1. the competence of a person is in direct
ratio to his degree of
consciousness and their
awareness (now I'm talking about the eyeball) of their
environment. Competence is directly proportional to those two things. So
don't expect a half knocked out druggy to be very competent. He won't be. Now similarly the
insane are all degrees of competence. There have been some of the most brilliant geniuses who are utterly screamingly
insane. There have been some of the dumbest boobs that were utterly screamingly
insane. It has nothing to do with it. It's not on the same
scale. We're dealing now with the
scale of
aberration as the
scale of competence. The number of out-
points the
guy is carrying around in his skull is how
aberrated he is. It has very little to do with his
sanity, it has everything to do with his competence. How
conscious he is and his width of
awareness (can he see?) is what demonstrates his competence.
(ESTO 10, 7203CO5 SO 11) 2. competence on any
given subject is what a person is not
unconscious on, and those things he can't see he is
unconscious on and that determines his competence.
(ESTO 10, 7203CO5 SO 11) 3. when a person is competent, nothing can shake his
pride. The
world can yell, but it doesn't shake him. Competence is not a question of one being being more clever than another. It is one being being more able to do what he is doing than another is.
(HCO PL 3 Apr 72) 4. being competent means the
ability to
control and operate the things in the
environment and the
environment itself. When you see things
broken down around the
mechanic who is responsible for them, he is plainly exhibiting his incompetencewhich means his inability to
control those things in his
environment and adjust the
environment for which he is responsible -motors. When you see the
mate's
boats broken up you know he does not have
control of his
environment. Know-how,
attention, and the desire to be effective are all part of the
ability to
control the
environment.
(HCO PL 30 Dec 70) 5. the
estimation of
effort.
(2ACC 31B, 5312C22)