Sometimes critics complain about a particular phrase or
sentence that has been qualified either in the surrounding text or in
A critic once complained to me about the
4th definition of reasonableness in the management dictionary.
1) illogic occurs when one or more data is misplaced into the wrong body of
data for it. An example would be "Los Angeles smog is growing worse so we
fined New York." "I am sorry, madam, but you cannot travel first
class with a third class passport." Humanoid response to such
to be reasonable. A new false datum is dreamed up and put into the body of
data to explain why that datum is included. (Reasonableness is often inserted
as explanation of other out-points also.) In the smog one, it could be dreamed
up that New York's exports or imports were causing L.A. smog. In the train
one, it could be inserted that in that country, passports were used instead of
tickets. (HCOPL 33 June 70)
2) faulty explanations (HCOPL 30 Aug 70)
3) a staff member or executive
be "reasonable" and accept reasons why
something cannot be done, accept incomplete cycles as complete, and fail to
follow through and get completions. ALL of which results in further
(BPL 30 Jan 69)
objective can always
Most usually, when it is not being
the person is finding counter-intention in the environment which
coincides with his own (this is reasonableness), and his attention becomes
directed to his own counter-intention rather than to his
i.e. he has
interiorized into the situation. (FO 2116)
(The above four definitions were said to
have been taken from an early edition of the Scientology Management Dictionary)
Konchok: In addition to several definitions that ARE rather sensible, IF you
apply them sensibly, is the KEY one that is psychotically used in psychotic
$cientology to make SURE that the sane definitions of "reasonableness"
are never used in the cult, and the *INSANE* UNREASONABLE meanings are ALWAYS
ASSERTED. That is #4: "An objective can always be
When I looked for myself I found that in my copy of the dictionary (printed in
1986), the fourth definition above doesn't exist. Instead there is definition
taken from a 1973 HCOPL.
It would be interesting to look at the context of the
original fourth definition taken from the Flag
order, FO 2116.
I haven't gotten around to doing so. However I do know
of qualifying statements in HCO policy letters [which are senior to Flag Orders].
These make it clear that it definitely isn't a good thing in Scientology to set
unreal objectives. I myself don't agree with the phrase 'an objective can always
be achieved' as it was baldly stated there. However we should note that we are missing
the beginning of the sentence. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the
sentiment was more realistic in context.
Here are two qualifying statements I am aware of. In the following passage,
which comes from the first issue in the Target Series, LRH talks about
Some guys are so bad off they set targets like "move
the mountain" and give one and all a big failure. Since there's no way to
do it and probably no reason to either. That's an SP target.
L. Ron Hubbard. HCOPL 14 January 1969
And we also have an interesting reference in the Battle
But the strategic plan is dependent upon programs and
projects being written in target form and which are doable within the resources
L. Ron Hubbard. HCOPL 22 August 1982
Return to Scientology Materials Index