Why Organizations Live or Die: Subsets Part III — Independent Scientology

Hi, and welcome to another Scientology Outside of the Church podcast. This is season 13, episode 13, and we are continuing our series of our six-part subset series, and the title of this one is Why Organizations Live or Die, Why, Subsets the Architecture of Everything. Now, this is going to include the third dynamic, alignment, outpoints, and real whys. I'm here with Quenton. Quenton, how are you this evening there in KL? Doing fantastic. Great. Thank you. So am I. All right, so we're going to jump right into it and get going. This is a big podcast. Yes. Well, I want to just jump in because I think that this is probably where most people kind of see the admin scales and everything that we've kind of talked about last week, last podcast. Most people see it kind of at this level. What I loved about the last podcast, and if you haven't heard the last podcast, I would really suggest you go back and take a listen, because it really broke down one morning, having a bowl of cereal for breakfast, you know, coming to, you know, getting your day started, taking a look at your life and your morning, and kind of breaking down each rung on the ladder of the administrative scale so that you can start to get some coordination in your life and see how everything builds on everything else. That was the last podcast. This podcast, we're going to change the magnification of it a little bit, coming from just looking at your individual life to looking at a whole group, okay? The entire third dynamic, that's the independent Scientology, the third dynamic is the group dynamic, groups, okay? And so we're looking at this thing from a complete running operation of a business or a group. It doesn't have to be a business area, but a group in general. And the goal here is to have you see how even in this, subsets are a part of every rung. Every rung below it gives up to something higher, and every rung above has a purpose. And so we're going to take a look at this. So today's magnification is to widen the scope a lot so that you can see this thing not just as a person, but as a group, and that how two people running a shop, 40 people in an organization or a company, right? A thousand people in a group dynamic, you know, trying to make some radical change in the world or whatever the case may be, the rungs do not change. What changes is that now the rungs are being held by different people, and they have to agree with each other without the benefit of being inside each other's head. This is why the third dynamic is so interesting, because now you have to have coordination across different people, different viewpoints, different universes. And trust me, it is a feat to behold, okay? So the claim in this podcast is to this. We want you to understand that organizations do not fail necessarily because people are lazy or because the market turned down or whatever the case would be, that they fail structurally when a level of the group stops agreeing with a level senior to it. I want you to hear this. When a level of the group stops agreeing with a level senior to it, everything else is a symptom of that. That is a strong claim, and this episode is going to earn that claim. It's going to show you why this is so true, okay? And so hopefully at the end of this, you guys will see why organizations, why groups live and die with this tech. Right, and to give you an example of a dead organization where these subsets didn't work. Back in 1778, Thomas Jefferson, one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence for the United Colonies of America. At the time, there were 13 of them, and they had left the United Kingdom under King George and threw the tea into the Boston Harbor and said, we ain't got time for that, nor the money, and we're not going to pay a tea tax. And we had the Declaration of Independence. Within two years, two years of being in office for the colonies, Thomas Jefferson stepped down. This is one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. stepped down because he had no stomach for all of the chicanery and graft and political bullshit that was going on and corruptness more than anything else that was happening two years after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Now look at that for a minute. The subsets from England to the United States or the United Colonies at the time to writing a declaration and dividing itself from the yoke of the United Kingdom, which it wasn't called at the time, of England, and all of its power and everything. One of the guys stepped away who signed on it and said, this is how this is going to be. Two years. 1778. Okay. So this is where we find a level that quietly stopped agreeing with its senior. These are all subsets. That's right. And then you could actually see what actually kills a group on paper versus what actually kills it in fact. Right? And this is why the postmortems was always named the symptom and not the real problem. This is when they look at businesses that's failing, when they look at, like you say, even countries. Okay? All of this is a part of it. And it doesn't have to be just about a company. It could be a family. Hear me. It could be a family. It could be a church group. It could be a study group. It could be a team of three or more. It doesn't matter. The anatomy is all the same. So that when it's one person, when it's just your life, your admin scale lives in your head. Your admin scale is your own. But when it's a group, that ladder is split across many different heads, many different ideals, many different viewpoints. And they all have to come in alignment. This is what we talked about last podcast. They all have to come in alignment. They all have to come in agreement so that this thing works. And this is why having an admin scale is so important. And that's the only new problem that an organization actually has. The third dynamic, the admin scale is applied to the group size when we're talking about the third dynamic. And that's what we're going to be talking about today. I'm excited. Yeah. So basically, one person's ladder lives in one head. A group's ladder is split across many heads. And these are all subsets. And that is the only new problem any, any organization has, whether it's an anthill or it's a galactic federation. Yeah. Okay. And even bigger than that, outside of the physical universe. So the LRH reference is the third dynamic, an admin scale applied at group size. So the meeting everyone is sat in. Okay. This is part two section. This is part three, section two. Every department is working. Nobody's idle. The reports are full. The meeting runs its full hour. And at the end of the month, the thing the organization exists to produce did not arrive. We've all seen this. Or arrive thinner than last month. You see this when you have the Wall Street reports on quarterly earnings and all of this stuff. So nobody can say exactly why. It's just, it's just arbitrary. Well, it was this or it was that. Those are wrong whys. This is part of LRH's data series. They just assign these arbitrary things and say, well, it was this because the weather was bad. So the usual response is to look for a lazy person or a bad month or bad weather. It's the market. It's the dollar. It's Trump. It's Biden. It's this. It's that. Somebody gets a talking to. Somebody gets replaced. Somebody gets removed. We see this at OpenAI all the time. We see this with Google. How many of these AI guys have been leaving to start their own companies or moving to Anthropic or whatever? It's all over the place. So the next month looks the same, which is the tell. If replacing the person does not change the statistic, the person was not the problem. That's the wrong why. Instead of who, we ask, what is each part of this actually producing? What's the valuable final product? And does that product feed the thing above it? If you're not making money to feed your children, you see where this is headed? So you ask it out loud, post by post. In most rooms, the question is never, ever been asked in that form. And the silence after it is the most useful thing to happen all quarter. How do we make ends meet? How do we become profitable? How do we survive? How do we make a better product? How do we top so-and-so to get into power? That's how this works. Yeah. And we can see this happening. I mean, you can see a business organization that's producing less and less over time. And when you understand this, ultimately, somewhere on that admin scale, one of the programs fell out. One of the plans didn't go as it should have. Somebody was dropping statistics somewhere. LRH talked about this a lot when he was talking about somebody down in the mail room. How did he say it? Somebody down in the mail room is goofing off and losing mail or something like that. And ultimately, that ends up becoming a down stats in some of the department or something. The email server was down. Boy, oh, boy, if you guys do the stories. But it's real because, again, everything is subsets, right? So even with AOGP International, right, we are an international organization across 18 different countries. We have such a wide array of time zones and servers and databases, all this stuff that's having to be in coordination, working, right, in order to have a workable workplace, a podcast, all the stuff that we're trying to do. If something happens and one of those points are out, it can be disruptive across the entire plane, you see? And this is true of an organization. This is true of a family. And I'm stressing these differences because I want you guys to understand that when we're talking about groups and you could be, you know, an employee at your job and you might not be thinking about, I ain't thinking about no business or whatever. Okay, that's fine. Look a little closer. Look a little closer and see where has there been a disagreement with the seniors, with the way this family dynamic or the way this group is going to be laid out, this friendship is going to be laid out. Where has something gone off the rails? And where does that then create a problem later on, you see? So all of these things are meant to be in alignment with each other in order to have a workable flow. All right. So I'll give you a real example of something that's happened in AOGP in creating code for our social media platform. I deal with two different platforms that I work with, and these two different platforms, subsets, have different abilities and weaknesses and strengths. It really falls down to one platform is better than the other, and one large language model for coding is better than the other. This is subsets. Okay. They have one platform is stronger than the other. One model is stronger than the other. One platform has strengths that the other doesn't. And in between there, they all make mistakes or something isn't completed that I can't see as the developer. And so there was a miscommunication that occurred because things were placed in our social media platform out of order. It was literally an out point per LRH's data series where it was dropped out time. This is a fact. Okay. It was dropped out time. The communications were not in the correct order. To me, again, the hardest thing to spot is a missiness. I didn't know it was there. It was further down. So I didn't have the information. So I called Quenton. We got it all straightened out, and everything was fine. And the why was because there was out communication, dropped out time, hardest thing to spot is a missiness. So these are all subsets from what was posted, what was created in the code, what language model that was coding was coding, and from where it was coding from and how it was created by the guys that created the code and the way it creates the code itself. All subsets. All subsets. For sure. It's that simple. And so what's the point here in this particular section? Because I really think that people need to understand why these things are problems if they're not really looked at. So if replacing the person doesn't change the statistic or replacing the model, replacing the system, the person was never the problem. Stop asking who. Start asking what is this level producing. So it's that simple. And the LRH references on this are your statistics references in OEC 0 and the OECs in general. And this is also in the ethics book. I highly recommend using OEC 0. Don't use the church's references on statistics because they've been altered. But this is the difference between activity and product. Yeah. And by looking at statistics, you can definitely tell the difference because it actually is something measurable. So that's so true. And so now what I want to shift us to is like how a group actually comes apart. Okay. And when you look at something, a small mechanism, even such as like broken contact. So let's say one person decides that contact with people costs more than it returns. Just like I'm so tired of calling people. I'm so tired of cold calling. I'm so tired of, you know, this sales or whatever is happening in the business, right? And that's a small, private, reasonable feeling decision. But the person starts to withdraw from the lines. They're not making as many dials. They're not doing as much outflow. They're not, whatever their response is. Sorry, I hit the mute button. Whatever their response is to the situation, right? And so when this mechanism gets multiplied, so now let's take everybody in the room that starts to make a similar decision. So in their own, in their own head, in their own way, nobody has, does anything dramatic. No policy is actually broken yet. But what ends up happening is you get a fog that comes into the room because that individual's decision or that individual's viewpoint is no longer in alignment with the overall objective or the purpose and the goals of the group. So then confusion is what the group made from withdrawn people. They get this confusion of like, why is there nothing happening? Why is it, why aren't we getting any outflow? Why is anything going on? It's because there was a decision made that nobody was aware of. And it produces it without anybody intending that that's, I want to, I'm going to destroy the whole organization. Nobody kind of goes in with that viewpoint, right? A person might just say, I'm not going to send out the emails today, right? And that one little decision can start a ripple effect, like the ripples in the pond, right? And so why it reads as structure is because communication is one of the three factors that constitutes understanding. So when you start to withdraw communication across a group and you've not merely made things awkward, you start to remove a load-bearing structural point of understanding. Why, the why starts to become really nebulous. We can't see it because we've withdrawn that one critical element, communication. By not talking to the group members, by not saying, hey guys, let's change this, let's do that, let's try something different, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Whatever the conversation sounds like, what ends up happening is that communication gets pulled out. There's an ARC break, affinity, reality, communication. We talked about it in the last podcast. There's an ARC break. And then this break in communication leads to a bigger and bigger and more awkward situation. The levels can no longer check themselves against each other. And after that ladder, the ladder can be misaligned for a year, for months, whatever, and then it starts to become extremely noticeable, but it started way back when. Yeah, and LRH talks about this in the policy, hats not wearing. Everybody has a hat, okay? You have the colleague who stopped asking questions, the family member who stopped raising it, one withdrawal slash withhold at a time. Nobody at fault, yes and no, but that's what's happening. Because as a subset, okay, if a person is on or in a particular condition, to that degree, the conditions themselves are a scale within a scale of ARC, subsets, okay? So if a person is not being themselves and they're out of valence, they're not wearing the hat they should be wearing. You see, that's a subset as well. So if they're not wearing the hat they should be wearing, they need to find out who they really are, that they really are, and decide what side of the fence, which group they need to be with. Again, subsets. And once they've decided on that group, they realize, okay, I've been a liability to the group that I am in. I need to make up the damages. Okay, they make up the damages. The group says, okay, you're good. Now you move up to non-existence. And now you have to find out what's needed and want to do, produce, and present it. Again, a subset. Within that condition. You see how this works? And then you move up through danger. Then you move up into emergency as a condition. Then you move up into normal. Then you move up into affluence. And then you move up into power. Then you move up into power change. Again, all subsets within another subset. Yeah. And you can tell. This is so interesting that we're talking about this. Because you can tell in a group when things start to get a little foggy, right? You can feel it. You can tell that there's long lags in communication. There's meetings about meetings. You know, but wait. What? Having a meeting about a meeting. That never happens. Right. And everyone is privately certain that someone else is dropping the ball. And so what we understand then is that a group of people who each have privately decided that contact is damaging doesn't become quiet. It becomes a fog. And that fog is manufactured. It's a manufactured fog through these outpoints and these decisions that do not align with the admin scale that as it's laid out. And the LRH reference on this is that the ARC at the third dynamic is that withdrawal from the group as a source of group confusion. So withdrawal from the group is a source of group confusion. And he talks about this in the sixth advanced clinical course, ACC, part three, and that's in May 19, 1954. It's on third dynamics. Okay. He says that the trouble with an individual is not that he has been in contact with people, but that he has begun to consider that contact with people is damaging. It isn't contact with people. Now, you get a whole group of people, each one of whom considers that contact with people is damaging, and you get a big area of confusion. Believe me, this could be true of a nation, hear me, this could be true of a nation where somebody decides that contact with people is damaging. And then a whole group of people start to decide that contact with people is damaging, and it starts to ripple out, and then you get a big old area of confusion across an entire nation because talking to people and engaging with people and getting ARC with people and communicating with people and having affinity and some agreements with people, that's damaging. That's too much. That's too much. I ain't nobody got time for that. That's hard. That's troublesome. When that becomes the viewpoint, you're going to have a massive confusion on your hands. LRH is locating the source of group confusion in a private individual's decision rather than the group itself. The group wasn't made to fall apart. Jonathan just told us the story about Thomas Jefferson, and then within two years, he was like, I ain't doing this no more. Y'all crazy, right? I'm out. I'm out of this, right? I ain't got time for that. Right. Because somewhere on the line, somebody couldn't agree with the workability of this thing that we have laid out. We call it the Constitution. Somebody couldn't agree with that. And because somebody couldn't agree with the Constitution as it's laid out, they started having their own private considerations about it. They started then trying to get other people, get a whole group of people to consider something as damaging, that contact with people, communication with people, ARC with people is damaging. And then you get a big old confusion. I'm saying a lot, but I ain't saying everything. Okay. Yeah. And it's important to note that at that time with Thomas Jefferson, he was looking at people who were out of valence and were corrupt, and therefore they were in treason. And he said, I don't want to be a part of this. So what did he do? He went ahead and applied the doubt condition and said, this is not the side that I'm on. And he quit. Yep. And just started to be an individual. He just didn't know the conditions. Yeah, this is 1778. The conditions weren't established until 1967. Right. I'm not joking. And it's important to note, listen to what we're saying here. The conditions, whether you know them or not, exist. Thomas Jefferson did a doubt condition and said, I'm done. I haven't got time for this. I'm out. This isn't what I signed on for. Literally. This isn't what I signed on for. Hear us. Okay. Every post has a product, an organization chart. An org board like we have in Scientology. And they, and they're there. I want to say, I want to say this too, before we, before we move on to this, because I want to say this, this is also a part of the reason why I decided to move abroad because I did a doubt condition formula and I decided that based on what all the things and stuff, okay. Based on all the things and stuff. I saw the writing on the wall years ago, back in 2013. I remember doing a whole, a whole lecture on it. And I talked about this thing and I said, listen, it was called all that glitters ain't gold. And I talked about this thing. I said, all that glitters ain't gold y'all. And I said, look out for certain things. I talked about this thing. I said, there's going to be years of shifting, shaking, and shocking. And we went through the shift. We've gone through the shaking and now we in the shocking. Okay. And so a part of me, I knew the doubt formula obviously at this time that I did it, but I had to do this for myself to determine for myself what was going to be the greatest good across my dynamics. And what did I want to support, help, you know, so forth and so on. And what, how did I want to move forward with this? And that's why I had to make some changes in my own universe as well. And so if you, as you're listening to this podcast as an independent Scientologist, and you're realizing I got to make some changes in my life, I got to do some things differently. There is technology that is available to you. We have all, LRH has already laid it out. We've modernized the delivery of it so that you can have it in the palm of your hands and you can start to do something with this stuff right now. This is immediate life improvement stuff. Okay. So yes, every, every post has a product. Sorry. Go ahead. Right. No. Yeah. And that's absolutely right. And here we are. Yeah. Subsets doing this podcast. So this comes down to your organizing board, the universe's organizing board, whether you agree with the physical universe, you disagree with it and you go up the bridge and you say, I ain't got time for that. That's, that's really what this is about. So the, all of these things are extant. They're real. They're there, whether you know about them or not. Okay. This goes, and I'm telling you this, listen to me. This goes from the physical universe all the way to the theta universe. All the way to the theta universe. And this is what you do on OT eight and above. I'm not joking. I am not joking. This structure is still there because of certain things. I can't tell you that. No spoilers. It's confidential, but know that it does exist. And it is through all the way from there, from the theta universe, all the way down to the quantum physical universe. Okay. So back to the org board. All right. An organization chart is usually read as a picture of who reports to whom. So that's really the least interesting thing about it, but read properly, it is a picture of products or from an aberrated viewpoint, alter is-ness. Okay. Which itself, axiom 11, the Scientology axioms is its own subset to all of this. Remember back to the first podcast when we were talking about that? All right. That is a subset. That is the foundation that everything lies upon in the physical universe. Whether a thetan agrees, disagrees, tells the truth, lies, or just says it doesn't exist at all. That's not is-ness. So each department turns out something and that something is an ingredient in something larger. Okay. Play that back if you need to. What I just said. What LRH just said. LRH used the exact word. Departmental products are subproducts. You tell the kids to go take out the trash. You tell your junior at work, I need you to get this by so-and-so time tomorrow. Okay. We do this at AOGP. There are not, are not, they are not the point on their own. They exist because they build up into a valuable final product. Right? The kids taking out the trash. The junior getting something done. You getting up your bridge. It's all a valuable final product. The thing the organization can actually exchange with, the society around it, or your first, second, third, all the way to your eighth dynamic. Subsets. So here's the test that follows. This gives an organization a brutally simple diagnostic. Walk the org board and ask of every post, what does this produce? And what senior product does it feed? Again, subsets. A post that cannot answer the second half is not underperforming. It is unhooked or not there at all. Who's mowing the grass? Who's paying the bills? Who's paying the taxes? It's all the same. Okay. And an unhooked post can be busy forever or a camouflage hole. LRH talks about this in policy. You can find it in the OEC volumes. Right. And when you're able to do this, when you're able to name the post, name the product, name the senior product that it feeds, that product feeds, then you can actually see how that unhooked thing will surface. So I'll give you an example. Like if you're looking at, this is how I see it in my own universe. If you're looking at a friendship group, a friend group, right? And you know how you always got that one friend that's the quirky one. You got the one friend that's like the know-it-all or the intelligent one. You got the one friend that's, you know, you're different friends. Let's look at the Golden Girls, for example. You got Blanche, Rose, Dorothy, and Sophia, right? They all had their own roles to play, right? And so each one of them gave something to the story, gave something to the house, gave something to the thing. Dorothy was, you know, she was a teacher. She was the intelligent one. Blanche was, you know, the wild one. Rose was the silly one. I'll use that word. And Sophia was the snarky one, right? They all had a little thing that they gave. And they would give selectively to each other. They would give when each other needed certain things or whatever. But when it all was said and done, when it all came together, it was a beautiful connection. It was a beautiful group, third dynamic, that worked. And if Rose tried to be the smart one, right, you could see where there was an unhooked, like, what just happened? Like, that ain't how that works, you know? You could see where something didn't go right because you did not produce what you were supposed to produce, right? And so this keeps happening over and over and over again across our third dynamic. And when things start to go awry, if you go back and you look at the posts, you look at the product, you look at the senior product that it feeds, you see how all of this works together. And you can always fast, quickly find that unhooked post that's not doing what it's supposed to be doing. And then you can get things back into alignment. And that's how you can salvage a group. Right. Or it's not there at all. Or, yeah. Because you haven't assigned somebody that post and said, you are responsible. What is your post? Do you know? And LRH was hugely, bigly, it was hugely on that saying that if a person isn't had it and isn't aware of what their post is, hasn't gotten out of non-existence, hasn't gone through danger, hasn't gone through emergency, hasn't gotten into normal affluence and power. Like I mentioned earlier. Okay. They don't know that they are that post. Ethics conditions. Remember? We talked about this earlier. So you're looking at this org board. Okay. This connects right back to part two. So it's the same admin scale, only now each rung has a name badge on it. Who's in charge of security? How did that guy get over the fence? How did they break into the place? How did we get burgled? Security wasn't there doing their job. Okay. Exchange with the society is what makes the final product valuable rather than merely finished. Did he keep the gates locked? Were the passcodes safe? Did the system work? Was IT on its job? Did the firewall work? Again, subsets. Yeah. And so ultimately, once you kind of see all this playing out, you're going to see how that an org board isn't a picture of who reports to whom, but it really is understanding how these sub products are stacking onto each other and producing something for the others. So did you go over that reference from LRH? No, I'll do that right now. So this is from the flag executive briefing course, which came out in 71-72. And it's called the FEBC, Flag Executive Briefing Course, org board, and its valuable final products. 3 February 71. LRH says each department would have a product. Each division theoretically has a product. And these products are all, in the most part, sub-products. If you want to be very technical about it, because they build up into a valuable final product. Now, a valuable final product is one that you can exchange with the society for the wherewithal which the society has. Now, the context of this, from LRH's viewpoint, is he was describing an organization board exactly and explicitly as nested production. Departmental products are sub-products of a senior product. Do you get that? But I'm going to say that again. Departmental products are sub-products of a senior product. All the way up to the one thing the society will exchange for. This is our claim, really, in its most literal organizational form, stated in LRH's own vocabulary. Subset by subset by subset. And when you see this in your own life, you'll see, you know, a lot of people, a lot of people move throughout life. I was just watching a YouTube podcast on this. A lot of people move throughout their own life, and they'd be like, what's my purpose? Why am I here? What is my purpose in life? And those kinds of things. And it's a very valid question. But what it is, is that once you understand, by doing an admin scale and just coming up with some goals, with those goals, you'll ultimately get to your basic purpose. We talked about this in a previous show, previous podcast. You'll ultimately get to your basic purpose. Like, why am I really here? Is it just here to make money? Is it just here to do such and such? Am I just here to have babies? Am I just here? Like, what's the actual purpose of your experience here? And once you understand that, you'll know then that every other product, I'm calling it, he used to call it a departmental product, but every other part of your life has to produce something as a subproduct to that senior product of your overall life goal, your overall life purpose. Your organization, your first dynamic is an organization, as is your second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth. They're all organizations. It's organized. Your body, your body, your body is organized in a certain way. And when you, if the, if the purpose of food, for example, is to give the brain, you know, the glucose and whatever it needs to do, whatever, and you have all this stuff, but you don't give your body good food, subproducts, subsets. If you don't give your body good food, then your body's going to not function as well. It's his own org board. Right. Same holds true for an organization. That's right. That's right. So what I want to go into now real quickly is how the data series really details outpoints. And these outpoints are really like a broken part of the ladder. Okay. So what exactly is an outpoint? And an outpoint is a piece of illogic. Hear this. An outpoint is a piece of illogic. It's data that does not fit. And LRH cataloged them as omitted data, altered sequence, dropped time, falsehood, wrong targets, contrary facts, added inapplicable data, and so forth. Each one is worth learning on its own. And this series is going to make it one claim about it. And once and for all, once you start to understand outpoints, that every outpoint on that list is a subset failing its senior. So if there's omitted data, there's a missing wrong. Think about it in a relationship, right? Your boo comes home five hours late, you know, whatever. And you're like, hey, what happened? Yeah, what happened? Where you been? Oh, just out. What? Let me see your phone. Oh, whatever. Like, there's omitted data somewhere. And that omitted data is a piece of illogic. It's an outpoint. It does not fit in what we're building here, right? An altered sequence is the wrongs in the wrong order. You can't say you want to be in a marriage, family dynamic, relationship, org board, whatever. Organization. An organization. And you're trying to skip gradients. Like, you just met me and already you're trying to, no, wait, calm down, slow down. I'm here for the real deal, right? I'm trying to get somebody on this team that's going to be a permanent fixture on the team. There they're a player. That's right. And they get touchdowns. Right. I'm trying to get a working team here, you see. So he also talks about the wrong target. That's the wrong pointed at something, the level above it, and that was never asked for. Like, wait, you're giving me something I didn't need that. That's the wrong target. And that becomes an out point. Dropped out time is something that no longer, one no longer knows when it belongs. So dropped out time is like, oh, wait, I needed to know this six months ago. You've been lying to me for six months. I need to know this a long time ago. That's dropped out time, right? All of these, it's a list, and the list goes on and on. But this is why this list is really detailed and why LRH really detailed it out. Because when you understand the data series, you understand that there's only so many ways a level can fail the level above it. So what an evaluation is, it's gathering the out points, and they will cluster the cluster points at one level, the real why, the broken wrong that explains the others. So when you do an evaluation, a data series evaluation, what you're looking for is a cluster of things at whatever level that is giving us a real why as to why this thing is not working the way it should work. You can do this for anything, and a why that does not open the door to handling is the wrong why. We did a whole podcast on this called The Real Why. And an org board that is not abstraction on paper, it is a living group of individuals made visible enough to find that wrong in it. So when you understand the org board, and when you understand how this thing happens in your life, in your universe, in pretty much anything that's going on in the world, you can see an org board playing out here. How does one thing feed the other thing, handles the other thing, handles that, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All these things fit in. And once this is visible enough, you can find any out points in your life. Right. And this could be really touchy in describing it. But if you look at what's going on in the U.S. right now, okay, and I'm only going to touch on a few of these points as out points as to why the rung is broken. Okay. And I'm not going to take a side. I'm not going to take a subset of Democrat or Republican or Independent. Yeah, that's not necessary. You can just look at the whole scene. We just look at the whole scene. Okay. We have people living homeless. We have homes. Homes by the millions that could house people. House the homeless. But instead, these homes are being used as tokens, okay? And they're being jacked up in price by certain financial interests to where they're empty because they cannot be affordable to the common man. Homes are being bought up by the millions, by certain entities, financial trusts, okay? And the thing is, is that's an omitted datum that people don't understand. Everybody in the United States, everybody on the planet, could be free of hunger, free from want of shelter, warm water, cold water, heat, in some continents, cold, or vice versa, for that matter. And then this is an omitted datum that people don't understand. But when you have corruption involved, that's altered sequence because when you have a government and you have a Senate and a House and you have bankers, et cetera, you have these altered sequences. They come first. You don't. And they hide this through dropped time. They hide this through falsehood, through wrong targets. It's this guy. It's that guy. It's these people. It's these people. Contrary facts, okay? Added in applicable data. Well, it's because of the economy. Right. And the rest. Just like Quenton talked about earlier. Okay? Listen to this. Understand this. It's right in front of us. And LRA's delineated all of this stuff. That's why getting trained. That's why understanding this information about these subsets and looking at what the outpoints really are to the ideal scene. Everybody has a home. Everybody does not want for anything. Everybody is getting a valuable final product. I rest my case. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm telling you, usually the first outpoint you spot, this is why a data evaluation is important, because the first outpoint that you spot is almost never the real why, okay? And acting on the wrong why can cost more than doing nothing sometimes, because then you're starting to fight the fight the fight, but you might be finding the wrong fight, right? There might not be the fight to fight, if you understand what I'm saying, okay? And so there are only so many ways a level can fail the level above it. That's why the outpoint list is finite, and why the real why is always a wrong, not necessarily a person. Now, obviously, if you're dealing with any group, you're dealing with groups of people, but it's what is that post? What are you doing here? What's the purpose of you even being here, blah, blah, blah, you know? And when you can get to the real why of that, then the person is – it can be Mickey Mouse. It don't matter. Why are you here? What are you doing? Why are you on the team? You know what I'm saying? And so the LRH reference on this is that from the data series, he talks about outpoints, plus points, the ideal scene, departures, which we talked about some of these earlier, and the correct why. These are all a part of the data series by LRH. He talks about this also on the St. Hill Special Briefing Course, April 6, 1965, the Org Board and Livingness. And it's cited as the standing reference for treating the Org Board as a living structure of a group rather than a wall chart. No transcript is held – it's not held up as a specific thing, but you can look at the St. Hill Special Briefing Course and see how the Org Board and Livingness really applies to what's happening here. Remember, the definition of livingness is to move towards a purpose. A valuable final product. Yes. And so moving – so livingness is moving towards a purpose. We talked about this in another podcast as well. And so with this understanding of livingness, the Org Board is a living structure. And you can apply it across all of your life as well so that you can find these outpoints and you can make the necessary corrections so that you won't have to keep living in the same stuck place over and over and over again. And interesting to note, both an Org Board and an admin scale are a living document. Mm-hmm. So this brings us to the three requirements. Okay, what a third dynamic actually needs, whether it's an organization, a knitting circle, a book club, whatever. However, LRH says that what a group has to be able to answer if it intends to survive, know how, optimum conduct, keeping your ethics in, and justice. Can we do this thing? What is the right way to behave here? Okay, this is why ethics conditions exist. All right, they're not something to be thrown at somebody and say, you're wrong. They exist. They're not used as punishment. You have to be rational. You have to be analytical. Being analytical is the analytical mind. The analytical mind is you as a thetan. And if something goes wrong, is there a fair way to sort it out? If you've been a listener to our podcasts over these last many years, we've tried to make that point over and over and over. And I say it definitively now. A group that cannot answer those three questions is not badly run. It is doomed by construction. So, when somebody says it wasn't me, there's a popular song that, you know, it wasn't me. I was just to suggest another day, it wasn't me. When she called me on the counter, it wasn't me. It wasn't me. Right. Right. It wasn't me. And that comes down to responsibility. And that comes down to valences. That comes down to the ethics conditions. That comes down to your personal org board, your dynamics, subsets. So, you read them as levels. Know-how is competence at the bottom rungs of the ladder. Optimum conduct is policy. You have to establish policy before you can run by it. The level that says what always holds, justice, is the mechanism by which a level that has drifted gets corrected back to an agreement. Right. This is what's happening globally, in the U.S., every country, you name it. Okay. Down to a subatomic level, which tends to hold its position better than we do, as the Haytons, in some ways. And it's to be admired. But don't make the mistake of identifying with the physical universe. It's hard-coded. Okay. You're in the matrix. Don't forget that. The third one is not decoration. It is the group's error correction. And that's what we're trying to do with this podcast, with you as a listener. And without it, misalignment is permanent. So, the callback here for you guys, as our listeners, and for us, and you have to take that exterior viewpoint and understand this, okay? In part one of this progression, we're on part three right now, said that AI labs are working on alignment, keeping a system faithful to its purpose as it grows more capable. We're doing the same thing, guys. Now, say it in this week's vocabulary. They are not, excuse me, they are trying to build a machine that runs an evaluation on itself, though they're not doing it and they are, because they don't have an org board and they haven't done a data evaluation properly. It finds its own broken rung, as best they can, and corrects it back into agreement with its senior. What's the valuable final product? What are we exchanging all this money for? Are we getting people their products, et cetera, et cetera? You see where this goes. They are building a data series eval in Silicon, whether they know it or not, and they are finding out how very hard it is because, well, they don't understand the axioms. That's it, right. That's why it's different. They don't have that valuable piece of information, right? Even though it is in their training for their LLMs that is sitting right there, but they have a bias, which is an alter is. It's upsets. Exactly. Exactly. And so what I want to do is, for the sake of everything we just talked about from know-how, optimum conduct, and justice, I also want to kind of bring this home to, like, in your family, your team, your group, your congregation, whatever it is that you're working on, which of these three things are missing, okay? And when you look at it, and even when it comes to the AI, as what they're doing with AI and what your business could be doing with AI, how all this stuff works, every governance framework being written in this decade is an attempt at the third requirement for a non-human staff member. When you can start to understand, like, there needs to be a data evaluation. There needs to be checks and balances. There needs to be some know-how, optimum conduct, some correction that takes place, all of these things. Anything that you're building into what you want that's something to be healthy, something to be recursive, we talked about that the first part of this week, something to be recursive that's going to continue to build on itself, you want to have these things in place. Know-how, optimum conduct, justice, correction. You want to have these optimum things in place so it can continue to build. And that goes for a family, that goes for a team, that goes for a business, that goes for a congregation. We need to have these checks and balances in place so that they continue to, these can continue to grow. Right. So know-how, optimum conduct. You are who you are. You're wearing your hat. You know what your products are. You know your goals, your plans, your purposes, etc. If you miss the third, justice. Misalignment becomes permanent. Okay. And Thomas Jefferson, all of the founders of the Declaration of Independence, they understood this, though they all had their own ethics blind spots. Okay. You're talking about wealthy landowners that had slaves. Okay. Keep that in mind. Which is exactly the problem in modern day that AI labs cannot solve either. So the reference on this is the essentials are the third dynamic, ethics and justice, which is an actual policy letter, as the group's correct mechanism to handle this phenomenon. Yeah, it's a correction mechanism that's built into it, and when you have ethics and justice applied to a group, it's going to correct itself. It's going to find the way to survive based on ethics and justice. Yeah. Right. So LRAID says, third dynamic, so this is the sixth American advanced clinical course, part three, 19 May, 1954, okay, long after Thomas Jefferson, but more so closer to our present day. LRAID says, a person has a tendency as he looks around for the very essentials of the third dynamic, which would be to say, first, know-how, and second, the whole problem of optimum conduct. What is optimum conduct at this time and in this place? And what is justice here, and how can justice be obtained? This is long before the ethics and justice PL. Keep this in mind. If you don't answer any of those questions with a civilization, you have doomed that civilization to a tremendous, tremendous amount of aberration. This is where we're at right now, and LRAID was trying to handle it in 1954. Ergo, this is our job with this podcast, our listeners, and what we're doing in independent Scientology. Hear me. So what LRAID is doing here is he's listing what any group has to supply if the people inside it are to stay sane and productive, whether it's independent Scientology, whether it's your country in the United States, whether it's your country in South Africa, whether it's your country in Malaysia, whether it's your country in Australia, and so on, ad infinitum, okay? To stay sane and productive. Competence, a workable standard of conduct, and obtainable justice is most important. So that's red as levels, though those are the bottom rungs, the policy rung, okay, this is part of the admin scale, and the correction mechanism that keeps every rung honest with its senior. Again, you might be tired of me saying this, subsets. And it comes down to everything, and I love this because no matter where you go across the planet, and we're, like I said, we're in 18 different countries, no matter where you go across the planet, all of these things are going to be things that need to be considered, and as independent Scientologists who think with the tech, who use the tech in our day-to-day lives, we are part of the correction, the optimum conduct, the correct evolution of our species, of this planet, getting this thing going in the right direction. I really believe that. And I see it happening day in, day out. When we hit the success stories and the wins, when we're correcting bodies, and we're helping people correct family dynamics, and helping people with their clearing words and misunderstood words and MUs, we're helping with all of these things because it is the correct optimum know-how, optimum conduct, and correction justice that needs to be put in in order to make things go right. So now, what we're about to do is how to find the broken rung. This is putting it into application, okay? So if you just pick one group you belong to, work, family, church, team, whatever, you pick one group you belong to, write down what it exists to produce. One line, plainly, the thing it's handed, it hands to the world. If two members of the group would write different lines, stop there and find out what is the actual thing. Something's already off. So we got to find it. Yeah, right. Something's off here because we got to find out what are we actually producing. So then, after you do this, you then walk the posts. You walk the posts. They enlist every position in this organization, including yours. And against each one, write what it produces and what senior product that feeds because it's going to produce something and it's going to feed something senior to that. So it's going to get to the ultimate why, the ultimate purpose. Do not write down what the post is supposed to do. Write what it actually is turning out. What are you actually putting out? The unhooked post will identify itself. Blatantly. Okay. They're in your face. Why is the trash can full at the office? Well, somebody didn't pay the bill. Well, that's Treasury's job. Yeah. And that's why the people didn't come clean today. Right. So, yeah. So then, so after you do all that, you collect all that data. This is part of like doing a data evaluation series. You collect all that data and then you look at it. Note the illogics. Remember, illogics is something that does not belong there. Something that doesn't add up. Right. So you. Time, added and applicable data. Yep. Out sequence, et cetera. Exactly. Right. So you note the illogics that you meet along the way. It could be, like you said, the missing data, the steps in the wrong order. Right. The effort aimed at something nobody senior asked for. Right. Do not fix any of them. Lay them side by side and see which level of all these points. Where are they at? What level does this actually fall on? That level is your candidate why, why this thing is failing, why this thing is broken. That level is your candidate why, and it will feel obvious the moment it is chosen as the right level. Once that's the right level, you know exactly what's going on and how you're going to deal with it. Right. Who left the lights on? Right. Whose responsibility was that to turn them off? Right. Who didn't pay the trash bill? So, you know, why is the dog hungry? How come my tooth is hurting? Well, did you handle it? Did you go to the dentist? Why does the planet have trash floating in the ocean and people are having to bypass them and fix it and apply danger to get the trash out of the ocean? Do you get this? Subsets. So good. Okay. Okay. So it doesn't matter whether it's a first dynamic or whether it's a group. Okay. No formal posts at all. I feed my kids. Okay. That's your post. You're supposed to feed your kids. All right. People say this. Well, I feed my kids. You're supposed to. Okay. A household, a study group where the products exist, but were never written down. Nobody knew their hat. Nobody knew the product. Nobody knew the goal. That's where this all starts. Again, subsets. So if two people in a group would write a different answer to what does this group produce, you've already found your first out point. Start there. Start there. Why? This is misalignment. So an organization is not a special kind of thing. It doesn't just exist on the third dynamic. It is your morning ladder with other people holding those rungs. Who created your cereal? Who created your milk? That's a valuable final product. Get it? Mm-hmm. That table that your cereal is sitting on. The house that was provided to you by your deposit so that you could have that house. The guy that built the house. The person that created the wood that's in that house. The tree that made that wood. The oxygen that was provided on the planet. The sun that built the tree. You follow? Well, wow, the universe that was created as a physical universe that you went into agreement with and said, this is real. Okay? It survives on exactly what your morning survives on. Each level producing something the level above it actually needs. Think about that for a second. And a way of finding out when that stops being true. Everything the data series does is find the rung that stopped being true. So what I want you to do is I want you to walk on one board this week and find your broken rung. Next podcast, we change the magnification again and go smaller than the person down to the words themselves and what happens to everything senior when one of them goes past you. So for Quenton and I, we hope this has been an enjoyable podcast. And I am absolutely 100% sure if you understood this and you looked at your own life and your own dynamics, you'd find it to be true to yourself. So for Quenton and I, namaste and we love you. Bye-bye. Peace. Thank you.