Scientology/Groups and ethic conditions
QUESTION: Dear Laurie,when someone tries to figure out, lets say for example,the condition where his family is,or a seven eleven wants to know where they are,and lets suppose they are really at the lowest point,confusion,both examples.When its a person you say find where you are,BUT when you are a group you say something diffrend ,you say find out what you are as a group,so the seven eleven would have them members say: ok we are a seven eleven:or: ok we are a family:and so move on up.So lets say that a father wonders himself or the manager wonders himself-where is my family or where is my seven eleven store which condition?we already know its confussion.The father is a good father what must he do?must he gather everyone up and say to them we are in confusion,the same the manager,or they don't care and say i will care only for my personal position?or they must run at same time two deferent statistics?one for they roles as father and manager and one for the whole family and the whole business? A General could be in power but his army at the other lowest scale confussion,what must he do?
ANSWER: I looked pretty thoroughly in case I have missed something over the years, and cannot find a group confusion formula. There is only one confusion formula, and it's for a person.
The lowest formula for a group is Non-Existence. Below that, there are only individual formulas. Technically, a group cannot actually be below non-existence - though the members of it can.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: thats not what the book of ethics says,look under confusion in the book of ethics,it says it clearly as i said,when you are agroup you don't apply in confusion the where are you but what are you,otherwise we have a serious problem here.i am talking the ethics in Greek translation
OK. Consulting the latest Intro to Scn Ethics text in context, the answer to your question is this:
The individual in charge of a group has a personal condition relative to that group. Whatever that condition is, it is NOT necessarily the same as the condition of the group - and he should apply the formula for it to his own circumstances relative to the group. In truth, a person has a condition on every dynamic, and should ideally be applying the appropriate condition for each dynamic separately.
If he is the leader of the group, and if his subordinates will follow him, then - yes - he has to call the group together and consult the understanding of each member, bringing them to the realization that they ARE a group. This might even go so far as helping each member to understand what a group IS. Same with the head of a family. "Find out WHO you really are" is the formula for the condition of Enemy, rather than Confusion, so "we are a 7-eleven" might not be the appropriate answer. "We are a group" or "We are a place of business" might be a) more basic and b) more to the point as it relates to Confusion. That's because a group has a leader, a place of business has a leader and a command structure, and rules, and standards, and a joint goal, etc., and before what kind or brand or identity of business, it is first important for the members to realize that it IS a business, and that as such, there are certain modes of action that apply to the group and to its members that do not apply to a club, or a swim team, or an opera audience, etc.
The leader of such a group, given that the group itself has failed or is in the process of failing, could hardly be in Power or any condition above, say, Danger, as his welfare is endangered by the potential failure of the group. Still, he might be in Non-Existence relative to the group, and it might be most apropos for him to find a comm line (into the group), make himself known (to the group, as to his role relative to it), find out what it needed and wanted (in this case, to salvage the group from a condition of Confusion) and do, produce and/or present it (apply the proper formula to the group, and then work them up through the conditions.) Soon, he might find that his personal condition relative to the group is Danger - since the group could still fail - and in continuing to work the group up the conditions, he needs to bypass habits and normal routines, etc., etc.
I have to apologize for having overlooked the new group confusion formula. Having been an ethics officer some decades ago, it was unfortunately too easy for me to think there was "nothing new" in the book, and to just answer off the top of my head.