Martin Luther

Commenting on Scientology, Inside and Outside the Church

Improving/Altering Scientology

Some auditors, now free of the grip of the Church, have used this as a reason to “improve” or “refine” or “extend” Scientology technology. The typical line of reasoning is that technology (in general) rarely stands still, and normally continues to improve. And of course, that would apply to Scientology as well.

I have no doubt that there are areas where Scientology technology could be improved. And if anyone were qualified to improve the technology, it would be a trained auditor. I even understand the impulse. I’ve been involved in computer technology most of my life, and we all know how far that’s come in a few short decades.

But Scientology isn’t computers. In fact, Scientology technology isn’t like any other technology. No other technology even vaguely resembles Scientology. So comparisons to other technologies don’t necessarily hold up, and the same reasoning that keeps other technologies changing may not apply to Scientology.

Your “hat” as an auditor isn’t to “improve” the tech, but to apply it to the PC.

We can imagine LRH, now at Target Two, proselytizing the technology he developed here, and making improvements along the way as needed. And some day when Earth is cleared, we report to Target Three. And our first task is to study up on our “High Crimes”, the tech improvements Ron made while at Target Two.

But for now, the Tech stands as it is, workable and fully exported.

There are good reasons not to “improve” Scientology. For one thing, altering Scientology tends to fracture the group. As an example, how many divisions of the Christian faith can you name? There are two divisions of Catholicism itself. Protestantism encompasses a great many different sects. Imagine a hundred years from now, thirty different variants of Scientology, each based on different “improvements” made to Scientology technology. There would be a tremendous dilution of our movement if every PC and prospective auditor had to choose which variant of Scientology to adhere to. And that’s assuming the “improvements” made actually do improve the workability of Scientology. There are squirrels in the field who would deal in what they call “Scientology” but which is in fact not workable at all. How many more divisions to the subject would they make?

I’ve heard the “market” argument used in favor of improving the Tech. That the “market” (people getting auditing and remarking their successes) would determine which variants survived. But as you can see from existing markets, the “best” of anything isn’t necessarily the only one being sold. There are endless brands of toilet paper, bread and automobiles being sold. And what’s the best brand of cigarette? I don’t think we can rely on the “market” to select out the “best” improvements to Scientology. It sounds good in Economics 101, but the world is a little more complicated than economics professors make it out to be.

It has recently been implied (using lecture material from an early 1950s lecture by LRH) that Scientology has been stultified by the same mechanism that has stopped the true development of other sciences cold. This stratagem attempts to cast those who disagree with it as ignorant flat-earthers. While the claim may be true of other “sciences” it’s questionable whether it is wise to apply it to Scientology. Scientology isn’t just any other “science”. It exists at a level above the sciences because it reveals the basics behind them. As such, making such a claim like this is rather like saying, “We need to revisit the scientific method because it’s been hundreds of years since it’s been updated”.

Another point to consider is that, if there was ever a subject which SPs and PTSes would want to pervert, it would be Scientology. Anything done to sabotage the workability of Scientology or cast doubts on its workability would be fair game in the eyes of such people. And it’s worth observing that those people make up a full 20% of the population, including people in the Independent Field. Unworkable alterations can be subtle. They can include dropping out a command from a process, omitting a process from a level, altering the wording of an existing auditing command, etc. Nearly every decade of Scientology has seen its share of squirrels, many within Scientology, whose actions had to be cleaned up by LRH before he moved on. When LRH finally died, the responsibility to maintain the workability and purity of the Tech fell to us. And the fact that LRH had to clean things up several times before indicates we have not been diligent in our duties along these lines. So we really need to wear LRH’s hat in this now. (And consider that it never was fully LRH’s hat, but ours as well.)

It’s not a question of, “Can we improve the Tech?” It’s a question of, “Should we improve the Tech?” And the answer to that question can best be obtained by looking at the Greatest Good For The Greatest Number Of Dynamics. What happens if you don’t improve the tech? It stays workable and produces a standard result if delivered properly. What happens if you do improve the Tech? What happens not just to the PC in front of you or the PCs which will come after them? What happens to the group going forward? What will it mean to the future of Scientology? Undertaking to improve on what LRH spent decades building and refining will have repercussions beyond your sessions as an auditor.

For those who would be tempted to “improve” the Tech, I’ll let LRH explain it:

Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system.

In fifty thousand yeas of history on this planet alone, Man never evolved a workable system. It is doubtful if, in foreseeable history, he will ever evolve another. …

It has been proven that efforts by Man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth. Therefore it is a workable system, a route that can be travelled. …

Scientology, exactly and correctly followed, takes the person up and out of the mess. …

Scientology is a new thing– it is a road out.There has not been one. Not all the salesmanship in the world can make a bad route a proper route. And an awful lot of bad routes are being sold. Their end product is further slavery, more darkness, more misery.

Scientology is the only workable system Man has. It has already taken people toward higher IQ, better lives and all that. No other system has. So realize that it has no competitor.

Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked. …

Squirreling is today destructive of a workable system.

The above was from HCOPL Safeguarding Technology.

And for those who believe others can and should “improve” the Technology, keep the following in mind:

In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wide open for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”.

On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable “technology”. By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular”, “egotistical” and “undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax. …

Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can safely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or co-ordination of what has been done, which will be valuable — only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.

The contributions that were worthwhile in this period of forming the technology were help in the form of friendship, of defense, of organization, of dissemination, of application, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions and were, and are, appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us what we are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture.

We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact — the group left to its own devices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatization of the bank called “new ideas” would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that Man has never before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious technology he did evolve — psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips, duress, punishment, etc, ad infinitum.

So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and good sense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten above are ruthlessly followed and we will never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable about it and we will perish. …

The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without banks have different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree then only on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideas are individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual must rise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anything decent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell — and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every Man, Woman and Child on the planet. That is Bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea. For that matter, look how we ourselves are attacked by “public opinion” media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves.

The above is from HCOPL Keeping Scientology Working.

I have a suggestion: How about if we just remain thankful that someone managed to develop a workable route out of the muck, and we happened to be here to take advantage of it? How about if we get ourselves up the Bridge and get trained so we can deliver the Bridge to others, rather than trying to be the smartest guy in the room and figure out how to do LRH one better?

And if you really want to improve a “science”, try physics. There’s no more stuck science in existence today. That way, maybe by the time LRH gets to Target Three, we might just be able to get to the nearest star in something under a thousand years.


Single Post Navigation

6 thoughts on “Improving/Altering Scientology

  1. Paul, your ability to think with the tech of Scientology (via logic and reason) is superb. Thank you for all of these wonderful and inspiring articles.

  2. Formost on said:

    Well said, Paul.

  3. Hence on said:

    Well written.
    Question: What is the purpose to post this here?
    I think you want to stress the factor of “don’t change the tech.”
    Every trained Scientologist (Cl.IV auditor with some experience, a couple of years inside the club, something like that) knows exactly what do do.
    And eveyone who remarks that he has started to change something which was not okay to do would at once return or correct that. If not he would do it by intention. Or he has overseen something.
    If the last point is fitting: “Oh, thank you for the reference.”
    If the first point is fitting: “Ups, I have not seen it yet. Thanks for the tip.”
    In the middle: “Ok, let’s try to invent some commands for some processes or even better: lets invent some processes for certain themes.”
    This last guy would do it consciously. Well knowing this KSW-series. This guy could be a subject of ethics or “nothing” (let him do it for his own to find out if it is true for him or not.)
    So, I expect from a Scientologist, that he has understood the stuff about KSW and squirreling. There is no need to discuss that.
    Expansion has to be discussed.

  4. Well said, well presented. Thanks for this!

  5. Robert Splawn on said:

    LRH states in a Congress lecture titled “Dianetics 55” (On Track 6 of the CD lecture) that DN and SCN have changed over time because they deal with life. He goes on to say that factors alter from time to time and new conclusions are reached. Unlike Freudian Analysis, which remains unchanged to this day .- LRH: “THE UNIFICATION CONGRESS”- Lecture on Dianetics 55

    Ron goes on to give comparable datums on Track 7 of that same Congress Lecture. He states that Nuclear Physics & chemistry never suffered from a lack of change because they’re utilized in every food, clothing, transportation, etc…

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: