

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 09 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]



DEFINITION OF ORGANIZATION, PART II

A lecture given on 15 November 1956

[Start of Lecture]

Well, probably for the first time in my career I am saying very
honestly that I have nothing to talk to you about tonight at all.
Usually I use that as a sort of a gag and so on, but it's
absolutely true.

I was going to say a few words about organization and the
handling and functions of organizations, finishing off what I was
talking about last week. But you possibly wouldn't be much
interested in that, so I thought I'd go off onto something else
-- unless, of course, you wanted to hear something about that.

Audience voices: Yes.

Well, I don't see any great note of enthusiasm there.
Organizations are something that get on one's nerves with the
greatest of ease, but nevertheless, my talk, I'll have you note,
is devoted to getting it off and getting them off our nerves. So
you see it is a different kind of a feature.

If organizations get on your nerves, then this talk is to get
organizations off your nerves, don't you see? And not only get
off of your nerves but get into your bank account. See? Got that?
Got that?

A Scientologist should have a great deal to do with organizations
in view of the fact that organizations do not know what
organizations are or how to run organizations; they just happen.
An organization says, "We're going to organize now," and they set
up a command line, and then they use that for their communications
line, and the next thing you know, why, boom! Either everybody is
in confusion -- so much in confusion that nobody dares kill the
organization (that's usually how they survive), or the
organization simply knocks itself off. Because it uses its
communication line -- as its communication line -- its command
line. From general down to private is used as their communication
line.

Now, this has evidently happened recently to a very large
electronic recorder company in America, one of the best, because
it is losing all of its good people. Now, when a big organization
starts to lose all of its good people, then you can be very sure
that there is something wrong with its communication system. It
means that those people cannot make the organization and its
communications systems function in order to permit them to
continue a good, productive level.

An organization is a servomechanism to the doingness of people.
Now, I've told you what an organization is. An organization is a
group of terminals and communication lines associated with a
common purpose. That's what an organization is. All right. Talked
to you about that for a whole hour, didn't I? Fact.

Now, here's something very peculiar: An organization never does
anything. Never. It can't hurt. It can't bleed. It can't think.
It can't act. It's a postulate of a purpose sitting there with
communication terminals and communication lines, and that is the
totality of the organization. We have to move something alive in
on it before it seems to do anything. But the organization never
actually does a thing -- never. Never accomplishes a second's
work.

All an organization can do is to assist and facilitate those
people's doingness who wish to do. That's all an organization can
do. It can help you with your doingness.

Therefore, what an organization is, very sharply, is a
servomechanism to the doingness of people. Now, what do you mean
by a servomechanism? It means a mechanism which serves, services
or aids something. That is all that that is -- servomechanism. If
it is not a servomechanism, it becomes a sort of a monster, a
peculiar sort of a monster too, because the monster never does
anything, except interrupt the willingness and doingness and
workingness of human beings. When an organization becomes a
monster it has ceased to assist the doingness of the person and
has begun to block the doingness of the person, and then that
organization is a monster. It is apparently something which
exists which kills people.

A bad organization could actually, factually slaughter everybody
in its ranks. But what do we see here? We merely see then that
ignorance of organization is what slaughters people in their
ranks. Since the organization itself can never do anything, then
attempted doingnesses go so awry on the organizational lines that
they succeed in knocking off all the parts of the organization.
You follow me that? It's something that man has never learned,
and it's one of the reasons I have been talking to you about
organization. Man has never learned this. He has never learned
that an organization cannot do. He has never learned that it
cannot bleed. It does not suffer. It cannot be punished. There is
nothing there to receive or become cognizant of punishment.

And when you look at what an organization is, you find it's a
series of communication lines and terminals associated with a
common purpose. What about these terminals? No, a terminal is
never a body, and that is a fantastic error that is made by 99
percent of the people in organizations. They think of themselves
as terminals. They exist as terminals only when they do not have
proper communication facilities. I already talked to you about
that. I said it snapped in on the body: They use the body as a
terminal.

Well, let's look over this whole principle of organization, and
let's take one person who is attempting to do something. Now, all
he's attempting to do perhaps is to deliver some cartons of nuts
and bolts from A to B and get a receipt for them. That's all he
has to do. Now, he is a terminal known as shipping department. He
has to stay pegged there if there is no real terminal. There's
nothing to receive communications in his absence; he is then tied
in to this. If there's any way people can write something on a
slip of paper and drop it in a basket there, then we do have a
terminal. It's a basket or the folder in the basket is the
terminal. He can be reached. Therefore, he himself is not glued
to this terminal at once. And he has received an order to ship
two cartons of nuts and bolts over here to the assembly
department. Now, he has to procure these from the people who are
storing all of the spare parts and things like that. It's a very
simple action. Nothing to this at all.

He calls, phones, writes -- in other words, indicates a despatch
-- to the storehouse and says, "Cartons of nuts and bolts, if you
please." He then operates as a communication particle: He picks
them up. He walks over to the assembly room. He lays them down.
He says, "Give me a receipt." He walks back to where he normally
operates to see if there's anything else in his basket. Isn't
that a simple arrangement? There's nothing to that.

Let's see how an organization could foul him up.

No communications lines exist whatsoever coming in to Mr. Jones,
who is to deliver these nuts and bolts -- no communication lines.
All of a sudden there's a pink slip appears in front of his face
that says "You're fired! Why are you fired? Well, you're fired
because you didn't deliver the nuts and bolts." What nuts and
bolts? Most elementary situation in the world. He never heard
about it. Why did he never hear about it? Because there was no
organization there, or the organization that was there was not
really a good organization at all. The messages, the calls, the
orders, anything to procure the nuts and bolts, went someplace
else. They went up to the blueprints factory or something.

See, here's how that'd work. The office boy drops by and he says,
"Oh, I'm walking over toward the procurement desk and I'll take
this along" -- he sees it on somebody's desk. And he walks up to
the blueprint place. And he isn't looking, and he just lays down
a whole bunch of stuff, and also amongst it is some other stuff
that really belonged down in the engineering section. He puts
that on the desk up there, too. Some messages went awry.

Well, most organizations specialize only in methods of making
messages go astray. That is the only thing they really want to do
is to introduce more vias on the line. They try to introduce more
vias. If they find a command Jam anywhere along the line, they
follow an exact principle.

Now, you think this is just a quip or a joke, but it's not. It's
actually a rule that is followed by bad organizations -- by the
people who run them. It's a rule followed by them just as
meticulously and as carefully as Newton followed his three laws,
right or wrong. And that is, whenever you have a communication
difficulty you add people. If something isn't happening, you add
people. If you can't get the job done, you add people. That's all
they know. It's a sort of bluh-bluh. Just add some more people.

"What! You mean you can't get these nuts and bolts from this desk
over to that desk. Hire three more shipping clerks."

Now, wait a minute. One couldn't receive despatches; do you think
three more can?

Oh, no, but they can certainly pass despatches amongst themselves
to add to the confusion to such a degree that nobody has any
responsibility for ever shipping anything. And the remedy of the
organization people in charge of that organization would be, in
antediluvian times, to add more people to that desk again. See,
one man couldn't do the job, so they added three. The four men
now can't do the job, so now we're going to add ten. See, I mean,
this is the rule they follow.

Now, you want to watch this very carefully as you look around.
You will see a bad organization grow in personnel all out of
proportion to how they grow in business. Do you see that? Their
business doesn't increase, but they keep adding personnel. What's
wrong with this organization?

Well, two things could be wrong with it: One is your business,
and the other is your business on telling people what
organizations are. The people comprising this organization have
no doingness about them of any kind whatsoever. It doesn't remedy
their no-doingness by adding more people.

The other thing could be wrong is the organization itself doesn't
have terminals and communication lines. It cannot communicate
inside itself.

I'll give you an example of how bad communication, and so on,
works: Here's Jones. He gets fired for not delivering something.
It's very seldom explained to the organization at large what
happened to the shipping clerk. They think something bad
happened. Management never bothers to inform anybody. It says,
"That's nobody's business. You know, we're protecting the guy."
So people begin to believe that he robbed a bank or he has a
criminal record or something real bad, or reversely, that
management is merely being arbitrary, you see? It's very
upsetting.

Actually, management thought it had a reason to fire Jones, and
it never aired this reason. Therefore, the organization never is
able to come forward as individuals and say, "What are you
talking about -- the two cartons of nuts and bolts that weren't
delivered? I've been sitting here for three days with that
communication on my desk, wondering where it was supposed to go.
What do you mean firing Jones for this!" In other words, somebody
could talk; somebody could communicate.

Well, there are two things punished in this universe: One is
being there, and the other is communicating. Those are the only
two punishments there are, let me assure you. Just two, one is
being there, and the other is communicating.

Now, they actually are joined together. Being-thereness is
advertised by communicatingness. Got it? But these are the two
things that are punished. So people hear people communicating,
and they say "Shoot them!" Somebody notices somebody is present,
they say, "Make him run!" Got the idea?

So in spite of the beauties of the periodic chart, this universe
could be said to be against organization, since organization
consists entirely of being-thereness and communicatingness.

Well, how could an organization have an entire universe against
it? Oh, very easily, very easily. You merely have to fill it up -
- all those posts in the organization -- full of people that have
already totally succumbed to the ardures and duress of the
universe. That's all you had to do: just get a bunch of people
who've already caved in and have closed terminals completely with
the physical universe, and let them behave in a chaotic fashion.
Then they would take any organizational plan or pattern and
scatter it, confuse it and nonexistence it at such a remarkable
rate that you would no longer have an organization if you had a
perfect one to begin with. Do you see that?

So we get to that thing which most intimately concerns the
Scientologist. An organization is the easiest thing in the world
to lay out. It is the easiest thing in the world to understand,
as long as you understand that it is simply a collection of
terminals and communication lines associated with a common
purpose. Very easy to understand. Nothing to it. You can lay out
an organization, scat, just in a moment. Until we run into this
other fact: an organization, then, would never exist in any other
way than as a collection of individuals. Given a perfect
organization and given a collection of individuals -- see, a
perfect organization and then just a collection of individuals --
the doingness of those individuals would confuse or upset the
organization to the degree that these people could not straightly
do. If they could not do, then the organization itself would be
upset. Do you understand?

So every organization under the sun is composed of people --
individuals. There isn't a duo or a trio in the whole works. We
hear of cliques in organization. We hear of four or five people
who kind of run things over there in the machine shop. We hear of
the four or five people who sort of run things in the west wing
of the jail. We hear of these cliques, and we get the idea that
these groups are not individuals but are operating on a group
basis. Well, we know already that a group can sort of gather to
itself a spirit. We know this. Groups are very hard to knock out.
But in the final analysis, you yourself, in your approach to
organizations, governments, groups of people in any way, must
remember that these numbers of people are composed of
individuals, and the general tone of the group is remediable by a
change of tone of the individuals in the group.

There is no such thing as the United States government. There is
no such thing as the British government. It isn't, if by
government you mean something alive, something that acts,
something that has volition, something that can receive,
something that can send. It isn't. It's a bunch of individuals,
and it wouldn't matter how many constitutions, how many Magna
Chartas, how many customs you had laid out. It wouldn't matter
how many rules and regulations you had on the communication lines
if the individual occupying those terminals and using those
terminals and lines was himself incapable of keeping lines and
terminals straight and separate and was himself incapable of
doingness. We get immediately to this fact about organizations.
Organizations exist -- if they have any general purpose at all --
they exist or could exist only to assist the government of
themselves or the doingness of people.

You could have an organization which existed solely to exist. You
could have that. It could exist only to run itself You know,
everybody taking in everybody else's laundry sort of thing, you
know? The total purpose of it was to have an organization. This
is possible. Many kids have gangs just to have gangs, not to do
anything. It's quite interesting. They have an organization
there.

But where the organization itself has a purpose which is exterior
to itself, then its only reason for existence, the only excuse it
would have to exist, would be to assist the doingness of the
individuals within it. And if an organization cannot assist the
doingness of individuals within it, then it had better not exist
at all, because it will impede the doingness of the individuals
within it.

When you have a very large number of people under one of these
canopies like government (state, city, federal; I don't care
what), you see a weird phenomenon take place, very weird: People
look at this thing called a government or an organization or a
group or a club -- they look at this thing and they say, "The
organization did this. The organization did that." In such a way,
the organization is simply a shield for cowardly men whose
doingness is very poor. Nobody there stands up and dares be
there. They say, "The organization. The government did this. The
government thought that." The devil it did! At no time did a
government ever do a single thing anyplace in the history of the
world. A guy did it. A guy cooperating with some more guys did
it. That's all that did it. And they used a set of communication
lines and terminals that we call government, but they did it.

If you're looking for basic cause in a society -- its economic or
legal duress or distress -- for heaven sakes never be fooled by
looking at this huge, nonextant thing called government. Don't
ever look at that to be cause for anything, because you are
assigning improper cause. That's an improper cause and will wind
you up into a concatenation of bad logic, because you didn't
start at cause and therefore you won't get distance or effect.
You say, "The government did it." The devil it did! It never did
any such thing.

Now, this is something you must know if you are ever going to
counsel a business or a group and get it into any kind of a
shape. If you're ever going to do this, you would have to know
this. I'm not just here cursing governments. Actually, there have
been good governments on earth, because there have been good men
on earth. And when there are bad governments on earth, there are
bad men on earth, and that's all it amounts to.

When we address immediately, directly and intimately a business
(and by the way, Scientologists these days more and more are
addressing businesses), then we must never make the mistake of
believing for a moment that the business exists as a living,
breathing entity, because there win be something there that we
feel called upon to process that we can't reach, and therefore
we're up against a hidden menace of some kind or another; we're
up against a hidden influence.

We go in and say, "Well, the Salisbury Company" -- how easily we
say that -- "The Salisbury Company wants me to process their
employees." You've uttered a common human statement. But because
it's a common human error you will never be able to achieve it.
Some people in the Salisbury Company want some processing. That
is the correct rendition.

Now, the Salisbury Company itself couldn't ever be processed,
never. The individual idea of how communication should exist or
not exist, however, can be processed. The Salisbury Company will
never do or be anything. It assists or impedes the doingness of
the individuals within its comm lines and terminal boundaries.
That's all it does, if it does anything.

Now, its communication lines and terminals are as good as the
people will let them be, and they're as bad as, and as murderous,
as the people insist that they are. So you see a bunch of
communication lines and you see them all tangled up and so on,
don't think that some bright guy in the company can't draw up
more communication lines and terminals. They can draw them up by
the -- oh, I don't know. Sometimes you doubt this when you
suddenly shove under the hands of an executive and say, "Here.
Draw me a map of your own secretarial service."

And he says, "What do you mean?"

"Draw the communication lines that you use every day."

And he comm lags for two and a half hours. Chews on the pencil,
his tongue over here in his cheek. Squints up. "Let me see now. I
write a letter... No, I really don't write the letter. Now, let's
see. The letter comes in to me. Well, the letter comes in to me.
I get a letter. Well, it's easy. I get a letter. I answer it.
That's my communication line."

You say, "No. No. No. Come on. Come on. Just where does this
thing go?"

"What thing?"

"The letter."

"Thing? You mean a letter. Well, it's a bunch of stuff that says
something."

"Oh, it is, is it? Well, what is a letter?"

Wow. Guy will tell you it's anything. He'll say it is a
communication. That's dodging the issue nicely. He'll finally
find out that a letter is a piece of paper with some words on it.
But this will escape him, particularly a business executive, by
the hour. What is a letter? He won't be able to tell you. What is
this thing? You can hold one up and shake it in front of his
face. I've done this. "What is this thing?" I've said.

He says, "It's a communication! What are you talking about? That
particular one is a demand for eighteen cans of something or
other."

And you say, "Fine. Fine. What is a letter?" You know?

And he finally says -- after you plague him and chew on him and
beat at him for a long time, he finally up and admits it is a
thing; it's a piece of paper with some words on it.

And having cognited then that a communication particle was a
particle, that it did have some mass, that it could go across
space and distances, we say, "Now, let's get to work on the
subject of where your communication lines go, and where they come
from." And boy, they sure end always at the door of his private
office. They never go out to his secretary. They just never
arrive out there. They get taken out there in some fashion, or
something of the sort. But when he processes one of these things,
he really has no idea that it ever goes anyplace. It sort of
magically disappears out of his own brain and appears in somebody
else's brain in some fashion, and if it doesn't do that very
magically, he gets very upset. He cannot allow any communication
lag. He can't allow time for his communication, his letter now,
to go through a couple of hands, to be transcribed, to go through
a couple of hands and appear on somebody else's desk and to be
put into a slot and read in due course. He can't allow for that.

So you find these boys are mostly concerned with jamming their
own lines. They write the letter on Thursday -- Thursday evening
usually, very late. The girl comes in. She has already a jammed
line, so she gets this letter typed as soon as she can, sometime
around 11:30 or something like that. She gets it into an
envelope. Mailboy comes along and picks it up and it goes over to
somebody over here. But what do you know, this was Friday and the
offices are closed on Saturday. And Monday this other guy reads
it in his desk, and so on. This would be optimum, you see. And
then he answers it in some fashion, and it goes back onto this
communication line. Monday afternoon our executive is saying,
"Let's see. It was clear last Thursday when I wanted to know what
happened to Jones. Uh... uh -- rr-rrr! I'll have to call him up
on the telephone," see? So, he says, "Referring the... Hey,
Jones," on the phone, "referring to the letter I wrote you."

"What letter?"

Now, I don't know why, but they always at this moment search for
the letter. When he gets all the phone lines all tied up, and he
gets Jones' secretary tied up and his own secretary tied up, and
he gets everybody all tied up and everything off the groove and
off the line, and finally he's satisfied he hasn't got an answer
to it yet, Jones told him he'd answer him tomorrow. He's got it
all tied up. He's all set, see?

Somebody's trying to crowd, push and crunch, not his job, he's
trying to punish the line itself Got this? You'll find most
executives are in this condition. The lines themselves don't
exist to serve them, they exist to be beaten. Then you wonder why
everybody in the plant can't find out anything. It's all sitting
on the executive's desk usually. It's someplace unanswered. He
has all the data.

I've met some of the most remarkably, wonderfully efficient men.
Boy, these guys could tell you at any instant what the production
figure was, where it was, how it was, zim-zam. Oh, boy! Straight
genius, see? And anybody ten feet away from that desk didn't know
a thing, and yet they were expected to do, and they were expected
to function.

One notable case -- one fantastic case of this -- ran a
government-surplus sales organization. He bought government
surplus and he sold it. He had a staff of fifteen salesmen. He
himself would receive all of the lists of the material he now
owned. You see, he'd buy those over the phone. He'd take these
lists. Then he would call up his own prospects. He would sell
them. But in the meantime, routine communication had distributed
these lists to his salesmen and they would be out there beating
their brains out trying to sell things which had already been
sold. And then he'd sit back and say, "You see how much better I
am than any other salesman in the place, you know? My sales
record is way up, and yours is way down. What's the matter with
you people?"

Well, the funny part of it is, every single one of those salesmen
knew what was the matter with the people -- him. He might have
been fooling himself, but he wasn't fooling them; they knew what
he was doing. And they knew that -- some dim way -- that he
possibly was not conscious of this fact. He never let anybody
have any information anyplace in the place. Nobody ever could
find out a thing -- secrecy.

In other words, here was an individual who stopped every comm
line that he could get his hands on. He'd stop it. He himself
would act. He was a case of "I have to do it myself " He couldn't
let another soul do a thing anywhere else in the world. And this
man's whole organization was in chaos, if you called it an
organization.

And one day it up and went broke. And he could never understand
why those salesmen hadn't gotten out and sold the stuff for him.
They knew that anytime they had an old secondhand ship, or
something of the sort, then they knew if they got a sale for it,
it would have been sold the day before and they never would have
been told. So they didn't dare sell anything. They just didn't
dare sell a thing. In other words, he achieved the cutting out of
all of their doingnesses by cutting the comm lines which would
have assisted those doingnesses. Got it?

So that's how organizations are wrecked. That's how they get into
the state they get into. But all an organization is, is a series
of comm lines and terminals, so what gets wrecked? The comm lines
and the terminals. That's all that are there to get wrecked, so
that's all that gets wrecked.

Now you, in handling any group, then, in view of the fact that
anybody can dream up an organization, would actually be wasting
your time to lay out a beautiful pattern of communication from
here to there and so on. You would really be wasting your time.
There's no sense in this, beyond this one point: People who are
accustomed to this activity can feed you data at both ends, and
you, because you hear both ends of the story, can act as
mediator. And it sounds like a real bright idea -- the idea that
Joe gave you and the idea that Bill gave you, see? You put them
together into the idea that will agree, and they both say,
"You're real bright, Mr. Scientologist. You're all set. You're
absolutely right. See, I mean that's a good idea. That's a
terrific idea you dreamed up." Who dreamed up? They dreamed up.
But they dreamed up an idea that was within their ability to
agree with communication. See, that was the idea they dreamed up,
and you have to pay attention to that.

You either, then, have to dream up or agree with what they will
consider communication -- at which time they will communicate in
that pattern -- or you've got to change their acceptance level of
communication, and I'm afraid there are no other answers.

You cannot have a soldier standing alongside of each government
desk saying, "Communicate." Somehow or other they'd foul up his
supply of bullets.

Here we have, then, this oddity that you could get people to
agree on data, agree on organization, agree on patterns of data,
patterns of logic. You could get people to agree on these things.
But to hammer them with it and say, "You must not think about
this now. This is not called to your attention any further. It is
for your acceptance and memorization." Wow, they won't
communicate with it, and they won't do.

I didn't mean accidentally to describe college education as it
exists today. I didn't mean to. I mean, I'm sorry. I keep running
into it, though, every once in a while.

You couldn't possibly ask anybody to do anything if you insisted
on your evaluation of communication as the thing he must follow.
Do you see? You can't then have him do anything. If you take your
idea of communication -- see, your idea of what is a good
communication here -- and then insist that he accept it right
there, and like that... He'd have to be in terrific shape. If you
gave him a Scientology definition of communication -- you said
that is it -- he could look at its component parts but he
couldn't put them together. It's not his idea of communication.
He knows what communication is, it's "Huh!" That's communication.
What do you do when you get a letter, you say, "Huh!" What do you
do when you want to ask somebody hello? You know, you greet them
on the street, you say, "Huh!" What do you do when you want to
sell something? I'm afraid it is also, "Huh!" And we wonder why
he isn't a good salesman.

No, I'm afraid we would have to take this subject of
communication up with him very directly, and we would have to say
"What is a letter?" Until he can finally find some definition in
himself that tells you and at the same time tells him what this
letter is, he's going no place from there. Do you see that? He's
going no place because you've never found an entrance level to
the case. There's no entrance level to the case unless you have
some communication that is a communication: He understands it's a
communication, and understanding it's a communication, he then
accepts it as a communication. Don't you see?

Now, if you process people just into an understanding of
communication... After all, you have its basic definitions. If
you have its basic definitions, if you just went over each one of
these definitions -- let's take a whole group of business people,
see; whole group of business people. We just take the longest,
most arduous definition of communication we have. You know, the
one that's cause, distance, effect, and attention and intention
and all the rest of them -- duplication -- we take all of these
parts and we just rack them all up into an arduous stack over
here, see? And we take the first one off the top and we say,
"Now, what is this? What is this? What is this thing called
attention? What is attention? Oh, you, Jones over there, what is
attention?"

Oh well, Jones'll say, "Attention. Attention is something people
demand of YOU.

And you'd say to the rest of them, "Now, what do the rest of you
think about that? Do you think that's what attention is?"

Finally you'd get them to define, to their own satisfaction, what
all these words were. You'd get them to define them as well as
you could get them to define them. And I hate to tell you this,
but if they're a group of business people that are in an enforced
kick on communication all the time, the definitions they give you
are not, at the end of hours, going to even approach
satisfactoriness. They're going to be still something real wild,
something you don't want at all. But they agree that's what it
was, and so you say that's fine. You take the next one, and you
go through the lot of them.

How many evenings of training do you think a group like this
would have to have, huh? All you did was take the most arduous,
long formula of communication we have and took every single part
of it and asked them what it was. But the funny part of it is,
you would wind up with people who, by and large, could then form
and carry on an organization which would serve their doingness.
Because once they find out they can communicate, they're apt to
be willing to appear. As soon as they appear, they're willing to
be terminals. As soon as they are willing to be terminals, why,
they're perfectly willing to have terminals and confront
terminals and work with terminals. And then you would have an
organization. You follow me?

In order to reform the United States government -- formidable
project; one which I advise you never to attempt; don't ever
attempt it -- don't think it consists of going down to Congress
and beating on the drum for a bunch of new laws to be passed.
That has nothing to do with it! Has nothing whatsoever to do with
it, not for a minute. All those new laws will do is they will
enter new arbitraries which will cause additional new confusion.
That's all. Because you're feeding into a vast bad organization a
lot more ways of stopping, and boy it's on inverted stop now. It
can stop everybody.

Now, the gay, heroic spirit of the young second lieutenant who
goes into the army is a touching sight. I often see somebody with
some shoulder bars or something like that -- brand-new gold bars.
It's wonderful. It's a beautiful sight. I think, "Well, there
goes another one, you know? He'll get in there, and he'll want to
change this, and he'll want to change that, and he wants to do
this, and he wants to do that. And he thinks that this is the
thing he ought to do. And he looks and finds his troops are in
kind of bad morale and in bad condition, and he wants to get them
a little bit better off, and he wants to shape this up, and so
forth. And there's no mechanism there to serve his doingness at
all. He has no comm lines to serve his doingness.

Just let him try to address something to the major. Uh-ha, well,
the major: that's a real close look. Let him try to receive
something from the general staff. Comm lines are the command
lines, so they're all forbidden. What's a command line do in a
large organization? It forbids. See? What is the standard
command? It's to forbid. "No, you can't." So if this is then the
communication line, what do you get on the comm lines? Forbid.
Now, after a while they forbid the comm line.

Did you ever see anybody get mixed up with government who is in a
much higher state of action afterwards? Think it over for a
moment. Did you ever see anybody get mixed up with a government
who came out in a much higher state of ambition and action, hm?
Well, they'd have to have had a lot of processing to have made it
if they ever did, because the lines are not there to serve the
individual. The individual is there to serve the lines. Get the
reverse look? And so the doingness of the individual is
neglected. And if you neglect the doingness of the individual,
you will make everything very gruesome thereafter, because
there'll be a lot of bodies around and they won't be moving.

War is not a symptom of the anger of peoples. Governments go on a
routine and regular cycle which drops into absolute destruction
at relatively regular intervals. Its own organizational lines get
down to forbid, and its own laws forbid killing the other fellows
in the army, so somebody in the army has to kill somebody, and
they go out and find an enemy and knock him off. I don't think
that it has a single thing to do with the international
situation. I don't think there's even any relation whatsoever
between war and politics. I think war is an insanity which is
achieved when a bad organization descends to a complete anxiety,
and you get a condition of war.

Now, where would you get an organization that would assist the
doingness of people? Well, it would have to be amongst people who
were doing. And those people, in doing, must be able to tolerate
communication. So what would be a good organization to work for?
A good organization to work for would be an organization that
would tolerate communication. And that wouldn't be too hard to
work for. That'd be all right.

Work, of course, you understand is "always" arduous. But how can
we get it to not a complete death sentence? And that would be to
be in an organization where people were doing, and people were
willing to communicate. And if this was the case, then that
organization would gradually find that it could have and could
construct communication lines to serve the doingness of people.

Somebody has an idea that coordinates his action with somebody
else's action; there must be some way where he can communicate
this. And having communicated it, the other person doesn't go
straight up and a mile south and forbid the communication and get
all upset about it.

The other person also has the freedom to say "That's nutty.
That's crazy. Dopiest thing I ever heard." Free line, see?

And the other fellow say, "What's dopey about it?"

"Well, I don't like it."

"Well, that's not good enough."

"Well, all right, it'd make me more work."

"Oh, if it'd make you more work... How would it make you more
work?"

"Well, I'd have to make everything out in quintuplicate," like
they have to do for machine-gun ammunition on the front lines. To
get more machinegun ammunition you have to make out the
requisitions in quintuplicate, you know? One copy goes to the
enemy for okay.

All right. Now, if we look over this we see that we are facing
not an unsolvable problem at all. We are facing a problem which
is peculiarly solvable, because we can solve the problems on the
individual level, therefore it is obvious that we can solve
problems on a third-dynamic or organizational level, because they
are individual problems.

You can actually give people a test, spot them on the Tone Scale
and know exactly how the communication lines will behave in their
immediate vicinity -- the easiest thing to do a Scientologist
ever did. The only thing that happens is the Scientologist,
having nothing to do with a science, usually has a good heart,
and he is always prone to assign a better value to the individual
than the test indicated. This is fabulous. This works everyplace
but the HGC.

HGC -- we know this so we're always on the safe side, always
undercut the actual state of the case by three stages and process
there. That's the only place where we do this. Every place else
we say, "Well," (charity, sweetness and light) "I mean, they mean
all right, even if they are a stupid bunch of jerks," so on --
keep giving people the benefit of the doubt. Well, it's a fatal
thing to do in taking an assessment of people when you're trying
to treat an organizational series of personnel. You better look
at it right straight on the button all the way across; be
accurate. I know that's not a human characteristic, but be
accurate anyhow.

We had it figured out one time that it is impossible to be human
and to be right -- utterly impossible. You could not possibly be
human and be right. To be human it is an absolute necessity to be
wrong! Well, that's for sure.

Now, look it over. You sit down at a table. You have a glass of
milk while somebody else is finishing dinner, something like
that, and you're waiting to go to the movie, see? And so you have
a glass of milk to be polite. You didn't want it at all, but you
just joined them and you're waiting for them to finish dinner,
and they're going to go to the movie with you. That's fine. And
they say, "You don't mind waiting, do you?" And you say, "Oh, no.
I don't mind waiting." The feature only goes on in three minutes,
you see? And you sit there smiling, you know? What a liar you
are. Now, is that being right? No, you're not being right. You're
telling lies. You're just lying like mad.

There are many other ways that it is impossible to be right. For
instance, somebody says, "Well, you know that the cube root of
Newton's second law is one of the more factual facts." And you
know it's for the birds, but you don't want to offend him, so you
say, "Well, that's right. Yeah." God have mercy on my soul, see?

You are always forced, being human, to tell lies, to be wrong --
just as routine, routine activity, see, be wrong. And you look
this over carefully, and you discover that it's really not
possible to be human and to be right. The penalty of being human
is to be wrong.

Somebody wrote a play one time about a fellow who told the truth
for twenty-four hours -- told nothing but truth, twenty-four
hours -- and I think in the play he did not get shot, so the play
itself was a lie.

But we look this over and we properly evaluate people, and we
would be able then to forecast what they would do, what they
would be, how they would work and react, and all we're interested
in is how they would communicate. If we're interested in how they
would communicate, then we can spot the fact that they will be
able to do. A person is so accustomed to trying to do something
that he cannot then communicate that communicatingness cuts down
his doingness. And there's a direct coordination between these
two things: his communicatingness and his doingness.

So, let's look it over and let's see very plainly that an
organization depends upon the tone level of its personnel, and
that is really all it depends on, unless of course we grade
goals. Some goals of organizations are better and some are worse,
some are more pervasive, some are less. But this again was the
idea, ordinarily, of a person.

Communism doesn't like this idea. They even swear at the cult of
the personality. I know they kept people from going to circuses
in droves when they told Popov the Clown that he must play a
background role now because he was trying to erect a cult of the
personality. The Moscow Circus was being jammed throughout
Europe; people were going to it wherever it appeared because of
this famous clown, Popov. And the anti-Stalinists said that this
must be a bad thing, that he was there and he was communicating,
so they were going to cut his throat and they did.

And they get the idea that goals and songs and other things float
in the air; they are conditions which exist, never caused. See, a
folk song is an uncaused song. Nobody ever wrote it. That's one
of the silliest things. You get to looking this over and you'll
see that somebody is so stuck in conditions they can't have
terminals. So it's rather a fabulous thing that communism
operates at all. And we look at it closely and we find out it
doesn't operate. What's operating there is a capitalism state-
size. Well, we won't go into that any further.

But if we have all things uncaused, why, then we can never treat
them. Do you understand that completely? Things which have never
been caused can never be erased. Only things which have been
caused can be factually erased.

A fellow has lumbago: You have to find some basis for his lumbago
satisfactory to him before it goes away. He has to understand
that he caused it or somebody caused it or something caused it.
And all of a sudden he cognites, and he says, "That's when I was
going on that sleigh ride. Ah, I remember that pain. Yeah, I was
on that sleigh ride and I was kissing the girl, and just at that
moment we fell off the back of the sleigh, and I've never been
the same since" -- something like that; an interrupted kiss or
something. Anyway, he says, "That's why I've got this bad leg,
here. That's easy." And all of a sudden it goes away.

A condition, to exist, must be uncaused. And so if we say the
organization did it, it's uncaused. You see that? If we say the
great god Throgmagog caused it (only he doesn't exist: he's
everywhere at once; he's in all drinking water), the condition
can never be erased. Nobody can ever reach it, and they go
frantic. They get very upset with it because they can never
penetrate to the causation, and never being able to penetrate to
causation, they cannot of course eradicate the condition, so the
condition goes on forever.

How do you make something go on forever? You say it was never
caused. Nobody, nothing ever caused this. It is a condition which
is natural, which exists, which is psychological. Well, all
right.

Therefore, the statement that General Electric does this and
General Electric does that, and General Motors does this, and the
government does that are all uncaused actions which will then
float forward till the end of time. And it's no wonder that
whereas an organization might have been able to have built a
submarine in 1954, to find that they're not able to build a
submarine in 1956. They're just hitting the dwindling spiral,
aren't they? In other words, this "company" built a submarine.
The devil it did! It never did! I didn't see a single company
sign down there pounding rivets. There wasn't a single sign, and
none of the tape at all came around to polish the windows or the
ports or anything. There was nothing. Nothing happened there as
far as that's concerned. But there were some men there. And there
were some men that did drawings on drawing boards, and there were
some girls that copied them off. And there were some riveters and
some welders there. And there were some atomic-energy men there,
and there were some other people there. But they were all people.
And they all lived and breathed. And they are reachable, and they
can be contacted, and they can be talked to. And these people
exist; they are. And their actions are traceable to them.

I'm afraid what I'm giving you is terribly destructive. If this
was uttered tonight in Hungary or in Poland, we would probably
all be shot before dawn. Fortunately, our present government has
not yet snapped terminals to the degree that it would accomplish
this if it found out about it. We are protected by the fact that
our government almost never finds out anything. If it finds it
out and if it believes it thoroughly, count on it; it's wrong.

Why would this be revolutionary? Because the complete, solid
understanding that an organization is composed of individuals and
is not itself a thing is primary cause on organization. And if
you realize that thoroughly -- not just lip service to it -- if
you really looked it over, if you yourself could find that in
your own experience and in your own observation, then the
organizations which you have looked at for so long (governments
and other things) would be seen by you for what they are:
collections of individuals. And those individuals are individual
individuals. There is nothing mystic or esoteric about any one of
them. They exist, they live, they breathe.

And to realize that about a great government is to realize,
almost, the end of that government. Do you see that clearly?
Because all you would have to do is to put out this law: You
would have to say, "Government officials hereinafter must be
human," or "They must be processed," or they must be anything'd.
And there would go (up or down) the organization. All you'd have
to do is recognize the individual nature of each person in that
organization and realize that they were people, and you would
never again be afraid of a police force.

Policemen are robots, you know; somebody else always sent them.
Definition of a robot: a robot is a machine that somebody else
runs. You never contact the operator of robots, you contact the
robot. Well, police are peculiarly this. Nevertheless, there was
somebody who sent them.

The organization of police is never against one. The organization
of government cannot possibly be against one. The organization of
an army cannot be against one. But individuals can be nasty on
occasion. But remember this: individuals can be handled even when
they have rocket pistols in their hands. I know. I speak by
experience.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]
