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.