ACT - 45
                            5 February 1994
                         Copyright (C) 1994 B.
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Dear Homer,
     Here is something on ethics.  It's a more philosophical viewpoint
in my understanding:
     First one has to differentiate between ethics and justice.  Ethics
is an individual tool to measure the success in a game or in a cycle of
action. One should view it from his own position and try to get some
philosophic sense into it.
     Take it from a game-viewpoint.  If you enter a game for the first
time you go from static (potential quantity or beingness in terms of
identity) into existence.  It doesn't matter if you take a new job or if
you enter a soccer team or a new universe.
     On NonEx you decide to BE.  ((NonEx = Non Existence, ethics
condition)) You ask around for what you can do in the game.  You
establish the reality in the group (what's needed and wanted etc.).
Once you have established this you tell the other team mates basically
that you now occupy this specific position.  You care about it.  The
others don't have to wear this hat any longer (because nobody was there
jet).  NonEx is the establishment of reality and beingness.
Automatically you get into danger because you have to prove that you can
hold this position and that you don't need to be bypassed.  You work
yourself up the conditions.  I think that doesn't need explanation.
     ((The conditions go upwards, Non existence, Danger, Emergency, and
Normal Operation))
     The problem is that there is hardly any explanation about the lower
     ((The conditions go downwards, Non existence, Liability, Doubt,
Enemy, Treason, Confusion))
People get thrown into it without understanding.  Two very good
definitions relate to "liability".  It is the definition (management
dict.) of "responsibility" (def.  2) and "reasonableness" (def.  4).  If
one wants to accomplish something, he really has to go for it.  He has
to keep his goal in mind.  Otherwise his attention is directed to
"counter or other intentions".  If he agrees long enough with counter
intentions he gets into doubt about his own goal.  If he is in doubt
long enough he allows himself to commit overts against his goals which
is enemy.
     If he commits enough overts against the goal he puts in a "negative
postulate" which justifies that he "didn't want to reach it anyway".  An
interesting definition in relation to treason is: "negative postulate"
(Tech dict.).  This is the postulate "not to be".  "It cancels past
postulates and it also cancels, in greater or lesser degree, the entire
individual".  Now he is in trouble.  On NonEx he said "I am".  On
treason he says "I am not".  Now he gets into a kind of pseudo-static-
     He lost his identity and by this he lost his viewpoint.  For
instance in a 2D ((2nd dynamic, Parent-Child)) he first says "I am" and
then he gets down into the postulate of "I am not" but the other partner
is still there.  What beingness is left to look at the other person?
     He has no beingness left and so he has to look at the other through
a "remote viewpoint" (Tech dict.  "1.  a viewpoint without the
consideration by the thetan that he is located at that point...  A
thetan who is afraid to look from where he is.  He puts out viewpoints
over there and looks from there).  He cannot look from "A" (which is
him) to "B" (which is the other).  He needs a via.
     So it comes that he views his former goals via thoughts or opinions
or through the eyes of others (his mother in law or friends who said
that he shouldn't have married her/him in the first place etc.).  Now he
is in confusion.  It took me quite long to really understand this.  On
confusion you don't have anything but the command "find out where you
are".  No further explanations.  I always asked myself "why".  It is
pretty clear once it is digested philosophically.
     Of course you first have to find out "where" you are.  You have to
establish the position from which you are looking at the goal.  On
confusion one can easily find out "where one is" by sorting out (write
up) all the opinions on a certain goal.  Who's opinions are these?  etc.
Doing this, one automatically gets into the negative postulate, which is
the next higher condition.  Here you find out "that you are".
     You re-establish your beingness by realizing the negative
postulates concerning the goal you once had.  What did you do to betray
the goal?  On enemy it is pretty easy.  Here are all the overts against
the goal.  On doubt you investigate the goal (all the doubt-steps) and
decide again if you want to stick to the goal or not.
     On liability it is important to really find out what the enemies
have been in order to find the friends.  For instance if one is always
late in the morning, then it is of no help if one says that "my friend
is LRH or whoever".  Friend is what contributes to the goal: It might be
to get to bed more early. To buy a new clock which wakes you up in the
morning etc.
     The other point is "the effective blow".  The question is important
"what was the reasonableness which brought you into this condition at
all." For instance if I had been drinking a bottle of whiskey before I
go to bed every night, it is of no use to blow up a pub or whatever.
One has to make an effective blow against the enemy within oneself -
whatever it is.
     The rest is easy.  One has to re-do NonEx and work oneself up the
     Basically one is doing this all the time, even in auditing.  In
auditing one sorts out all the remote viewpoints (might be BTs or
whatever), negative postulates, overts etc.
     I personally consider the bridge as a possibility to sort out one's
mind up to the point where one finds out again what he wanted to do in
this universe in the first place.  After that one can really do his
NonEx.  I hope it helps and I hope it could express myself right.  I
don't practise english that much.  I personally believe that those in
the church are actually in confusion.  They are looking at Scn through
the eyes of management.  They dare not to look for themselves.  By this
they also betrayed their own goals.
Homer Wilson Smith           This file may be found at
homer@rahul.net              ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/act/act45.memo
Posted to usenet newsgroup:  alt.clearing.technology