Article by Antony Phillips
Editor comment: This is a repeat article which was posted late year. Owing to new people joining and visiting this blog some may have missed it so we decided to re-publish it while we are waiting for some “breaking news”
We are free of ‘Scientology dictatorship’.
We are free to make heretical statements – and to discuss them.
I was thrown out in 1983, when Ron was supposedly then still alive. I say ‘supposedly’ because we were uncertain of that at the time and confused as to why Scientology had recently gone so ‘wonky’. The Internet did not yet exist, but someone produced a little magazine and called it The Heretic.
Here is an article that appeared in it:
The Black Panther Mechanism: A Dangerous Omissionby DA PROFESSOR, USA
One possible explanation for the Church’s persistent world view of US vs. THEM, borne out by continual attacks, etc. when TRs and ARC would handle most situations, can be found in the Tech Dictionary under ‘Black Panther Mechanism’, which outlines the possible methods for coping with the environment.
Anything that prevents Gus from getting upstairs can, by this definition, only be handled by attack, flee, avoid, neglect or succumb. While this certainly is quite an improvement over the psych’s ‘fight or flight’ response, it still is missing vital viewpoints.
The selection of “a particularly bad-tempered black panther” as a model and placing him in the artificial environment of a home obscures other options. Just in case the Gentle Reader might try to think up any other option, the definition goes on to say: “All actions can be seen to fall within these courses”. Where some see only problems, others see solutions or opportunities.
I propose a new name and definition.The Grey Wolf Options: There are several ways in which a human being reacts toward a possible source of danger. Let us suppose that a man named Sam and a grey wolf inhabit the same wood. Both people and wolves are pretty dangerous critters and they compete for food and cave space. How can Sam resolve this situation?
- He could attack the grey wolf;
- He could flee from the grey wolf;
- He could stay in parts of the wood to avoid the grey wolf;
- He could neglect the grey wolf;
- He could succumb to the grey wolf; or
- He could cooperate with the grey wolf.
Recognizing that the problem is not the wolf, that the problem is staying alive in the woods, and that the wolf shares the problem, allows the man and the wolf to form an alliance. The wolf brings his intelligence, keen sense of smell and swiftness into the bargain. Sam adds his intelligence, thumb, ‘ability to use tools’ and fire. Together, they survive much better than either could alone. Indeed, over time, what could just as easily have been Sam’s worst enemy turns into Man’s Best Friend.
This blind spot on cooperation is clearer in the definition of ‘ally’ in the Tech Dictionary. According to these definitions, an ally is someone who helps you when you are weak (and we are never weak, are we?), and is someone whose beingness takes over the PC. In other words, that with which you ally, you alloy. An ally is something found in active engrams, not in analytical thought.
So now, what can or should be done about this? Perhaps an auditing rundown or series of drills could be developed to bolster the being’s ability to recognize situations where cooperation is appropriate and to exercise that option.
A model Grey Wolf process might start off with word clearing on the above definition. This could be followed by having the PC spot times when cooperation could have occurred, should have occurred, would have occurred or did occur (a ‘coulda, shoulda, woulda’ rundown). R3R any reading items in order of read.
Perhaps this could be played against the CDEINR scale, the Know-to-Mystery Scale or the Prepcheck buttons. Another possibility would be to have the PC spot the shared problem on the coulda, shoulda, woulda rundown. This kills the wrong targeting on the grey wolf terminal.
This, of course, is only a rough outline. I invite you to generate and test other rundowns that smooth over a PC’s handling of his environment.
You can see the article, reproduced with two pictures added, as issued in International Viewpoints number 1 of May 1991 – an issue which was aimed for people just escaped from the ‘Church’. Go to http://articles.ivymag.org/pdf/ivy01.pdf and work down to page 9.
Best wishes to those starting on an era free from Scientology authoritarianism, with freedom to think and act unilaterally. I have had thirty years of it, and would like another thirty!