Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study or       What it means and how it has been dealt with through the
     years
(1)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.”
        
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”)  

        
“With regard to the practice of Disconnection, I have taken this up with the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology, and they have no intention of re-introducing this policy, which was cancelled on 15th November, 1968.
        
 
For my part, I can see no reason why this policy should ever be re-introduced, as an extensive survey in the English speaking countries found that this practice was not acceptable.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from signed letter dated 26 Mar 69 send to ‘The Commission of Enquiry into Scientology in New Zealand’; see also “Code of Reform” (1968), click here, separate window)  


Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’  (page 1, index page)

This page will give you the details about the disreputable ‘Disconnection Policy’, and various other matters relating.

 
Index:

   
Foreword
(page 1)
 
An introduction to ‘Disconnection’
  Beginnings of ‘Disconnection’ and cancellation (1965-68)
               - ‘PTSness’ and its relation to ‘Disconnection’ (Oct 64)
                (Includes:  ‘PTS Type A’ defined)
         - (a) Disassociation/Separation/Disconnection A.D. 1965 explained
            (Includes:  (1) HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”;  (2) HCO PL 19 Jul 65 “Separation Order”;  (3) HCOB 24 Nov 65 “Search and Discovery”;  Writing disconnection letters?)
         - (b1) What is meant by “handle ... a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts;” & “handle ... the SP who is making him of her a PTS”?
         - (b2) When are actions taken, in regards to ‘suppressive acts’, called for?
        (Includes:  (1) “continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive person or group by HCO;”;  (2) “failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts;”;  (3) “Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP ... is ... guilty of a Suppressive Act.”)
         - Cancellation of ‘Disconnection as a condition’ (Nov 68)
            (Includes:  (1) ‘Code of Reform’ (UK, Aug 68);  (2) ‘Dumbleton-Powles Report’ (NZ, Jun 69);  Adjusted format for Ethics Order written)
  A change in the approach and guidelines in regards to dealing with an SP according to 2nd to 5th edition of ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1970-79)
  Solutions to PTSness:  S & D, auditing, education & ‘why finding’ (1965-78)
         - ‘Seach and Discovery’ (developed: Oct 65-69) & PTS Rundown (Dec 71- ) (auditing)
            (Includes:  Notifications found in ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ since the 1970 edition)
         - HCO PL 31 May 71 “PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling Checksheet” (education)
- HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” (‘why finding’ per Data Series)
- HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling” (pilots and corrections)
- HCOB 31 Dec 78 II “Outline of PTS Handling” (all set for handling)
 
The unofficial return of the practice of ‘Disconnection’ (1973)
  The practice of ‘Disconnection’ reinstated, yet in secrecy (Sept 73)
         (HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”  vs  HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”)
- (1) HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”
- (2) HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”
- A crucial difference: ‘Self-determinism’ vs “under the jurisdiction of”
 
‘Disconnection’ A.D. 1983
 
A prologue
(page 2)
      - (a) The odd cancellation of HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”
- (b) HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”
  (1): HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”
      - The various reasons given for the previous cancellation of the practice of disconnection examined
- (a) The terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ confused
- (b) ‘Self-determinism’  vs  ‘compliance required’
- (c) Writing disconnection letters!
- HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”  vs  ‘The Scientology Handbook’
  (2): HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”
      - The odd cancellation of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”
- (a) HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” turns HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “same title”
- (b) HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” A.D. 1983
  The legal consideration  vs  Newspaper coverage from early 1984
  Regarding the authorship of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”
      - A summary of arguments
- The role of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC)  vs  “Lost Tech” found!
- Who wrote HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”?
 
Further evaluations
  A brief overview of various references regarding disconnection
  ‘The Way to Happiness’: “Honor and Help Your Parents” - “Love and Help Children”
  In the year 1996 ..., ‘Disconnection’ once again ...
      (The occurrence of HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” (Reissued 10 Oct 96))
- A first introduction and initial inconsistencies found with this re-release
- A more closely inspection of this release, and the matter of ‘Disconnection’ making its entry
  
Afterword
    Final comments  or  The ‘shooting’ game ...
         - Consequences: Cause or effect?
            (Includes:  Reminiscences from a Founding Scientologist from 1951)
         - Rehabilitation, a forgotten and overlooked aspect



 
Back to Main Index Foreword

Relevant introductive information is also found in a chapter that I wrote on my page “L. Ron Hubbard vs A New Order (2)” . You may consult this in link here below:  (separate window)
    “The arrival of new information (5) - The ‘new ways’  or  Turning from a self-correcting system into something where others can be given the power to control you?”

During 1965-68 there was this action that would later become known as the practice of disconnection. The whole affair backfired, primarily because of misapplication. In late 1968 this was then taken out of use by HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”. Then rather strangely we have it unofficially reinstated in 1973 by a confidential HCO PL written by a Judy Ziff. Although during 1971-78 various methods had been worked on to handle the PTS person without him having to actually disconnect. According to the references that were issued these actions were rather successful.
Disconnection
In spite of all that in 1983 the whole awful enforced practice of disconnection was fully and this time officially reinstated by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”. Not only the practice was back, it was stepping up matters and recommended now even actions that had occurred during 1965-68 due to obvious misunderstandings! This 1983 HCOB even messaged that basically you could not handle a PTS situation other then by actually disconnecting! This ia a very strange affair indeed! Now what was Scientology all about again? Well, on this page I offer a detailed study of how it came about, and I provide for extensive documentation about all the facets of this phenomena. My study on this contains by far the most extensive information and evaluation currently available on this matter. We need to really take a very serious look at that, as the situation would become worse than ever before!

At this point it should already getting obvious why I offer all this information! So, how did my initial interest come to pass? Well, I had already my own wonderings about the topic. You see, I did know about the reference that advocated an enforced practice of disconnection which is HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, but then it came to mind that it had been cancelled previously in 1968 and that for a specific reason which was “Since we can now handle all types of cases”. It simply didn't make any sense to me to then reinstate it a whole 15 years later!
So, I started off with a detailed comparison of all versions of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”, this policy letter played a bit more than modest role in the practice. I got myself deeper and deeper involved in the actual history of this Disconnection. I started to involve and research various other subjects as well, such as Fair Game and so-called Declares, subjects which are also dealt with in this policy letter. What originally started as a simple inquiry turned into a rather extensive research project involving a variety of topics. I did had to work my way through a lot of materials for finding the information that I needed. A problem was to locate particular versions of references. Although I have a fairly extensive collection of original material I had my shortages. Familiar as I was with collecting books since many years I used my contacts to find and secure especially these particular sought-after old materials. Then I had to start putting the information together. All this took a considerable amount of time and effort. I don't see really someone else doing all that. To this I added my extensive knowledge of Mimeo, which facilitated my understanding of what had happened, and how to correctly interpret the various information. So, I offer my findings that will allow you to make up your own mind about things. For me it is about educating the people out there. “There is no substitute for understanding.”  LRH . So, to be able to understand you need factual information and resources. So, here we go!

If you feel disturbed about some of the information found on this page, then feel free to contact the responsible entities for this and send them an inquiry:

Religious Technology Center International
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90028 U.S.A.
Phone: (323) 663-3258
Fax: (323) 667-0960

Go to index

 
An introduction to ‘Disconnection’

Back to Main Index Beginnings of ‘Disconnection’ and cancellation (1965-68)

‘PTSness’ and its relation to ‘Disconnection’ (Oct 64)
            (Includes:  ‘PTS Type A’ defined)
(a) Disassociation/Separation/Disconnection A.D. 1965 explained
     - (1) HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”
- (2) HCO PL 19 Jul 65 “Separation Order”
- (3) HCOB 24 Nov 65 “Search and Discovery”
- Writing disconnection letters?
(b1) What is meant by “handle ... a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts;” & “handle ... the SP who is making him of her a PTS”?
(b2) When are actions taken, in regards to ‘suppressive acts’, called for?
    (Includes:  (1) “continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive person or group by HCO;”;  (2) “failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts;”;  (3) “Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP ... is ... guilty of a Suppressive Act.” )
Cancellation of ‘Disconnection as a condition’ (Nov 68)
      (Includes:  (1) ‘Code of Reform’ (UK, Aug 68);  (2) ‘Dumbleton-Powles Report’ (NZ, Jun 69);  Adjusted format for Ethics Order written)

 
Go back ‘PTSness’ and its relation to ‘Disconnection’ (Oct 64 & Mar 65)

(Includes:  ‘PTS Type A’ defined)

To understand the phenomena of disconnection one has to understand the phenomena of PTSness. Because before one had anything to do with disconnection one would have to be subjected to the condition of being PTS. Which stands for potential trouble source. The first reference to address the condition was HCO PL 27 Oct 64 “Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Potential Trouble Sources”. The name for it is actually self-explaining as this HCO PL sums it up as “types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble”. Basically such persons are being held down by persons that in some manner suppress them. Their behavioural symptoms can be of an erratic or irrational nature, but more significantly “they make very poor gains in processing” as long as they remain in contact with the suppressive source or person. And it is here that we get into the phenomena of disconnection.

This HCO PL 27 Oct 64 “Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Potential Trouble Sources” identified 10 different types (or rather gradients) of PTSness. It categorizes them from type “(a)” to “(j)”. The type that is particularly associated with disconnection is type “(a)”:
        
“(a)  Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.
        
 
They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by an organization or auditor.”          LRH
 
This PTS Type A characterizes itself with that a person(s) or group that can be identified being present here and now. The remaining PTS types are much harder to detect and handle because here the seemingly suppressive source would only be a restimulation of a person(s) or group that existed in the past.
The whole matter thus turns into a practicality. The whole deal of Scientology had been to subject a person to processing and techniques to making him a better and more free person. But this could not be achieved while the person was affected by such negative influences. It is exactly here and why we get into the consideration of disconnection. Simply to make auditing and progress possible.

 
Go back (a) Disassociation/Separation/Disconnection A.D. 1965 explained

There used to be some practice that people were sending letters to specific persons simply informing them that they were hereby disconnecting from them. A misapplication may at one time have caused that this had been enforced on people. Needless to say that such would not have made it particular popular, and since this has therefore been criticized unfavourably. But it has to be clarified here as well that the disconnection from the mid-60's was for a particular reason.
Policy letters did come came about because of particular occurrences. They were written and compiled to ease matters and were to provide for some sort of guiding rule. Here there was this matter of having association with.
There are 3 references in particular that have to be examined and consulted concerning this matter. But each of them gives as its goal to make case gain of a person possible. Various applicable selections from these policy letters are discussed here below.

 
Go back
(1) HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”
(Note: This reference was slightly revised reissued and is more widely known as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”)

The basic layout:
        
“POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE
        
 
A Scientologist connected by familial or other ties to a person who is guilty of Suppressive Acts is known as a Potential Trouble Source or Trouble Source. The History of Dianetics and Scientology is strewn with these. Confused by emotional ties, dogged in refusing to give up Scientology, yet invalidated by a Suppressive Person at every turn they cannot, having a PTP*, make case gains. If they would act with determination on way or the other—reform the Suppressive Person or otherwise handle, they could then make gains and recover their potential. If they make no determined move, they eventually succumb.”          LRH
 
And the HCO PL then directs for that reason that this person“may not be processed or further trained until he or she has taken appropriate action to cease to be a Potential Trouble source”  LRH.
A reason given for establishing this policy:
        
“The validity of this policy is borne out by the fact that the US government raids and other troubles were instigated by wives, husbands or parents who were actively suppressing a Scientologist, or Scientology. The Suppressed Scientologist did not act in good time to avert the trouble by handling the antagonistic family member as a suppressive source or disconnect fully.”          LRH
        
How one went about it:  (underlining is mine)
        
“Disconnection from a family member or cessation of adherence to a Suppressive Person or Group is done by the Potential Trouble Source publicly publishing the fact, as in the legal notices of ‘The Auditor’ and public announcements and taking any required civil action such as disavowal, separation or divorce and thereafter cutting all further communication and disassociating from the person or group. ...
        
 
Before publicly disconnecting, the Scientologist would be well advised to fully inform the person he or she accuse of Suppressive Acts of the substance of this policy and seek a reform of the person, disconnecting only when honest offers to reform the person have not been co-operated with or have failed. And only then disconnecting publicly. Such efforts should not be unduly long as any processing of the Potential Trouble Source is denied or illegal while the connection exists and a person not actively seeking to settle the matter may be subjected to a Committee of Evidence if processed meanwhile.”          LRH
 

Here it becomes clear that the original practice was borne out a particular situation that needed resolving.

The publication history of this reference can be consulted here, separate window.

 
Go back
(2) HCO PL 19 Jul 65 “Separation Order”

In my records I have this piece of paper that says:  (I changed the names in initials)
        
“AP is to stay completely disassociated from JT, AT, and his mother and father for the duration of his auditing.”
(from‘HCO Ethics Order 219 [Saint Hill]’, 8 Jul 65 “Disassociation”)
        
The situation at this time was that if you wanted auditing but were PTS, you simply had to disconnect from your SP/SP's in order to be able to get benefits from your auditing.  This condition assigned had to do with receiving auditing and/or training.
These sort of situations caused the following policy letter and rule to be written up:
        
“SEPARATION ORDER  
        
 
There are instances met with by Ethics Officers, especially in relation to husbands and wives, where there may be suppressions on individual people but not suppressive of Scientology.
 
 
In such cases a ‘Separation Order’ for a specific period of time is the best action. For example, Joe S— and Mary S— are hereby placed under a Separation Order while Joe is undergoing Processing. They are to have no contact with each other during this period from (date) .......... to .......... (in this case to the end of the Power Processing 2nd Stage Release).”          LRH
(from HCO PL 19 Jul 65 “Separation Order” - full text of the reference is given)
 
We can see that it was for a specific usually very short period of time only. This was done as it may or is likely to affect this “Joe” as named in above example if he was to have contact with this “Mary” while “undergoing processing”. Strictly taken however this would be something very different from these reputed disconnection practices that various persons are referring to these present days.

 
Go back
(3) HCOB 24 Nov 65 “Search and Discovery”

        
“The first thing to know is that CASE WORSENING IS CAUSED ONLY BY A PTS SITUATION.
        
 
There never will be any other reason.”          LRH
 

Late ’65 another process was being worked on in regards to PTSness. It was called ‘S & D’ which stands for Search and Discovery. It basically involved counseling that is being conducted by a so-called Ethics Officer in a Scientology organization. It's purpose was to help the person to overcome a situation of PTSness.
Now, there are 3 PTS types defined. There are; (Type One) “The SP on the case is right in present time, actively suppressing the person.”; (Type Two) “the apparent Suppressive Person in present time is only a restimulator for the actual suppressive”; and (Type Three) “is beyond the facilities of orgs ... as these are entirely psychotic”.

For counseling of Type One it goes as follows:
        
“The person is asked if anyone is invalidating him or his gains or Scientology and the the pc answers with a name and is then told to handle or disconnect from that person, the good indicators come in promptly and the person is quite satisfied.”          LRH
        
If the person does not “brightens up at once and ceases to Roller Coaster” it would indicate there is a PTS Type Two situation. The person is accordingly then send to the Technical or Qualifications Division for further, more extended, S & D procedures to be applied.

 
Go back
Writing disconnection letters?

We find the following in the publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition), on page 204 it is making notice about an apparent misapplication during the 1966-68 time span:
   “What is disconnection?   
        
  Disconnection was the action of helping persons to become exterior from circumstances or people that suppress them. At one time (between 1966-1968) this was done by formally writing a letter, which in some cases caused upsets.
   It was not fully understood that disconnection was usually a temporary handling, to give the person a ‘breathing space’ from a problem, while they found the true source of it.
   It was also one of the penalties applied to Scientologists who behaved unethically.
   Disconnection has been replaced since 1968 by ethics counselings, which are quick and effective and designed to assist a person to recover his ability to act both causatively and rightly.”
        
But you see, why would anyone would need to write some disconnection letter?  All that a person has to do is stay at some place else (a friend, or whatever) WHILE UNDERGOING auditing or training! There does not seem to be a reason either why one would have to inform anyone about that either. Excepting probably particular familial ties. Also one may have thought that it would provide for some guarantee that no repercussions would hit back on to the organization so easily. Receiving processing and training would have the aim to eventually turn the person in a cause position either way. Meaning having contact with the suppressive source/person or not. He would then not get affected by that anymore.
Interesting is that neither of these 3 references that I discussed in the foregoing actually promote writing these disconnection letters. The only reference that comes close to it is that HCO PL from March 1965. But that one talks about “disconnecting publicly” through means of “legal notices of ‘The Auditor’ and public announcements and taking any required civil action”. It doesn't say anywhere anything about that the person is to write a letter to be sent to that (suppressive) person.

Here we can quote from HCOB 20 Jul 66 “The Type Two PTS” that says:
        
“It has been revealed at Saint Hill that ... auditors are permitting their preclears to be sent through to Ethics for writing disconnection letters to any person or group which the preclear thinks to have been suppressive of him and then continuing the Search and Discovery to find the SP on the list.
        
 
This is improper. The auditor should continue the proper auditing of an S and D* until the proper item on the list is found. ...”          LRH
 
And so man is making a mess of these matters ...

 
Go back (b1) What is meant by “handle ... a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts;” & “handle ... the SP who is making him of her a PTS”?

These citations in their complete form read:  (underlinings are mine)
        
“failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts;”          LRH
(from HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”)
[Note that this reference is more widely known as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”]
        
And:
        
“Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 16 Aug 65 II “Collection from SPs and PTSs”)
        
So, what does “handle” mean here? This is surely a question that has to be forwarded because one is just not going to actually “handle” that “person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts” or “the SP who is making him or her PTS”. One could of course take some action in order to improve such a person, but in actual fact the target here is that very PTS person!
Do remember here that the purpose of Dianetics and Scientology was to make processing and training possible. And so one has to resort to some sort of action that it actually can occur and wins from that can be had. The person thus causing someone to become PTS is essentially of secondary importance.
And so if one handles the PTSness of the person that dwells in that suppressive vicinity, then that suppressive person would not remain to be a particular bother anymore to the now de-PTSed person.

 
Go back (b2) When are actions taken, in regards to ‘suppressive acts’, called for?

(Includes:  (1) “continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive person or group by HCO;”;  (2) “failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts;”; (3) “Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP ... is ... guilty of a Suppressive Act.”)

Here we have to address some lines from these policy letters issued in 1965 as they have appeared in the media and/or have been used within the Scientology to only mean one thing. Question is if that was a correct interpretation? One can start with saying that they are bit tricky.
(1) and (2) are from HCO PL [7] Mar 65 I “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”. [Note that this reference is more widely known as HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “same title”]
(3) is originally from HCO PL 16 Aug 65 II “Collection from SPs and PTSs”, but was later exported to and added to HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”.
They are all 3 listed as so-called suppressive acts.

To understand this in the proper context one should have a basic understanding of these things referred to as suppressive acts and the circumstances in which they have to be regarded. See there is a pre-history present here that one should know about. There is always a reason why some rules come into being. I wrote about that here (separate window).

    
(1)
“continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive person or group by HCO;”          LRH
    
[Note: This line was rephrased in the 2nd edition of the publication ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (issued 1970). See chapter in this study “A change in the approach and guidelines in regards to dealing with an SP according to 2nd edition of ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1970)”.]
The questions to ask here are:
    1. “Who is affected by it? The org? Or does anyone even know about it?”
  2. “Is it interfering with anyone's processing or training?”
Further it would be advised that one should establish what sort of adherence this actually is, its purpose, and what is causing it.

Here it also refers to this HCO Divison. Here we have thus a matter in where one may have to determine if the Declare Order was actually called for. The policy letter assumes it is, but particularly since so about the early 80's till the present day guarantees are not supplied anymore for that. If there is any doubt the first action would be to verify that the Declare Order (Ethics/Condition Order) is following the rules of the game. More information about this on page “Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified”, consult here (separate window). See main index sections “Ethics Orders and the ‘suppressive person’” & “Resources for defence”.

    
(2)
“failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts;”          LRH
    
[Note: This line was rephrased in the 2nd edition of the publication ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (issued 1970). See chapter in this study “A change in the approach and guidelines in regards to dealing with an SP according to 2nd edition of ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1970)”.]
There are thus 2 options that are being given here: (1) “failure to handle ...”, and (2) “failure to ... disavow and disconnect ...”. Just one of them applied would thus solve the situation.
Then we get into similar questions:
    1. “Is anyone affected by it? Does it rebound on to the org?”
  2. “Are case gains being made?”

    
(3)
“Any PTS who fails to either handle or disconnect from the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.”          LRH
    
This one is rather similar to the previous one. Here we have also 2 options: (1) “fails to ... handle ...”, and (2) “fails to ... disconnect ...”. Just one of them applied would thus solve the situation.
Here I can list the same questions:
    1. “Is anyone affected by it? Does it rebound on to the org?”
  2. “Are case gains being made?”

 
Go back Cancellation of ‘Disconnection as a condition’ (Nov 68)

(Includes:  (1) ‘Code of Reform’ (UK, Aug 68);  (2) ‘Dumbleton-Powles Report’ (NZ, Jun 69);  Adjusted format for Ethics Order written)

Then near the end of 1968 we get informed about:
        
“Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” - full text of the policy letter is given)
        

Now what does “disconnection as a condition” actually mean? Practically it would mean that this is something one is assigned to do. The guideline was as follows:
        
“Any HCO Secretary* may receive evidence of disconnection or disavowal or separation or divorce ... .”          LRH
(from HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”)
        
In a later version of this same policy letter that had been “Revised 31 December 1979 to remove all references to ‘disconnection’ which was cancelled as a condition by the Church of Scientology in 1968” it says:
        
“Any HCO Area Secretary* or Ethics Officer may receive evidence of handling suppression ... .”          LRH
(from HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised 31 Dec 79) “same title”)
        
This is actually a bit late in time, as 11 years had passed prior to implementation in this HCO PL. This would actually be just a technicality as HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” had since already prohibited that.

All that “disconnection as a condition is cancelled” meant was that you didn't had to disconnect in order to receive auditing or get trained. This was pretty much the sort of disconnection that actually was around during these days, and it just involved that a person could be audited or trained without any disturbing outer inference. If there was no outer interference affecting the person there would thus exist no ground for disconnection.
So, the release of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” simply abolished even this action for reason that “Since we can now handle all types of cases ... .”  LRH.


There do appear to have existed contributing factors that lead to this cancellation.

(1) ‘Code of Reform’ (UK, Aug 68)

A questionnaire regarding various matters concerning the Scientology organization had been send out:
        
“On August 1st 1968 Scientology organizations in the UK began mailing a Code of Reform Questionnaire.”
        
Reportedly one million of these had been send out to the English speaking countries. The result regarding the matter of disconnection was that it had lead to:
        
“Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from familial suppression.”
        (quotations from ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (Nov 68))
        
Do take notice here of the date “August 1st 1968”, as it predates HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” by a whole 3½ months. This HCO PL had messaged that it was cancelled because “we can now handle all types of cases”  LRH. Then we find HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” noting that “since that time we have had more PTS trouble than before”. It would appear from this that a better handling. Although ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition) had said on page 204 that it had “been replaced since 1968 by ethics counselings”, but it would appear that a better handling was in search for.
More about this Code of Reform can be consulted here (separate window).


(2) ‘Dumbleton-Powles Report’ (New Zealand, Jun 69)

HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” relates about that “Scientology executives have had to promise the New Zealand government that the policy of disconnection from families would be cancelled.”. To this effect L. Ron Hubbard wrote a letter dated 26 Mar ’69 to ‘The Commission of Enquiry Into Scientology in New Zealand’ that amongst other read:
        
“With regard to the practice of Disconnection, I have taken this up with the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology, and they have no intention of re-introducing this policy, which was cancelled on 15th November, 1968.
        
 
For my part, I can see no reason why this policy should ever be re-introduced, as an extensive survey in the English speaking countries found that this practice was not acceptable.”          LRH
 
This conducted ‘Enquiry Into Scientology in New Zealand’ only partially involved the matter of disconnection. This report had been published a few months later on 30 Jun ’69 as ‘The Commission of Inquiry Into the Hubbard Scientology Organisation in New Zealand’ as performed by Sir Guy Richardson Powles and E. V. Dumbleton and has become known as the ‘Dumbleton-Powles Report’.


So, what actually caused this practice of disconnection to get cancelled?, (a) was it the public demand?; (b) was it the negative media coverage?; or (c) was it a case of misapplication?
It probably is a combination of all of these factors that caused the cancellation. It appears obvious though that the initial rather innocent solution of the original temporary disconnection practice, which goal was to make auditing possible, had grown to be something rather disastrous and had caused a damaging opinion in the media.
The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition) did note that “At one time (between 1966-1968) this was done by formally writing a letter, which in some cases caused upsets.”. Per various reports that I have received from persons about that time, it appears that they were persuaded/obliged to personally write these disconnection letters. Such an action however was not advised by any of these references that were issued in 1965 about these matters (see previous chapter). So, the whole thing simply went out of hand. Something that man often resorts to.
So, from one angle another solution was in quick demand, and from an other angle any possibility to misapplication had to be eliminated rapidly and so the whole practice simply had to be cancelled indefinitely and unconditionally.

Henceforth an Ethics Order written on such a person would read something like this:  (I changed the last name in an initial)
        
“John N of Detroit, Michigan ..., is declared to be a PTSa
        
 
... [here appears a quotation from HCO PL 27 Oct 64 defining PTS Type A]
 
 
John's brother is antagonistic to Scientology and feels it will make him crazy.
 
 
Further John is an institutionalization case and his petition has been refused by Detroit HGC because of enturbulation to tech personal [sic personnel]. John is to
1.  handle his PTSa condition to his brother
  2. follow the following recommendation to handle his current PTS III condition
    (a)  get plenty of food and rest in a quiet and safe environment
    (b) continue this until destimulates
  3. Petition another organization for processing or Detroit.
 
 
Until this is done John is not elligable [sic eligible] for any Scientology processing nor training at any Scientology Church or Mission. His only terminal is Ethics.”
(from‘HCO Ethics Order # 633 [HCO Detroit]’, 1 Apr 72)
 
* HGC:Hubbard Guidance Center’. The department of the technical division of a Scientology organization which sets you up for and delivers auditing.
No mention anymore of disconnection, also do note the attention on making auditing and training occur.

 
Back to Main Index A change in the approach and guidelines in regards to dealing with an SP according to 2nd to 5th edition of ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (1970-79)

August 1968 (another source says July 1968) saw the release of this little book that for the first time made ethics technology widely available to and for use by public. These texts contained in the book were extractions from various chosen policy letters (HCO PL's) that laid out various principles about the matter of this ethics.
Pertinent information about this publication can be found here (separate window).

The passages that I discuss in this chapter are adapted from HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”. These points that are listed here are defined as “High Crimes (Suppressive acts)”.
What is described here below is a change in the text, a change that was implemented in the little book, but that was not reflected in the actual policy letter where the quotation orginally had been taken from, i.e. not until much later in time. This in itself is rather noteworthy, considering that the change in text was not particularly insignificant at all.

In the Scotland 1st edition from 1968, it said on page 51:
           
“6. Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by the Hubbard Communications Office.
7. Failure to handle or disavow or disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts.”
           
[Note: Only change from HCO PL version is: “7. Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect …”, which may have been a simple transfer/copy error]

Here it has to be noted that the actual policy letter where it was taken from was not actually revised until another 11 years later on 31 Dec ’79. We do however find these passages revised in the 2nd edition of ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (issued 1970), that now reads on page 51:
           
“6. Continued adherence to a … group pronounced a Suppressive … Group by the Hubbard Communications Office.
7. Aiding or abetting a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts in such acts.”
           
It thus limited the “Continued adherence”  to just “a group and not anymore to “a person”. Further it abandoned “disconnect”, jumped even over “handle” and deemed it thus only then still a High Crime if one would be “Aiding or abetting” such a person “in such acts”.
Obviously the rules had become very lenient. Gone was the rigidness. No doubt this had been caused by amongst other this ‘Code of Reform Questionnaire’ that had been send out in August 1968. The practical outcome of this change was as well that even if some overly rigid Ethics Officer or staff member would hang up him/herself on that every High Crime requires action of Ethics (interfering with auditing or training from occurring or not), that it since 1970 can not anymore be held against a person if for example he/she in some form has “Continued adherence” with such “a person” because of this rephrasing in the text!
Do mind here that according to my experience Ethics Officers and the likes always operated from this publication ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ and not from the HCO PL contained in these large volumes. If something was to be explained or read this little book was pulled and consulted. On the other hand if some Ethics Order was written about some matter, then the HCO PL was listed in that writing. Here we have thus a stiuation in where a little publication updated the HCO PL.

This change was upheld through the 2nd to the 5th edition (1970-79) of the little publication ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ . It was not until the USA reprint issued October 1982, on pages 57-58, that changed it into:
           
“Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO;
Failure to handle a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts;”
           
It included again the “Continued adherence” to “a person pronounced a Suppressive Person by HCO”, listing this again as a High Crime. The “Aiding or abetting” was replaced with “Failure to handle” at present still omitting “disconnect”. Although not for very long.

‘Scientology Policy Directive 28’, 13 Aug 82 “Suppressive Act - Dealing with a Declared Suppressive Person” written by “Watch Dog Committee for the Church of Scientology International” although it adjudicated that:
        
“It is a SUPPRESSIVE ACT to deal with a Declared SUPPRESSIVE PERSON unless you are the named terminal to deal with the SP (i.e. Sea Org MAA*).”
        
it was still clear about that:
        
There is no practice of ‘disconnection’ allowed in the Church of Scientology and these materials cover completely how one may use proper lines and procedures to handle a PTS condition.”
        

One year later however matters were completely turned around at such a time that we saw the release of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” that restored the original text from 1965 in its full glory (see also HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83)“Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” ).
The book ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ first reflected this in the USA 1st ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ edition from 1989, on pages 209-210 it thus read:
           
“Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO.
Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts.”
           

The question to ask is why it had returned to the 1965 text, as matters had since that time actually advanced!  Today we are not facing the situation that they had back in 1965, it is as simple as that!

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Solutions to PTSness:  S & D, auditing, education & ‘why finding’ (1965-78)

During this time period an alternate way of handling the PTS person was being worked on. The focus here was thus set on the PTS person and place him/her in a cause position.

Since 1965 the PTS person was to be handled by means of auditing and not send to ethics.
In 1971 the PTS/SP Course came about that was to further educate the student about these matters.
In 1972 Mary Sue Hubbard forwarded the option for why finding with use of the Data Series.
In 1976 John Eastment was performing a study and issued a corrective pilot to determine if a PTS situation could be effectively handled through educating the PTS person.
In 1978 the matter was rounded up and everything was set towards handling without any need for disconnection.

 
Go back ‘Search and Discovery’ (developed: Oct 65-69)  &  PTS Rundown (Dec 71- ) (auditing)

(Includes:  Notifications found in ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ since the 1970 edition)

        
“Search and Discovery as a process is done exactly by the general rules of listing*. One lists for persons or groups who are or have suppressed the pc. The list is complete when only one item reads on nulling* and this is the item.”          LRH
(from HCOB 24 Nov 65 “Search and Discovery”)
        
* * listing and nulling.  1. You (as the auditor in session) asks a question of the preclear, the preclear gives you item, item, item, item. The auditor writes them down and then he nuls the list. And there must only be one item which has any read in it of any kind whatsoever on that list. (Class VIII No. 11)  2. Nulling is the auditors action in saying items from a list to a preclear and noting the reaction of the preclear by use of an E-meter. (HCOB 5 Dec 62).

This is thus an auditing action that requires a Class II auditor.

HCOB 24 Nov 65 “Search and Discovery” divides up the PTS types into:
        
“THREE TYPES
        
 
There are Three Types of PTS.
 
 
Type One is the easy one. The SP on the case is right in present time, actively suppressing the person.
 
 
Type Two is harder for the apparent Suppressive Person in present time is only a restimulator for the actual suppressive.
 
 
Type Three is beyond the facilities of orgs not equipped with hospitals as these are entirely psychotic.”          LRH
 

Implementing a time consideration:
        
“It can be seen that Ethics handles the majority of PTSs in a fast manner. There is no trouble about it. All goes smoothly.
        
 
It can also be seen that Ethics cannot afford the time to handle a Type Two PTS and there is no reason the Type Two should not pay well for the Auditing.
 
 
Therefore, when Ethics finds its Type One approach does not work quickly, Ethics must send the person to the proper division that is handling Search and Discovery.”          LRH
 

Whereas Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #68, renumbered 1991: #431 “Briefing to Review Auditors”, given on 14 Oct 65, that firstly introduced Search and Discovery, directs:
        
“Now, Ethics… The policy letter that moved them over to ‘Suppressives must be located by Review’—and that's where you're coming in and that's why I'm talking to you. We're not permitting Ethics, anymore, to locate suppressive persons. They're going to be located by Review Auditors in regular session. Do you see that? Because Ethics just flubs it too often. They're not equipped for auditing and so forth. They're interested in justice and that sort of thing, and they don't go ahead with it and do a good job of it. So therefore, anybody walking into Ethics who is PTS, who has rolly coastered* and so forth, is sent to Review. And that is the route.”          LRH
        
        
sound  Sound snippet (0:39) 
        

Search and Discovery listing was further developed through:
HCOB 21 Jan 66 “Search and Discovery (Ethics Type Cases, PTSs), S & D Errors”
HCOB 28 Jan 66 “Search and Discovery Data, How a Suppressive Becomes One”
HCOB 5 Feb 66 “S and D Warning”  
HCOB 10 Jun 66 “S & D Commands”  
HCOB 10 Jun 66 II “S & D—The Missed Item”  
HCOB 20 Jul 66 “The Type Two PTS”  
HCOB 9 Nov 67 “Revision of Remedy A, Remedy B, and S and Ds”  
HCOB 28 Nov 67 “[The Key S & D Question]”  
HCOB 13 Jan 68 “S & Ds” (3 S&D's)  
HCOB 19 Jan 68 “S & Ds, S & Ds by Button”  
HCOB 24 Jul 69 “Seriously Ill PCs”
 
HCOB 16 Aug 69 “Handling Illnesses in Scientology”  

HCOB 9 Dec 71 “PTS Rundown” notes:
        
“One remaining problem in cases was ‘PTS phenomena’. ...
        
 
S and Ds (for Search and Discovery) was the earlier approach. These are still valid and ‘3 S&Ds’ as a rundown is used in the PTS Rundown without change.
 
 
Now with the PTS Rundown, the handling of this common and all too frequent case condition can be handled.”          LRH
 


Notifications found in ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ since the 1970 edition

A referral has to be made here to the little publication ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ (first issued in 1968). It presented various extractions from basic policy letters regarding the matters of ethics. Whereas the original policy letters had not been subjected to revision, we find that various noteworthy revisions had been implemented in these texts since the 1970 edition of the little book.

The Search and Discovery method for handling the PTS person through listing in auditing had been in development during 1965-69. It actually had been in use as early as 1965, but its solution had not yet had lead to a revision of various policy letters and this was thus also not put in the first 1968 edition of ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ that had drawn its data from these particular policy letters. But then whereas the policy letters were still waiting for a revision, we find that this little book actually implemented this new information in its next edition!

The relevant passages in this publication that were subjected to change are listed here below:

Book chapter: “The Ethics Codes”
“Crimes” - “C. Technical Crimes”
Source:  HCO PL 7 Mar 65 “Offences and Penalties”
The Scotland 1st edition from 1968 list on page 44:
           
“2. Receiving auditing while a Potential Trouble Source.”
           

The Denmark 2nd edition from 1970 changed this into:  (page 44)
           
“2. Receiving routine auditing other than that intended for the handling of a Potential Trouble Source.”
           
This was upheld through the 2nd to the 5th edition (1970-79) of the publication. These sections from the policy letters were skipped altogether in the 1982-85 prints of the book.

Then in the USA 1st ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ edition from 1989 we find again on page 200:
           
“Receiving auditing while a Potential Trouble Source.”
           
The old forbiddance from 1965 about receiving auditing overal had been put back in place! The question is why as matters had since progressed!! The Search and Discovery method through the PTS Rundown procedures (listing in auditing) was as ever still in use and a valid method of operation to handle the PTS person. There is no logic in restoring an obsolete rule that already so long ago had been superseded!


Book chapter: “The Ethics Codes”
“High Crimes (Suppressive acts)”
Source:  HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”
The Scotland 1st edition from 1968 lists on page 48:
           
“A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology, or while a preclear, yet remains connected to a person or group that is a Suppressive Person or Suppressive Group. Until the environment is handled nothing beneficial can happen (A Potential Trouble Source is a person or preclear who ‘roller-coasters’, i.e., gets better, then worse. This occurs only when he is connected to a suppressive person or group, and he must, in order to make his gains from Scientology permanent, either handle the source of suppression or disconnect from it).”
           

The Denmark 2nd edition from 1970 changed this into:  (page 48)
           
“A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology, or while a preclear, yet remains connected to a person or group that is a Suppressive Person or Suppressive Group. Until this connection is handled by secial [sic special] auditing, nothing beneficial can happen (A Potential Trouble Source is a person or preclear who ‘roller-coasters’, i.e., gets better, then worse. This occurs only when his connection to a suppressive person or group is unhandled and he must, in order to make his gains from Scientology permanent, receive processing intended to handle such.)”
           
This was also upheld through the 2nd to the 5th edition (1970-79) of the publication. But also skipped altogether in the 1982-85 prints of the book. It was not to return either in the USA 1st ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ edition from 1989.


Book chapter: “Glossary”
Source (in part):  ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965)
The Scotland 1st edition from 1968 lists on page 67:
           
“POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE: Any person who, while active in Scientology or a preclear, remains connected to a Suppressive Person or group. (A person ‘roller-coasters’, i.e., gets better, then worse, etc., only when connected to a Suppressive Person or group, and in order to cease rollercoastering must either handle the source of suppression or disconnect from it).”
           

The Denmark 2nd edition from 1970 changed it into:  (page 67)
           
“POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE: Any person who, while active in Scientology or a preclear, remains connected to a Suppressive Person or group. (A person ‘roller-coasters’, i.e., gets better, then worse, etc., only when connected to a Suppressive Person or Group, and in order to cease rollercoastering must receive processing intended to handle such.”
           
The rephrasing as we find it here is fully in accordance with the 1970 revision of ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965). It is noted here that since the USA 1st ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ edition from 1989 it is not listed anymore as an entry in its glossary.


So, what did happen with the auditing treatment handling for the PTS person? Why did these texts in ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ revert back to the 1965 texts? Matters had advanced since then rather considerably, did they not? Another question to ask is why these policy letters did not implement these advancements either?
Is it because the Search and Discovery method had become obsolete? There is no indication for that whatsoever. The PTS Rundown procedure did implement that method as part of its actions. This PTS Rundown is today as well a fully valid action. Nonetheless auditing aiming at handling the PTS person is not particularly in use. I haven't seen it in use in for example at Amsterdam org in the Netherlands during the late 80's even when a situation called for such an action. The technique is there, but it is just not particularly in use anymore. PTS persons do not appear (as in standard procedure) to be “sent to Review” anymore, although that was “the route”! By my own observation it is mostly that you are put to do various ethics cycles.

The course checksheets in use during 1971-78 (HCO PL/BPL 31 May 1971“ PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling Checksheet” and revisions) still taught the Search and Discovery method. As did the course that replaced it (‘Scientology Policy Directives139 & 140’, 30 May 86 “PTS/SP Checksheet Part One & Two”).
The course was literally split in 2 separate courses by 1989. These were issued as HCO PL 23 May 89 I “PTS/SP COURSE, How to Confront and Shatter Suppression” and HCO PL 23 May 89 II “PTS/SP Auditor Course”. There is some question about the first one does not actually list the Search and Discovery HCOB references nor the PTS Rundown HCOB anymore. To learn about these you need to enroll on the other course checksheet, which will require you to first do various other auditor courses (listing for example requires a Class II auditor), and thus the information itself is sort of getting out of reach by the casual or ordinary Scientology student, unless of course you intend to train for becoming an SP/PTS auditor yourself. Or you just pull these HCOB's, but who is going to do that? References that do not appear on a course checksheet seldom get consulted.

As it appears today theoretically and practically we are back to the 1965 status quo concerning these matters. The practice of disconnection is officially in use again since 1983, and so on. Which obviously is a reverse development and can hardly be called progress!

        
“We're not permitting Ethics, anymore, to locate suppressive persons. They're going to be located by Review Auditors in regular session. Do you see that? Because Ethics just flubs it too often. They're not equipped for auditing and so forth. ... So therefore, anybody walking into Ethics who is PTS, who has rolly coastered and so forth, is sent to Review. And that is the route.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #68, renumbered 1991: #431 “Briefing to Review Auditors”, given on 14 Oct 65)
        

 
Go back HCO PL 31 May 71 “PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling Checksheet” (education)

Part of the cure that was to remedy the condition of PTSness was to actually educate the person about the mechanics involved. For this purpose a course was put together which was first made available in May 1971 as HCO PL 31 May 71 “PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling Checksheet”. It appears rather thorough in its approach and addressed all angles. The stated “PRODUCT” of this course was “A person who understands and can perceive and handle PTSes and SPs and is himself de-PTSed.”.

In the 31 Dec ’78 revision of BPL 5 Apr 72RC I “PTS Type A Handling” we find added the following line that was attributed to L. Ron Hubbard:
        
“Part of any handling may include the person being required to take a course that is usually called ‘The PTS-SP Checksheet’.”
        
Later in this same BPL is then reference made to BPL 31 May 71RG (Revised 13 Nov 77) IV “PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling Checksheet”. Some may find it also encouraging that it states that it was “Approved by L. RON HUBBARD, FOUNDER”.

At least since 1977 we find that BPL 5 Apr 72RB Issue I (Re-Rev 2 Sept 77) “PTS Type A Handling” directed that it was “not mandatory” to “see the Data Series PLs” if one progressed on “doing the PTS-SP Detection Checksheet”. Obviously indicating that there was a relation between these.

This BPL Course was a final time (a 9th time) revised on 6 Mar ’78 (‘RH’ version), after which it was cancelled by Scientology Policy Directive 139, accordingly broken up in 2 parts and replaced with ‘SPD 139 & 140’, 30 May 86 “PTS/SP Checksheet Part One & Two”. The reinstated and enforced practice of disconnection as directed by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” was by then fully implemented in this course. This HCOB was rated that means that one had to be checked out on it by another person that was making sure it was understood. Then 3 demo's had to be done giving “The definition of ‘Disconnection’”, “a) When disconnection is done.” and “b) How disconnection is done.”.

It may also have seemed that the why finding as suggested by these Data Series seemed abandoned by 1981, this judging from that 2 references to the Data Series that had been removed from listing in HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”. The previous version of this reference BPL 5 Apr 72RC (Revised Dec 78) I “PTS Type A Handling” in addition had listed: “See the Data Series P/Ls (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why.”.
Instead the focus seemed now (since 1981) directed entirely towards the PTS/SP Course for actual information.

 
Go back HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” (‘why finding’ per Data Series)

        
“Using recent technology contained in the Data Series Policy Letters, a new procedure is possible. Each PTS individual should report to Ethics and with the assistance of Ethics find a WHY as to their familial antagonism and then set about actually handling the situation.”
(from HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”)
        

This HCO PL offered and laid out a method of handling for those persons that were affected by such individuals, that were present in their direct vicinity, and that were exercising a negative influence over them (a so-called PTS Type A). This was done through a method referred to as why finding. This method had been worked out by Mary Sue Hubbard, which she published in HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”.

It was intended to be a handling that would firstly actually handle the person but that also would prohibit a misapplication from occurring as it had during the 1966-68 time span. This HCO PL briefly explains:
        
“As per older, now cancelled policy, the PTS individual was required to handle or disconnect from the antagonistic family member before he or she could continue with their training or processing. Many took the easy course and merely disconnected as such disconnection was only temporary for the time of their training or processing and so they did not in actual fact handle the condition in their life which was upsetting to them as Scientologists.
        
 
Scientology executives have had to promise the New Zealand government that the policy of disconnection from families would be cancelled. This was done. But since that time we have had more PTS trouble than before.”
 
Concluding:
        
“Therefore, what is needed is a legal and more sensible way to handle.”
        
The solution here forwarded being:
        
“Using recent technology contained in the Data Series Policy Letters, a new procedure is possible. Each PTS individual should report to Ethics and with the assistance of Ethics find a WHY as to their familial antagonism and then set about actually handling the situation. The WHY could be that his parents wanted him to be a lawyer and so blame Scientology that he is not one, rather than the fact that he flunked out of law school and couldn't stand the thought of being a lawyer!
        
 
Or perhaps the WHY is that the Scientologist keeps writing her parents for money or the WHY could be that the mother has just read an entheta newspaper article.
 
 
In any case the WHY should be found and the PTS individual should then do whatever is necessary to handle.
 
 
See the Data Series P/Ls (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why.”
 


Data Series

        
“DATA SERIES,  the tool to discover causes. (ESTO 1, 7203C01 SO I) [The Data Series is a series of policy letters written by L. Ron Hubbard which deal with logic, illogic, proper evaluation of data and how to detect and handle the causes of good and bad situations in any organization to the result of increased prosperity.]”
        
            (from ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976))   

The Data Series were a series of policy letters that were were written and issued since April 1970, by the end of 1974 they counted 40 references in this series. They had titles like: “The Anatomy of Thought”, “Logic”, “Data and Situation Finding”, “Information Collection”, “The Missing Scene”, “Wrong Target”, “The Real Why”, “Learning to Use Data Analysis”, and so on ...

There was still found a referencing to the Data Series in this BPL 5 Apr 72RC I:
        
“Using recent technology contained in the Data Series Policy Letters, a new procedure is possible.”
        
Which in its next revision (HCO PL 20 Oct 81“same title”) was replaced with:
        
“Following the steps given in HCOB 31 Dec 78 OUTLINE OF PTS HANDLING and making full use of all bulletins and policies on the subject of PTS handling will ensure situations get terminatedly handled.”
        
It is actually not so easy to discover the various difference between these 2 versions. As per an established rule in use any such changes are supposed to be indicated in script and deletions indicated with ellipsis. In this case however the data given in the BPL was reissued as an HCO PL and given a new date, although in essence the text remained about identical. The 2 versions of the reference have been compared line by line and word for word, and this is the change that had been found. And it is not entirely insignificant.
It would appear that since 1981 the attention had been drawn away from this why finding and these Data Series. This judging from that those referrals to these Data Series simply had been removed from HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”. Instead the focus was being directed entirely towards the PTS/SP Course for actual information. A comment can be made here that the info found in these Data Series may not be direct pertaining to specific situations such as PTSness, whereas this PTS/SP Course entire focus was on that. On the other hand this PTS/SP Course had been around as early as 1971, prior to the why finding procedure even coming into being or used in regards to handling the PTS person. It remains that these Data Series were important, and were part of the history of how one came to find a cure to this PTS Type A situation. For this reason, fully deleting any and all reference to this Data Series and the role played by it may not have been justified. It does not make this Data Series less valuable or invaluable in regards to the matter.

A final notice can be made here about HCO PL 6 Apr 72 II “How to Find a Why on a Person and Handle”. It appears released just one day apart from HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” which would be of interest. It appears that the why finding procedure was an important part of the development of the technology, and became the vogue of the early 70's. This HCO PL was also not written by L. Ron Hubbard, and was later in 1975 reissued as a BPL. Although it never was really cancelled, since 1980 all BPL's had been taken out of use. It was reinstated in 1991 and this time fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. Various notes about this reference can be consulted here (separate window).

 
Go back HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling” (pilots and corrections)

The release of this was caused by reports that PTS conditions were not getting handled which HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” reported about in its section entitled “A:  PTS HANDLING” (consult full section here, pop-up window).

HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling” tales about the study and de pilots that were being run, which established and confirmed that there was a handling in existence that would make any enforced practice of disconnection unnecessary and thus superfluous. HCOB/PL 20 Oct 76 “PTS Data” briefly laid out the results of the pilot.
According to HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, that had changed the rules for signatures added to references, both of these references were actually written by the then CS-5 John Eastment (indicated with initials “JE”). Mind however that the ‘I’ person in this reference would refer to L. Ron Hubbard. It was also John Eastment that had worked out the 2nd corrective pilot where HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling” details about.
Note: The original releases of these references indicate “L. RON HUBBARD, Founder” and “As assisted by CS-5”. The signature area read “LRH:JE:nt”. As noted in the above the January 1977 HCOB changed the rules for signatures, more data about that can be found here (separate window).

HCOB/PL 20 Oct 76 “PTS Data” established:
        
“Based on a recent pilot it has become quite obvious that a full and complete PTS handling would consist of:
        
         A.
PTSness handled terminatedly by interview or auditing by a person trained on BPL 31 My 71RC.
        
  B.
Complete study and pass on the PTS/SP Checksheet, BPL 31 May 71RC Revised 12 August 1976.”
 
 
The correctly located suppressive, who is then handled based on a thorough understanding of the mechanics of PTS/SP phenomena form the simplicity that is PTS tech.”
 
Note: A revision (R-version) of this reference dated 25 Aug ’87 changed this last sentence into: “The correctly located suppressive, and a correct handling of the situation based on ...”. This would be a sort of significant change as the original phrasing indicated a handling of the SP through de-PTSing the PTS person. The rephrasing does not indicate any effective handling which aligns with HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” that directs that one can not handle an SP and one thus has to disconnect unconditionally. By this time HCOB/PL 20 Oct 76 “PTS Data” was fully attributed to L. Ron Hubbard as well.
Then interestingly enough this was all reverted back again in a reissue of this same reference issued 27 Apr 2000. Its revision notices said: “(Reissued 27 April 2000, to correct a typographical error and a sentence that was altered from the original. Correction in script.)”. And so matters are going forth and back here.
Anyone has a copy for me of the original mimeo print off of HCOB/PL 20 Oct 76 (Revised 25 Aug 87) I “PTS Data”, please contact me!

The main portion of HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling” is printed here below and may speak for itself:
        
“Once in a while I hear of PTS handlings that ‘didn't work’ or ‘still PTS’ or some such. Or I'll come across such extremes as a PTS is virtually an incurable leper to be shunned and kept isolated or almost everyone is PTS to some degree so what can you really do about it. The basic thing to realize is that PTSness, like any other case condition afflicting Man, responds to plain old standard tech. But one has to have studied and understood that tech to apply it, naturally.
        
 
I recall years ago in handling PTSes, that none of them at first knew what PTS really meant or what it was all about even when they used the term freely! So I recently called for a pilot to see what would be the effect of a study method of curing PTSes.”
 
        
“Before the final pilot was done, an earlier pilot was attempted by an Aide which was not conducted as laid down.”
        
        
“The second pilot was then ordered to determine the original possibility, that people could study their way out of being PTS. ...
        
 
In short it appears the studiers were blowing charge on their past PTS handlings and on terminals in their life almost like an auditing session and while they were saying not PTS, no longer PTS (now that they had the data) is probably closer to the truth. All are reported to be doing well on post with no illness, roller-coaster or ethics trouble.”
 
        
“SUMMARY  
        
 
We have had the tech of PTSness for years, but it wasn't being fully used ... . PTSness can be handled routinely when the tech is fully known and applied. A PTS person can be brought to cause over his situation through study of the PTS tech. This is vitally important for staff. We can handle and the person himself can handle.
 
 
There is no substitute for understanding.”
 

 
Go back HCOB 31 Dec 78 II “Outline of PTS Handling” (all set for handling)

By the end of 1978 we were all set for handling this PTS Type A phenomena. In December 1978 the final 3 references regarding the matter were issued. And so one had successfully achieved, as Mary Sue Hubbard had expressed it, a “more sensible way to handle”, meanwhile eliminating any necessity of having an enforced practice of disconnection around.

The main references in regards to handling the condition of PTSness as of 1978 can be put in sequence of application as follows:
1. HCO PL 31 May 71 “PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling Checksheet”  (PTS/SP course)
   2.  HCO PL 5 Apr 72 “PTS Type A Handling”  (Data Series)
   3.  HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling”
   4.  HCOB 31 Dec 78 II “Outline of PTS Handling”
   5.   HCOB 31 Dec 78 III “Educating the Potential Trouble Source, the First Step Toward Handling: PTS C/S-1”
   6.  HCOB 24 Apr 72 I “PTS Interviews”
   7.  HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”
   8.  HCOB 9 Dec 71 “PTS Rundown”
   9.  HCOB 29 Dec 78 “The Suppressed Person Rundown”
You would start with doing that PTS/SP course, and if that does not resolve it, you continue with why finding per the Data Series, and so on.

HCOB 31 Dec 78 II “Outline of PTS Handling” lays out in sequence the steps that can be taken in order to handle a PTS situation. At the end of this reference it says:
        
“These are powerful and precision tools. With them we can handle our PTS students, preclears and staffs and get resounding one-for-one successes.
        
 
I am counting on you to do this.”          LRH
 

But things were not to be. The year 1983 changed around everything with the release of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” that officially reinstated an enforced practice of disconnection.

Go to index

 
The unofficial return of the practice of ‘Disconnection’ (1973)

Back to Main Index The practice of ‘Disconnection’ reinstated, yet in secrecy (Sept 73)
(HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”  vs  HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”)

 
Go back (1) HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”

August 1973 directed:
        
“There are two stable data which anyone has to have, understand and KNOW ARE TRUE in order to obtain results in handling the person connected to suppressives:
        
 
These data are:
 
 
1. That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.
 
 
2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or disconnect.”          LRH
(from HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”)
 

Quite a few persons I have been in contact with and who are unfamiliar with these procedures appear to have misconceptions concerning what this really is about and what this handling actually consists of. As a habit of man,when people don't know the specifics of something, they will try to explain it to themselves. But they will fail if they have not gone through all the information. To avoid feeding this kind of likely erroneous ideas and fight misconceptions it is preferable to view further quotations addressing this handling. This HCOB itself lays out some very simple steps explaining all of this. If you are puzzled and are unfamiliar with all this, then I would strongly advice to consult some further excerpts taken from this HCOB (pop-up window). Having a general understanding and concept of the basic outline of these procedures is desirable to have.
HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” offers a very gentle approach. The focus is on handle, and not on disconnect. In order that auditing actually can occur and advantages can be gotten from that. And there is no control exercised anywhere on that either. It is the person him/herself that decides upon matters. During the 80's this reference was in full use and I recall that it was frequently referred to as the ‘10 August’ reference.
Nonetheless it has been interpreted by some persons as if HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” was reinstating an enforced practice of disconnection. Well, it didn't. Mind that this issue does not say that it cancelled HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”, or that it reinstated that which it had cancelled.

There is just one downside here as this reference had been issued during a time that the person L. Ron Hubbard actually was missing. You see from 4 Dec 72 to mid-Sept 73 he was not in reach by anyone, and no one knew where he was.  (continue in next section)

 
Go back (2) HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”

As noted in previous section L. Ron Hubbard had not been in reach during 4 Dec 72 / mid-Sept 73. You can get some recorded details about this here (separate window).

Then at about mid-Sept 73 we had some person coming back. And at exactly that time, i.e. 5 weeks after the release of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”, that very return was, somewhat oddly, accompanied with the release of HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” that factually was turning matters around. Here we are then facing an actual reinstatement of an enforced practice of disconnection. Apparently some individual(s) had figured that it needed to be there. It was not either signed with L. Ron Hubbard. It was as noted in the release written by a person listening to the name Judy Ziff.

A problem here is that the release was issued with the label CONFIDENTIAL. It was thus never shown to the Scientology public. The only person that got to see it, according to its routing, were the Scientology staff: “HASes”, “A/Gs”, “Ethics Officers”, “Qual Secs”, “CSes” & “Ds of P”. And as such it could also very easily work as a so-called hidden data line. Something that is not actually supposed to be there: “There is no hidden data line.”  LRH  (ref. HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”).
(HASes = HCO Area Secretaries (in charge of HCO Division 1);  A/Gs = Assistant Guardians (legal and related matters);  Qual Secs = Qualifications Secretaries (in charge of Qualifications Division 5);  CSes = Case Supervisors (supervises auditing matters);  Ds of P = Directors of Processing (schedules for auditing))

It is agreed that this confidential release itself gives this disconnection a somewhat low profile, but we already had seen what misunderstanding had lead to, and the misapplications that came from that. And had L. Ron Hubbard not written earlier: “I have concluded that man can not be trusted with justice.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 “Ethics Penalties”).
And whatever had happened with this letter send to ‘The Commission of Enquiry into Scientology in New Zealand’ on 26 Mar ’69 in where L. Ron Hubbard wrote that “the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology ...have no intention of re-introducing this policy” and “I can see no reason why this policy should ever be re-introduced, as an extensive survey in the English speaking countries found that this practice was not acceptable.”  LRH.
Not even to mention this “Code of REFORM” from August 1968 that lead to the decision of “Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from familial suppression.”. With the release of HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” the door was set wide open for the same disasters that caused it to get cancelled. And now it was reinstated and all in secrecy!
Now, doesn't all that make an appearance of broken promises?

Last but not least it clashes rather seriously with HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”. The reference that had cancelled the whole practice. It should be well understood that strictly taken HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” and HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” could not actually coexist!
This in spite of that this confidential HCO PL directly following its title lists issues of “Reference”. The first reference then listed is: “HCO PL 15 Nov ’68 ‘Disconnection Cancelled’”. Thus listed here as a work of reference for supposed consultation. But then, what is the message given out by this confidential HCO PL, that is what we have to consider.
Adding to the confusion we also see that HCO PL 23 Dec 65R “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” had been “Revised 31 December 1979 to remove all references to ‘disconnection’ which was cancelled as a condition by the Church of Scientology in 1968”. But then one should just not forget that this 1973 HCO PL was a confidential release. It didn't ‘really’ exist.
Finally it is interesting to note here that HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” only got cancelled at such time that the treatment that was set forth by the confidential HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” got reissued as the non-confidential HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”. Now, isn't that intriguing!

Now, lets see what this HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” actually says. Generally I am rather reluctant about quoting from so-called confidential issues, however this very issue is already available and cited on the Internet on a variety of sites. Here you can make up your own mind about it. Below I give you the gist of it.
It was written by “Ens. Judy Ziff, CS-5* and “for Capt. Mary Sue Hubbard, CS-G*. It has been referred to as Mary Sue Hubbard's reference, which designation would be rather incorrect. For all we know she did not even see it. For the same reason that L. Ron Hubbard did not see all that had been issued and written “for L. Ron Hubbard”, it is just a format used.

        
“‘Handle or disconnect’ is part of current procedure on handling Potential Trouble Sources, as per HCO B 10 August ’73, ‘PTS Handling’.
        
 
This does not mean that we are returning to the practice of publishing or writing disconnection letters to the person concerned.
 
 
Whether the PTS interview is done by the Ethics Officer, D of P*, Auditor or Qual* personnel, the actual ‘handling’ steps must be done under the jurisdiction of the Ethics Officer.
 
 

A large percentage of cases will completely resolve during the PTS interview itself or when the handling steps are actually done. The Ethics Officer must ensure that a written plan of handling does actually exist and that it is followed. All copies of correspondence, attested reports on personal interview handlings must be presented to the Ethics Officer as evidence of the handling. If the handling is being badly handled or not done, the Ethics Officer must get this corrected. ...

 
 
DISCONNECTION
 
 
One needs to understand the meaning of the word Disconnection in order to be able to apply it. Disconnection = to break or undo the connection of, separate, detach.
 
 
Disconnection has come to mean the actual action of writing to a person to inform him/her of the fact. This is a very extreme application of the word. A person can simply decide to disconnect and be disconnected from that moment on.
 
 
In some cases, the item found may be dead, and the person has no other choice than to disconnect. In that event, the person simply disconnects then and there, in the Ethics Officer's office, or in session. No other action is required. Some may wish to write up a statement of such which is simply filed in his ethics file, with no other action taken. It is not mailed to anyone.
 
 
When handling disconnection, the word ‘disconnection’ must be fully defined, so the person actually understands what he has to do. ...
 
 
In only a few cases will open disconnection handling be required, and when this happens, it must be handled with the utmost care so that no repercussions occur.
(from HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”)
 

Quite frankly I don't think that it sounds all that promising. We find a persistence displayed in this reference in where the control over the person is put in to the hand of others, most prominently here named is this Ethics Officer. The last steps prior to enforcing the “plan of handling”, as named in this HCO PL, is approval of the A/G, which is the Assistant Guardian. Today the Guardian Office is referred to as OSA (Office of Special Affairs). The reason is actually explained as follows:
        
“The A/G will naturally not permit any misemotional or accusative disconnection letters or actions to be done which could rebound on the org.”
        
This actually confirms this was a sensitive matter! And could actually backfire!
But wait, did it not earlier in this HCO PL say: “This does not mean that we are returning to the practice of ... writing disconnection letters to the person concerned.” ?
And there it goes already!! That Scientology staff reading this sentence about the A/G will either way interpret that disconnection letters will be written as in that sentence this action is already implied. Now, do you see how this one goes?
It would appear that the lesson had not been learned!

 
Go back A crucial difference: ‘Self-determinism’ vs “under the jurisdiction of”

There is an actual difference in application between the handlings that are being offered by HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” and HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”.

The handling as offered by HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling” was not enforced upon the person, it was done fully on the self-determinism of that person. He was given a choice, and he himself had to make that decision. He could even decide not to do anything about it. It is also pending that those that do not handle that “they make very poor gains in processing”  LRH  (ref. HCO PL 27 Oct 64 “Policies on Physical healing, Insanity and Potential Trouble Sources”).

HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” instead list such phrases as:
    the actual ‘handling’ steps must be done under the jurisdiction of the Ethics Officer.”
  “badly handled or not done, the Ethics Officer must get this corrected”
  “Disconnection has come to mean the actual action of writing to a person to inform him/her of the fact.”
  “not permit any misemotional or accusative disconnection letters or actions to be done”
I guess one will have to ask oneself where a combination in application of these factors will lead to!

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     BPL:
Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked.
     CS-5:
Commodore Staff-Division 5’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 5 is the Qualifications division of a Scientology organization. CS-5 is also referred to as ‘Qual Aide’.
     CS-G:
Commodore's Staff Guardian’. Responsible for the Guardian's Office over the world and this function is best described as guard and protect Scientology.
     D of P:
The ‘Director of Processing’ will interview you on matters concerning your auditing progress and the scheduling of your auditing.
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
     HCO (Division):
Hubbard Communications Office’. It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications.
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
     HCO Area Secretary (HAS):  (In the early days this was called ‘HCO Secretary’.)
 1. The HCO Area Secretary (HAS) has the function of establishing the org. (HCO PL 7 Jul 71)  2. The HAS establishes, forms, puts there, corrects, posts, hats, equips, org boards, stats, corrects the org. All on a long term basis. (FO 2794)  He is in charge of the HCO Division (Div. 1).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     MAA:
Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in the Sea Organization (senior Scientology organization). See further at ‘Ethics Officer’.
     Mimeo:
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the 80's however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PL's, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PL's are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     PTP:
Short for ‘Present Time Problem’.
     PTS, PTSness:
potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Qual (Div):
Qualifications Division’. 1. It could be called the correction division or the adjustment division. But qualifications would also serve. (SH Spec 77, 6608C23)  2. The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run. (BPL 22 Nov 71R)  3. The division where the student is examined and where he may receive cramming or special assistance and where he is awarded completions and certificates and where his qualifications as attained on courses or in auditing are made a permanent record. (HCOB 19 Jun 71 III)
     rollycoaster case:
Slang. A potential trouble source (PTS), and just on the other side of him there is a suppressive person invalidating his gains. He's never going to get any better, not until he is labeled a potential trouble source and told to handle. (SH Spec 61, 6505C18)
     S and D:
Search and Discovery’. As a process is done exactly by the general rules of listing. One lists for persons or groups who are or have suppressed the pc. The list is complete when only one item reads on nulling and this is the item. (HCOB 24 Nov 65)
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PL's and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AO's) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
     SPD:
Scientology Policy Directive’. See at that entry in vocabulary.


Go to top of this page


Advertisement