we cannot agree.
Sophocles
and Tchaikovsky were two individuals who actually committed suicide
to leave a society with which they could not agree. Many other
courageous
people, some famous and some not, embarked knowingly on a course that
would lead inevitably to the execution of their body, rather
than say they agreed with something that they did not.
So where has all this got us to? We can now distinguish between Ethics
as an individual matter and Morals which are the rules or practices
of a group. An individual crosses from ethics into morals when he
agrees to accept the rules and practices of a group.
Scientology morals and ethics
Many people have been confused over the subject of individual ethics
in relation to Scientology because the word Ethics was also used in
conjunction with the word Scientology to describe the moral code of
the organisation of Scientology. Thus the main book on the subject
is called 'An Introduction to Scientology Ethics'. The distinction
is, however, to be found in the first definition of Ethics in the
Technical Dictionary. This says 'the term used to denote ethics
as a subject, or the use of ethics, or (my underline) that
section of a Scientology Church which handles ethics matters' (BTB
12.4.72R).
It could be said, therefore, that it would be more accurate to refer
to the rules and constitution of the organisation set-up to spread
Scientology as its moral code and that this area should be referred
to as Scientology Morals. The old Scientology organisation was,
and is, no different from any other group, in that individual thetans
can assess it and decide if it is something with which they can agree
and which they want to support. If they decide that they do wish to
actively support it in some way, then at that point they move from
individual ethics to group mores or morals.
The distinction between the two concepts can be most clearly seen
by comparing the Code of Honour and the Code of a Scientologist, both
of which can be found in the book 'Scientology 0-8 The Book of
Basics'.
The subject of Scientology Ethics and how it is intended to work is
dealt with in a later chapter since it is not relevant to individual
ethics which is the subject dealt with on Grade Two.
Moral codes in groups
We have seen that a moral code can be developed by any group. This
will happen even if it is not written down. There are thousands and
thousands of types of group. Any group comes into existence to further
the survival and advancement of a purpose and thereby of itself. The
survival of the group will depend on the behaviour of its individual
members and this is governed by its moral code. In some groups this
code of behaviour is written down, in the form of a code of conduct
or actual rules. Thus a golf club or tennis club will have rules which
say when members can play and what behaviour is expected. A street
gang will have its own behaviour code for individual members, in
relation
to the other gangs, other members of the same gang and the police.
In this case the moral code is unlikely to be written down but it
is just as well known. Hubbard talks about bank robbers having their
own moral code and presumably even groups of terrorists also have
their own moral codes. In all cases the code is intended to further
the survival of the purpose and the group. The individual joining
a group is expected to know and observe the moral code of that group.
Individual moral codes
Each individual will also have his own personal code of behaviour
that he will have arrived at from his observations and conclusions
about what most reliably furthers his own survival.
This is where the Code of Honor, which was referred to earlier, fits
in. It is a list of suggestions that the individual can consider and
adopt if he chooses. It is, however, a matter of personal ethics.
If the individual falls short in living by these rules, he is only
responsible to himself and can alter the rules if he wants to. If
the individual decides that he should adopt certain behaviour patterns
because he chooses to be a member of the human race or a group of
elite spirits, then that has become a moral code matter.
It is in relation to moral codes that most of the issues that come
up on Grade Two originate. We can now look at the question of what
constitutes an Overt Act again in relation to moral codes. Something
is an overt, and therefore is wrong, because a moral code says it
is wrong. What is more, all the other beings who support that moral
code will agree that it is wrong!
If an individual joins some group, or pledges loyalty to a group that
he finds himself passively part of, then he personally feels some
obligation to uphold the mores of the group. If he then does
something against the interests of the group or fails to do something
he could have or should have to promote or protect the group, then
that constitutes an overt act in his own eyes. He will feel shame
and guilt at his own failure, quite apart from any fear that he may
have for possible retribution from other members of the group.
Withholds
Now we can look at a definition for the next term which is a WITHHOLD.
There are nine definitions of Withhold in the Technical Dictionary
but it is still a term which causes some difficulty. The first
definition
in the Technical Dictionary says it is 'an unspoken, unannounced
transgression against a moral code by which the person was bound.'
The crucial thing about a withhold is that it is passive. It says
in the definition that it is 'unspoken, unannounced'. That is not
the same as saying it was denied or falsified. Definition six says
it is 'something the PC did which he isn't talking about'. All the
person is doing is not talking about it and hoping nobody else does
either.
A common misunderstanding is that the transgression only becomes a
withhold when it is actively covered up. To clarify this it may be
helpful to look at the incident in which St Peter is said to have
denied that he was with Christ when he (Christ) was arrested. This
denial would not have been a withhold but an overt, in Peter's eyes,
because the emerging moral code was that one should be honest without
regard to the consequences. Peter's denial of Christ was an active
thing but a withhold is a passive thing. You cannot do a withhold,
you can only have a withhold!
A withhold may be passive but it is uncomfortable. The more common
descriptions of the feelings would be such terms as 'guilt' and
'shame'.
But why are they so uncomfortable? Definition 3 says that 'A withhold
is something that a person believes that, if it is revealed, it will
endanger their self-preservation.' Thus the major ingredients are
fear that the original action will be revealed and fear of the
consequences.
The consequences may include punishment for the transgression but
equally as fearsome is shame of revelation to his fellows in the group
that he considers he has damaged or failed in some way!
Overts of ommision may lead to leaving
It should be said here that it is as big a burden for a thetan to
have an OVERT OF OMISSION as one of commission. An Overt of commission
means to have done something against the interests of the group,
say, to betray a member or steal from it. An Overt of Omission is
to fail in carrying out an order or doing his job adequately. In
either of these situations, the being's action sooner or later will
be to leave the group. This is both to avoid discovery and perhaps
more important to him, to avoid repeating the Overt Act. (Rest
of chapter 6 in IVy 19. Ed.)
(1)Earlier chapters of this book appear
in the following IVys: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. This chapter
continued in IVy 19.