fg1.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Mon Nov 14 00:06:02 EST 2016


 
 
 
 
 
 
             ((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
 
                      THE THIRD PARTY LAW EXPANDED
 
                                 FG - 1
                                No date.
 
                       Copyright (C) Frank Gordon
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
     (Frank is a retired research biochemist.  He has an early HDA
((Hubbard Dianetic Auditor)) from Wichita and a BScn from Phoenix (Ross
Lamoureaux) ((?)).  He is interested in applying scientific methodology
to the humanities, and tapping the vast experience base in the
Independent Field.)
 
     RON HUBBARD described a phenomenon which he called the Third Party
Law as a way of viewing and resolving apparently intractable disputes,
quarrels, and wars.  It directs attention to the unknown third party or
"hidden promoter" who benefits from a continuing conflict, and to the
discovery of this being as a way to resolve the dispute.
 
     The emphasis is upon a being or identity and not a disagreement
about approach or ideology.  It somewhat parallels the view of venerable
books like "The Merchants of Death," which were about arms dealers.  The
arms dealer would sell one country a submarine, scare another into
buying two, and then the first into buying three - escalating the
conflict and lining his pockets.
 
     Hubbard concludes with the statement, "There are no conflicts which
cannot be resolved unless the true promoters of them remain hidden .. It
is worth working with in any situation where one is trying to bring
peace."
 
     Extension of the Third Party Law:  I have run into another way of
looking at the Third Party Law in "The Mental Hospital," a sociological
study by Stanton and Schwartz, Basic Books, New York, 1954.  Here the
pattern works in reverse:  two people in authority over and important to
a Third Party upset him by their disagreements about him.
 
     Thus, "pathologically excited patients were quite regularly the
subjects of secret, affectively important staff disagreement; and,
equally regularly, their excitement terminated, usually abruptly, when
the staff members were brought to discuss seriously their points of
disagreement with each other."
 
     So, here are two comparable patterns:  (1) A and B are fighting
because of the covert activities of C; and (2) C is upset because of the
disagreement of A and B. The application of this to a triangle of three
countries, like the U.S., Russia, and a small third world country like
Nicaragua or Viet Nam, is obvious.  A small country is inclined to "play
off" two Super-Powers against each other in order to get aid, and at the
same time is internally agitated by them.
 
     Recognizing both ends of this stick is helpful in resolving the
situation.  In the first article cited, Hubbard does not mention the
motives or emotional state of the Third Party.  It could be a feeling of
exclusion from the relationship, the jealousy of an estranged spouse, a
financial motive, or some combination.
 
     The observation about staff/mental-patient relations enlarges our
view of this area.  In chemistry, there is a phenomena known as
"resonance."  A compound gains stability (and flexibility) in relation
to the number of possible configurations which it can assume.  This kind
of variability in the patterns formed between A, B, and C could
stabilize what popular wisdom calls the "eternal triangle" and the
Catholic Church celebrates as "The Trinity."
 
     G. Gurdjieff in his "Tales of Beelzebub to his Grandson" refers to
these factors as "The Holy-Affirming, the Holy-Denying, and the Holy-
Reconciling."
 
     The Third Party Law and the Schism:  This calls to mind the
interesting question as to whether the Third Party tech would work to
heal the current breach between the Church of Scientology, and what is
essentially the Independent Church of Scientology; assuming that such a
healing were desirable.  The theoretical relation between viability and
optimum randomity (see Dianetic Axiom 76), would indicate that it is
not.
 
     ((Dianetic Axion 76: Randomity amongst organisms is vital to
continuous survival of all organisms. (Randomity means unexpected effort
coming in from the environment.  Too much or too little randomity leads
to death.  The implication here is that those who would wish a monopoly
on truth, are trying to create an environment for themselves where there
are no unexpected surprises or efforts coming in.  It's a form of
catatonia, a being 'safe' by being catatonic or still, and making sure
everyone else is being still too.))
 
     A single monolithic entity, like the dinosaur, or the Church of
Scientology, is more vulnerable than a widely scattered species with
varied ways of handling similar problems.  In this case, also, the
single monolithic entity has the inherently unstable 19th century
pattern of an aristocracy patronizing spas for their "health" while
being served by an underclass of indentured servants following complex
rituals.
 
     ((PDC 20 - "So anybody that knows these techniques, is actually
himself under a certain responsibility.  That's to make sure that HE
DOES NOT REMAIN A SOLE PROPRIETOR.  That's all it takes.  Just don't
remain a sole proprietor.  Don't ever think that a monopoly of this
subject ((Dianetics and Scientology)) is a safe thing to have.  It's not
safe.  It's not safe for man.  It's not safe for this universe.  - LRH))
 
     What might be done, however, is to reduce the conflict (like
reducing an engram) to a level of friendly competition, thus promoting
mutual survival and profitable interchange while ceasing to enrich the
legal profession.
 
     Organizational Third Partying:  In the process of maintaining
internal order and discipline, any organization may open itself up to
3rd party disruptions.  In the Church of Scientology, ethics chits and
knowledge reports were and are 3rd party operations, open to this kind
of abuse.  In HCOPL 11 Sept 65, "Ethics Protection," Organizational
Executive Course Vol 1, p.174, Ron states:  "..a staff member can get
away with murder so long as his statistic is up .. To do otherwise is to
permit some suppressive person to simply Ethics chit every producer in
the org out of existence."
 
     This clearly recognizes the possibility of abuse, while the next
quote on p.176:  "No person may be penalized for issuing an Ethics
chit." guaranteed that it would happen.  And it did.  The above
patterns, unless they are modified by an immediate and open
confrontation with one's "accusers," is malignant; and is very similar
to the formalized hidden complaint and gossip pattern of the "mental
health system," with its two major mantras:  (1) cover your ass, and (2)
"confidentiality."
 
     Auditing and Third Parties:  In auditing, anything which prevents
the freeing-up of the self-determinism of the pc, or which interrupts
auditor pc comm lines and Affinity, Reality, or Communication, can be
viewed as a 3rd party.  Various old reactive commands:  "Don't say
anything about this," "It's none of his business," and just plain "Shut
up!" combined with pain and mis-emotion ((emotion below 2.0 Antagonism
on the Tone Scale)) can act to break the comm line between auditor and
pc.
 
     One approach I've used in biofeedback work ((for example, solo on
the E-meter)) is finding questions covering suppressive 3rd parties.
E.g., I feel it's difficult for me to be intimate with anyone.  So, a
possible question was:  "Who or what doesn't want me to be intimate?"
and this revealed father, mother, and others.  Then I ran into related
areas:  "...to be at home, ...to feel happy," etc.  I ended up with
quite a list:  "Who or what would like to see me dead, fail, 'cut down
to size,'" etc.  "Who or what would like me to be sick, diseased, a
scapegoat, crazy," etc.
 
     ((There is a similar rundown in the Tech Volumes, that went like
this (from memory)...
 
     List 'What are they trying to do to me?' to a blow down item.
 
     Suppose the item is 'trying to kill me.'
 
     Then list 'Who or what is trying to kill you?' to a blow down item
which will be the SP on the pc's case.
 
     Then run, 'Who or what are YOU trying to kill?
 
     Often the TRUE items that come up are a hell of a lot more subtle
than the obvious one above, so it may take your pc a while to get it.
One item that many people miss is,
 
     'They are trying to get me to kill myself!'))
 
     After 3 pages of questions, I then began to run this generally on
the e-meter and got very good TA and a loosening needle.  You might call
this a very sloppy S&D, ((S&D = Search and Discovery, namely for SP's to
which the pc is PTS, a Potential Trouble Source)) but I see it as
looking for times when I agreed to survival suppressors like those
illustrated on the graph in the 1st book.
 
     Possible Further Patterns:  Let us consider the possibility that in
many situations this is effectively a "3 terminal" universe.  With
constantly shifting coalitions, we have a broader view of politics.
Even with only 3 terminals, there are 3 different pairs of 2 against
one, and the struggles of each to get another on his side.  There is
also the positive and desirable 3rd party, who serves as a referee, a
marriage counselor, or some form of reconciling force.
 
     Another pattern is the individual who serves as a communication
particle, a kind of ping-pong ball, for two others.  Here 2 terminals
use the 3rd as a "go-between," messenger, or pawn in their game.  In
this case, the auditor wants to move the participant ((pc)) from being a
comm particle, to being a terminal able to hold a position and give and
receive communication.  The communication drills (known as TRs) and
Control/Communication/Havingness drills help the participant achieve
this ability to hold a position as a stable, causative terminal.
 
     ((People often choose to become comm particles because they
consider it too dangerous to either originate or receive a
communication.  As a CARRIER of communication ONLY, they consider that
they are not held to blame by either party for merely conveying the
ideas or bullets of one to the other.  However messengers who carry bad
news are often attacked before the source of the bad news, so its a bad
bet.))
 
     Frank Gordon

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Nov 14 00:06:01 EST 2016 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/fgordon/fg1.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.



More information about the Clear-L mailing list