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
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.
Be creative, yes, but don't deviate.
As The Pied Pipers... broadly show there are all sorts of schools who never did anything else but attempt to take man to the highest possible point in his spiritual evolution, and of course it's alright to study them and learn from them and integrate what they found out into Hubbard's system. Please bear in mind that with scientology, we have the first genuinely Western attempt to attain the insights and abilities the East is traditionally famous for. Everybody prior to Ron Hubbard fell back on Eastern concepts, both in terminology and method. So studying Eastern stuff is perfectly ok but no reason to deviate.
The Rolls Royce people would certainly take a Honda car apart and study it. But they wouldn't be so foolish as to add a Honda bonnet to a Rolls and then call it a fancy name. That's what I mean by "deviation from a standard". Rolls Royce have a certain concept and because they have stuck to it for years you can recognize a Rolls miles away. Same is true for Honda. Why mix the two? Each in their own way have a standard approach to things, both produce good cars. Why mix the two? Think you get a better car that way?
So be creative, but don't deviate.
Ron Hubbard perhaps not a scientologist?
I would call it a deviation if a newly worked-out technical procedure is not recognizable to conform to the theoretical and practical framework of scientology.
Recognizability depends to a great degree on proper presentation. TROM for example was recognizable as a development within the framework of scientology. It was well presented. "Belief changing" was mentioned occasionally but not properly presented and therefore not recognizable, and if Ray Harman hadn't told me what it is in a private letter I'd be still in mystery. Regarding "soul retrieval" I still have my doubts. What about Dianasis? I don't know. Wasn't presented in an open forum such as IVy, ever. Not recognizable.
So there is always this question with all new approaches: Is there a truly substantial difference between a new process and "standard scientology", or is it an apparent difference due to bad presentation?
Now what about Ron's bridge, for that matter? Is it recognizable as a development within the framework of scientology? Is there logic to it? Are its steps necessary? Do they follow a stringent evolutionary line? Was the bridge as suggested by the founder of scientology, ever sufficiently and plausibly explained anywhere to make it recognizable as scientology? Was it presented properly? Does it hold water?
The philosophical framework of scientology is defined by the book Scn 0-8. Any method conforming to the definitions and requirements stated there would be recognizable and acceptable as scientology. Within this framework it is alright -- and desirable! -- to improvise and find new approaches.
So be creative, yes, but don't deviate.
If you are
reading a borrowed
copy of International Viewpoints, why not give yourself a real treat? Buy yourself a subscription. Write to a distributor listed on the last page - get a regular comm line in from others in the free scientology movement.
What a lovely suprise to get IVy bouncing through the letter box now and then.
A message from the (ex) scn world!
your friends deserve some of that theta too?
See to it that they also get to know about International Viewpoints.