Holy Cow Series 2

Is KSW a Holy Cow?

Until 1986 it was clearly understood, that Hubbard was above the rules. When he stopped to do research KSW got outdated

  Homepage

  Web Content Page

It has a long tradition from Socrates, Plato, Spinoza to Hubbard as well. They all asked challenging questions and looked for Holy Cows that live right at the border line between philosophy and science on the one side and religion and popular beliefs on the other. They love to go hunting for these cows with nosy, hard hitting questions. Hubbard called them the ‘Everybody knows’ among other things.

What do we mean by a Holy Cow? It is an ‘everybody knows’ or don’t touch - it’s holy!

Any subject should be examined with a critical eye. This is part of the process of finding the truth and master a subject. In philosophy it has been called the principle of ‘continuous doubt’. Here we focus on Keeping Scientology Working, a policy that at one point turned failing organizations around and made people study harder and audit better. How does that hold up to this scrutiny today?

The basic idea of the policy is, that the Bridge and Scientology™ is the only known and universally workable route to Clear and beyond, so don’t change anything. Apply it exactly and be ruthless about it being applied exactly. By Hubbard’s death in 1986 the last thing was said about the tech. From there on out: just apply.

It’s a good field for comparison. We have some similarity, as far that both are applied subjects containing routines and programs. The Scientology™ word ‘Clear’ is actually taken from computer language. It is a button on a calculator or computer, that resets it by clearing it for old, inapplicable answers. In auditing this is made to mean, that you clear the pc for engrams and abberations until he is totally rational and in present time. In this analogy the Reactive Mind is the collection of old inapplicable and non-survival data.

If there are only tiny flaws in a software program it can be useless as it will give wrong results or won’t run at all. Yet this field was never declared complete.

True, most developments went nowhere and there have been more silly programs and gadgets on the market than you can think of or comprehend.
But in the computer business any new development would quickly be tested first by experts and later by the consumers. All these old programs and gadgets were part of the industry’s learning process and development. At the end of the day only a few things survived.

I remember well the computer user’s manuals from the 80’ies. They were very technical to a point of incomprehensibility. They were written by computer nerds for computer nerds. With enthusiasm they would describe the technical secrets of hardware and software, but would be of little help with practical questions. The manuals have changed a lot since then. Obviously a lot of testing, marketing and writing expertise was brought in to fix that. This was done to reach a broader market.  It was an important part of gaining popularity and encourage wider use of computers. People, to whom computers at one time were too technical or unaffordable to own or operate, found them suddenly useful and accessible and a new necessity.

In 1986 we had a computer industry that produced and delivered a workable system, but by far the optimum system. But the tireless efforts of the industry since have paid off many times. The continuous developments, and the tolerance of the many projects that led nowhere, has transformed all of society in a radical fashion, that wasn’t possible with the 1986 state of affairs. Their philosophy was a free market approach; let's put it out there - after our own tests are complete - and see if the consumers like it and find it useful enough to pay good money for.

In the following years the discipline and diligence necessary to make it all work tended to slack off. With the boss gone there was a lack of direction. A widespread slump and maybe a relaxed attitude seemed to gain popularity. Then in the early 70’ies an Evaluation showed this and KSW was put in with a vengeance. The boss was back - if even only through this policy. Again staff sharpened up. The statistics soared, students and PC’s had better gains. Obviously it was the right thing to do. Hubbard was still doing research and revising tech, putting out the C/S series, Int Rundown, New Era Dianetics™ and so on. There was a general feeling of optimism and anticipation of a bright future. Maybe it wasn’t the perfect system yet. But it was very workable in a field where only despair and hope had existed before. New developments and breakthroughs happened all the time. There was no reason to look elsewhere as this was the best hope for man.

There was a tremendous body of work and yet the state of OT did not seem to be obtained by advanced students. To this day you hear many ‘OT wins’ but little evidence of, that the upper levels actually  make good on the ultimate state of being; the goal of OT - as described in lectures and promised in promotional literature. Since many of us have experienced these OT wins, we have a founded belief, that OT is there to be had. So we have a state of affairs comparable with computers in the 80'ies. We can envision it all and the basic technology is there. It may not be as easy to study as it should. It may only appeal to 'OT nerds' (like the author).  The nerds may even have a hard time with it. But there is no reason to give up now, because this is a quest for the ages!.

As far as grades and levels through OT3 is concerned, we have a workable line up. But it is expensive and time consuming. There is no reason to believe, that gifted and serious researchers won't be able to improve on that. The Pilot has done a tremendous amount of work and research along these lines. He calls his work a beta version. That means in software terminology, that it is released for testing and not necessary in its final form. On a student level, you shouldn't worry about that, but use the technology as it is; or you can use the Pilot’s tech as a beta release, meaning it may not be perfect yet, but if you have some basic training you are pretty safe.

For researchers there is quite an additional task. According to The Pilot, only about 10% of Hubbard tech is actually used on the Bridge and grade chart. To know what is actually already there, it isn't enough just to have studied it all. It needs to be tested and refined with the benefit of hindsight. In early research Hubbard ran into problems with PC’s that weren’t set up for the action. Out gradient, out int. and the entity case were not necessarily handled correctly, as this was not well researched at the time. If all processes were tested and cataloged in a new unit of time and the results published I am sure this would spawn a new renaissance. I am looking for words not already used and will venture this label: The New Renaissance of Tech.

4) Teaching correctly the correct technology. The HCOBs as you study them in Church of Scientology™ have some similarities with the 80'ies computer manuals. I know this is a terrible thing to say, so I better explain what I mean. To me it looks like one reason the tech went out in the late 60'ies, was the way it was written up. You had all these research bits and pieces and no text books. You had statements in conflict from one technical bulletin to the next. It wasn't always easy to know what was valid and what wasn't. As a result a lot of confusion and ‘safe omissions’ ensued. We ended up with so called Quickie Grades: One process and floating needle per grade. Just clearing the words isn't going to solve the problem. The tech needs to be written up as streamlined and functional text books. As an example of what I mean, I'll point to a book called 'Dianetics™ Today!' This was a complete text book on Standard Dianetics. It was composed of well known bulletins (most written within a short  period of time). They had been edited seamlessly together and all contradictions had been resolved. A text book like that made all these unanswered questions go away. The book never got updated to cover New Era Dianetics, although that would be an easy task. You wonder why.

6) Seeing that the technology is correctly applied. This is always a concern. It helps to do it as a group activity in the Freezone and stay connected to the best trained people. In the Church of Scientology™ this has continuously been used as an excuse to try to stop application. Be responsible and keep studying, but remember: Any auditing is better than no auditing.

I’ll cover these four points together as they intermingle.

In Church of Scientology™ they stress the unchanging nature of the ‘Scripture’. The only possible problem with students are misunderstood words. When they are cleared up, they will understand the Scripture and their problems and questions will disappear. Since many of us got our basic training in Church of Scientology™ this viewpoint is pervasive in the Freezone as well.

To research minded people this is not satisfactory. It’s part of man's success as a species always to push for new knowledge and technology. When things are all settled in authoritarian books they look for their gear. They want to go hunting for holy cows in an attempt to push man and his technology further.

Is KSW a Holy Cow? Yes, it has become one. It happened the day Hubbard stopped doing research. It was originally written in a moment of triumph, where Hubbard saw his work as complete. Unfortunately it didn’t work out that way. When he died, KSW became something else. The ultimate abilities of OT are still eluding most of us.

Instead of being the guiding path for us to ‘arrive on the other side’ it has become the hallmark of a reactionary Church leadership, who uses it as a banner for their crusade.

The current crusade seems to be ‘To keep the Religion of Scientology™ pure and wage war on the infidels’. In some round about way the result is almost the opposite of what was intended. In this respect they follow the pattern of Christianity, where the basic message of 'Love thy Neighbor' led to all kinds of cruel practices, witch burnings and wars. The Church of Scientology™ seems currently to go through their 'Dark Middle Ages'. It uses KSW to fight any progress in the tech and tries to deny trained auditors their right to practice their trade outside its complete control. It uses KSW to try to protect a monopoly and set prices for services for optimum profit, but out of reach of most people. In short it is being used as a justification for maintaining a monopoly and not clearing the population at large.

Holy Cow Rundown (1)

The Holy Cow Rundown that goes along with this series, is intended to handle any personal charge that you may have along these lines. It uses a standard 20 buttons prep check. PC reads the article and does demos. In session, the auditor assesses the concepts and items below and prepcheck charged items. The C/S may add items, but shouldn't delete any.

State of OT
OT wins
Scientology research
Contradictions in the materials
Disciplined for out KSW
Fear of discipline for out KSW
Oppressive use of KSW
Lack of use of KSW
No research
No policy making
No LRH leadership
Ron left
Allowing non standard tech
Squashing good tech by calling it squirrel
Freezone and KSW

(list tentative at this point - qualified input needed)

Sincerely,               
Holy Cow!              

Group Engrams and Holy Cows      (HSC 1)
Is KSW a  Holy Cow?                        (HCS 2)
Don't Speak about the Tech!           (HCS 3)
Ron's Many  Hats                               (HCS 4)
Homepage                                           (Click)

   Check our Content Page

Article from IVy - the WW print magazine
  - get your free copy (click)

© 2002 by Holy Cows. All rights reserved. 

   Check our Content Page

"What do we mean by a Holy Cow? It is an ‘everybody knows’ or don’t touch - it’s holy!

"When Hubbard wrote KSW in 1965 it was in a moment of triumph. The clearing course was complete and students were busily auditing themselves to the state of Clear, the long sought goal for Hubbard and Scientologists"

"The basic idea of the policy is, that the Bridge and Scientology is the only known and universally workable route to Clear and beyond, so don’t change anything."

"How would you like, if computers and software were declared 'perfect' in say 1986? That all research and developments after 1986 were out of bound and forbidden?"

"True, most developments went nowhere and there have been more silly programs and gadgets on the market than you can think of or comprehend."

"In 1986 we had a computer industry that produced and delivered a workable system, but not necessary the optimum system."

"KSW was put in with a vengeance. The boss was back - if even only through this policy. Again staff sharpened up. The statistics soared, students and PC’s had better gains. Obviously it was the right thing to do"

"We can envision it all and the basic technology is there. But only very few get there."

 "Since the OT abilities postulated by Hubbard are not obtained in Church of Scientology™ the technology and research is not complete"

"It needs to be tested and refined with the benefit of hindsight"

"To me it looks like one reason the tech went out in the late 60'ies, was the way it was written up. You had all these research bits and pieces and no text books"

" By first declaring practitioners 'squirrel' and then try to harass them they try to maintain a coercive monopoly on the tech"

"There seem to be an indecision whether Scientology™ is a technology or a religion. It makes a big difference for the future of the subject"

" it was clearly understood that Hubbard was above the rules. Research and revisions were done by him"

"The current crusade seems to be ‘To keep the religion of Scientology™ pure and wage war on the infidels’."

"The Holy Cow Rundown is intended to handle any personal charge that you may have along these lines"