Possibly Helpful Advice

Finding your way after leaving the cult of Scientology

Maybe We Should Inspect Our Stable Datums – Part 1

First of all, let us look at the definition of a few key terms concerning stable datums and the efforts to inspect them.

DOCTRINE OF THE STABLE DATUM, a confusing motion can be understood by conceiving one thing to be motionless. Until one selects one datum, one factor, one particular in a confusion of particles, the confusion continues. The one thing selected and used becomes the stable datum for the remainder. (POW, pp. 23-24)
— L. Ron Hubbard

Any body of knowledge, more particularly and exactly, is built from one datum. That is its stable datum. Invalidate it and the entire body of knowledge falls apart. A stable datum does not have to be the correct one. It is simply the one that keeps things from being in a confusion and on which others are aligned. (POW pg 24) L. Rom Hubbard

A stable datum keeps confusion at bay and this can relieve one of inspecting what is being kept at bay

Therefore a stable datum is what one uses to handle confusions. Its value can only be determined by the extent to which it aids one’s survival.

A stable datum can be the presence of a leader, the existence of a policy or official proclamation or it can be a computation or a service facsimile adopted to handle a confusion.

A stable datum is what one uses to handle confusions. If it cannot be inspected or questioned, the confusions being held back will continue to grow until they overwhelm the stable datum and a debacle occurs.

Here are some examples of stable datums:

The Auditor’s Code gives auditors the successful actions that allow them to help preclears. Ignorance or avoidance of this code almost invariably produces upset and unhappy preclears. Those auditors who follow the code are far more successful. This would seem to be a useful stable datum.

“We deliver what we promise” was a stable datum in the Church of Scientology for many years. Staff would go to extraordinary lengths to make sure that students and preclears got what they were promised. It was something that we could rely on. No matter what went wrong, it seemed that staff would do what it took to make things come out right. The current COS does not deliver what is promised and public and staff are leaving in droves.

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965, Keeping Scientology Working is a stable datum for loyal church members. It lays out rules which must not be questioned and must be followed exactly in order to be considered a Scientologist. It defines Ron as the only source of all technology and establishes him as one who has risen above the bank.

It defines the successful actions required to get a technology applied:
One: Having the correct technology.
Two: Knowing the technology.
Three: Knowing it is correct.
Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.
Five: Applying the technology.
Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.

Then it makes sure that no loyal church member will commit heresy by investigating any other technology or application:
Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.
Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.

This is one of the documents that transformed the freewheeling Scientology Organizations of the 50’s and 60’s into a well-organized cult using threats and punishment drive to ensure compliance. Violations of this stable datum are the highest crimes in Scientology.

This stable datum holds back any questioning of the history of Scientology, or of the development of the technology, or of the true history of the organization and of its founder.

If anyone were to look for themselves and question whether the technology was still a work in progress, they are exercising a power of choice that no longer exists in Corporate Scientology. Any questions regarding the motives of management, application of the technology, or non-optimum use of policy is an invitation for attack.

This is one of the main stable datums which justify ignoring any and all reports that are not issued by the self-appointed leader of Corporate Scientology. With the appearance of this document, Scientology became a faith-based organization and any search for truth was no longer permitted.

Stable datums make inspection and evaluation unnecessary, thus the wrong stable datum can bring disaster to an individual or organization, as lack of inspection leads to stupidity.

The desire to follow ones knowingness and inspect stable datums that do not appear to be survival oriented is exercising ones power of choice.

Gallileo did this and got whacked by the Catholic Church. Some independents are doing this with regard to Scientology stable datums and are coming up with answers that trouble the church. Heresy is just a matter of exercising your power of choice. Once upon a time exercising your power of choice was an expected outcome of auditing and training.

Outside church walls, that is still an option for those who wish to increase their knowingness.

Number of views:23760


Silvia Kusada  on September 15th, 2011

David, Thank you so much for covering this subject!
Beautiful article and references
Silvia Kusada

Polymath  on September 16th, 2011

My special interest is in teaching and learning, and in this field there are “other technologies” that go way further than the study tech – mnemonic systems such as the one written up by Vladimir Kozarenko, Dr. Georgi Lozanov’s “Superlearning” techniques, the list goes on. I would never be so bold as to tell someone they mustn’t look and see what else is out there.

Indeed, my personal experience is that it actually lends more credence to the tech in the public eye when you demonstrate clearly to the other person that you really have investigated it all, but still choose LRH tech because you have compared it to everything else and found that it works. You prove to the person that you are a knowledgeable investigator of workable solutions, and not just a blinkered cultie.

Nine  on September 17th, 2011

Axiom of Scn #31: “Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness, are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion.” Axiom of Scn #35: “The ultimate truth is a static.” How many people you have met or currently know take these two axioms as stable data in their personal life? My reason for asking is simply that IMO these are axiomatic to Scn only.

diogenes  on September 18th, 2011

You seem to be against the use of stable data in general, and KSW in particular. I disagree with you on both points.

1) You say, “A stable datum keeps confusion at bay, and this can relieve one of inspecting what is being kept at bay.” That implies that all stable data block perception of the prior confusion. But only an ABERRATED stable datum holds confusion back by blocking perception of it. A TRUE stable datum works by bringing workable order to the confusion so the data in it CAN be looked at and understood. This is the opposite of “keeping confusion at bay.”

2) You say, “If a stable datum cannot be inspected or questioned, the confusions being held back will continue to grow until they overwhelm the stable datum and a debacle occurs.” This is true only of ABERRATED stable data. After a TRUE stable datum has been found, the confusion it applies to is actually as-ised. Not the data, but the confusion about it. Certainly everyone should be free to question anything. That right is inherent in LRH’s concept of Personal Integrity. But impartial questioning of a TRUE stable datum will rapidly show it to be workable. Continued questioning past that point would only add alter-isness back into the data set, throwing it back into confusion. In other words, overrun. One has to know when to end any action, whether it be an auditing process, a study cycle, or a research project. Just as there can be aberrated stable data that block real understanding of the data in a confusion, there can also be aberrated “endless questioning” that also blocks understanding.

3) You say, “KSW is a stable datum that holds back questioning of the history of Scientology, the development of the technology, and the true history of the organization and its founder.” No, it doesn’t. One may question anything in theory. KSW demands only that one adhere to Standard Tech in practice. And, per LRH that should be only because one observes that Standard Tech actually works. Once that observation has been made, one proceeds to USE the technology to improve conditions. The “true history” of LRH, Scientology, the tech, and the organization may be interesting, but is largely irrelevant once one knows that Standard Tech works. The only exception would be if the organization itself were preventing the use of Standard Tech, which, of course, it has done under DM. But questioning management is different from questioning Standard Tech. Scientology is not a belief system. It’s a collection of tools. If the tools work, use them. If they don’t work, don’t use them. And, if you find that they don’t work, and you therefore decide to do something else, don’t call yourself a Scientologist, because that would be misrepresentation, whether you’re an independent field auditor or COB.

4) You say, “With the appearance of KSW, Scientology became a faith-based organization, and any search for truth was no longer permitted.” That’s not true at all. Standard Tech is a system of tools that not only permits people to search for their own truth but enables them to find it. There is no faith involved at all, unless one adds it unnecessarily for one’s own personal emotional reasons. Admittedly some have done that, but it’s not what LRH said to do. You are confusing the search for workable tools with the use of those tools to search for truth about one’s life. Searching for workable tools is an interesting phase that all Scientologists go through in the beginning. Course supervisors and other staff should grant beingness to that initial search. But it’s also important to not get stuck in it. At some point one must switch to a higher gear and USE the workable tools one has found, because the only reason to study them in the first place is to facilitate a higher level search — the search for the truth of one’s own life and existence. Q&A at the level of the search for workable tools will only block that more important search.

5) You say, “KSW is one of the main stable data which justify ignoring any and all reports that are not issued by the self-appointed leader of Corporate Scientology.” Yes, some COS robots do misinterpret and misuse KSW in this way. But, in actual fact, the “self-appointed leader of Corporate Scientology” is the biggest violator of KSW there is. The “Scientology” in “Keeping Scientology Working” is LRH-issued Standard Tech, not the corporate entity or anyone in its management. Full application of KSW would require the removal, declare, and expulsion of the squirrel DM and his inner circle of chief robots.

TRUE stable data are both necessary and useful, and KSW is a true stable datum. It includes “knowing that the technology is correct,” which is accomplished by having Personal Integrity and making one’s own observation of whether or not Standard Tech works. Once one has determined that it does work, and has decided to be a Scientologist, one then has the responsibility to discourage deviations from Standard Tech, whether they occur inside the Church or outside it. Being “in charge” of the Church does not give anyone license to deviate from Standard Tech. Nor does leaving the Church while still calling oneself a Scientologist. The only legitimate reason for a Scientologist to either stay in or leave the Church is to gain the freedom to practice and receive Standard Tech, not freedom to replace it with one’s own know-best alterations.

DM has led the Church further and further away from Standard Tech for the last 30 years. Training and auditing in the Church is now so far off-Source, and so much in violation of KSW, as to be for all intents and purposes psychiatry. Let no one make an A=A=A out of what the Church does today and what LRH said to do 30, 40, and 50 years ago. Standard Tech works. The problem is not with the tech. It’s with Church management, and with David Miscavige in particular.

If anyone thinks that they have applied Standard Tech and found it to be unworkable, the burning question is, “What did the auditor do?” I’ve been a Scientologist for 43 years. I’ve seen plenty of bad auditing results in myself and others, both inside and outside the Church, including some delivered by me. But in every instance, those bad results have been easily traceable to misduplication, misunderstanding, and misapplication of Standard Tech. In most cases the errors have been glaringly obvious. I’ve also observed continuously great results when real Standard Tech has been applied by the book.

OldAuditor  on September 18th, 2011

Dear W. M Diogenes,

Your comment is an interesting interpretation of what you read and shows serious misduplication of the material in this article. Furthermore, you seem to feel that conjecture is a valid response to my observations.

We obviously spent many years observing different Scientology organizations.

The definition of what constitutes an aberrated stable datum vs a “useful” stable datum is affected by the tone level of the observer. See my recent post on that subject.

Nine  on September 19th, 2011

I continually find it interesting (if disappointing) that argumentative of even hostile posts receive immediate attention while thoughtful posts are invalidated through the tried and true mechanism of irresponsibility – i.e. are ignored.

Axiom of Scn #31: “Goodness and badness, beautifulness and ugliness, are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion.” Axiom of Scn #35: “The ultimate truth is a static.” How many people you have met or currently know take these two axioms as stable data in their personal life? My reason for asking is simply that IMO these are axiomatic to Scn only.

David St Lawrence says: I happen to agree with your opinion.
Not every opinion gets a response from me or from my readers.
Please don’t let that stop you from commenting.

Leave a Comment