Possibly Helpful Advice

Finding your way after leaving the cult of Scientology

Scientology – Let us salvage what we can and build a future on it

(This was originally published more than two years ago and it bears repeating for those who do not remember it or did not see it.

Yes, there is a place for those who fight the abuses of the current church, but the real future of the technology will be created by those who actually USE it to make a better world.)

Discard the meaningless labels

Words like standard tech, squirreling, and SP declare have been made meaningless by the redefinition of words in the current Church of Scientology. These are labels of the corrupt church we once were a part of.

Standard tech now refers to Golden Age of Tech altered processes and definitions.

Squirreling has always been used to label those who found errors in LRH tech or suggested a better way to get something done. (This has been covered in detail in another post.)

SP declares are used to intimidate anyone questioning anything or referring to LRH Bulletins or Policy letters.

The overt and covert alteration of tech and policy that has taken place in the last twenty years makes it imperative that we do not rely on somebody’s definition of “standard tech” or “on-policy” to resolve our current situations. Harking back to the good old days should be done as a search for what actually worked, not as a appeal to authority.

When I see someone challenging a new way of doing things with phrases like, “That’s not standard Tech!” or “That violates HCOPL blah, blah.”, I know I am looking at some one who is stuck in a time warp and is not confronting what is right in front of him.

Refer to what actually works

On the other hand, quoting of axioms, relationships and laws makes good sense as these have been proven to work. Material on the ARC and KRC triangles, for example, are useful because they describe phenomena that can be observed and tested.

There are absolute gems of knowledge in the body of technology and policies that we ascribe to LRH. To the extent that they stand up to examination, they should be preserved and used. They should not, however, be treated as holy scriptures. If they are found not to work in some cases, the reason why must be found. There will be no more shooting of messengers bearing uncomfortable truths.

There should be strong support for new ideas

New ideas are priceless when they are accompanied by results and are subject to thorough study and testing.

As some of you are aware, we have been devoting our lives and our fortunes to building a cult and we are reaping the whirlwind that results when any cult gets powerful enough that it no longer responds to public demands for equitable treatment. Our church has developed a dogma that is as rigid and abrasive as any church in the past. The technology and policies put in place by LRH led to the church we have today:

The only tests that should apply now are:

1. What processes work and produce the result intended?

2. How do we provide services that meet expectations?

2. What policies can be applied to handle the current CofS situation to a successful conclusion?

4. What Field Policies can be applied to create and maintain a strong and stable network of field practices?

3. What form of organization will allow for rapid correction of errors, redress of wrongs, ensure delivery of services that are needed and wanted by public on lines?

Here is the result of blindly following top-down policy and altered technology:

1. Our best and brightest highly trained executives are doing menial labor at the Gold compound and have allowed themselves to be suppressed and degraded.

2. OTs and Preclears are being overrun and being forced to run processes they have already run to EP and this is being done under the guise of applying standard tech GAT style.

Forget the labels and the dogma of the past

Find out what actually works and recover it for use by the field. Develop workable Field Policies based on what actually works now, not what works for a cult.

There is a bright future ahead if we actually observe what we observe and act on it. Make your voices heard!

Relying on historical lies or alterations of fact will not get us where we need to go.

If you are actually interested in discovering what workable technology looks like, you can get a sample of what is being done on workabletechnology.com

Number of views:275

image credit: J Cuson, Hongkong artist http://cuson.deviantart.com/

Number of views:25334


diogenes  on April 22nd, 2012

Your criticism of the alteration of tech by DM and his minions is entirely justified. But their calling their unworkable alterations “standard tech” doesn’t mean that real standard tech doesn’t work. We don’t need to find out what in LRH’s standard tech works and doesn’t work. It all works when applied properly. The problem is only that it has been applied incompetently and suppressively by DM and company. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

OldAuditor  on April 23rd, 2012

I have addressed this many times before. Standard tech is anything but standard, it is what LRH decreed it to be that day and it changed radically over the years.

It seems that you and others would like to preserve some glorious moment in the history of the technology as a historic truth much like ancient flowers and insects were captured in amber.

The technology has been a moving target ever since the first processes were tried out and the evolution/devolution did not stop on LRH’s death. The only “standard” for LRH was what LRH pronounced as standard on the day he said it.

He had no trouble labeling as squirrel anything that was contrary to his current statement of what was to be considered standard from here on out. Those who thought for themselves became a convenient target.

I prefer to pick and choose those bits of technology that work. The results speak for them selves.

You are free to adopt and follow any dogma you choose. Let me know if your results are any better than what GAT auditing produces.

diogenes  on April 23rd, 2012

Yes, LRH changed “what is standard tech” repeatedly. But that’s not an outpoint. It’s a pluspoint, because it’s exactly what happens in the development of all technologies as they become more and more effective over time. There’s an advancing frontier of knowledge. As new discoveries and improvements are made, “best practices” change to keep up. This is a very ordinary and routine pattern that occurs in all fields of human endeavor.

The true outpoint here is the omitted time in your own analysis of the situation. Look at the magnitude of what LRH was attempting, and what he achieved even if it was imperfect in some ways. It’s completely unreasonable to expect that he could have developed the final, best version of his technology all in one fell swoop in 1950. And it’s completely unreasonable to expect that in advancing the subject into new territory he wouldn’t find stable data that seemed to work well at one point in that advance, only to be shown to be inadequate later as he learned more and switched to better stable data as needed.

….truncated by Old Auditor

OldAuditor  on April 23rd, 2012

So, Diogenes, which part of this moving target of “standard tech” do you use with your pcs?

You have recently stated, “It all works when applied properly”.

If it all works, why do you think that LRH kept making changes in what he called standard tech. How do you suggest picking out the good parts from the bad parts?

I prefer to select those portions of the technology that I have tested and found to be workable and apply to the pc in front of me.

Leave a Comment