.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
Technical Essay # 39 - FAF 7 April 1991

.ce References on Ownership

I figured some LRH references on ownership needed to be looked at since it seems to me
that the concept has been subtly changed and mis-understood.

The definition on ownership in Tech Dix is:

"1. ownership is a problem of havingness. If you own something you can have it,
if you don't own it you can't have it (2ACC-29B, 5312CM20) 2. ownership could
be said to be that area being covered or protected by the preclear. PAB 8)"

If we are talking case, I guess that would mean that one owns one's case if one has
havingness on it and keeps it.

A basic mention of ownership is Factor #20:

"And the many viewpoints, interacting, become dependent upon one another's
forms and do not choose to distinguish completely the ownership of dimension
points and so comes about a dependency upon the dimension points and upon
the other viewpoints."

This tells us that in this universe things have been confused to a point where one can be
dependent on, or be effect of other viewpoints or their dimension points. Failure to distinguish
ownership brings about a dependency. We can then assume that recognition of the correct
ownership brings about a resolution of the dependency.

Factor 20 basically says for practical purposes that one is dependent upon other viewpoints
and upon dimension points, but that it really is just a mix-up.

In life in the physical universe we can use statements like "Joe hit me and now my jaw hurts"
or "I need to have my vitamins every day" as workable truths. However, looking more behind
the scenes the reason for being effect of these things is a mix-up of viewpoints and
dimension points.

Checking for ownership on OT levels addresses this. Now, there are some subtle points in it
that I claim have been mis-understood and changed. That can in the worst case lead to the
opposite result of what was intended.

The idea of checking for ownership was given increased emphasis and somewhat new uses
in 1978-79 in David Mayo's bulletins relating to NOTs.

The most common reference given for checking of ownership on OT levels (e.g. in HCOB 23
Dec 79 Flying ruds at OT III and above) is Scientology axiom 29:

"In order to cause an as-is-ness to persist, one must assign other authorship to
the creation than his own. Otherwise his view of it would cause its vanishment."

That ought to explain itself, but for some reason it has been used to back up the exact
opposite of what it says. What it says is that one gets something to persist by pretending that
somebody else did it. Because otherwise one as-ises it and it disappears. That is backed up
by axiom 20:

"Bringing the static to create a perfect duplicate causes the vanishment of any
existence or part thereof."

In other words, anything that exists will vanish if it is seen as it is by the static.
And the static is you.

To make things persist and to provide a game to play, the static must use some tricks to make
his as-is-nesses persist as is-nesses. The primary trick is as axiom 29 says to assign other
authorship to what he put there.

Notice that nowhere in the axioms does it say anything else than that the static is the cause of
things, and he makes things persist by introducing lies about them, and he makes things
vanish by seeing them as they are.

Because of the mix-up described in Factor # 20 the being might consider himself dependent
on and effect of other beings and things. We go along with that and audit the guy on things
that have been done to him or that he is effect of, like engrams and so forth. Eventually he
realizes that he creates the effect himself, and that is basically the Clear Cog.

The axioms are about the most fundamental fundamental in the subject called Scientology. I
personally haven't been able to find a single thing wrong with them, they pass as basic truth
as far as I am concerned. They are very basic though, and for practical purposes we have to
address is-nesses at a lower level. But, going up the levels, we have to get closer to the truths
in the axioms.

To look at axiom 29 again, it says that other authorship has been introduced to make
something persist. That means you did it but you say Joe did it, and then you can experience
it without making it vanish.

To undo the persistence, what you need to do is to see exactly what you did and exactly what
it really is: you said Joe did it, but really you did it. This goes for case or for anything else that

In other words: we might not succeed in as-is-ing case if we don't get the full story. The full
story is that you did it, but you made it seem that somebody else did it. To say that you did it is
only half the story. To say that somebody else did it is only half the story.

A pc on lower grades is likely to assume mostly that others caused his case, he is not quite
up to taking responsibility for it. The point of going clear is the exact point where he does, the
realization that "I'm mocking it up". He knows that he is doing it now.

There is a fallacy in that: he doesn't necessarily know how he is doing it yet. Anything that still
persists for him has other authorship assigned to it than himself (as per axiom 29). If he
continues to regard the existing case as the generality of "his case" he is likely to get snarled
up. When he is clear he has cleared his viewpoint, he is clear on the first dynamic. All
remaining case has other "authors" to it. And that is where the main point of discussion is. He
assigned it. That doesn't mean that the other authors really did it to him, that is just the lie that
made it persist.

Axiom 30:

"The general rule of auditing is that anything which is unwanted and yet persists
must be thoroughly viewed, at which time it will vanish. If only partially viewed,
its intensity, at least, will decrease."

When we view the full story the condition vanishes. If we view part of the story the condition

Particularly after Clear it is found that we have to get the viewpoints case is being held from,
the authorship, and that without that we don't get a full as-is-ness.

Notice that LRH didn't say "ownership" when he described as-isness in the axioms, he talked
about assigned authorship. The idea of ownership seems to have been assigned added
importance by Mayo as a solution to the above mentioned phenomenon. The phenomenon
certainly needed a handling, but the subtle alter-is was the introduction of the idea that is is
other people's case. Checking for authorship on ruds or other charge is very useful, but if it is
interpreted as a broad philosophy of assigning other ownership to case it is a different matter.

If Joe who is Clear feels ARC breaky it might not resolve by him deciding "I am ARC broken",
it might as a matter of fact compound the charge. But when he spots that the ARC X is from
the viewpoint of another person or a BT and he assesses it it might resolve completely. Axiom
29 gives the explanation to that. Joe created an ARC X and said that it was Bill's ARC X. It
might or might not have been a copy of an ARC X that Bill had, that is beside the point. Notice
that axiom 29 is rather one-way: you create something and say somebody else did it. It
doesn't say that somebody else did it and you said you did it. What can happen is that
somebody else did it and you create the effect of it for yourself and say that the other guy did
it to you. There is a difference.

This brings us into the subject or whose case you are really handling. Is it possible to handle
anybody else's case directly?

This is what Factor #11 says:

"But there are other viewpoints and these viewpoints outthrust points to view.
And there comes an interchange amongst viewpoints; but the interchange is
never otherwise than in terms of exchanging dimension points."

Well, that says clearly that you don't interact directly with any other viewpoint in this universe,
you just exchange dimension points, i.e. communication particles. In other words you can't
as-is something for somebody else. You can give them some comm that suggests that they
do it themselves, or you can somehow remove some of their dimension points and hope that
they notice. But none of that is as-isness. As-is-ness is done by the creator of something.

As-is-ness is per definition a knowing activity. If you as-is something you are aware of it. If you
get somebody else to as-is something then they are aware of it.

As Factor 20 said we have chosen to disregard the fine detail and pretend to be dependent
on other viewpoints and dimension points. That is really what allows the life game to happen,
but it isn't exactly the truth.

You can encourage or inspire others to as-is case. That is a quite laudable activity, and it is
what we call "auditing". You exchange communication with someone and coach them into
looking at something until it as-ises or at least temporarily releases.

Can you be bothered by somebody else's case? Sure, if you agree with it and mock it up and
deny that you did. Axiom 29 and 30 still provides the key: you must view how you are
assigned other authorship to it and made it persist, at which point it will vanish for you. If the
other guy still has it is a different matter.

There is a subtle difference between recognizing authorship and assigning other ownership
to the case. Deciding that it was somebody else's case without realizing your own cause
produces at best a temporary release and might at worst in itself be a source of

Responsibility is a key factor. According to Tech Dix it means:

"1. the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for
all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics. (AP&A, p.57), 10. 'admit causing',
'able to withhold' (HCOB 21 Jan 60, Responsibility)"

In other words full responsibility is when you know that you caused it. There is a gradient
scale to responsibility of course.

Look through any of the scales in "Scientology 0-8" and you will find along the top "pan-
determined creation", "cause", "source", "postulates" and things like that. If find it hard to
believe that anybody can interpret any of this as meaning anything by that they way up goes
towards an increased recognition of how you are source, how you are creating things.

After Clear you have to start taking responsibility for other viewpoints and other dynamics.
Assuming the position that it's all somebody else never get's you much further than the first
dynamic. Restimulating phenomena and then assigning them to other beings is the way you
make them persist on automatic; it isn't the way you as-is things. It has very little to do with
going up the bridge.

An Operating Thetan is:

"5. a being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form, and life. (BCR, p.10)"

meaning that ultimately you must figure out how you are or how you can be cause rather than
how you are being effect.

This doesn't contradict running entities in any way. Any piece of case could be regarded as a
being and run as such. But that doesn't mean that you aren't the source of having it there in
your space. If you bump into a guy and take a copy of him and he does the same and you
both get confused, that is taken care of for you by you realizing you did that and you not doing
it anymore. The guy might need to do the same, and he might have other problems and you
might help him with them, but that has nothing to do with your case unless you are mocking it
up too.

Ownership checking is very valuable if used as a method of achieving more full as-isness,
but it can become detrimental if consistently used to avoid responsibility.

Quotes  by L.Ron Hubbard

FAF 1 May 1991

.ce Doors

Your mind is like a vast house full of doors.

The room you are in is your concious mind. You are immediately aware of what is there. To
get to anywhere else you need to open some doors.

Many of the doors are locked. And many of them are barred by debris. Many doors are
hidden in other rooms behind other locked doors and debris.

Some of the doors are not locked and you can open them. But you might not know what is
behind them. You might get burnt if you just fling the door open and barge in. But if you open
first a crack, take a peek, and only open further and enter when you are ready, then you can
explore any of the available rooms.

If a door is barred by debris you must clean up the debris first or you will have to bring it with

When a door is locked you need to find the key or combination that will open it. You might
guess it right away, or you might have to try the combinations that you know. If the door won't
open you must save it for a later attempt. Don't dynamite the door by using force or drugs; it
might be useful in the future to have a door there.

If you unlock a door for the first time, open it cautiously. Only enter when you are comfortable
with the open door.

When you enter a new room, look at it until you know exactly what is in it. You might have to
walk around and look from several different angles before you see everything. Do not leave
the room until you know what is there and you can handle it. Only then might you consider
going to other rooms.

When you are finished with a room and you don't currently need what is in there, close the
door after you, but leave it unlocked.

When you know what is in a room, it is now available to you. You can open the door and see
and use what is there at any time.

The contents of any room that you know and have cleared will not cause you any trouble.
However, the rooms you haven't looked at can give you any kind of trouble you can think of.
Maybe the faucets have been left running, maybe termites are eating the woodwork, maybe
vital knowledge is collecting dust in there.

In some of the rooms you have records, in some you have tools, in some you have
connections to other people, other places, other times, in some you just have junk.

When you have accessed, looked at, and cleared enough rooms you can start working at
changing them. You can put things there that you want, and you can even add new rooms.

When you know and can handle everything that is in the house, you are free to leave the
house. You can take the house down if you wish, you can go and build another, or you can
walk around outside.