Clearing Archive Roboposter
roboposter at lightlink.com
Tue Jul 14 00:06:02 EDT 2020
>From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 13 - August 1993
See Home Page at http://www.ivymag.org
by Raymond Kemp, USA
Understanding Standard Technology
After I have sent an article to IVy, the Editor invariably
sends me a proof with all sorts of notations and suggestions, some
of which I follow, some of which I do not. But feedback on what you,
the Reader, feel (through the Editor), is of interest, is very
A recent such comment read: 'My readers want more information
on the early days and tech from the early days. For example, there
is a reality that `standard tech' is the only thing that works, but
techniques from the 50s worked' (my italics)(1).
Well, for years I have been trying to tell people
A prime example of application of tech is in our book You Live
as you Think- which, by the way, will be issued in paperback,
$12 U.S., any week now. It got bumped off(2)
the press in order that the publisher could get out a scandal book
about US television's most popular game show; such is the order of
importance to readers who buy books in bookstores.
Let us review this matter of Standard Tech. By definition, 'standard'
means adequate and sufficient for a given purpose. How Standard
Tech has become degraded into a rote procedure is explained by
an existing non-understanding of what is behind it: the philosophy
of Scientology, as laid out by L. Ron Hubbard, which leads into the
technology, and which was expounded upon by others before him.
In my book Handbook of the Gods is a phrase most applicable
here: 'Truth is a many faceted Jewel...seek first the Whole
Jewel'. So, there is a philosophy that, to the degree it is understood
as a whole subject, enables a technology (one of the facets)
to be applied, which is 100% effective all the time, on anyone, if
it is in fact applied.
Let me quote a few statements about auditing that LRH made over the
years. You will have to trust me, for I cannot, without a lot of
give you the actual lecture time and date, and such digging is
a waste of time and, in my opinion, serves only to justify what I
'Scientology is not a religion...it is what lies behind Religion.'
'Auditing is that which you can get away with.'
'Any auditing, even bad auditing or half run
engrams, is better than no auditing at all.'
'Auditing is two people sitting down and swapping lies.'
'Auditing consists of having a person tell you
so many excuses and justifications about something, that eventually
he can change his mind.'
'If the pc dies in session, tuck the E-Meter
under the bed, make a cup of tea, and then call in the Police.'
Do you see any grim, hard grind in the concepts? I don't think so.
Let me quote him on Training.
'You tell this guy to start TR-0 (Confront).If
after a few minutes' sitting in the chair, he is still sitting
then that's a win - tell him `Pass' and go on to another action.'
'How would I do Hard TR-0 (the unblinking aspect)...?
I'd close my eyes... It's me that's confronting, not the body.'
Ron's answer to the first Flag instructor who put in so-called
'You have a choice if you are responsible for
training someone. Either get him to fully understand what you are
training him on, so that he does it correctly, or make it
for him to make a mistake [so] that he will do it right even if
'Hard TRs are not supposed to be difficult, they
are supposed to be the opposite of soft and sloppy. It is a
Let us look at some of his gripes (complaints).
'How in the hell can auditors who have attested
to Clear turn me in auditing reports on OT II and OT III that are
full of bodies, automobiles and bicycles? They are supposed to be
running whole track at a time when bodies didn't exist.'
'How can an auditor null a list of reading items,
when he lists only one item, and that doesn't even read?'
Or, on the final lecture of the Clearing ACC(3),
in response to a question: 'I don't believe it. I
spend eight weeks teaching you guys how to become Clear, and the only
question I get from the class that has just graduated is, `How do
I become aberrated again?'.
Are you getting the picture?
Auditing is an easy, successful action - if you audit the person
in front of you, if you parallel what the mind of the pc is doing,
and if the pc is willing and is interested in his bank (as opposed
to being interesting).
The missing item here, as I have said so many times, is Understanding.
Responsibility can be placed on both sides, Ron's and the students',
but frankly, in my own experience of trying to teach what we know,
I find that it is an almost impossible task to teach understanding
where none or little exists.
Historically, Ron kept trying to get auditors to take over
for what they learned; to understand the basic philosophy, to own
it as their own, not Ron's, and to apply this philosophy to the
of any condition.
Scientology went forward in leaps and bounds when this was being done.
It staggered when it was not present, and special solutions -
even those put in by Ron himself - only caused more confusion
even if the confusion were suppressed.
The forerunner of ACCs was the SCIO(4)course. Graduates were presented
gold key as a lapel pin, and were considered to be Doctors (Teachers)
of Scientology: D.Scn. They were expected to be able to use their
understanding of the subject to the point that they could and should
create a process for the exact case they were working on, if such
a process did not exist.
The Class 8 course was intended (despite Ron's huge ARC Break with
auditors over what eventually turned out to be false reports) to teach
people how to create a C/S, a program for an auditor to run on his
pc, using every piece of technology that had ever been stated.
Ron taught the first few SHSBCs(5),
which were dedicated to getting a full compendium of technology
organized into various rundowns. The SHSBC was supposed to enable
future students to get all the information that existed in terms of
how to audit anyone or anything. This required listening to (and,
hopefully, understanding) several hundred hours of lectures, going
back as far as 1950, with the basic explanations as well as the
of each era.
Then a student decided that it would be quicker if he played the tapes
at double speed, and other students followed. This then became a race
to see who could complete the 'Wall of Tapes' fastest. Of
course, the original purpose went right out the window.
In the early 60s, Ron taught auditors to audit without a meter
and, after a session was complete, the meter was used to check the
results. Ron stated categorically that any auditor who is really
should and could (and we did) read the pc just as accurately as one
can with a meter, and usually faster.
As an aside, Pam and I demonstrated this very thing to an auditor
recently, in Berlin. He had never heard of it before, and was
Ron has stated that: 'An auditor who does not use his understanding
of tech in every daily occurrence will become too aberrated to do
Well, have you ever audited a plant, ever put a lemon tree or a tomato
bush on a meter and run a process?
Have you ever done a touch assist on an apparently dead goldfish,
and brought it back to life(3)?
Have you ever run a low-toned Great Dane dog on SCS, Start-Change-Stop
processes, and seen every tone level phenomenon from apathy to grief,
to vomiting to anger, and finally to enthusiasm? (Mentioned in an
Have you ever run on another, or been run by another, on Opening
by Duplication for eight hours straight, with no break?
Have you ever run a birth engram on a person, first from his own
(viewpoint), then from his mother's valence, and have him scream so
loud that the Police were called, and then invited the Police to watch
while you continued?
Have you ever exteriorized a blind man on a railway station and had
the session end by the blind man saying, 'Oh, I just go, this
is my train, I can see the number 8 on the front'?
Have you ever put a beam on a policeman's helmet, given it a shove,
and seen it fall off?
If you are Clear, have you ever taken the time to really run Route
1 out of The Creation of Human Ability ? Do you realize that
all the OT processes are in that book or Scientology 8:8008
and have been since the Fifties ?
All these things were once commonplace among students being taught
personally by LRH, and all these things were and still are
of Standard Tech.
Self-Analysis, printed in 1951 and once the handbook that no
auditor ever went into session without, was and is Standard Tech.
You can use the 'next to last lists' on anyone you meet, within
two minutes of meeting them, and produce miraculous recoveries.
Here is an example of a Standard Tech session.
New pc comes in 'with a problem'. Auditor asks, 'What
problem would you like to handle today?'
Preclear says, 'The feeling of being worried all the time.'
The auditor runs: 'Get the idea of being worried / not being worried'.
Preclear runs it for a while, bursts into tears, and states: 'My
father always makes me worried ... I can't get the idea of not being
Auditor realizes that there is a valence here, and immediately bridges
over to: 'What would be the intention of Father?' Gets the
items, and runs R3R engram running, Flow 1.
In the middle of running the engram chain, the auditor realizes that
Father is the suppressive on the pc's case, as the engram is bogging
down. He has the pc disconnect from the attitudes, intentions and
emotions of Father.
This done, the auditor picks up the engram, completes Flow 1, and
does Flows 2, 3 and 0. Then he picks up the original process of 'Get
the idea of being worried / not being worried'.
Preclear feels great, realizes it was not her worry but belonged to
Auditor remedies havingness then ends session.
Time: Maybe two to three hours, in one session. The preclear considers
it a miracle, no longer has the 35-year condition, and tells all her
friends - who then come to get a similar miracle.
What is this? Standard Tech, as taught by Ron under the name Expanded
Dianetics. I have heard that the Church does not use this any more;
if so, the very basic LRH application of Scientology is no longer
being used there.
(1)This is somewhat guess work from my side as not so many readers
and tell me what they want. A questionaire is planned to certain areas
at the end of this year, and I'd appreciate it if everyone receiving
it replied. Ed.
(2)suddenly removed (from).
(3)ACC: Advanced Clinical
Course. Six week courses (or in the beginning 6-8 week or until you
graduated) given personally by Ron in the period from ca. 1951 to
(4)SCIO Course was one of the Doctorate
Courses, Philadelphia, Camden, etc., even up to the first Phoenix
Course. Time span from 1951 to 1954. I do not remember which one got
the key, probably Camden.
(5)SHSBC: The Saint Hill Special Briefing Course
(6)Ron wrote to Pam Kemp, 'I was delighted
to receive your fun letter. Wouldn't be surprised if you had the only
Body Comm Release fish in the world. Best regards, Ron.'
Mon Jul 17 18:20:47 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 14 00:06:02 EDT 2020
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
More information about the Clear-L