What's new

POWER PROCESSING.

sp declared

Patron with Honors
thank you for being around

To Alan and Dart

Thank you for being around. You made remember the good spirit and the good mood that made me join scientology originally, the original essence of the quest for knowlegde, understanding and self improvement.

You guys represent all the good things that got me involved in the first place.

Sp Declared (and proudly so)
 

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
I understand what you are saying and agree with you about the correct definition of handle for this command is NOT the "terminatedly end" type definition.

The theory of this type of process is well covered in Level 1 data. The BC tapes cover it in detail.

Basically, the problem is the confusion and the solutions were the stable datums. You want the stable datums off to blow the charge (confusions.) The TA comes off on the solutions. It doesn't matter if the solutions worked or not, they were the stable datums holding the confusions back.

The main thing would be not to let the pc run a wrongly understood command (Auditor's Code.) It's a matter of him using the correct definition of "handle."

You have both missed the point.

The client has tried, in the past, deal with the condition, but it remains unhandled. They go into effect of failing to deal with it. That is what the command deals with.

It is a muzzled process, going back and forth between the existing condition and what they have done in the past to TERMINATEDLY deal with it.

As they run, charge, force & mass start to blow off and they can start to see IN PRESENT TIME what the existing condition is.

I notice that Martini tries to take posts I make and align them to "standard" church think.

This is a bit like saying that "All Baptists are men, so all men are Baptists".

Dart
 

Martini

Patron Meritorious
You have both missed the point.

The client has tried, in the past, deal with the condition, but it remains unhandled. They go into effect of failing to deal with it. That is what the command deals with.

It is a muzzled process, going back and forth between the existing condition and what they have done in the past to TERMINATEDLY deal with it.

I understand what you're saying here. As long as the pc understands it didn't have to be a successful handle, he would be able to run smoothly with that definition. Otherwise, he wouldn't have a single answer to the command. It's not handled.

As they run, charge, force & mass start to blow off and they can start to see IN PRESENT TIME what the existing condition is.

True. The condition actually changes in perspective as well.

I notice that Martini tries to take posts I make and align them to "standard" church think.

This is a bit like saying that "All Baptists are men, so all men are Baptists".

Dart

Just a different point of view is all. Makes for an interesting discussion. Carry on.
 

Pierrot

Patron with Honors
MOI??????

I just spoke on the phone to Dart about this. I hadn't missed the point, but I didn't write it too clearly, so I edited my prior post to clarify. :)

Paul

Still, after editing your post, it leaves... unhandled concepts. First, the additive "(unwanted)" is unnecessary and in fact evaluative. What if the persons answers with "the physical universe is (or is not, according to preferences)" as an existing condition?

Then - I might have a look into how that translates into french, maybe I got it wrong ;-) - but "have handled" is correct. It's not "how you handled it?" nor "how you were handling it?" etc. Thus, as DS' terminatedly handled implied in the command is correct.

Basically the person would have a discharge between the first postulate when entering an universe (a set, before the condition) and the second postulate after leaving it, abandonning the handling and thus allowing it to go on automatic. It's a fun ride to run, worthwile for those who like that kind of stuff. Often after the cognitions there is nothing more to say about the condition, blown away, and the past is left behind (not affecting one in PT).
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Still, after editing your post, it leaves... unhandled concepts. First, the additive "(unwanted)" is unnecessary and in fact evaluative. What if the persons answers with "the physical universe is (or is not, according to preferences)" as an existing condition?

The "unwanted" is in my opening comment, not in my suggestion for a command. If you feel evaluated for by comments on message board posts, that is something else. And if the condition were wanted, it wouldn't flash to mind as an answer to the question in an auditing session, would it? If the pc is so unhatted as a pc that he runs analytical answers to auditing questions, then the session would be a dog's breakfast.

Paul
 

Pierrot

Patron with Honors
The "unwanted" is in my opening comment, not in my suggestion for a command. If you feel evaluated for by comments on message board posts, that is something else. And if the condition were wanted, it wouldn't flash to mind as an answer to the question in an auditing session, would it? If the pc is so unhatted as a pc that he runs analytical answers to auditing questions, then the session would be a dog's breakfast.

Paul

Right! but even if "unwanted" was not a suggestion for a command, implying it as the meaning alters the command. The whole process could be run answering with desirable conditions only, if that were the person's answers - and I suppose if the pc was answering that way only you wouldn't say "sorry, you're giving me wrong answers...", would you?

As to the hatting of the pc - err... I don't care. Means - I've ran processes in plain French or English without using any scientologese at all and without giving any "hatting" nor explanations about any "tech", scn or dn. Just to find out how that works... On any level it did run just fine, Standard Tech being tailor made to and taking care of any and all mechanisms of the Human Mind. Often I was amazed people's realisations matching Axioms and other tech data, which they didn't know anything about. (clearing commands with a normal dictionnary of course, when needed)

So whether the person runs analytical answers or "reactive" ones, I don't care as long as the person answers the question, which is the game agreed upon. Evaluating the answer as analytical, reactive, or else is a bad practice in my book, Paul.

And don't worry about me feeling being "evaluated" - as I'm not evaluating your understanding of Power Processes or else either. I just enjoy, sometimes, tech discussions. I don't mind on a message board evaluations, invalidations, silly indications, attempts to apply (any) tech on others that didn't ask for help nor advice, ... - you name it - if that's the existing condition.

;-)
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
What is this "Standard Tech" to which you refer? I keep hearing the term used, but haven't been able to see it defined as a noun. The only definition I see agreed upon is the following:

1) person is there of their own will to handle something they consider in need of handling

2) auditor is there of their own will to handle something with the person that the person considers in need of handling

3) auditor uses a process to get the person talking about the agreed upon "something", and then uses AT LEAST the following to bring this "handling" to conclusion.

A) person no longer coming up with new answers to the question/command of the process (questions are interrogative commands)

B) person's attention no longer on the original "something", but instead focused on the here and now

C) person has voiced a new awareness (and if they have not, but A & B are present, they will do so when asked "how does that seem to you now?")

D) person's emotions concerning the subject, if they have any, are considered to be, by that person, in a better place than they had been

E) if a meter is used, this is accompanied by a "F/N"
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'll simplify it for you. Standard Tech is that is that method of case handling which brings about a desirable result for all concerned.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I'll simplify it for you. Standard Tech is that is that method of case handling which brings about a desirable result for all concerned.

That's only true on the planet called "Leon," here on Earth, Scientology "Standard Tech" is something else.

Question,"What is there about Scientology 'Standard Tech' that is so vile (or embarrassing?) that Scientologists, when asked to describe it, go into delusional states?
 

Martini

Patron Meritorious
Breuer and Freud, in 1891, were agents of Kaiser Wilhelm Hogensoloven. And they were dedicated to making politically-minded changes for him. A bunch of crap. A complete swindle. Just a hypnotist. So he invents the libido-dibido theory, and he goes poogly-poods and ids, and Greek mythology, and bah!

There're certain principles involved in any savage and primitive think that you can use. Certain principles involved. There's certain magical principles. There's opening up somebody's memory, making him, forcing him or persuading him to remember something painful, and so forth. These are known to every medicine man, every swami there is. How is it they knew it and never used it, huh? Right now, right now the beautiful technology, heh, of these characters is turned against Scientology, because the politicians you hear crying out against them have wives who have been violated by psychoanalysis. They are under the influence.

There are thousands of zones where data could lie. There're billions of zones where, that you could consider truth. There's a whole universe out here full of crap and bucks And I show you one little, narrow line that goes straight through it, like a shock, and a few gates, which if you open them exactly correctly, somebody goes out like he is on a rocket ride.

So if you ever mention to me again a question about something over in left field I'll have you spanked. This is a lousiest thing - what the hell is anybody doing wandering around over here in left field? Here's the main road. Let's get on it, let's find out what the principles on it are. I didn't mean to curse you - that mildly. Here's the main highway. Now knock off the mucking about and get on it. There aren't any questions about it, it just is. And it's a certain series of actions that you do.
—L. Ron Hubbard
Lecture 27 September 1968: Standard Tech Defined

Now, the next action, the next action, with regard to this sort of thing would naturally be something very complicated and clever, and on an examination I just gave you haven't yet got the exact mechanism of how an individual squirrels, and you better damn well get it. The individual has been audited non standardly, therefore he appears to be a strange beast on whom non standard ... on whom standard tech doesn't work. A person whose supposed to know how to audit has audited the person on standard tech and now the person has not resolved. So it's a wide open invitation to invent a technique. Invent something. Invent something strange. This individual is very peculiar indeed. He doesn't respond along this line. Now, what I am trying to teach you is, is that only happens where, that standard tech has been followed is a false report. It hasn't been followed. You go back over the case and you will find out that he had missed withholds, or he had PTPs, and it's blown down on auditing reports and every other damn thing. List, listed, lists a mile long, and so on, and then somebody is giving you a false report. The case has just been audited by standard tech, I mean so what. No! Standard tech has not been followed. That is what I am trying to teach you. There is no case that standard tech does not solve. There are people who say they have but haven't applied the standard action. And you look through the folder and you will find the evidence right in front of your eyes. I've got to teach you that, and I've told you about four times and you couldn't answer on an examination, so learn it now, please.

That is how squirreling begins. Do you understand? That is how an individual gets an invitation to squirel. It's the false report. "Oh, yes we ran a valence shifter, and we did this and we did that, and we did everything (noise)." Case is still going in there going (noise). Anybody told me anything like that the look of contempt they would get would be quite withering. There might even be a beam go with it. I would look through the auditing report and look over the PC and I would find out the case had been audited over ARC breaks. He is one of these seven special cases. He hasn't been assessed. I mean the guy, I mean the guy ... they did it all bonkers and backwards, while telling you they did it all the way that was supposed to be done. And then you get an unusual case, and the way you solve the case is to do right what has been done wrong. That thing you've got to learn, because it is your only shield against the invitation to invent something new and strange. You understand? Well alright, will you get that down, because that's a very important point. That is how squirreling occurs. The case now is a strange case. Well the only thing that is wrong with him is that standard tech has not been done, while somebody thinks it has. So you have got to find out what standard tech hasn't been done and get it done, and he ceases to be a strange case. Right now. You follow? All right.

Class VIII Lecture "Assists"

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:)
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Question,"What is there about Scientology 'Standard Tech' that is so vile (or embarrassing?) that Scientologists, when asked to describe it, go into delusional states?

It is actually very hard to define at deeper than a brush-off get-through-a-checkout-on-definitions level, even with regard to the CofS. Hubbard tossed off different definitions in Class VIII lectures, which can be selectively used to endorse some particular point of view. I did that huge empirical comparison checklist in 2004, listing 191 points against which an existing scene purporting to be "standard tech" could be compared and the result expressed as a percentage. The results for different groups seemed to be between 70-90% "Standard tech" in use.

On a superficial basis, ignoring the silly, self-serving "it's what works" type definitions, one could say "it's in alignment with LRH tech". The problem is, what exactly is "LRH tech"? The tapes are OK, as it's a reasonable bet that the voice is Hubbard's and the edits haven't changed much crucial stuff. That fake Ron's Journal tape is irrelevant. Going back before GAT, even going back to 1982 as a cut off point "before RTC started changing things", doesn't resolve the problem. HCOBs were issued under Hubbard's name, but he didn't necessarily write them. Supposedly he saw them, but when he later denied it who's to know?

The definition I ended up using for my checklist - and it refers to times in the late 70s or early 80s, say, before DM started messing with things too much - was:
"Standard" is here empirically defined as "as is familiar to many from observing what was generally considered as LRH standard in the C of S when they were there." This seems to be a roughly workable definition, even if not really acceptable to a purist.

Paul
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I'll simplify it for you. Standard Tech is that is that method of case handling which brings about a desirable result for all concerned.

This definition avoids responsibility for all the failures, which is at least 90% of case handlings, as witnessed by the people who stay with Scientology, and those who leave.

Thus, at least 90% of Tech delivered in the Church or out of it is non-standard, by this definition.

Question, Leon? How many people who do "Standard Tech" have ever achieved the "State of Clear", or "Operating Thetan"? Standard? When used this way, it's a sales pitch.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here.

I reckon that over the last number of years close on 100% of the Tech delivered by the CofS has been non-standard. If the guy does not get better or if the condition does not resolve or at least improve (in the estimation of the preclear) then whatever was done was not effective. So it was wrong. Period.

It is the auditor's responsibility to see to it that the case does get better. Period.

What else is there to say on the matter?

How many guys have gone Clear? It all depends on your definition of Clear - there have been so many that at some time or another virtually anything was accepted as Clear. But at no time did any of that negate the fact that a state such as Clear does exist and - in theory at least - can be attained. Has anyone attained it ever? I don't know. Maybe. I myself am willing to attest to being Clearish in my better moments.
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
I looked over some of the material around in the FZ and it is clear that they do not have the correwct commands, or have no concept of what is required to run this.

The commands are;

TELL ME AN EXISTING CONDITION

TELL ME HOW YOU HAVE HANDLED IT

I like your posts in this thread very much, but I do have to pull you up on this one point. I don't know where you've looked in the FZ, but these are the commands used in the FZ!

I have seen one slightly altered version of at least one of the PrPrs, this one IIRC, that I think Ralph Hilton came up with - but he is using this version now and, indeed, has been for some years.

Nick
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Breuer and Freud, in 1891, were agents of Kaiser Wilhelm Hogensoloven. And they were dedicated to making politically-minded changes for him. A bunch of crap. A complete swindle. Just a hypnotist. So he invents the libido-dibido theory, and he goes poogly-poods and ids, and Greek mythology, and bah!

There're certain principles involved in any savage and primitive think that you can use. Certain principles involved. There's certain magical principles. There's opening up somebody's memory, making him, forcing him or persuading him to remember something painful, and so forth. These are known to every medicine man, every swami there is. How is it they knew it and never used it, huh? Right now, right now the beautiful technology, heh, of these characters is turned against Scientology, because the politicians you hear crying out against them have wives who have been violated by psychoanalysis. They are under the influence.

There are thousands of zones where data could lie. There're billions of zones where, that you could consider truth. There's a whole universe out here full of crap and bucks And I show you one little, narrow line that goes straight through it, like a shock, and a few gates, which if you open them exactly correctly, somebody goes out like he is on a rocket ride.

So if you ever mention to me again a question about something over in left field I'll have you spanked. This is a lousiest thing - what the hell is anybody doing wandering around over here in left field? Here's the main road. Let's get on it, let's find out what the principles on it are. I didn't mean to curse you - that mildly. Here's the main highway. Now knock off the mucking about and get on it. There aren't any questions about it, it just is. And it's a certain series of actions that you do.
—L. Ron Hubbard
Lecture 27 October 1968: Standard Tech Defined

Quote:

Now, the next action, the next action, with regard to this sort of thing would naturally be something very complicated and clever, and on an examination I just gave you haven't yet got the exact mechanism of how an individual squirrels, and you better damn well get it. The individual has been audited non standardly, therefore he appears to be a strange beast on whom non standard ... on whom standard tech doesn't work. A person whose supposed to know how to audit has audited the person on standard tech and now the person has not resolved. So it's a wide open invitation to invent a technique. Invent something. Invent something strange. This individual is very peculiar indeed. He doesn't respond along this line. Now, what I am trying to teach you is, is that only happens where, that standard tech has been followed is a false report. It hasn't been followed. You go back over the case and you will find out that he had missed withholds, or he had PTPs, and it's blown down on auditing reports and every other damn thing. List, listed, lists a mile long, and so on, and then somebody is giving you a false report. The case has just been audited by standard tech, I mean so what. No! Standard tech has not been followed. That is what I am trying to teach you. There is no case that standard tech does not solve. There are people who say they have but haven't applied the standard action. And you look through the folder and you will find the evidence right in front of your eyes. I've got to teach you that, and I've told you about four times and you couldn't answer on an examination, so learn it now, please.

That is how squirreling begins. Do you understand? That is how an individual gets an invitation to squirel. It's the false report. "Oh, yes we ran a valence shifter, and we did this and we did that, and we did everything (noise)." Case is still going in there going (noise). Anybody told me anything like that the look of contempt they would get would be quite withering. There might even be a beam go with it. I would look through the auditing report and look over the PC and I would find out the case had been audited over ARC breaks. He is one of these seven special cases. He hasn't been assessed. I mean the guy, I mean the guy ... they did it all bonkers and backwards, while telling you they did it all the way that was supposed to be done. And then you get an unusual case, and the way you solve the case is to do right what has been done wrong. That thing you've got to learn, because it is your only shield against the invitation to invent something new and strange. You understand? Well alright, will you get that down, because that's a very important point. That is how squirreling occurs. The case now is a strange case. Well the only thing that is wrong with him is that standard tech has not been done, while somebody thinks it has. So you have got to find out what standard tech hasn't been done and get it done, and he ceases to be a strange case. Right now. You follow? All right.

Class VIII Lecture "Assists"

I was in the audience when LRH was pontificating and screaming in rage and fury this BS! :angry:

During the same period of time he was throwing people overboard! Some were women and children who could not swim. :grouch:

In many ways this period of time was the height of insanity - the "superior psychos versus the inferior psychos."

No longer did we draw forth from the client - but we now had "standard tech" - we told them what to run and think! AHMEN! :omg:

:puke:

Alan
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
I was in the audience when LRH was pontificating and screaming in rage and fury this BS! :angry:

During the same period of time he was throwing people overboard! Some were women and children who could not swim. :grouch:

In many ways this period of time was the height of insanity - the "superior psychos versus the inferior psychos."

No longer did we draw forth from the client - but we now had "standard tech" - we told them what to run and think! AHMEN! :omg:

:puke:

Alan

And thus it was and is. On the Class 8 tapes one will hear LRH say, and I paraphrase liberally " we are no longer interested in what the PC wants, we are only interested in applying standard tech". I did a double-take when I studied this, and I figgered it out by thinking " there is no conflict here. If standard tech is correctly applied, the PC will win, and he will be joyous".
Actually, it always worked for me as an Auditor. My PCs each and every one loved me, loved their auditing, had dial wide persistent F/Ns and TA floats, and wanted more and more and yet more auditing. Many of them are still "in", and still buying the auditing services. That is the real skill of the Cl 8. Keep 'em wanting more. Nevermind that what they got in to handle in the first place still hasn't been handled. Nevermind that he is all the way off the top of the Bridge, but is still lurking in his car on Sunset Blvd. whacking off as the girls pass. Nevermind that another got in as a 20 year old virgin, has done every service COS has to offer and is now a 45 year old virgin. The big win is that now they don't care.
Like you say "puke".

CHLNG


CHLNG
 

Pierrot

Patron with Honors
Ah... - I see we're getting back on the subject of this thread, about existing conditions and how they have been handled. Or not :D
 

Terril park

Sponsor
I like your posts in this thread very much, but I do have to pull you up on this one point. I don't know where you've looked in the FZ, but these are the commands used in the FZ!

I have seen one slightly altered version of at least one of the PrPrs, this one IIRC, that I think Ralph Hilton came up with - but he is using this version now and, indeed, has been for some years.

Nick

Below is what is written on Clearbirds Prometheus Reports.

The Conditions Process commands are:

1. Tell me an existing condition.
2. Tell me how you handled it.
 

Smitty

Silver Meritorious Patron
comment to Alan

I was in the audience when LRH was pontificating and screaming in rage and fury this BS!
During the same period of time he was throwing people overboard! Some were women and children who could not swim.
In many ways this period of time was the height of insanity - the "superior psychos versus the inferior psychos."
No longer did we draw forth from the client - but we now had "standard tech" - we told them what to run and think! AHMEN!
Alan

I don't think it was the height of Hubbard's insanity, Alan, I think that it was merely a contemporary "highest ever". His psychosis actually worsened and was a contributing cause to his death in January 1986. He died in a motor home with a cabinet full of drugs, 40 million dollars cash, fearful of anyone he did not know, and screaming at aliens and body thetans.
 
Top