Technical Purity

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Technical purity does not exist in the Cult that is Scientology. Plain and simple truth! Spiritual freedom is FREE, simple and doable! The truth will set you free. Scientology is a total and utter SCAM of epic proportions!

I don't have to figure figure on the "standard tech" - it is all designed to spin and confuse so you make lots and lots of mistakes and then justify it whilst Slappy drains you financially and otherwise. It is evil. It destroys lives....with total certainty!
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
When John was course supv (before I became the course supv there) we used to Chinese Drill "standard".

So...

"Standard: a definite level or degree of quality that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose."
 

Gadfly

Crusader
When John was course supv (before I became the course supv there) we used to Chinese Drill "standard".

So...

"Standard: a definite level or degree of quality that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose."

I always liked that definition - and still do. :confused2:

But, like so much in Scientology it is tightly connected to and used with other REALLY nutty ideas.

There is no doubt that the C of S is VERY "standard" when it comes to the "tech" of Hard Sell Regging & Recruiting (ARC to manipulate, overwhelm, Tone Scale games, etc.).

They are very "standard" when it comes to harrassment and threats (do this or you will be declared, don't do this and you will lose your eternal freedom, keep doing that and we will bother you until you die with private investigators, trashing campaigns, and well-funded bogus lawsuits, etc.).

They are very "standard" when it comes to applying TR-L (Lying Drill), the extensive and always-existent PR Tech (which is used on various raw publics, but also on the Scientology staff and public themselves), and the basic tech of manufacturing phony realities, delusions and mock-ups (misrepresentation, garnering agreement).

The list goes on and on.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Looks like a cue for my Standard Tech [Hooray!] versus Squirrel Tech [boo hiss] post.

-----

Everybody knows Standard Tech (--Hooray!) is good and Squirrel Tech (--boo hiss) is bad. Right?

Everyone who considers himself a Scientologist wants to be associated with Standard Tech (--Hooray!) as it is good for one’s repute and good for business. I mean, look at all those Hubbard quotes that litter such people’s writings. A Hubbard quote gets instant agreement with that audience.

So you would think Standard Tech (--Hooray!) — SHUT UP! — is easy to define. Well, let’s see.

Hubbard gave many definitions. I don’t want you to think I’m just cherry-picking some that support my point of view and ignore others more prominent that refute it. There are five definitions in the Tech Dictionary. A typical one there is
4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70).
Sounds great, doesn’t it? But WTF does it mean? What exactly are the rules of processing? Everything in the Tech Volumes and 3000 lectures? --No, no (one might say), don’t be an idiot! There are just a few core basics, like the axioms, the auditors code, auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, things like that. Is there a list anywhere? --Oh no, you have to do the Class VIII course in order to know them.

The Class VIII Course was developed in 1968. Its product per the pack is “A zealot for Standard Tech.” I used to supervise the Class VIII Course at Saint Hill in the early 80s. Anyway, let’s go to the Class VIII course, thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, and toss off some quotes from there. Here are a couple I think are pretty typical:
You say, “Yes, but this PC could sit there for a month without any auditing.” It’s god damn well better he did. If there’re two people who have entirely different opinions on what ought to be done with this case, then either one or the other of those two different people do not know standard tech, because if they knew standard tech they would not have any divergence of opinion.

Standard tech isn’t what I say it is. It’s what works. And what works has already been established. So it isn’t for me to say it’s different. And it isn’t for anybody else to say it’s different either, because we fought for it, and we won it the hard way. Now let’s consolidate it.​
It sounds fine when put like that. I’ll use my own wording here, in keeping with the above. LRH had it all worked out by this time. And Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1968. Does that sound OK?

-----

Here is one of the purposes of the International Freezone Association, a stalwart of Standard Tech:

IFA Purpose #1: Preserve, protect and promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.

That seems to go along with my definition there. Right?

-----

Let’s zero in on “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH.” At various times over the years Hubbard would say that the technology is all wrapped up. One such time is on this very Class VIII Course. In tape 4 he said, “But Scientology has a very definite body of technical application, which is the only body of technical application in all of the data of Scientology. There are not two ways to do anything in Scientology. In 1966 this was totally summated.”

Oh, OK, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1966, not 1968. I’m sure you see where this is going.

After 1966 came things like F/N Everything, Running Quad Flows, Dianetic Clear, NED, NOTs, and so on. Should these be considered as Squirrel Tech (--boo hiss) because Standard Tech was all wrapped up in 1966? --Oh no, of course not, don’t be silly, they’re all Standard Tech (Hooray!) too.

All right, so it’s following his instructions exactly, after 1968 too. But Miscavige has brought out the Golden Age of Gack, saying it all follows Hubbard’s instructions, and yet everyone knows it is Squirrel Tech (--boo hiss). --Yeah, but we use 1982 as a cut-off point, as that is when DM got on the line.

I got it now, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1982 only.

--Yes! Hip Hip—

Shhh!

All right. But in 1950 he described all those marvellous attributes of Clear, including eidetic memory and so forth, and no-one knows anyone who got that out of going Clear. And there’s that stuff about “male clear read” and “female clear read” and a genuine F/N only occurs between TA 2.0 and 3.0, and in Method 4 Word Clearing if you disagree with anything Hubbard said you must have a misunderstood, and. . . . So some of what he wrote is just plain wrong.

--Yes, but everyone knows how to separate out the good bits from the bad bits. You’re just trying to obfuscate the issue.

Hmm. So Standard Tech would be exactly following his good instructions (and ignoring the bad) up to 1982 only?

--Yes. Right. Hooray!

Now, if you poke around online a bit, you’ll see that Hubbard didn’t originate it all. For example, the Berners developed Study Tech over many years and Hubbard just ripped it off, claimed ownership, and got rid of them fast. And Alan C. Walter developed the first correction list. In these cases, Hubbard just pretended he had originated the tech. There are other similar examples of basic tech developed by others, in distinct contrast to what Hubbard said in KSW about being the sole source.

Similarly, there were HCOBs written by others, supposedly with Hubbard’s approval, which were issued in his name. The old tech volumes showed the actual source of these issues, but the current tech volumes don’t.

So now Standard Tech has come down to exactly following the good instructions (and ignoring the bad), whoever was the actual source although it was called Hubbard, up to 1982 only.

It’s a long way from “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH,” isn’t it?

It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered “Standard Tech” is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?

Paul
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Looks like a cue for my Standard Tech [Hooray!] versus Squirrel Tech [boo hiss] post.

-----

Everybody knows Standard Tech (--Hooray!) is good and Squirrel Tech (--boo hiss) is bad. Right?

Everyone who considers himself a Scientologist wants to be associated with Standard Tech (--Hooray!) as it is good for one’s repute and good for business. I mean, look at all those Hubbard quotes that litter such people’s writings. A Hubbard quote gets instant agreement with that audience.

So you would think Standard Tech (--Hooray!) — SHUT UP! — is easy to define. Well, let’s see.

Hubbard gave many definitions. I don’t want you to think I’m just cherry-picking some that support my point of view and ignore others more prominent that refute it. There are five definitions in the Tech Dictionary. A typical one there is
4. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70).
Sounds great, doesn’t it? But WTF does it mean? What exactly are the rules of processing? Everything in the Tech Volumes and 3000 lectures? --No, no (one might say), don’t be an idiot! There are just a few core basics, like the axioms, the auditors code, auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, things like that. Is there a list anywhere? --Oh no, you have to do the Class VIII course in order to know them.

The Class VIII Course was developed in 1968. Its product per the pack is “A zealot for Standard Tech.” I used to supervise the Class VIII Course at Saint Hill in the early 80s. Anyway, let’s go to the Class VIII course, thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, and toss off some quotes from there. Here are a couple I think are pretty typical:
You say, “Yes, but this PC could sit there for a month without any auditing.” It’s god damn well better he did. If there’re two people who have entirely different opinions on what ought to be done with this case, then either one or the other of those two different people do not know standard tech, because if they knew standard tech they would not have any divergence of opinion.

Standard tech isn’t what I say it is. It’s what works. And what works has already been established. So it isn’t for me to say it’s different. And it isn’t for anybody else to say it’s different either, because we fought for it, and we won it the hard way. Now let’s consolidate it.​
It sounds fine when put like that. I’ll use my own wording here, in keeping with the above. LRH had it all worked out by this time. And Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1968. Does that sound OK?

-----

Here is one of the purposes of the International Freezone Association, a stalwart of Standard Tech:

IFA Purpose #1: Preserve, protect and promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.

That seems to go along with my definition there. Right?

-----

Let’s zero in on “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH.” At various times over the years Hubbard would say that the technology is all wrapped up. One such time is on this very Class VIII Course. In tape 4 he said, “But Scientology has a very definite body of technical application, which is the only body of technical application in all of the data of Scientology. There are not two ways to do anything in Scientology. In 1966 this was totally summated.”

Oh, OK, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1966, not 1968. I’m sure you see where this is going.

After 1966 came things like F/N Everything, Running Quad Flows, Dianetic Clear, NED, NOTs, and so on. Should these be considered as Squirrel Tech (--boo hiss) because Standard Tech was all wrapped up in 1966? --Oh no, of course not, don’t be silly, they’re all Standard Tech (Hooray!) too.

All right, so it’s following his instructions exactly, after 1968 too. But Miscavige has brought out the Golden Age of Gack, saying it all follows Hubbard’s instructions, and yet everyone knows it is Squirrel Tech (--boo hiss). --Yeah, but we use 1982 as a cut-off point, as that is when DM got on the line.

I got it now, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1982 only.

--Yes! Hip Hip—

Shhh!

All right. But in 1950 he described all those marvellous attributes of Clear, including eidetic memory and so forth, and no-one knows anyone who got that out of going Clear. And there’s that stuff about “male clear read” and “female clear read” and a genuine F/N only occurs between TA 2.0 and 3.0, and in Method 4 Word Clearing if you disagree with anything Hubbard said you must have a misunderstood, and. . . . So some of what he wrote is just plain wrong.

--Yes, but everyone knows how to separate out the good bits from the bad bits. You’re just trying to obfuscate the issue.

Hmm. So Standard Tech would be exactly following his good instructions (and ignoring the bad) up to 1982 only?

--Yes. Right. Hooray!

Now, if you poke around online a bit, you’ll see that Hubbard didn’t originate it all. For example, the Berners developed Study Tech over many years and Hubbard just ripped it off, claimed ownership, and got rid of them fast. And Alan C. Walter developed the first correction list. In these cases, Hubbard just pretended he had originated the tech. There are other similar examples of basic tech developed by others, in distinct contrast to what Hubbard said in KSW about being the sole source.

Similarly, there were HCOBs written by others, supposedly with Hubbard’s approval, which were issued in his name. The old tech volumes showed the actual source of these issues, but the current tech volumes don’t.

So now Standard Tech has come down to exactly following the good instructions (and ignoring the bad), whoever was the actual source although it was called Hubbard, up to 1982 only.

It’s a long way from “the exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH,” isn’t it?

It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered “Standard Tech” is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?

Paul



Great post.

One thing to keep in mind about Standard Tech.

Anyone changing it is a squirrel and SP. Standard tech requires that they be utterly destroyed.

EXCEPTION: If the person altering the Standard Tech is higher on the command channel. Because in that case it would not be squirreling, it would be wholetrack research successfully resulting in a major breakthrough that is beyond your wildest dreams, and per Standard Tech the person writing the Out-Tech Knowledge Report would be utterly destroyed.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Great post.

One thing to keep in mind about Standard Tech.

Anyone changing it is a squirrel and SP. Standard tech requires that they be utterly destroyed.

EXCEPTION: If the person altering the Standard Tech is higher on the command channel. Because in that case it would not be squirreling, it would be wholetrack research successfully resulting in a major breakthrough that is beyond your wildest dreams, and per Standard Tech the person writing the Out-Tech Knowledge Report would be utterly destroyed.

Great summation! :thumbsup:

I would "correct" it though every so slightly to more better align with existing reality.

They don't present it or promote it as "wholetrack research". That is a "part" of the package deal. This is subtle now (hee-hee).

They promote COB and RTC. How?

(with great fanfare and said with a dedicated glare)

RTC is THAT section of the Church that is responsible for maintaining the "purity and totality of Ron's tech" (big button). The sweep to the large screen on the stage, and show 1) "recently discovered" clips of dedicated RTCers finding never-before-seen LRH DATA, 2) hard-at-work RTCers tirelessly copying and storing EVERY bit of Ron's (newly discovered) Tech, 3) and even smiling and eager RTCers storing this new Source Data in vaults far beneath the Earth's surface, so that "we always have Ron's technology even AFTER the aliens land or the bombs finally fall".

"Your future IS safeguarded"!!!!

They get away with this by explaining that there are "highly-trained tech terminals, working for RTC directly, who have undergone SPECIAL training, who constantly go through evenmore of Ron's amazing and extensive legacy".

(they start to admit that while the Bridge is perfect and always gets great resultsjust as it is, there is even MUCH more that Ron has left for us, much that hasn't even been SEEN by any person besides Ron! UP UNTIL NOW!)

I don't doubt that they will soon say something like this:

Urgent News! All MUST attend this never-before-seen and amazing event. Recently, COB suspected that there may very well be more, MUCH more "LRH Tech", more than we ever imagined. After looking through ALL of the upper level materials (which we RTC protect and defend), David Miscavige noticed that "pieces were missing". Of course, he knew that Ron would never have left it incomplete, and that IT HAD TO BE THERE somewhere. So, in his magnificence, DM sent out MANY missions around the world to FIND these "missing materials".

And, guess what, yes, WE FOUND THEM! (the soundtrack keys up, and gets louder, with exciting typical Scientology event "spam/elevator music", and the large picture of a huge building appears on the screen - yeah it looks like any old, unusued run-down building in some outdated industrial park along some Interstate Highway in the Midwest - but that building NOW takes on so much MORE "added meaning" to the near-rabid Scientology audience). There is wild clapping, and an immediate (obligatory) "standing ovation". The woman to the left is crying tears of joy! :happydance:

Everybody quiets down, and DM resumes, "That is the first BUILDING we tracked down. Yes, (to more wild clapping) THERE ARE 4 MORE OF THEM, and they are even bigger! The first building was filled on 6 full floors, with ceiling-high, double-stacked 4-drawer filing cabinets, with amazing research, never before seen research and conclusions by Ron, and much of it in LRH's original hand-writing or typed by his own hands. (Miscavige is oozing his weird beingness the whole time . . .)

This whole thing takes THREE FUCKING HOURS, as DM tells an amazing STORY, with all the tiny details - how the musty smell overtook the first missionaires, how the first missionaires were on the phone to DM telling every detailof these amazing discoveries, as they pulled open the first drawer, as two small spiders surried away, as dust was disturbed (making a few sneeze), and as 12 year-old CMO/RTC missionaires opened up the first folder in the first filing cabinet to see if it has totally decomposed, partially damaged, or intact. (suspense music playing)

Well guess what, it was in nearly perfect condition. It was ALL in nearly perfect condition!

(The build up. The tease. The build up. The tease. More data. Details. Blah-blah-blah. Typical Scientology "entertainment" hype)

Then it appears on the screen, a close up of a cover sheet with Ron's writing, "Running Reverse Polarity Incidents with NEW redeveloped GPM Platan Procedure".

The crowd goes wild . . . . . (of course, nobody had any idea what that was or meant, but they knew DM would TELL THEM).

DM says, "Now I can't tell you all of it (mystery, myetsrey, mystery), because much of this is VERY confidential (as he purses his lips in feigned contemplation and seriousness), but this first small bundle filled in a key section of what I had found to be missing!

"Apparently Ron new that the SPs were everywhere, and that the suppressives would try to destroy Ron's Bridge to Freedom, so LRH took careful measures and ensured that ALL of his brilliant tech would ALWAYS be there for YOU! And, NOW, finally, it is!!!!!!!!"

The music goes crazy, the lights are flashing like at a WWW wrestling event, and the audience is slap-happy and beyond any normal form of enthusiam.

++++++++++++++++

Once they have 3 or 4 BUILDINGS full of Ron's tech, then they spend the NEXT 200 years going through it all, with RTC missions after missions, with RTC leading the way, collecting, organizing and codifying Ron's work and legacy so that NOW, it can and will be available for everybody.

WE HAVE FINALLY MADE IT!!!

But, no matter what, the C of S will always require some endless stream of "new data", however they have to make it seem to appear. Or, at least they need to re-package and re-cycle the SAME stuff, over and over in different ways - to keep the CASH rolling in.

Also, isn't it amazing how Scientology events and promo are so over-filled with BUTTONS!??? :duh:
 

tjc

Patron
But, no matter what, the C of S will always require some endless stream of "new data", however they have to make it seem to appear. Or, at least they need to re-package and re-cycle the SAME stuff, over and over in different ways - to keep the CASH rolling in.

Also, isn't it amazing how Scientology events and promo are so over-filled with BUTTONS!??? :duh:[/QUOTE]

Would that Scn was alone is this method of marketing maybe they'd stand out more as being something less than desirable. Our whole society is inundated with re-packaged, re-cylcled same ol' same ol' that is the latest and greatest must have. In a world of infinite possibilites one would hope to think that we could start playing some more worthwhile and productive games than the art of throwing up the same old stuff. I am quite certain this planet was not designed nor thought to be destined to become one giant hairball floating in space. I guess it behooves on to plug one's nose and bravely plunge below the surface!
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
But, no matter what, the C of S will always require some endless stream of "new data", however they have to make it seem to appear. Or, at least they need to re-package and re-cycle the SAME stuff, over and over in different ways - to keep the CASH rolling in.

Also, isn't it amazing how Scientology events and promo are so over-filled with BUTTONS!??? :duh:

Would that Scn was alone is this method of marketing maybe they'd stand out more as being something less than desirable. Our whole society is inundated with re-packaged, re-cylcled same ol' same ol' that is the latest and greatest must have. In a world of infinite possibilites one would hope to think that we could start playing some more worthwhile and productive games than the art of throwing up the same old stuff. I am quite certain this planet was not designed nor thought to be destined to become one giant hairball floating in space. I guess it behooves on to plug one's nose and bravely plunge below the surface![/QUOTE]

I agree, Scientology is not alone in it's selling of useless things! They exploit a weakness in people that's generated by our culture, and endemic. The weakness is, specifically, the idea that happiness can be bought.

adbusters_LookWhatIBought.jpg

 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
Standard tech, there is no such thing.

I wish all the victims of this organization a speedy recovery and a return to health and may they get what they need and then get out.

Move on with your lives and enjoy the beauty of life.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Standard tech, there is no such thing.

I wish all the victims of this organization a speedy recovery and a return to health and may they get what they need and then get out.

Move on with your lives and enjoy the beauty of life.

Yes, life is much richer without without Hubbard's TRICKNOLOGY. The world is full of good people. No need to worry about SP's :)
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
All "standard" means is that it's proper and adequate for a purpose. That basically means, I think, close enough, we have enough info to get the job done.

By the way, this thread IS in the FZ section.
 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
All "standard" means is that it's proper and adequate for a purpose. That basically means, I think, close enough, we have enough info to get the job done.

By the way, this thread IS in the FZ section.

And it is in the Ex-Scientologist message board, so the content is open to debate.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
And it is in the Ex-Scientologist message board, so the content is open to debate.

Never, in all the echoing corridors of time have I ever suggested that one cannot debate and debunk such things. EVER.

But people DO often say how angry they are at anything like this (the thread op) being posted here at all. So I was reminding them of where they were.

So I believe that you've missed my point.
 
The Freezone Cult tries to make itself look nice by cuddling up to David Mayo. Do they really think that people are stupid enough to fall for that? ...

Many of the views that David has expressed so well in the past with regard to specifics of tech are quite popular among freezone scientologists, nor has David necessarily recanted all of those views.

Accordingly, avowed freezoners referencing David's published remarks is in itself neither inappropriate nor disingenuous. Albeit it is best to acknowledge the period in which his remarks were first published.

However, a rush by critics to drawing over broad conclusions concerning other's citation of those remarks often is.


Mark A. Baker
 
Last edited:
...
-----

Here is one of the purposes of the International Freezone Association, a stalwart of Standard Tech:

IFA Purpose #1: Preserve, protect and promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.

That seems to go along with my definition there. Right?

----- ...

Actually the IFA no longer exists having been recently renamed to "The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists Inc" (http://scientolipedia.org/index.php...f_Professional_Independent_Scientologists_Inc). Hence, APIS, as in the renown Sacred Bull of Ancient Egypt. :coolwink:

Moreover, as you & I both know from past experience, their leadership has not exactly been such as to inspire faith in the organization's respect for intellectual integrity, honesty, truth, or fair dealings with regard to others.


Mark A. Baker
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Actually the IFA no longer exists having been recently renamed to "The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists Inc" (http://scientolipedia.org/index.php...f_Professional_Independent_Scientologists_Inc). Hence, APIS, as in the renown Sacred Bull of Ancient Egypt. :coolwink:

Moreover, as you & I both know from past experience, their leadership has not exactly been such as to inspire faith in the organization's respect for intellectual integrity, honesty, truth, or fair dealings with regard to others.

Mark A. Baker

It was still IFA when I wrote that article, before they changed the name in order to (I assume) try to cash in on the fresh Independents movement. Kinda silly really, because the name is now so generic it is unmemorable. Is it APIS, SPIA, ASAP or what? I prefer ASPIC as that is easy to remember (Associated Scientologists: Professionals, Independents and Cheapzoners). And I can't call the head honcho Iffy Mike any more <sniff>.

Paul
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
How's about RTC - Rons Tech Clowns? Has a good ring to it. Better than ABSPLIK, ANYWAY.

a-good-clown-image-6.jpg


If there are now Professional Scientologists, will the Moonies get a free upgrade to Professional Moony?




 
Top