On How to be Creative Without
Deviating and Still Make Clears
By Ulrich, Germany

As a brief response to the various comments made on my two articles ("What, no Book One Clears?" in IVy 20 and "A puzzled reader" in Ivy 18) I should like to say that in my opinion, it takes the whole bridge to make a Clear. The whole bridge.

It takes a whole bridge ...

And that includes the generally underestimated, often misapplied and therefore frustration- freighted OT levels 1-3. If done precisely as laid out, they work. Sorry, but they do indeed. Even if some say that they don't. But those particular cases would need investigating. Insufficiently set up? Badly instructed? Couldn't audit? Its bound to be one of those three.

To say that OT 1-3 don't work just because a number of frustrated individuals complain about them, means pouring out the baby with the bath water. And it may give one a lovely reason to deviate and become terribly imaginative, innovative and, of course, interesting, whilst inventing "new tech".

But that's deviation on the basis of misunderstood words. We don't want that.

At the top end of a well-delivered bridge one would expect a person

• a) to be generally able to recall the significant parts of his whole track from the moment he left the co-existence of static till the present,
• b) not to be bothered by demon entities any longer (be they made by himself or others),
• c) to have cleaned up the somatic banks of the GE, be well in comm with it and therefore get ,no psychosomatic illnesses.

Result: That person would play life as a game, be exterior more often than not and keep his nose clean by applying the ethics conditions. Simple as that.

That's pretty close to what it says about Book One Clear but it isn't quite that, admittedly (looking at what Otto pointed out). So let's not get into a quarrel about words but instead appreciate the good things we can actually get done.

Because the results described above can be obtained and in fact are obtained - provided someone is clever enough as an auditor and sticks around long enough. It takes a few years, after all. But it can be done and it is being done. At least by the people I work with.

Sticking to ones standards

With regard to methods: the progress of a person up the various ARC- and KRC-scales in Scn 0-8 is what we call a bridge. It can be brought about by the application of a handful of simple auditing tools as described in L.Kins Handbook ..., chapter 4, since they apply to any area of charge and to any level of awareness. How successfully this is done, depends on the cleverness of the auditor and his C/S.

The "bridge" as printed out by the CofS and sold by their registrars is but one possible suggestion of how to go about it, but not the last word on the subject of "standard tech". Standard tech to me means taking the simplest, most unadorned approach, making use of the most basic principles and techniques and combining them in ever new ways to meet the demands of .the customers bank, and to stick to the Auditor's Code.

"Standard" to me means doing what Ron meant, not necessarily what he said. Big difference. Not everything he said was useful. But underlying all he said is his intention to make men better players who would make this game a better game. His basic concepts and tools of how to go about it are very, very simple. They suit the needs of a thetan, because basically a thetan is very, very simple. So the thetan isn't going to get any better when you make the concepts and tools more complicated. So don't deviate.