More about thinking for yourself – notes from the Pilot and Ant Phillips

This arrived in my in-box within seconds of having posted the previous post. Ant Phillips published a historical close up of the many changes to “standard tech” and why they were necessary.

Pilot’sPosts Z5
A History Of Abandoning Processes
(From Post 48 – February 1999)

With the May 1950 release of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health came the idea that there was One Basic Why (engrams) which could be handled by a single technique to produce an ultimate case state which was at that time referred to as “Clear”.

Of course that went by the boards when the discovery of past life incidents made it painfully obvious that there was no way to run out all of an individual’s engrams.

At the same moment that the ultimate target was found to be unbelievably higher than the humanoid clear of DMSMH, the amount of material that would have to be handled had seemed to jump by a factor of about a trillion to one.

Ron mentions, on at least one tape, that he had a moment of great despair when he saw that.

Remember that this is before techniques such as mockup processing which could blow all the charge out of an area without actually running every damn incident that had ever been connected with something.

And so the search was on to find faster more powerful techniques to undercut the bank and reach the target in a reasonable amount of time.

And there was this idea of some key basic-basic which would undo everything.

By the time of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) at the end of 1952, not only was Dianetics old and abandoned but even the technique 88 processes of just a few months before were considered obsolete.

Every ACC (advanced clinical course) in those days had its own lineup of processes and most of the earlier processes were abandoned.

They were not accumulating techniques in those days, instead they were using them briefly and then dropping them in favor of the next latest and greatest super techniques.

Eventually, by mid 1954, we end up with Route 1/2 of Creation of Human Ability. And that was a great set of super techniques, probably the best single collection that was put together in the early days. But please realize that when it was truly in use, everything else was abandoned. That includes Dianetics, group processing, technique 88, fac one handling, running entities, the mockup processes of the doctorate course, the advanced OT rundown know as SOP-8C, the even more advanced roll your own OT bridge of SOP-8OT, and everything else from earlier times.

And as always, there was a new bridge the following year. But unlike all the others, CofHA was so well consolidated that in later years route 1 would sometimes be identified as what to run if the current bridge was completed. But it stopped being used in the org’s processing lineup.

And then come the later ACCs [Advanced Clinical Courses], each again focusing on a limited target and trying to run the entire case that way.

And finally we have the St. Hill Special Briefing Course [SHSBC]. Again most of the processes are old and we only use a limited subset. Techniques like R2-12 are used briefly and then abandoned with the ultimate target seen as GPMs and all other processing simply being a way to get the person up to running GPMs.

If you examine the old tech volumes for the time period from the late 50s up until the grades are devised in 1965, you will see occasional HCOBs labeled as “HGC Allowed Processes”. Those are complete lists of the techniques permitted in those times. All other processes could be considered to be canceled.

But up until 1965 there was also the idea that a field auditor could use any process he was trained on and even that a new HGC auditor could run whatever he was best experienced at before learning the modern lineup. In other words, the cancellations really only applied to the standard HGC lineup at a central org, Ron was always happy to hear that some old process had been dug out and used in the field and he often related stories along those lines to his students when he would lecture.

And so you wouldn’t find route 1 being run in an org’s HGC, but you might find a field auditor who was running it and nobody was going to make anyone wrong for doing that, any auditing was considered to be better than no auditing.

But this thirst to knock out basic-basic by means of running a handful of techniques was still permeating the subject and in 1965 Ron thought that they had finally made it.

I began training in 1966. By then KSW had come out so that all other processes were gone under pain of being declared as a suppressive and a squirrel.

At that time I was not privy to what they were running on the clearing course, but I can tell you what was permitted at lower levels because it didn’t change much during 1967 as I continued my training. And of course later I found out what I was not permitted to know about the upper levels in those early days.

There were 2 assists permitted, the touch assist and the contact assist. I was threatened with being declared and having my certs pulled as a squirrel once in 1968 for using the “keep it from going away” assist on a fellow staff member.

The only permitted Dianetic technique was “66 style” dianetics. R3R of 1963 was of course forbidden. I thought that was heartbreaking. Sometime in mid 1968 a telex came down telling us that we could use R3R for making a Dianetic release in the HGC instead of 66 style. You were allowed to get one FN on locks, one on secondaries, and one on engrams. This was all single flow of course. There was an HCOB about that which came out in 1967 (up till then Dianetics was only run by students on the 66 style HDA Dianetics course and not in the HGC). The HCOB, although supposedly by Ron, disappeared when Ron decided that “you can always run an engram” around the time of the Class 8 course in late 1968.

Then you could run ARC straightwire. Just the one process, single flow. When it FNed you had a straightwire release. Of course self analysis was available to the public, and we didn’t attack people for running it on themselves, but it wouldn’t be run by an auditor, that would be squirrel.

And then there was a process (sometimes a few processes) on each grade, but you couldn’t continue a grade past it’s floating needle. These FNs were hard to get because you didn’t fly the ruds (that would have been counted as a grade release because FN meant release) so there was usually a big gain when the process finally did FN.

But these were single flow processes, not even triples. So it was a few hours on each grade. This is before the true quickies of the Class 8 course.

And of course Qual used the green form (and nothing else).

And of course there were the S&Ds to handle the PTSness that was the reason for any instability in the grade releases.

That was it. Everything else was old, canceled, we don’t use it anymore and if you do use it you are a squirrel and a suppressive. Note that the tech degrades policy did not come out until 1970.

The entire reactive mind, you see, was supposed to be coming from R6 and that supposedly dissolved when you ran the CC implant. So you should only run what was needed to set the case up for that.

The brightly colored rocks referred to in KSW were things like R3R, CofHA, PDC, Tech 88, and so forth.

Any process which might exteriorize somebody was seen as dangerous.

Any running of whole track was seen by many as over restimulative. Some of us (including me) ignored that one, but it was a mixed bag. There are many tales of auditors stopping pcs from running whole track in those days. Common was for an auditor to add “in this lifetime” to a command if the pc came up with any whole track in an answer.

Many were scared of restimulation. The idea was to get a good keyout and then do CC for the magical vanishment of the reactive mind.

This was the heritage of KSW and ethics and a standard lineup that included HCOBs like “all sickness equals PTS”.

In the fall of 1968, the first class 8 course was delivered on the flagship and the graduates came back to the orgs and put in what we now know of as quickies.

It is only at this point in time that it was discovered that a case can be gotten to FN with rudiments. And the 8 course had the concept of setting a case up with ruds and perhaps even a prepcheck or a bit of 2 way comm, which in those days was C/Sed as “chat with pc about ….” (his job or his 2D etc.).

For the first time we were running grade processes with an FN before starting the process. And that makes it easy to get FNs while running the process. But it might be a small FN without the cognition or the big blowout. You didn’t usually get those in the older days when the ruds were not flown, it usually takes a big cog to get an FN over out ruds.

Of course the “FN And EP” bulletin had not come out yet.

And then there were the situations where you got a persistent FN. If you did do a good job on the processes (usually by pretending not to see the small FNs because you would be tossed in the showers if you bypassed them), the odds were that you would turn on a persistent FN either on straightwire or on Grade 0 because you were running the key process for the grade.

And the standard tech C/S was to run all the grades in one session because faster results were more stable and because then life wouldn’t interfere and knock out the ruds in the middle of the PCs grades. So it was the key process of straightwire immediately followed by the key process of grade 0 and so forth. The rest of the grades would be lost to a persistent FN as you started each one and saw that the needle was still floating broadly.

So either all the PC’s EPs were chopped, or he turned on a persistent FN fairly early in the session, and in either case, there was very little processing done above grade zero. Even grade 4 might be lost on a PC feeling good and FNing while saying “I don’t have any urge to make anybody wrong” (and of course most people wouldn’t while they are on a persistent FN).

However some new rundowns were put in to handle the problem of people falling on their heads. This was originally the 7 resistive cases, and was renamed the 7 special cases so as not to upset the PCs and then it became what we now know of as green form 40.

I’m rambling a bit here, but it is to emphasize what the situation was in those days. The intention of the original standard tech of the 8 course was to do the minimum possible to get the person onto the clearing course to erase the bank and then get him up to OT 3 so that he could handle entities with incident 1 and 2. Those were considered the source of case and anything else was pretty rocks that might lead us from the path.

And so most of the tech was gone, forbidden, and now we had a police force (ethics, the GO, and standard tech C/Ses) to make sure that it was never used.

If people wonder why I have a bit of a dislike for KSW and the term “standard tech”, this is the reason. In their original incarnation, they were used intensively to knock out what we now know to be valid tech and they made it impossible to fix what was wrong in the subject.

PCs caved in, orgs crumbled, and ethics went in hard because the why was SPs and squirreling and the world conspiracy.

1969 was probably Scientology’s darkest hour.

In 1970 the tech was reinstated. They didn’t bother canceling all the cancels, Ron simply said that all the tech is for use. So you can argue about what is canceled and what is not. Expanded grade zero included at least one process from an explicitly canceled HCOB which is not in the New tech volumes (it is in the old tech volumes marked as canceled even though the canceled HCOB was also, at that time, on the level zero checksheet to be star-rated).

But the hard line of standard C/Sing and following the grade chart pretty much makes it impossible to use most of the older processes legally, unless of course you call it an assist and do it without an official C/S.

As to mockup processes, they were canceled back around 1963. But around the beginning of 1968, Ron issued the money process as “mockup a way to waste money”, ignoring the cancellation. That was shocking to some of the tech people.

Also, sometime in 1969 or 70 (if I remember correctly), Yvonne Gilham (later Heber’s wife) came around on tour doing group processing with the old group auditors handbooks. That went very well and so group processing was put back into use.

But those old books were full of mockup commands as part of the group processing sessions. And raw public would often go to them, and so mockup processing was used on raw public in group processing (where there is the least auditor control and handling of the PC) despite the fact that it was canceled. And I’m pretty sure that this was ordered by Ron (since group processing remained in use thereafter), so here again he ignored the cancellation without actually bothering to revoke it.

By the way, most of the public loved it. The same goes for playing old group processing tapes of Ron’s and letting the public do them. And he does wild things in those group sessions, some of the processes wound up on old OT 6 and 7. People coming in off the street can run these things, but it’s a hit or miss matter, one of the R-factors was that it was ok to skip a group processing command if you didn’t feel like doing it.

But this was during the brief exhilaration of the 1970 reinstatement of the tech. Later I saw people smashed for using mockups in group processing.

In practice, you wouldn’t find a standard C/S using mockups. And if I were C/Sing for an orthodox organization, I wouldn’t dare C/S them because you can’t do them by rote. I did a more extensive write-up on this awhile ago.

Also, OT drills are supposed to be up above modern OT 8. Therefore it would be mis-C/Sing to use them at lower levels.

Personally, I don’t think that anything is canceled, but you would have to be prepared to argue this to get away with it in an org. Practically speaking, there are only two alternatives: Either Ron was chronically lying about the results produced in the 1950s, or those processes work and there is more than one way to skin a cat, it doesn’t have to be modern standard tech. It should be obvious that I believe the latter. There is no third alternative where a process could only work in a certain year and not in other years.

As to self auditing, the early days have this continual mix of considering that public PCs who self audited had some case outness while at the same time telling professional auditors that they could audit anything on themselves that they were trained on.

The real bug in public self auditing was that they wouldn’t know what they were doing and so would sit around figure figuring on a “whatsit” rather than running properly. And that was not forbidden, just seen as an outpoint. The only rule was against self auditing while in the middle of an HGC intensive because it threw in an unobserved action. The early green form had the question stated that way (“during an intensive”) and did not have any question about self auditing in general.

But here again, we have the late 1960s concept that all case was R6 or OT 3 coming in and messing up the works. The whole idea was to destimulate the case rather than handle it with the handling being to go and do the clearing course. And auditing involves restimulating things so that one can blow them. Therefore any auditing was undesirable except for the tiny amount necessary (quicky grades) as a setup for CC. And so all self auditing became forbidden.

Of course there was solo auditing in those days. The PC might have had one or two intensives of auditing in their entire life, and done a solo course so that he could read a meter and run a command, and then you’d let him loose on R6EW with some real heavyweight self listing processes. Note that these were not people who were clear. These were not professionals. They had barely a lick and a promise as far as any prior case handling went. In later days, a new person who had done a self analysis co-audit (early 70s HQS course) probably had more auditing experience and had probably received more hours of auditing than the people who were being allowed to solo in 1968.

The rules and worries about all this which were introduced during the quickie era never did get reviewed or canceled when things changed.

The keynotes of 1969 were being afraid of the bank and scared of restimulation, and so of course people keyed in heavily and got restimulated like crazy.

Imagine the attitudes of a time period where simply using the word “withdraw” in an auditing command was seen as so restimulative of R6 that you would wrap the pc around the flag pole (see the forbidden word list HCOB).

And the higher trained somebody was, the more “OT” levels they had done, the more certain they were of the dangers of this and so as people moved up the line, they became greater suppressors of tech rather than greater encouragers of tech.

Without the halfway reforms of 1970, the orgs would have been gone within a few years. But we still bear the scars in terms of fixed ideas and tough policies that were meant to solve a problem that is long gone.

In a total scarcity of tech, you had better be afraid of a pin dropping because if you are only allowed one process and something goes wrong, you are dead. With an abundance of tech, that becomes silly, about like worrying about a single drop of coffee when there is an urn right next to you.

Best,

The Pilot
**************************************************************************
Following written by Ant (Editor and relayer of this, in May 2012)

My HGC (Hubbard Guidance Centre, Org’s auditing department) was considerably earlier than The Pilot’s and a few details may be of interest. It was around 1959 and in London Org (The Pilot, to my knowledge, was never outside USA). At the start we did not use an e-meter (earlier editions of Dianetics ’55 give an explanation of that – though the advent of transistors, used instead of valve/tubes, and electronic advances, could have been part of the reason for its reintroduction). My auditor training in 1955 had no use of e-meters. When e-meters were re-introduced (Nibs Hubbard, L Ron Hubbard Junior, was a senior in London at the time) us HGC auditors were given an emeter (by Nibs), but received no training. Thus at that time and before, the phenomenon of FN (floating needle) was unknown. I remember once having a pc who was talking about his time in the far east, and the e-meter needle was making wild slashes, which I looked at in wonderment. They continued until his attention went on to another time period, and years later I learned that I had seen a rock slam :-) . A little later I read in Bulletins of a “free needle”, and a little later still of a floating needle – these concepts were not there when we started using meters, and came in in what I am inclined to call a covert way.

We normally ran three hour sessions (2 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday with an hour for lunch). On Monday and Friday there was a single session, before and after testing, and the preclear had before and after interviews with the Director of Processing. Day preclears received 25 hours per week. 25 hours was regarded as an intensive, weekend and evening pcs (of which there were not many) had 12½ hours per weekend or week. There was a rule that if the first four points of the persons test (OCA/APA) were below the halfway line, s/he was run only on objectives (CCH 1-4). Otherwise new processes came in almost daily from Ron, and It once happened that I ran a preclear on the latest process, only to see in my in basket at the end of the afternoon session, a Bulletin forbidding the use of that process on any one! However, there was no atmosphere of fear of running a “bad” process – atmosphere in the 50′s was different from when this thing called “ethics” came into the picture.

The Pilot’s experiences at different times would have been markedly different from mine.

All best wishes, Ant.

*********************************

One thought on “More about thinking for yourself – notes from the Pilot and Ant Phillips

  1. SamU

    Great Scientology history article on the tech and the many forms of “standard tech”. It made me realize that at any given unit of time all tech was “standard tech”. So we come up with better ways to make clears and OTs just like we come up with better (efficient-faster-cheaper) ways to make furniture, doesn’t mean that you never use a chisel again even if you own a computer driven saw with laser sighting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 3 = nine

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>