Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Whither Standard Tech?

The title of this essay contains an old-fashioned word (“whither”) not used much anymore. It’s defined this way:

To what place; — used interrogatively
To what or which place; — used relatively
To what point, degree, end, conclusion, or design; hereunto; whereto; — used in a sense not physical

In the context of this essay, I don’t ask the question with regard to where is Standard Tech inside the Church. It should be clear by now that the Church as a group has abandoned Standard Tech, at least the closer you get to the top of the Church. No, the context of the question is in relation to the Independent Field.

Let me tell you a story. Many years ago, I was on staff. I’d had almost no auditing, but an HGC auditor needed a PC to run some processes on for his internship or some such, and I either volunteered or was selected (I forget which). We’d had a couple of sessions over the course of a few days, when my auditor arrived in session one day with a cup of coffee. I didn’t think much of it until he asked me if it was okay if he drank his coffee while we were in session. Not being trained and having no particular objection, I said it was okay. But through the session, I kept feeling funny about it. When I reported to the examiner after session, I asked the examiner to ask the C/S if it was allowed for the auditor to drink coffee during the session.

As you might imagine, that auditor got crammed within an inch of his life, and reported to our next session with a very hang-dog look on his face and a very propitiative attitude. (Of course, displaying such an attitude toward a PC in session was wrong as well.)

That was a true story. It was an example of out-tech. Would some other PC have said anything? I don’t know. All I know is that it was out-tech. I know that because I’ve now read the Auditor’s Code, and I saw the aftermath of the mistake at the time.

Let me tell you another story. When I was examining whether to leave the Church or not, one of my most important questions was whether I could get the rest of my Bridge on the outside of the Church or not. The friend who had guided me in decision-making up until then assured me that the Bridge was fully available in the Field, and that Standard Tech was indeed available. He was kind enough to check around and find someone in my area who could audit me and who was someone for whom Standard Tech was the rule. How did he know this? He checked with other people who knew this person, who would vouch for the person. And so he contacted her, questioned her about her tech and her qualifications, and then gave me her contact information. I contacted her. We had a get-together just to break the ice, and later a D of P interview to determine what I might need. She sent this to her C/S, who devised a program of a couple of intensives to get me up to where I could do my preparations for my OT levels. I’m currently saving up the money to pay for that auditing.

As of yet, I haven’t been in a real session with my auditor. Will I receive Standard Tech? The people who vouched for her think so. I hope they’re right. I don’t know. I won’t know until she takes me in session. But even then, I’m not tech trained. So how will I know? Okay, if the session goes horribly wrong and then the repair doesn’t make me feel better, then I think we’re probably looking at out tech. But what if there are more subtle errors? Will I know? I may not.

Of course, the point could be made that, depending on the subtlety of the errors involved, only the C/S would know. The PC might coast along and get the gains regardless. Plus, there are huge and very small deviations from the Tech possible. The ultimate guarantee of obtaining Standard Tech is to be trained yourself, if possible to the level of the auditing you’re receiving. But that was not LRH’s intent with regard to the Bridge, and ideally shouldn’t be necessary.

I’m not trying to denigrate or cast into doubt the intent or the abilities of my auditor. I like her a lot, and I think she’ll do fine. I trust my friend who recommended her and to the extent possible, I trust my auditor. But it’s certainly not a trust based on my vast experience as an auditor or C/S.

Nor am I trying to scare you or particularly cast doubts in your mind on your auditing or your auditor or C/S. What I’m trying to do is illustrate a problem that exists in the Field.

I’ve heard it said (and recommended to others myself) that you should do your “due diligence” and check with others to ensure that the person delivering your auditing is going to give you Standard Tech. And under the circumstances, that’s certainly the best advice. But let’s face it, that’s kind of a sad state of affairs. You hope your friends are right. You hope the people vouching for your auditor are right. You hope no one along the line is lying, including your auditor. But that’s still a pretty weak system for ensuring you get “standard” delivery. Feel free to call me excessively cynical, but the above is still true.

It used to be true that at Flag, you could be completely assured that you were receiving Standard Tech. That was the whole point of Flag. It used to be true that at any given Org, you could be 99.99% certain the tech was standard. Some of those folks were probably trained at Flag in the first place. And it used to be true that at any given mission, you would also receive Standard Tech, because the people delivering auditing there were either trained at Orgs or at Flag (or Saint Hills, another bastion of Standard Tech).

But now, those things are no longer true. The Church of Scientology and its various delivery centers are no longer any guarantee of standardness. In fact, just the opposite. And a lot of the folks in the Independent Field have left the Church for precisely that reason.

But if the Church is no longer any guarantee of standardness, and we’re relying on the “due diligence” in the Field, then there’s no guarantee of standardness in the Field, either.

I don’t know about you, but I see this as a problem begging for a solution. And I think some portion of our resources in the Field should be devoted to resolving that problem.

Any suggestions?


Single Post Navigation

4 thoughts on “Whither Standard Tech?

  1. Pingback: Assuring Standard Tech | From Ashes Born

  2. David St Lawrence aka oldauditor on said:

    I completely understand your concern. For many years, we had or thought we had a guaranteed level of results. In fact, we had the oft quoted, “We Deliver What We Promise” to rely on.

    That has not been the case for at least 25 years and now we cult refugees must find out what is being offered outside the church.

    Out here, we have the severest of review processes which is the open communication between preclears about their auditing experiences. We also have something which you may not yet be capable of appreciating and that is the fact that most of us concentrate on auditing the pc in front of us and not some ideal pc based on arbitrary documents.

    Pcs come in many different case levels and abilities. Only a small set of these are handled in the current Bridge lineup. There are tens of thousands (yes that many) invalidated clears in the field at this point as a result of rotely delivered CCRDs and staff member ser facs. The current church does not recognize past life clears or OTs for example and the GAT trained auditors are unable to deliver standard tech in any form.

    You need to select an auditor that you can trust. I have written an article which addresses your concerns: Seventeen Reasons to Get Auditing From an Independent Auditor.

    You may find as we have, that there are many more ways to get stable case gain than you ever expected because 90% of all professional auditors are now outside the church and many are continuing the research that LRH encouraged back in the golden days of Dianetics and Scientology.

    Most of us are quite willing to provide free interviews to ensure that we have a fit between what we offer and what the pc needs. Some of us specialize in handling pcs who could not get serviced by corporate Scientology because the pc’s abilities were more than staff auditors could handle.

    There is an auditor for you and you are free to search until you find one that fits your needs and personality.

  3. I bow to your knowledge of the number of invalidated clears. I have no way of knowing, but I suspect you’re correct.

    I also agree there may be a great deal more to be mined from expanding and extending LRH’s 1950s research, prior to his establishment of the Bridge. He did, indeed, encourage this in the 1950s. My particular reservations are about the extent to which those results are mixed with the “Standard Tech” LRH established in the 60s and forwarded until the late 70s, early 80s. (Yes, I know it becomes an open question about the validity of the Tech as it gets closer to the 80s, and how much it was hacked up by Miscavige.) That “Standard Tech” was designed to handle any and all cases and move them up the Bridge, generally without the need for further “research” into earlier techniques.

    I would, however, be very interested in what you’ve found in your researches into 50s technology. I was there in the middle of some of this my last lifetime, and have recently begun to wonder if perhaps there were states I achieved then (besides Clear) which were never dealt with. I’ve read/listened to most of the Basics material, and power of that tech is so great, it’s no wonder LRH spent the next few decades undercutting it.

    • David St Lawrence aka oldauditor on said:

      I have audited a number of people who were on lines in the fifties in their last lifetimes. Much was going on that never saw the light of day.

      Many states were achieved and were not acknowledged. Fortunately, rehabbing a state is relatively quick and painless in the independent field. 🙂

      If you care to read my auditor’s notebook blog, you will see a few of the results from my research and how it affects my auditing and the results my preclears get.

      As you may have noticed, I only audit over the Internet and have been doing so for the past three years. There are compelling reasons why I do this and it is again something based on Ron’s early writings and lectures about auditing over the telephone.

      Ron undercut his early teachings to accommodate auditors with less skill and I would have probably done the same in order to make auditing accessible to a larger number of people.

      A one size fits all approach has a certain result if your subjects are widely distributed in size. Too many people fall outside the limits of what church auditing can deal with and that is the public I deal with. I cover this in detail on my Workable Technology website.

      I would be happy to chat with you on Skype to give you an idea how easy it is to establish a session environment over the Internet. My Skype ID is davidstlawrence-oldauditor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: