Possibly Helpful Advice

Including what we found in Scientology before it became a cult

On Standard Tech, 1950s Tech, Free Tech – Some ideas to kick off the New Year

Fifteen years ago, Ken Ogger dared to have ideas of his own regarding Scientology technology. These were deemed heretical at the time but events have shown that he was on the right track. A growing number of professional auditors with active practices have reached similar conclusions and have seen that workable technology is still evolving.

From Post 23 – January 1998 by Ken Ogger, aka The Pilot:


On 25 Jan 98, Ken was asked,”If  you disagree with LRH, would you like to tell me at which points?”
Ken responded as follows:

I am very much in agreement with the LRH of the 1950s.

In DMSMH he says to get busy and build a better bridge.

In all the courses of 1952-4, you were expected to make up your own process commands as needed and also to self audit.

In the 3rd ACC, the ultimate rundown was SOP8-OT where you were supposed to handle whatever else you could find that was in the way of going OT by designing your own processes on the fly.

In the HCL lectures (1952), he defines Scientology as the study of how to bring absolute truth into workable form and says that any technique devised by anybody is part of Scientology if it works to accomplish that goal.

Throughout that early period, the idea was that we had a logical framework that allowed us to evaluate the relative truth of the data and techniques used by other practices and that we could therefore create workable techniques from them.

That was the true breakthrough. How to create processes. How to mix practices successfully. Every early auditor and Ron himself in those days would have been labeled as squirrels today.

That was the research line. But it died in the 1960s. And we never made stable OTs (we did sometimes get sporadic OT phenomena).

I believe that it was an honest research effort. In the early days, he talks about magic and Crowley and Krishnamurti, and how to extract workable processes from those things and evaluate which data were workable and which were just foolishness.

He used to say that he was only an organizer rather than an originator of tech.

I am in agreement with this and with the basics discovered in those days and with the entire attitude and approach which created people who could think with the subject.

When the tech solidified in later days, we were left high and dry with only a subset of the tech that was discovered, and with strict and dreadful rules against altering anything, and without the research techniques that I believe had carried us about halfway to a total solution and simply needed to be
taken further.

Even as late as about 1965, he was saying that the rules were only for training new students and trained auditors should use their judgement instead (this is on an SHSBC tape called, I think “Tech Roundup”).

As to the later days, there is much good stuff, but I filter it all through the sieve of the 1950s material and evaluate it just as if I was pulling things out of Science of Mind or the Tibetan materials.

So I see things like “Don’t mix practices” and “Don’t self audit” and toss them because they are in total conflict with the basics.

I believe, for example, that Ron was right in 1952 when he said that ARC = Understanding and that you study successfully by raising ARC or handling barriers to ARC. That is a senior basic. I evaluate later study tech on that basis. Handling an MU is smart because the MU = out communication. Thinking that the primary out-point is MUs and doing endless hours of tiresome and unnecessary word clearing is an outpoint, it ignores too many factors and will end up reducing ARC for the subject. Letting the students talk about the tech is a plus because it raises ARC, making them all shut up is obviously wrong. And so forth.

The 1952 attitude on implants is correct. The 1960s research gave us some valuable implant platens, but put them in a bad context, almost a suppressive context, by making them a big “Why” on the case. The correct attitude is that they are motivators, rather than major sources of abberation. Of course you want to get the person’s confront up on them and do some handling, but if it is too charged up, you run the overt of implanting others rather than thinking that implants are oh so important and making the PC into a victim.

Same goes for entities, which were looked on as trivial and not a major why on the case, but which could be handled if necessary by what we now know of as NOTs techniques.

Basically, I disagree with LRH’s later efforts to freeze the tech into a standard.

I do waffle on the question of what were his intentions in the later days. He really should have known better.

I believe definitely that the church should either mend their ways  or give it all up, and give it all up to us. In which case we must  really act responsibly.

Truly mending their ways would mean making the tech available and spreading it as broadly as possible without restriction. They should be encouraging the freezone and simply being a “standard” in the sense of a yardstick against whom others are measured.

When they train an auditor, it should be just like a university that trains a student. The university does not then police the student or force him to stop applying what he learned if there is some new discovery. He paid for his course, he did it, and he now is free to use whatever he learned in whatever manner he sees fit, restricted only by the laws of the land (don’t use your knowledge of physics to blow up buildings) and not by arbitraries introduced by the school that he graduated from.

A university has a right to demand certain standards of their computer students before giving them a degree, but they do not have the right to insist that nobody may write a program unless this one and only university or group of universities has trained that person. And the university does not have a right to stop people from opening up computer schools or reading about the pentium chip specifications.

By the way, has it not struck you how many different “scientology schools of thought” we got? Suppose every thetan exercises his rights and develops his own, *workable* version of the tech. How would you like to have billions of “standard” tech, each one saying, “it works!” Ha-ha!

If you had real competition, maybe it really would achieve maximum workability and a high success rate.

Those hundreds of different schools in honest competition and also trying to learn from each other would be the fastest way to really evolve the subject.

People would go where they made the most gains. It would tend to be a self correcting situation.

Look at the computer industry. If IBM had owned the exclusive right to build computers and transistors and so forth, a computer with 1 MB of memory would still cost ten million dollars (I remember those days, that was normal pricing when I started programming). And the competition didn’t drive IBM out of business either, although there is much squabbling and they have to stay on their toes.

Taking the analogy further, when IBM developed the IBM PC (a latecomer in the micro computer market), it swept the market by creating an open standard that anybody could follow and imitate without license or copyright fees. They immediately became the number one PC manufacturer and their name was a household word even though they had to share the market with all the clone manufacturers.

IBM got stupid and thought about all the money they had lost by not keeping their PC standards a trade secret and licensed and so forth. So they designed the PS/2 and made the microchannel architecture a closed hidden standard. And with that they almost disappeared from the PC hardware market within a year or so. Even IBM stopped making microchannel PCs and went back to the ISA standard even though it wasn’t as good (now we have PCI which is better than microchannel).

So I think that open competition is ideal for everybody.

If the org welcomed it and set the tech free and spread it around and encouraged everybody else to spread it around, they would boom despite the increased competition.


The Pilot

Number of views:3055


RogerB  on January 2nd, 2013

Yes, this is correct. In the “old days” we were expected to think, invited to think and contribute and to be able to analyze with the basic principles being revealed to us. This, of course, led to folks coming up with all sorts of brilliant R/Ds and procedures.
Those were the days when “scientology” as a unity of like-minded discoverers was able to benefit from the multiplicity of perceptions and viewpoints we as a team held. And the endeavor was a co-creating, exchanging of ideas and advancement.


Dan 351  on January 2nd, 2013

I was PES of Austin Foundation org from 1979 to 1983. I was fully hatted as a PES and a Flag trained OEC grad.

The most stable datum for my post regarding field activities (Division 6C) was LRH ED 54 INT.SUPERIOR SERVICE IMAGE PROGRAM NO.1
10 December 1969.

It says;


“It is no real concern of ours to try to hold the field versions standard. They mess up pcs and students. They always will. A militant org attitude to keep the field straight is silly. Let them flub as you are trying to control something you cannot. You can only do the best you can by teaching the best you can in an org.”

“The real org action is to put it out that IN AN ORG WE USE AND TEACH HIGH STANDARD TECH IN DN AND SCN.”

“If the org is trying to guarantee their training and processing in some group or franchise (and it can’t) then it will get a black eye.”

“The org is the benign source of the groups and Franchises and helps them out.”

L.Ron Hubbard

As you might suspect dm and I didn’t exactly see eye to eye.

D'Anne  on January 3rd, 2013

This makes a LOT of sense! When anything is invented (especially computers) a lot of brilliant people come along and add to the design and success. 10 years ago I spent $4,500 for a computer with 1 Gig of memory and thought it was pretty exciting. Now it’s silly. The same here… yes, standards need to be upheld… however, I don’t see people getting Super Powers with CoS. I don’t see miracles happening anywhere. I don’t even find much love anywhere in the CoS. The strict rules of only doing what a 19 year old tells us is okay because he’s pounding the book and getting his stats up and has not yet done any auditing because he doesn’t have time and can’t afford it… well… it just speaks to why I think this is such an intelligent article. Thank you!

Polymath  on January 3rd, 2013

A science that is frozen in time can hardly be called a “science”.

The Pilot’s write-up illustrates just how much of the original, workable subject has factually been lost. When the workable core of the subject goes by the boards, all we are left with is a bunch of empty ritual. That is where the Church is today.

I’d like to find and study those references. Can someone confirm what their full title is so I can hunt them down?

vertsurblanc  on January 3rd, 2013

Nice reference Dan 351. This may be the way it works out longer term when the current set-up loses its hold as the inevitable process of attrition keeps occurring.

They lose members and workability and slowly lose their power until field groups independently operate and look to some central qual service to assist with technical application.

PlainOldThetan  on January 3rd, 2013

It’s interesting. Tech Vol I p.304 told me there were only 3 HCL lectures. And those lectures haven’t been released by the Church. So much for “Golden Age of Knowledge Complete”.

And I couldn’t find any reference to SOP8-OT by that name in the 3rd American ACC lectures. However there are about 6 lectures in the 3rd American that talk about SOP-8O, which is supposedly the same thing. You can find references to SOP-8O in the indexes of the 3rd ACC CD lecture set.

The only lecture I’m familiar with where LRH talks about formulating your own process commands is SHSBC-078 FORMATION OF COMMANDS 6111C01. But that isn’t in the 50′s

That’s as much help as I can be, I’m afraid.

OldAuditor  on January 3rd, 2013

Dear GreenandWhite, you may be interested to know that some field groups have already begun to coordinate research and qual actions to assist with technical applications.

It does not take a top-down command and control system to run an efficient set of field operations. Enlightened self-interest is enough to support a growing Open Source approach to recovering and extending 1950′s technology. The practitioners who are members of the Free Scientologist group on Facebook exchange tech tips and review C/S actions and programs for each other. All options that produce case gain are open for discussion.

If you are interested in finding out more, send me an email at: [email protected]

Leave a Comment

Powered by Sweet Captcha
Verify your real existence,
Drag the rock to the ring
  • captcha
  • captcha
  • captcha
  • captcha

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.