Being there and communicating

I’ve been working on this post for several days. I wanted to research references because I always prefer to let LRH do the talking. The topic has been on my mind since I first started reading websites by those in the Field some time back, but it was a comment I received recently that pushed it to the top of the stack. I won’t name the person (if you’re really curious, you could go looking and find it) — the who isn’t important to the point being made.

One of the most fundamental tenets in Scientology is the ARC triangle, with heavy emphasis on the C — Communication. But don’t take my word for it. Here are some of what LRH had to say on the subject:

P.A.B. No. 1, 10 May 1953:

“Communication, however, is far more important than affinity or reality, for it is the operation, the action, by which one experiences emotion and by which one agrees. Communication is not only the modus operandi, it is the heart of life and is by thousands of percent the senior in importance to affinity and reality.”

The Phoenix Lectures:

“A thetan is as well off as he can communicate, and he’s no better off than that.”

Dianetics ’55:

“A man is as dead as he can’t communicate. He is as alive as he can communicate.”

So communication is a pretty big deal and I’ve never had much back off in that department. Of course, that also means I’ve been known to get myself in trouble. After all, as LRH said in the Opening Lecture of the State of Man Congress (January 1, 1960):

“The only crimes that you can commit in this universe, as you know, is being there and communicating. Those are the two crimes of the universe. Did you realize that? There are only two crimes: being there and communicating.”

Yep, I’ve been guilty of the crimes being there and communicating, including this little blog. It doesn’t have a lot of visibility — as of this writing, only 219 views since it began October 18, 2012 — but I’ve apparently ruffled some feathers of one particular person. My hubby apparently also upset this fellow. Why? Because we voiced our opinions that KSW and Safeguarding Technology are guiding policies and auditing over the Internet doesn’t fit with standard Scientology. What heretics we are! How dare we express a preference for the Tech LRH so lovingly researched and mapped out for us.

Here’s the deal: I don’t want to silence anyone. I approved the comment this fellow posted, as did my husband on his blog, where the comments were even nastier. But it was the natter, eval, and inval that stirred me to discuss discourse. He’s not the first Scientologist to make some pretty vile comments on various blogs. My husband touched on this subject in his post “Freedom Versus Sacred Cows” on his blog. While Paul focused on the hypocrisy of this behavior, I want to discuss it in more broad terms.

People, we’re Scientologists. We’re better than this. Do we really need to resort to name-calling, snide comments, insults, and virtual threats? If you’re even slightly aware of the Tech, you know what’s usually behind this type of behavior.

HCO Bulletin 21 January AD10, Justification:

“When you hear scathing and brutal criticism of someone which sounds just a bit strained, know that you have your eye on overts against that criticised person and next chance you get pull the overts and remove just that much evil from the world.”

HCO Bulletin 15 December 1972R, Withholds, Missed and Partial:

“What are these natterings, upsets, ARC Breaks, critical tirades, lost students, ineffective motions? They are restimulated but missed or partially missed withholds.

“Use this as a stable datum: If the person is upset, somebody failed to find out what that person was sure they would find out.”

The Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, January 1951:

Tone Level 2.0
Communication K / Speech Talks: “Talks in threats. Invalidates other people.”
Communication L / Subject’s Handling of Written or Spoken Comm when Acting as a Relay Point: “Deals in hostile or threatening comm. Lets only small amount of theta go through.”
Y / Method Used by Subject to Handle Others: “Nags and bluntly criticizes to demand compliance with wishes.”

That covers the natter, so let me turn to the evaluative and invalidative comments. I pointed this out to the fellow (a trained auditor), recommending he word clear The Auditor’s Code and clay demo point two. His response was that he wasn’t my auditor, implying it was therefore okay to behave that way. Is that what LRH would say? Ask yourself, why are auditors forbidden to evaluate for or invalidate a PC? Here, let me help you out:

P.A.B. No. 93, 24 July 1956:

“The subjects of significances, evaluation and invalidation have become interdependent in Scientology.

“In invalidation we have more fully than in evaluation a capital crime.

“With significances we are simply discussing reasons why. With evaluation we are only giving new stable data, but with invalidation we are overtly and consciously knocking whatever props the patient may have out from under him.

“The greatest invalidation, of course, is to be struck when one does not expect to be struck, to be criticized when one does not think he merits criticism.”

HCO Bulletin 26 February 1970, Standard Tech and Invalidation:

“Invalidation is a serious button.

“When a Class VIII goes home, he is, of course, a better auditor.

“He can and will crash all stats in the area if he charges around invalidating all auditors not so fortunate to be an VIII.”

HCO Bulletin 26 April 1971, Issue I, TRs and Cognitions:

“Auditor Invalidation and Evaluation is just plain villainy. It interferes with pc cognitions.”

So knowing that, whether you’re a trained auditor or not, whether the person you’re talking to is your PC or not, do you really think you should evaluate for them or invalidate them? Can’t we rise above schoolyard taunts and tantrums? Again, I’m the last person who wants to cut or stop your comm, but I’d like to believe we can rise above this type of behavior. Let me leave you with some other wonderful nuggets of wisdom from the Old Man:

1954, The Creed of the Church of Scientology:

“We of the Church believe…
“That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”

P.A.B. No. 83, The Conditions of Existence, 8 May 1956:

“The ability to assume or to grant (give, allow) beingness is probably the highest of human virtues”

Scientology: A New Slant on Life (from the chapter “What is Greatness?”):

“The hardest task one can have is to continue to love one’s fellows despite all reasons he should not.

“And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to so continue.”


Ooh, look, Super Power’s coming…

How long have Scientologists been waiting for Super Power’s release? Living in Clearwater, we’ve had front row seats to this debacle. I used to shop at the Peter Gillham’s in the Gray Moss Inn building before the Church bought it. Construction on the site began in 1998, and it’s still not opened for business today (early November 2012).

Just how much parishioner money has been wasted on this mess? According to an article in the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Pete Times):

“Harney said ‘it would not be appropriate’ to give a final cost for construction, as the building was funded by parishioners’ donations. When reminded of estimates that the building would cost $90 million, she said those ‘were not incorrect.'”

Another article in the Times reports CofS raised at least $145 million for this monstrosity.

I won’t get into how off-policy all this fundraising was; plenty of others have brought that up. But I remember the promo pieces we used to get in the mail, detailing the imported marble and custom carpeting. Really? Is that what LRH would have done? No, he stressed the cleanliness of our MEST, not the quality. From HCO PL 17 June 1969, The Org Image:

“When important people enter an org and find its premises messy, themselves and their requirements neglected, the org not only loses their fee, it also loses the important friends who would actively protect it.”

“There are several zones which comprise the org image.

“1. Premises, particularly the entrances and interview and service areas. These should be neat, not cluttered up with baggage, paper, tattered notices or unsightly things.”

There’s also HCO PL 12 March 1975, The Ideal Org, which among its list of what makes an ideal Org, states:

“It would be clean and attractive enough not to repel its public.”

Or go to HCO PL 11 December 1969, Appearances in Public Divisions:

“It is always easy when one has millions to spend to make a commanding image. The trick is to make it without its costing more than one can afford.

“One has to make the money before one makes the full image.

“There is much one can do — and has to do — at no financial cost or at a low price.”

Now, here’s the icing on the cake. I was recently reading LRH ED 301 INT, Ron’s Journal 30, 1978 — The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech. This issue came out before I got into Scientology this lifetime, so I missed its original issue. As I was reading it, I came across this tidbit where LRH was listing out discoveries and advancements in 1978:

SUPER POWER. A Super fantastic, but confidential series of Rundowns that can be done on anyone whether Dianetic Clear or not that puts the person into fantastic shape unleashing the Super Power of a Thetan. This is the means that puts Scientologists into a new realm of ability enabling them to create the New World. It puts world Clearing within reach in the future. This is a parallel Rundown to Power in Saint Hills which is taken by the Dianetic Clear. It consists of 12 separate high-power rundowns which are brand new and enter realms of the tech never before approached. Power is still very much in use on the Grade Chart but is for those who didn’t go Clear on Dianetics. Super Power will be delivered at Saint Hills within the next 6 weeks as we are right now super grooming in the Super Power auditors in a special International course. It will be delivered in almost all languages.”

Farther into this ED, in the section on Saint Hills, it reads:

SUPER POWER. There is no reason a Dianetic Clear should be denied the powerful gains which research made available in ’78 (see above). For the public who have gone Dianetic Clear, and those who haven’t, Saint Hills will become a mecca where they obtain the most excellent results obtainable in Super Power.”

Friends of LRH, in an analysis of CofS’ use of improperly cited LRH quotes, included a great breakdown regarding Super Power promo, including a scan from The Auditor World Wide, #155 (January 1979) that announces it’s pending arrival and encouraging public to sign up (click “Start” and go to Topic 3 for this section).

So almost 34 years ago, we were six weeks away from Super Power being delivered at Saint Hills. I wasn’t around, but what happened? Didn’t anyone at the time question what happened to Super Power? And now, decades later, it’s a Flag-only service that requires a massive building and a bunch of bizarre, space age equipment. Do you really think what they’re going to deliver in this building matches what LRH developed all those years ago? If you do, I’ve got some ocean-front property in Oklahoma to sell you.

What happened to “old” tech?

I was having a conversation via comments with David St. Lawrence aka oldauditor (to follow that thread, go to my Introduction post) and I realized I should really make this a post. There’s just more I want to say and it shouldn’t really be done in a comment, so here goes…

I’ve heard more than one person in the Field refer to how the tech from the ‘50s and ‘60s were “discarded.” Okay, granted I’ve been off lines for over 20 years, so perhaps this has become the norm in today’s Churches, but it’s certainly not what LRH said. As I quoted in my comment thread:

In HCO PL 8 May 1969, Issue IV, Out Tech, he states:

All of Dianetics and Scientology works. Some of it works faster.”

Or go to HCO PL 17 June 1970RB, Technical Degrades, where LRH lists as one of the HIGH CRIMES:

“2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any material ‘background’ or ‘not used now’ or ‘old’ or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using and applying the data in which he is being trained.”

But those aren’t the only references. I found a terrific Bulletin that’s part of the Case Supervisor Series, HCOB 30 June 1970R, VIII Actions. I’m going to quote a rather large passage that’s applicable to this discussion:

“Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. It is not guessed that this will be assumed and so we could lose an entire subject.

“We did in fact lose Dianetics for a decade and all but lost Scientology in the following ten years.

“A subject can be reorganized and made more workable. That was done in 1969 for Dianetics. BUT IT HAD NEVER BEEN UNWORKABLE!

“The 1969 Dianetics Reorganization refined the 1962-63 discoveries of R-3-R. A better communication was made to the user and the preclear.

“Amazingly, the reissue of Dianetics as Standard Dianetics caused about a dozen people (even in high places unfortunately) to at once assume that Dianetics wiped out any need for Power, Scientology Clearing or anything else! Even an unauthorized Policy Letter (not signed by me) and an HCO B (also not signed by me) gave this impression. They were of course cancelled the instant they were discovered to have been sent out.

“The idea that the ‘old’ is always cancelled by anything ‘new’ has its root in the idea that a later order cancels earlier orders, which is true. But orders are one thing and Tech basics another.”

When I was on staff in the ‘80s, I audited PCs with Book One auditing. It doesn’t get much “older” than that. So if the current CofS is saying the “old” technology has been discarded, recognize this is an off policy, out tech viewpoint.

This leads to a tangential point regarding the Tech. I know there are people in the Field who have taken it upon themselves to “embrace and extend” the Tech LRH mapped out for us. Sure, in the early days things were pretty wild and woolly, with a lot of “seat of the pants” auditing. Some things worked, some didn’t, and some were really bad. But as LRH explained in HCO PL 14 February 1965, Safeguarding Technology:

“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.”

Perhaps these folks are developing viable procedures and are getting good results. If so, I say good for them. But personally, I don’t want to be a guinea pig. I know the Tech LRH laid out for us does work. It brings to mind what LRH pointed out in HCO PL 13 November 1972, Affluence Attainment:

“Doing the things that won, not new things untried as yet.”

For instance, I’ve read about auditors conducting sessions over the internet. That’s scary to me. I know computers. I’m on mine most of the day. I have FiOS, so I’ve got a great connection, but there are still drop outs with live streaming. That could easily cause a missed read. Plus a slower connection could cause a critical lag. I’m a pretty fast PC and let me tell you; having the auditor say “That” and the precise moment is vital. Lag and I’ll have moved on to something else and you’ll miss it. Plus calling “That” after the correct picture’s passed could ARC break the PC.

Depending on how good the lighting and camera is on the PC’s side, you very well may not be able to see things like skin tone change, pupil change, that sweat starting to bead at his temple, etc. These are valuable “tells” for an auditor. Plus you can’t control the session. You can’t be sure the dog doesn’t suddenly jump into the PC’s lap. That his child doesn’t scream for him to come help. That there aren’t noises off that distract him. And there’s always the possibility of a power failure or some other reason why the connection is lost. As an auditor, I’ve run some pretty hairy Book One sessions and I’d certainly not want to leave a PC mid running some of the incidents I’ve dealt with in those sessions. To me, the risks simply don’t outweigh the benefits.

I understand the argument about how technology has advanced so much farther since LRH was alive, but that doesn’t change all the above. An auditor needs to be fully in communication with his PC. Sitting a few feet in front of the PC is obviously much more effective than trying to communicate via a computer. (And we won’t go into the fact that it is a via.)

Now, that said, I’m not advocating those auditors be shut down. If it works for them and the PC understands what’s being delivered isn’t exactly what LRH mapped out, okay. But it’s not for me. And I’m confident that if LRH were here, he’d simply say anyone wanting to deviate needs to star-rate and clay demo Keeping Scientology Working and Safeguarding Technology.

War-gaming the future

My husband and I have had several conversations about Scientology’s future free of CofS. How will things play out? We’ve war-gamed various scenarios, and one that sends chills down my spine revolves around the ability to audit PCs without interference from the government.

Right now we have CofS’s deep pockets keeping that wolf at bay. Auditing is covered as pastoral counseling, but CofS calls those in the Field apostates, defrocked ministers, etc. Do we still have that protection? Consider this…

Let’s say a Field auditor decides to take on a PC that’s actively taking psych drugs. Or in the middle of a raging PTS Type A sit. Or something else that causes the auditing to go sideways (out Auditor’s Code issues, squirrel tech, etc.). Everything goes seriously and rapidly downhill and this imagined Field auditor has a Lisa McPherson-type case on his hands, with the same disastrous result. The victim’s family knows the PC had been getting auditing and they hire a lawyer. When they naturally try to go after CofS and its deep pockets, CofS says, “We had nothing to do with it. What that apostate did couldn’t have been Scientology pastoral counseling because he’s been kicked out of the Church.” They may even make up some proof our poor auditor was known to foul up and that’s why he was kicked out, his certs revoked.

Meanwhile the media is having a field day with this tragedy, splashing it across the front pages of papers. The news quickly reaches another group that would love nothing more than to shut Scientology down — the psychiatry/psychology field. From their viewpoint, we’ve been horning in on their territory for decades, stealing patients (read: money) from them all this time. They haven’t been able to bring down Scientology as a whole, but here’s their chance to make some inroads.

So their lawyers draft state-level legislation that basically calls any auditing outside of the official Church “practicing medicine without a license.” The tragic death of the PC serves to rile up the citizenry and they go along with the legislation. After all, even the Church says what that auditor did was bad, and not real Scientology.

Okay, you’re thinking, “well, that happened in another state; it won’t affect me.” But then psychs in your state see how successful that was and they do the same thing there, and it spreads all over the US, and beyond. CofS may even assist in this campaign as the Field has become a giant thorn in their side as well.

You may think this scenario is impossible, but with no Qual in the Field ensuring Standard Tech, there could easily be horrible results from bad auditing. And while the Field may be reveling in all the bad press CofS has been getting, it can also serve to tar all Scientology in the minds of wogs who don’t know any better. We start getting cases of PCs going Type 3, or worse, dying in the Field and all Hell is liable to break loose.

It’s in all our best interests to come up with some way to have at least a Qual function in the field. I offered the beginnings of an idea in my post “Assuring Standard Tech” , but it’s something we all need to confront and consider.

Assuring Standard Tech

In my last post, I got on my Admin soap box, but lest you think I just hobby-horse that subject because of my training, let me reveal my ‘ulterior’ motive.

I’ve had to come to accept that my Church will probably not be saved from total destruction. That concerns me on a number of levels. I know the Field has managed to ‘save’ much of the Tech, but what about things like tech films, the B.C.-only material on the Briefing Course, and all the upper levels? Will I be able to access these things in the Field? Will the Tech I receive be Standard?

What does that all have to do with Admin? Hand in hand with the aversion to Admin I’ve seen among some in the Field is an aversion to any kind of centralized Organization. I understand the fears — that any new Organization could some day turn into the monster we’re witnessing today in CofS — but there’s a reason LRH put in the level of organization he did.

Sure, in the early years things were pretty ‘wild and woolly’, but LRH soon figured out it wasn’t all that operational. Among other things, having a central Organization allowed for setting and enforcing standards. Think of it like McDonald’s. You know if you go into a MickyD’s in New York, LA, or even London, that Big Mac will taste the same. The same ingredients and cooking method will be used. Standardization is a good thing. It’s good for the employees who don’t have to reinvent the wheel. It’s good for the consumer who can satisfy his hunger without worrying about it tasting weird.

A central Organization provides a central repository for all the Tech. It can be kept safe and made available when needed.

A central Organization makes good business sense, too. One entity can handle promotion and marketing (something I’ll touch on in a future post), making it more cost effective.

But it’s the certainty of standardness, or lack thereof in the current scene, that I worry about most. My husband mentioned this in his recent post Whither Standard Tech?. I’m not auditor trained. I may not know whether an auditor is using the correct list. I won’t know if the auditor is properly reading the meter. Sure, if I “red tag” I’ll have a clue there’s something wrong, but I’d rather not, thank you. Perhaps some outness just means something that should take one intensive, ends up taking three. I won’t know there’s a problem. And to the degree I worry about things like this, is the degree I won’t be fully ‘in session’. It could give me a Present Time Problem (PTP) right from the get-go.

Before COB turned our tech delivery into “a dog’s breakfast”, you knew when you got auditing in an Org that the auditor was trained, interned, and answered to a CS, Tech Sec, etc. After you finished your session, you went to an examiner — another opportunity to catch any problem. You knew if he/she did something wrong in a session, it would be caught and corrected with cramming. But we don’t necessarily have that in the field.

Many field auditors are ‘one man shows’. Sure, they’re hopefully using a CS to program the case, but that’s usually done over a long distance comm line. No separate examiner. No Tech Sec or Qual Sec.

Even if the field auditor is using a separate CS, is that CS actually reviewing folders? Does the auditor ever submit videos of their sessions?

While the ideal solution is building a new Organization that enforces Standard Tech, Standard Admin, and hatting, I know that will be hard for some to accept. With that in mind, I offer another solution I hope the Field will consider. I think it addresses the fears of those against any kind of organization.

Some central entity (call it what you will) would ‘certify’ auditors through a specific VOLUNTARY process. Let me stress that again — this would be voluntary. Auditors who don’t do this could still audit in the field all they wanted. But those that do choose to could then market that fact. For illustration purposes, let’s call this certification status “Gold Seal”. The actual process to achieve this status should be designed by highly trained auditors, but off the top of my head I think they should:

1) Have to answer a test based on the training level they claim to have achieved.

2) Have to submit some folders for examination.

3) Have to submit some session videos where their metering and TRs could be checked.

Assuming they pass this certification process, they could then promote they’re “Gold Seal” auditors. That would be a great PR tool for the auditor. His/her PCs would feel more comfortable going into session.

The certification would need to be a paid service, but it shouldn’t be exorbitant. It should simply cover the costs of doing the review process. It should also only be good for a certain amount of time — perhaps a year. That way PCs will know the auditor’s tech will have been reviewed and certified relatively recently. Keeping it voluntary should appease those who are against any kind of organization. And those of us worried about the standardness of the Tech would be more assured. It’s a win-win.