Ethics – Part 3
Scientology 1.0.0 – chapter 36
“Well, who are you?” – Pete Townshend
First, let me say that for those who no longer participate in the Church of Scientology, particularly those who have become adversaries, the topic of ethics conditions can be quite touchy. Should you ever wish to see someone hop around like a cat on a hot tin roof, simply mention the subject to a disgruntled ex-member.
If you find yourself reacting strongly to the mention of these conditions, it is likely that you, too, have either experienced their misuse or weaponised them against others. (Funny enough, the psychological phenomenon known as ‘projection’ may shed light on why some former members are so vehemently critical of the church, as they were once themselves fervent supporters or enforcers of the very institutional injustices they now decry.)
As for these ethics conditions and their use as a means of correction, I’ll try to address this sensitive subject, hoping that any reader upset about them in any way may gain a little insight as to the possible reasons behind their objections. Objections, I believe, that usually stem from a lack of understanding, being made to do them over and over, and probably even being compelled to apply them with specific outcomes in mind—such as remaining in whatever group—a purpose for which they should not be used, actually.
For readers who are unfamiliar with the subject and who might be interested, the source material is Introduction to Scientology Ethics.
The Conditions
‘Condition’ refers to a specific mode of existence for a person or thing, indicating their current state or situation in relation to circumstances. These Ethics Conditions, however, specifically refer to the states in which an individual may find themselves, based on what is defined as good order (which will be referred to simply as “order” from this point forward).
The Ethics Conditions are actually observations of Natural Law, not authoritarian dictates. Everybody, when they are succeeding in achieving optimal survival or any such ethical goal, are following these formulas, whether they realise it or not. Used knowingly, they can enable one to be more proactive in improving their circumstances and also better manage any condition they encounter in the environment, thereby potentially achieving an ordered life. Or, at the very least, a less disordered one.
Order versus disorder
‘Order’ is defined as a state in which everything is in its correct or appropriate place. In the context of these Conditions, though, ‘order’ refers to the way a person uses their mind to effectively organise all the elements needed to achieve an ethical goal within a suitable timeframe. In other words, ‘order’ is one’s appropriate use of the mind and, by extension, those parts of the environment under their control or influence. All the Conditions represent the success or failure of these relationships.
Certainly one can rapidly see the condition of anyone’s mind by observing the arrangement of the people and things around them. If their body and all their stuff, as well as their relationships with others, amount to accomplishing optimal survival, then that’s order. If an individual’s life is well-organised and their interactions with others are courteous, but positive outcomes aren’t occurring, this indicates some kind of disorder. Should everything seem to be scattered around and everyone is swearing like pirates, yet beneficial things are happening in the right amount of time, then that’s order.
Exchange
The second thing one should probably know about regarding the Ethics Conditions is exchange.
Exchange—defined as the reciprocal act of giving and receiving, or interchanging—is critical for maintaining order, and there are many types and kinds besides commerce consisting of goods or services, such as admiration, friendship and altruism, which can be more complex to calculate but which usually can’t occur for very long if the physical exchanges are missing or are not optimal.
In any case, proper exchanges require order and vice versa.
All the Conditions represent gradients and types of improper and proper exchange, which can be observed by the degree to which order is achieved and disorder is either resisted or corrected. Alternatively, ‘out-exchange’ or ‘no exchange’, or attempting to obtain something for nothing (“criminal exchange”), occurs when order is disregarded or attacked, resulting in a lessening, or even destruction, of survival.
Overlooking these exchanges, especially those that are more spiritual, such as truth and trust, can lead to deterioration within any human system, especially that most important relationship of all: the friendship one has, or doesn’t have, with oneself (authenticity). Each condition indicates a failure or success in adequately observing and engaging with these exchanges.
Twelve Conditions
Listed below are the twelve life conditions. Seven of them are degrees of disorder (confusion) labeled according to how far a person or group can deviate, or drop, from the top three (assuming they were ever there in the first place).
They are:
Power and Power Change
Affluence
Normal Operation
Emergency
Danger
(Non-existence)
Liability
Doubt
Enemy
Treason
Confusion
Each condition comes with a formula, which, if followed and applied, results in an improved one. For these formulae, click here.
Entire volumes could be dedicated to each of these conditions; many of the outstanding literary works already have, if one cares to look at them in that way: Inferno, Crime and Punishment, Jane Eyre, A Christmas Carol, Animal Farm, and so on, alongside a multitude of exceptional non-fiction titles such as The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, The Prince, and Man’s Search for Meaning. One can view these conditions as encapsulating the essence of any compelling narrative of failure or triumph and could argue that the entire saga of humankind largely revolves around descending these conditions, ascending them, or finding oneself ensnared within one or another.
Terms
The names of most of these conditions are, of course, a fairly clear description of the state, except for Non-existence, Emergency, Power, and Power Change.
‘Non-existence’, according to its formula, refers to a state of either arrival or initiation of action or failure to fulfil the expected duties one was expected to perform. In contrast to the lower conditions, the formula does not outline steps pertaining to discipline or corrective measures to restore order; instead, it focuses on what must be done to commence any undertaking, or get going according to those duties. However, failure to follow them does potentially result in an immediate transition to a condition of Enemy or lower, at least in relationship to the intended activity or position. Conversely, successfully following the formula leads directly to a state of Normal Operation.
‘Emergency’ is normally defined as a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action. However, ‘the condition of Emergency’, in Scientology, is observed as a condition of unhelpful equilibrium. That is, stasis in a dynamic system, such as this universe, cannot stand without becoming dangerous: disorder ensues when one to one exchange is continued overlong. Put another way, order is achieved when what is given in an exchange is greater than what is received, whether of quantity or quality; “going the extra mile” or “exceeding expectations”, that sort of thing.
‘Power’, in Scientology 1.0.0, is integrity; the Sovereign Individual.
‘Power Change’ is the stepping out of a Power condition to play another game.
As to some other terms, in Scientology, one is considered to always be ‘in’ a condition at any given time. When one has resolved a lower condition, they are said to have got ‘out’ of it.
History
The 1960s, a time of rising social dysfunction and moral decay, saw the original publication of these observations.
People coming to Scientology back then were beginning to have increasing difficulty in making progress getting themselves cleaned up using the training and processes on offer. In contrast to those involved in Scientology during the 1950s, newer students and clients were facing challenges adhering to ethical standards that society used to regard as commonplace; unethical behaviours, such as glibness, promiscuity, drug abuse, incompetency, and general inconstancy were becoming normalised, leading to a significant decline in social cohesion. People were struggling more and more to just do what was once usual.
So, an attempt was made using these conditions to help individuals get their lives in enough order that they could proceed using Scientology with better success.
There was a chicken and egg problem here, though. To effectively do all the things one must do to understand Scientology properly, one ought to already be pretty ethical. The way to be ethical is to be cleaned up using Scientology processes. Hmm.
Fortunately, with gradient scales, one only needed to be ethical enough to proceed to the next step on the Bridge (the training and procedures that make up all the Scientology services).
But, as time went on, and as society continued falling apart (1960s, remember), doing the formulas for these conditions rather took greater priority. For awhile there, rather than processing to improve ethics (the whole point of processing), people were being made to do these formulas. Naturally, some people were doing them with some success while others were stuck doing them repetitively, over and over, which is not surprising seeing as it is quite challenging, if not impossible, to ever be in Normal if one isn’t cleaned up.
At the same time those who were on staff with the church were struggling to adhere to ethical standards (which is hardly surprising in an increasingly unethical world), many were compelled to apply these condition’s formulae without adequate Scientology training and processing—often without any training whatsoever. This practice proliferated, and by the 1970s and ’80s, even Scientology parents were pushing these conditions on their children (oh dear). One critique of human behaviour is the propensity to resort to punishment, a pastime that these conditions are certainly not designed for, yet are unfortunately well suited; especially if you want to not only punish someone but leave them befuddled for the rest of their lives. You see, the formulas only make sense if done self-determinately; otherwise, one is other-determined, the root of all dysfunction (chapter 5).
So, it came to pass that justice (enforced “good behaviour”) and ethics (these conditions) became confused. In other words, although sometimes people can be made to appear to behave, no one can be forced to be ethical.
No wonder the subject might be upsetting for some people.
Being versus non-being
The most pertinent aspect of Scientology 1.0.0 is its focus on being. The Tone Scale illustrates various degrees of being, with full being at the top and non-being at the bottom (for the Scale, click here). The Ethics Conditions correspond to this scale: the lower Conditions represent degrees of non-being, while the higher Conditions signify degrees of being.
Put in other terms, order represents optimal being, while disorder signifies gradients of non-being, which can also be understood as either awareness or non-awareness. The ultimate goal of non-being is total annihilation: extinction.
The goal of being is to move towards infinite survival, or, perhaps, Divinity. (This last can certainly be speculated upon, but you get the idea.) The alignment of tones to conditions might look something like this:
From 0.0 to 1.0 is Confusion.
1.1 is Treason.
1.2 to 1.9 are the Enemy tones (although the colours of Treason start at 1.4 as one descends).
2.0 is Doubt.
2.1 – 2.4 is the Liability band.
2.5 – might be Non-exitence.
2.6 – 2.9 is the Danger condition band.
3.0 – 3.9 is Emergency.
4.0 is Normal Operation.
Affluence would be any sudden rise in tone.
8.0 and up are degrees of Power.
8.0 is the tone in which one discovers who they really are.
Non-being can be appealing for those who are fatigued by existence. It commences ever so slightly with Emergency (3.9) and escalates as one moves downwards to Doubt (2.0). At Enemy (1.9), the drive to achieve total non-being becomes more pronounced and proactive. Here, the aspiration for total extinction of self arises, potentially including the desire for everything else to cease as well, and what a relief that would be! For some, anyway
Conversely, at Normal Operation (4.0) being is not perceived as a burden, and individuals pursue increasing states of aliveness. At Normal Operation, one’s being is expanding.
One of the ways to describe the entire purpose of Scientology is to make it possible to successfully complete these formulae. The entire point of the Bridge is to locate one’s true self. The condition of Enemy initially raises the question, and Power may ultimately provide the answer.
By using these formulae on a gradient and not shooting right away for something that might be considered an absolute (in human terms anyway), increasing degrees of order might be attained.
Still, self-determinedly achieving a transition from any of the lower conditions to Normal Operation, or understanding Normal well enough to achieve Power, are ways to understand the goal of Scientology: the rehabilitation of individual sovereignty, which is only possible if one knows oneself truly. However, achieving this goal requires adequate preparation, and working with these formulas without a program to get cleaned up can lead to significant confusion, a level of entanglement that I believe many individuals subjected to endless rounds of ethics conditions may not escape easily.
The Tone Scale and the Conditions correlate in plotting the levels of sovereignty or lack thereof. The tones above 3.9 are the initial goal and 8.0 is the penultimate goal, in terms of the Bridge.
The Doubt condition is the condition that lies between the decision to survive or succumb in just the same way that 2.0, Antagonism, is the halfway point between sanity and insanity.
An individual whose beingness is below 2.0 would never reach a condition higher than Enemy, whereas 4.0 is the first point on the scale that indicates Normal Operation. This is where one can see the problem: how can one ever be in a true Normal if one isn’t at least 4.0?
Again, this conundrum is fairly undone with gradient scales: one only needs to be just ethical enough to proceed to the next step on the Bridge. Then, when one finally gets to 4.0, they can be trusted to genuinely understand the Conditions and properly use their formulae correctly.
Chickens and eggs – but it can be done.
Dynamics
The dynamics as dynamics are neutral. The dynamics themselves cannot be “in” any condition. A pile of “disorderly” stuff is a pile of stuff; the condition applies only to whoever is responsible for it.
The main point to consider is that a thetan, as the 1st dynamic, expresses the notion, “I am “in” MEST to some degree.” Therefore, the thetan possesses a certain level of control over MEST and is perpetually ‘in’ one condition or another.
Most importantly perhaps, an individual or group cannot be in a lower condition regarding one dynamic while simultaneously being in a higher condition in another; thinking this way is akin to assessing oneself as healthy while suffering from a gangrenous foot and dismissing the severity by stating, “Well, my arms are strong and I have pretty knees, so I must be fine!” The rule is that the lowest condition of any dynamic applies universally to all of one’s dynamics, regardless of appearance, because the eight dynamics are a way of analysing a singular entity: you.
“Assignment”
Assigning conditions correctly can be extremely helpful, sort of like getting an accurate diagnosis; even if there’s no cure, just knowing what’s going on can be beneficial. Assigning the right condition, however, can be difficult if one’s condition or tone level is not high enough to do so with any precision.
In the church, assigning a condition to someone or a group is done in an attempt to correct some non-optimal situation. However, if the executive making the assignment were themselves in a lower condition, they would usually misidentify the condition. Too often, the cowed staff or individual would obediently follow the demanded procedure without either insisting that the executive assign the correct condition or just going ahead and applying the correct condition anyway, assuming there was a situation that actually needed correction in the first place. Such confusions have contributed greatly to upsets about these conditions, as well as regarding how and when anyone attempted to assign them. Like I said, the issue can be contentious.
Certainly, it can be hard to even notice a lower condition if one is in it at the same time as everyone else. For instance, a society that operates under perpetual financial liability, like ours, can make it difficult for individuals to recognise this condition in themselves, making it unlikely that they will insist on any corrections. This situation inevitably leads to the current confusion that views perpetual debt, printing fake money, and creating massive deficits (all acts of treason) as acceptable. If this level of criminality were properly recognised and assigned the correct condition, possibly the actual reasons why governments are so defunct would come to light and actual solutions may be insisted upon.
A very good way to determine the correct condition is to consider your situation and see if you can think of a step that would solve the problem. Then look up the formulae and find out which condition has that step. Usually, if one cannot come up with any step, then the condition is one of the bottom three; more often than is realised, the condition is the lowest condition: Confusion.
Since these conditions exist regardless of what anyone thinks, it seems foolish not to try to identify them correctly and, if possible, assign them accurately. Then, if possible, apply their formulae. Clearly, trying to force others to do this is unhelpful and often impossible. For instance, I’m not going to get the whole of the government to apply the formula for Treason (actually, Confusion) but it is still so very helpful to know that’s their condition in any case because now I won’t fret overmuch about non-solutions like voting for a new president whose condition is probably Treason too.
This is why it might be very effective to identify the conditions of individuals and groups as a means of understanding them better and in order to devise actual solutions where and when applicable (or possible).
Sum
Each condition is a state of being for the individual, rather than the status of elements within their control. Essentially, the environment only acts as a reflection of the modus operandi shaped by the viewpoint.
Each of the lower conditions is a description of a state of confusion that occurs as any individual or group falls from, or fails to achieve, any of the four higher conditions. As for the higher conditions, they are descriptions of varying degrees of Normal Operation until Power, where the individual or group demonstrates integrities that are difficult or impossible to compromise. Power is sovereignty.
Perhaps somewhat disheartening is the reality that elevated conditions are often met with suspicion and even hostility, as these operational states tend to expose the misdeeds and ethical lapses of those who operate in a more reckless or even criminal manner. Even individuals or groups in positions of power are not immune; while they may be difficult to attack successfully, anyone in such a state can be subjected to significant vilification in a world all too accustomed to being deceived by—and even finding comfort in—tyrants and sociopaths such as we have today.
To exist in any elevated condition, what is created across the dynamics must surpass in quality what is received. The success of all ethical games is based on the abundance of creation and exchange, especially with oneself. After all, there is no limit to how intelligently and aesthetically order can be created and maintained.
If one were to analyse one’s own state or that of any other person or group using these conditions, it might lead to greater accuracy regarding what actions to take or, perhaps more importantly, what actions not to take in any given situation.
Of course, there are numerous variations, complexities and permutations surrounding this topic, but the key to using these conditions is to maintain simplicity, at least at first. Your house is in some disorder: you’re in Danger (maybe) = clean it up; then use the formula to look at what you were being or not being that caused the mess.
The main thing, though, is that these Conditions actually get at the very core of being, no task for the faint of heart, no sir. I mean, the goal is to know oneself. Lord, oh Lord! This is no easy thing given our labyrinths within mazes, tangles within webs. Messing around with these formulae to merely get someone in line can be perilous indeed, sort of like using dynamite to light a cigarette.
But ultimately, the goal of any real practice is to know oneself, not just as an identity. Such a journey often starts with discovering where one actually is and concludes with knowing how to know. Rather than only applying these formulas to correct mundane disorders, it might be useful to utilise them along the way to help achieve this goal.
Certainly they become extremely problematic if one is forced to do them.
Should the reader be interested, there are further notes on these conditions and their formulae. If you look on this site’s menu, you can find them as “Notes on the Conditions – Addendum”, or just click here,
Arthur Ronald Conway Hubbard 
One response to “The Ethics Conditions”
This is quite a lesson for me, most useful, thankyou!
Per Tennberg
Copenhagen Denmark
LikeLike