Keeping Scientology Working – What Now?

I am posting a reply I made as a new post, since it may shed a bit of light.

Keeping Scientology Working (KSW) points 1-10 are a wonderful way to teach a specific technology. Points 7-10 are a bit harsh, but points 1-6 are pretty much a given in order to get anyone up to speed on any technology, not just Scientology.

In the case of Scientology, point 1, “Having the correct technology,” can no longer be defined by any organization. The church has blown it, so we individually are left to our own observations as to what the “Correct Technology” is. One thing I have come to learn is that there is not a single, easily definable “pool” of technology that all can agree is “Scientology.” Where are the boundaries? The RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force) is Scientology, but it is bogus and needs to go. The Sea Org and all its FOs and advices are Scientology, and while there is wisdom in some of the Flag Orders (FOs) and OODs items (Orders of the Day), most of it has to go. The justice codes and Policy Letters – virtually all of them – have to go. I mean, what I am doing now is “suppressive” as per the Justice codes, but I am no SP, and I am doing the right thing. The last edition of the Auditor’s Code has points that need to go (cooperating with the official church being one point that is crazy). The Code of a Scientologist, same thing. Scientology is a huge swath of technologies and opinions, and somewhere in that huge swath is “Correct Technology.” The Class VIII course talks about a “thread” of truth that runs through all of Scientology, and that is Standard Tech – meaning that some of what Ron wrote is Standard Tech, and some of it isn’t.

There is no one alive who can definitively define what Standard Tech is, or what “Correct Technology” is. It is up to each of us to find out what it is, if we care to do so.

In addition to all of this is that there are technologies and knowledge that are outside of Ron’s writings that align very well and extend or elaborate or contrast with Scientology that also can be considered to be true, and is also “Correct Technology.” Certainly not what Ron intended, but truth is truth.

The kicker is that you cannot learn Scientology by holing up somewhere – it has to be learned in a classroom setting. You need other people to do TRs and meter drills – actually, you need people to help make or repair meters in the first place, and it is good to have a mentor or guide. And materials are needed, etc. So, adding to the individual need to define Scientology for yourself independently is the need to work with others to actually DO it. Frankly, I think that is where the tension is in the Indie community these days, to the degree there is tension.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Keeping Scientology Working – What Now?

  1. David Cooke

    Mark, these two posts are the voice of sanity. We do need to sort out what is workable for any given purpose from the rich legacy LRH left. Like any researcher, he tried various approaches, and often updated his earlier ideas with the benefit of hindsight. If there is standard tech for auditing, I suggest it is whatever gives the greatest gain to that individual pc at that particular point in time. To insist that Scientology is all one piece is to fall into the error of A=A=A.

    May I also suggest that the word ‘scientology’ is being used in different senses by the various groups? To the Church, it’s a trademark for whatever they’re selling. Some independents see it as just the auditing tech, or this plus the admin and ethics tech. But in early 1952 LRH’s vision was much wider; scientology was the study of knowing how to know, prajnaparamita, or what might be called metaknowledge in more modern jargon.

    Reply
  2. StatPush

    Excellent couple of articles, Mark. And I couldn’t agree more. I think all of us, to a greater or lesser degree, are paying the price for “believing” in LRH and Scn and not observing, inspecting and analysing. I know I did. Doesn’t happen overnight. But there is slow, subtle agreement when one first joins up, and eventually you become a KSW Warrior that LRH would be proud of. Then one day you wake up, or can no longer tolerate the paradoxes. Questioning LRH and the data contained in Scn is one of the healthiest things one can do. KSW discourages such an action, and to that degree it is simply bad policy.
    If one can muster up the courage to critically analyse Scn, find what is really true for you, and note that which is not, you can discover the real value of LRH’s work. To do otherwise, you are doomed to be a follower, whether it is LRH or DM or someone else.
    KSW, ruthlessly applied, is the single most destructive policy penned by LRH. Hands down. Not only has it failed to preserve the workable technology, but combined with force, turned a great religious philosophy into a cult. I think it’s way past it’s sell-by date.

    Reply
    1. Grasshopper Post author

      Yes, I agree about KSW, now, but even now I am hesitant to call it the most destructive policy – disconnection is a far more destructive policy, as is the entirety of the Sea Org. There is a fine line between training someone in something and indoctrinating someone forcefully. I have coached many, many people, and word cleared many people, and I have seen the kinds of inventions born of ignorance Ron talks about in KSW – not only in Scientology, but in technical fields like Information Technology and software. The fact is that you are unqualified to judge something until you know it, and to know it takes work and guidance. I am not trying to be elitist – it is just that something like learning how to meter properly, do techniques like Listing and Nulling, assessment, and auditing in general, takes skill, and it is easy to miss – and it cannot be self-taught. So, at last the first 6 points of KSW are designed to take someone up to the level of competence. At which point, they can then judge the tech, and know what applies when and where. You can’t run an auditing session like you would do – well anything else – therapy, sales interviews, whatever. Ron does discuss this in the “Styles of Auditing” tape and HCOB – and talks about concepts like this on the study tapes. And they are true – I have applied this outside Scn and had success with it. Master/Apprentice learning is not Ron’s invention.

      We are going to need centers is Scn will survive, and training will occur in those centers, and I hope that the sups running the courses don’t Q&A with their students, but get them through the training – using techniques described in KSW.

      Reply
      1. statpush

        Some good points. Grasshopper. I guess the reason I see it has the single most destructive policy is because I feel it underminds (in some cases eliminates) personal judgement. It introduces a number of falsehoods and proclaims them gospel. Here LRH is drawing a line in the sand, and establishes the Us vs Them mentality. Forceful application of KSW permits application of bad policy like Disconnection, in fact demands it.
        In my opinion, the underlying core issue LRH was attempting to resolve was an HR problem. These are administrative problems. Why on earth did people get posted on executive positions who could assimulate basic Scn? Or auditors not understanding and applying basic auditing concepts? LRH makes it sound like this problem is systemic (maybe it was). But, instead of solving THAT problem, the “solution” goes way over the top. It is a solution that turned his grassroots movement into a glassy-eyed, quasi-military cult.
        Maybe if org staff were actually paid a decent wage he could raise of the standard and quality of personnel? Looking over the years, how many out-and-out DBs have you encountered in Scn? Too many. Those are the guys you don’t want on staff, those are they guys which precipitate policies like KSW. The vast majority of org staff members are good, intelligent, caring people; who do have good judgement, can duplicate Scn, and when faced with a decision they will make the right choice. Why turn them into zealots?
        One of the most obvious contractions is LRH states that Scn is a “workable technology”, fair enough, and I agree. But, the whole thrust of KSW is getting all Scnist to religiously apply the technology as written. Does this include the less-workable bits? Apparently so, since who is going to determine which bits are workable and which are not? For as long as been involved in Scn ALL of LRH’s writings are considered “workable”, and if you didn’t get the expected results there was something wrong with you (Process X didn’t work). So, KSW ends up perpetuating the bad as well as the good.
        The most obvious area of unworkability, in my opinion, is admin “tech”. Certainly there is some real insight and truths to be found in Green on White. But, in terms of workable technology? I think not. Organizationally, Scn has been broken for at least 30-35 years; and it isn’t for a lack of effort. The real golden age of Scn organization was probably the early 70s. The most obvious difference between then and now is – a lack of management (upper and middle). Guys who ran orgs and missions in this time period were free to run their orgs and used what policies they saw fit.
        Sorry if this turned into a rant, I will stop now and let my keyboard cool off.

        StatPush

        Reply
      2. Jenni S

        I agree with this comment, Grasshopper, and I also want to say that I think KSW was mainly intended by Ron to apply to auditing tech rather than policy. The examples he gives are examples of auditor training and student auditing. The tech, however, has been subverted by DM so KSW can’t really be applied in the orgs anymore.

        Reply
  3. Elizabeth Hamre

    Hi David…”We do need to sort out what is workable for any given purpose from the rich legacy LRH left.” Sorting out will never happen since peoples reality is so different: example: I do not know how you see the black cat and you have no reality how I see that cat. We both can agree that the cat furs looks black but what is how we see that black in our own universe…well …
    So what workable for one will not be for the other person.
    You have seen that happening your self with the x- members and their blogs how they express their reality.
    To me was workable, the auditing commands and of course the most valuable item-concept I have learned while at the Mission in Vancouver WHAT IS CONFRONTING and WHAT CONFRONTING CAN DO. And by using that information taken care of the MEST.
    I have erased the MEST since auditing-is confronting and it works regardless in connection of self, connection to others, nature, universe it self.
    MY best to you. Elizabeth.

    Reply
    1. David Cooke

      Thanks, Elizabeth. I should have expressed more clearly that everyone needs to ‘sort out’ what is workable from their own viewpoint and for their own purposes. Then groups might form of individuals who had independently reached similar conclusions; but if anyone tries to evaluate for others they’re likely to do more harm than good.
      And I like your example of the black cat – there’s the paradox that we learn by experience to agree on the names of colours and other things, but there’s no way to prove that the subjective experience of blackness or purpleness is the same for any two beings.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s