Holy Cow Series 3

Don't Speak about the Tech!

"What do we mean by a Holy Cow? It is an ‘everybody knows’ or don’t touch - it’s holy!
It is an idea in a subject somewhat similar to a religious dogma."

  Homepage

  Web Content Page

I still remember it vividly. I was doing my first Tech course in a Class 4 org; it was the Dianetics™ Course. Prior to that I had done the Communications Course in a Center in a relaxed atmosphere. I had decided to become a professional auditor, and this was the first step. I was reading a technical bulletin about the time track and I found it difficult to understand.

What is Verbal Tech?

Verbal Tech means to "follow "advice" contrary to what you find on HCOBs and Tapes" or "Tech without reference to an HCOB". It's bad! In other words all the Hubbard Tech is published and the way to do it right is to study the issues and tapes and follow them exactly.
I basically agree with this. It can be hard work to get all the pieces to fit together as a student, but if you keep at it you will eventually succeed. You have become a professional. The Tech is very exact and it is all published in technical bulletins etc.

Courses had originally friendly Instructors (up to 1965) who were supposed to be experts in the subject and "answer students questions" (see 'stable data for instructors'). This however led to problems.
In 1965 the title was changed to Supervisor and the basic duties changed with the title.
According to policy of April 19 1965, The only supervisor responses permitted to a student's demand for verbal technical data were the following:

"The material is in (HCOB, Pol Letter or tape)", "What does your material state?" or "What word did you miss in the (Bulletin, Pol Ltr or tape)?". Any other approach was an Ethics misdemeanor.

A supervisor's operation is described this way in a policy letter:

In a previous article about KSW we compared Scientology™ and software programs. You could apply this here as well. The Hubbard materials are considered the only 'software instructions', the auditor should respond to. To respond to an instructor's or colleague's verbal advice is prone to throw in out of control arbitraries. The 'software program' will at some point crash, meaning an auditor following a lot of verbal advice has lost contact with the proven, workable instructions and is prone to make errors.
You will sit there as an auditor in session and wonder, whether the instructor said this or that, and there is no way for you to go back and check it out later. Also at some point, especially while Hubbard was still researching, the 'newest and latest' in Tech could spread like a rumor and auditors would do it. Sometimes it wasn't Tech, but just a rumor. They got lost because the instructions were incomplete or false. It led to alter-is of the Tech and made it unworkable.

So there are very good technical reasons for these policies. You have to keep the Tech exact, you have to apply it exactly and you have to keep it pure. In order to be able to teach workable Tech to new generations of students, sticking to the written word is crucial. Hubbard did a super human effort to get it all written down and recorded for that purpose.

For anyone who has ever done a course this way, however, you will know there is also a serious downside to this. It comes under the heading of ARC and understanding. After all, Scientology™ Tech isn't about uploading a program to a computer. It is about affinity, reality and communication = understanding. You want higher understanding. You have a very few gifted supervisors, who can actually fill the gap between the rote questions and maintaining ARC. They will know their materials so well, so they instantly can "answer your question" by showing you an applicable reference and maintain two way communication. It can be done. But most supervisors have only rudimentary grasp of the materials. Instead they will haunt you down with "what word didn't you understand?" etc. etc. or just freeze in terror and say "don't ask - or I will send you to Ethics/Cramming".

So let us for a moment examine, what the optimum learning conditions would be. The students would have materials in their language and written in a form, that was exact and easy to understand. All references to other parts of the subject, that wasn't needed for the level, would either be fully explained - or better, not be included. This comes under 'Right Gradient' in Student Hat. Inclusion of such data would be an outpoint, called 'Wrongly included data' per the Data Series. Neither computers nor humans like that.

Since what you study are research materials, rather than a revised and updated text book version, there are from a student's view point a lot of 'wrongly included data' such as routines and techniques, which are no longer part of Standard Tech on any level. If you again use the parallel with computer software, there are a lot of confusing computer instructions, that will cause it to crash.
A subject, that did resolve this within Scientology, is Standard Dianetics. Based on the key bulletins a book was compiled. All the issues had been seamlessly edited together and contradictions and outpoints removed. The book was called "Dianetics Today!". When New Era Dianetics™ came out, this book became out of date and was never updated to cover NED.
Personally I have read a number of non Hubbard books about Scientology™ and find this liberating. Maybe Scientology™ is more than something, that happened in the past; and I like to put it this way: If you want to see something in three dimensions, you need at least two viewpoints to view it from. Another author with sufficient grasp of the subject provides that and formulates it differently. I like L. Kins coverage of basic Scientology. That was a "3D experience" to me.

Besides print and lectures, videos should exist to cover the doingness of the course. One of the most odd things in Church of Scientology's line up is the use of Hubbard taped sessions. You hear the sound track of live sessions from the 50'ies, where Hubbard does it "all wrong" according to later developments of the TR's and Tech. You are supposed to listen to his communication cycle, speed and tone level etc. It is however an example of "Don't do as I do, but as I say it". Actual video's should be produced of auditing actions. The reason, I suspect, that nobody has done it is a fear of not being able to produce and perform up to Hubbard's standards. But actually seeing it performed is a major tool recognized in study tech as it can do away with tons of complications. With video, you can do as many takes as you want, then pick the perfect one. If you are afraid of somebody else than Hubbard becoming the role model, make 5 videos with 5 different auditors; that should fix it.

It should be possible for students to explain things and ask questions freely. It is almost as therapeutic as auditing to outflow what you have learned and certainly helps the student to become cause over the subject. Due to the liabilities described above, this could be done in designated, informal 'sessions' among students as a freer form of check outs.

As the culture around courses has developed, it is very tasking on ARC and human interaction and relationships. Most students will along the line have accumulated scores of unanswered questions. They will have small inconsistencies from one issue to the next to struggle with and carry with them. Numerous incidents of odd social situations and rejections will have happened. They can have developed a fear of doing it wrong leading to not doing it at all. They may have a fear of trying to relate, what they have learnt to other fields and practices (something L. Kin masters). It all adds up to withholds; most of them inadvertent. But there are more than misunderstood words that can lead to the overt and blow phenomenon, supervisors dread.

Students may end up with this odd feeling, that they are progammed robots, which are dispensable or worse, if they don't perform 100% Standard Tech. Not exactly what you should be going for when your overall goal is increased ARC and smooth performance.

Confidential Courses

Later I made it to the OT levels. I had gradually become used to the rude attitude that most supervisors applied. I had stuck it out without blowing. But the stakes went up dramatically on the Advanced Courses. From being subject to an ethics report if I talked about the Tech, I now risked ex-communication and SP declare if I wasn't extremely careful. The reasons given for confidentiality were stated in Policy this way:

"Confidential materials could be used destructively by suppressive persons or groups", and "The power of these beings (OT's) will be unlimited. This whole operation must be done in an organized manner, and it is expected of the beings on the OT Course that Scientology™ Ethics Codes will be always applied and followed." Thus "He or she may be invited to enroll". (HCOPL 12 Aug 66)
It's not a right. You may be invited - if you behave.

HCOPL of 11 Aug 71, states:

Supposedly because OT levels in part consist of undoing implants it can be misused to restimulate people or even construct implants with. It may be so or not. I can only comment that at this point just about any of these confidential materials can be found on the Internet and downloaded by anyone. There are however also chunks of "Confidential materials" that do not classify as dangerous for the uninformed; a confidential course called Key to Life for instance is basically a grammar course. It seems it was made confidential to protect the simplicity of the subject. It's promoted as the reinvention of the wheel.  Another example is a process called Roll Back. It's a type of 'False Data Stripping', a simple recall process. It is used to trace 'the enemy line', meaning any statement or opinion detrimental of Scientology. By weeding this out as 'the enemy' or 'false data', you produce fanatics, and it is actually a 'Black Scientology' process applied in Sea Org and OSA.  So I do suspect, that commercial and other considerations play a role.

According to "Standard Admin" and other issues, the same rules about verbal Tech applies to Green on White (policy and policy volumes). I take that with a grain of salt.

I am a Tech person and no expert on Green on White. But I have enough knowledge and practical experience to give my opinion on this.
Firstly: The Tech is the thing for the ages and the only reason for me, and most of you I am sure, to hang in there.
I consider the basic Tech for the truth; it's that underlying truth that empowers other parts of organized Scientology, that I have problems with.

The Green Volumes (policy books) may contain many new ideas and principles about organization. You can even find gems of wisdom there. But taken as a whole I have a problem with them. You will find many policy letters are written in haste and never revised. Pages and pages are devoted to scenarios that never came to be or state of affairs that long since are gone or outgrown. You will find a mix of Black PR intended to smear some group or individuals and White PR, which is intended to present the very best side of things. You will find glowing ideal scenes that are still a dream or a far away goal. To take the whole thing literally is risky business. To act upon it as fundamentalists act on the Bible (or fundamentalist Muslims on the Koran) is to ask for disaster. The Management Volumes is where Hubbard has published most of his new ideas on organization. They were in part a rewrite and summary. They are intended for the business community it seems. 
But the policy is in dire need for a work over.  Good, tough  editing would be a first step. This is how you make readable books and bestsellers. Also it needs to be classified into 'Operating Policy' and 'Informative Policy'. Editing the masters work, however, is a Holy Cow. It's a controversial thing in the Church as well as in the Freezone.

I see Policy like this: The Green Volumes contain countless plays and scenarios ready to play out. It describes characters, hats, posts and 'plots of action'. You sit and wait for the curtain to go up. The curtain goes up and in come all these characters and perform their roles. You see dramatic characters, tragic ones, duals fought and slap stick comedians perform. You see bad guys and good guys. Wolves and lambs. Happy guys and unhappy ones. Each of them point to the Green Volumes and say with conviction: I am right. I do it according to Policy!

As I told you, I am a Tech person and never cared too much about Green on White. To me the admin people were "the wolves" and I was in tech and "a tech lamb". It may have helped the Church of Scientology™ to grow to a considerable size, but I don't see the vision of the whole world fit into the Organizing Board as anything but an example of a glowing ideal scene - or as things are currently run - a nightmare.

I have included Green on White here simply as a possible charged subject, since you are supposed to take it literally and not talk about it. You will find a number of items in the Holy Cow RD, that will allow you to itsa and find your own self-determined viewpoint on this.

So we have a corporate culture around Church of Scientology™ courses saying: Don't speak about the Tech. This gets further solidified when you come to the OT Levels. Due to all the security rules and regulations it's a very restrained life. You can't speak about what you study without running a grave risk, even if you speak to other students about it. Sessions, whether solo or with an auditor get kind of muffled and restrained - somebody may spy on you. Your activities gets compartmented while on service and this carries over into your social life. It isn't quite safe anymore just to speak ones mind. You may feel "special", but also isolated and on your own in social situations. You are subject to scrutiny, people have high expectations about your abilities ("hidden standards") and you are caught up between what an OT is supposed to be ("a being with unlimited powers", above pl) and what there at this stage of Tech is obtainable. You made it to the OT levels, but now your grade Zero, free communication, is in jeopardy. As an OT you are supposedly a perfect being without human problems and you got there by using this secret tech.

It is said, that what you can't communicate about in society becomes a major abberative factor.
In Freud's days it was sex. In the Victorian age of Freud, this led to all kinds of problems and difficulties. When he pointed it out it caused scandal and uproar but gradually it was accepted and the culture loosened up. Sex is still a difficult subject of course, but now we can at least do something about it.

In Church of Scientology™ the banned subject from conversation seems to be the Tech itself. Taken to this extreme it's a Holy Cow. Whether you are on course, on advanced services or audit, it's something you can read about, but not speak about. Only inflow is allowed.  The Green Volumes are given same status by Hubbard. In the Freezone we should develop a responsible, but more relaxed attitude about this. This is already happening.

We need to study the Tech with a firm goal in mind: We study the Tech to obtain higher ARC and KRC with it; and to use these valuable tools to effortlessly and comfortably be able to audit with them or use them in our lives. If we do that, the Tech will have gained new life and we Keep the Technology Working.

Success Stories

Is included here as a foot note. Since we are talking about, what you can't speak about it is logical to fit in what you are supposed to speak about: Wins. You may have written success stories in the past that were more glowing than right or written some under group pressure. A few items in the RD is included to address success stories.

Holy Cow Rundown (2)

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
Going OT
Can't talk about OT
Inadvertent Tech withholds
Unanswered Tech questions
Data that didn't align
Couldn't talk about the Tech
"Hidden standards" about OT
Too powerful Tech to talk about
Rhetoric policy statements
False policy statements
False PR statements in policy
Things taken too literal
Wrong Policy enforced
Success stories

(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

" I went up to the supervisor to ask if he could explain it to me. He looked at me in real terror and in deep silence he showed me the issues on verbal Tech and pointed to a dictionary"

"It can be hard work to get all the pieces to fit together as a student, but if you keep at it you will eventually succeed"

"The supervisor who tells students answers is a waste of time and a course destroyer"

"an auditor following a lot of verbal advice has lost contact with the proven, workable instructions and is prone to make errors"

"For anyone who has ever done a course this way, you will know there is also a serious downside to this. It comes under the heading of ARC and understanding. After all, Scientology™ Tech isn't about uploading a program to a computer"

"Since what you study are research materials, rather than a revised and updated text book version, there are from a student's view point a lot of 'wrongly included data'."

"You hear the sound track of live sessions from the 50'ies, where Hubbard does it "all wrong" according to later developments of the TR's and Tech"

"As the culture around courses has developed, it is very tasking on ARC and human relationships. Most students will along the line have accumulated scores of unanswered questions"

 "the stakes went up dramatically on the Advanced Courses. From being subject to an ethics report if I talked about the Tech, I now risked ex-communication and SP declare"

"There are however also chunks of "Confidential materials" that do not classify as dangerous for the uninformed; a confidential course called Key to Life is basically a grammar course"

 "You will find many policy letters are written in haste and never revised. Pages and pages are devoted to scenarios that never came to be or state of affairs that long since are gone or outgrown"

"I see it like this: The Green Volumes contain countless plays and scenarios ready to play out. It describes characters, hats, posts and 'plots of action'."

"Your activities gets compartmented while on service and this carries over into your social life. It isn't quite safe anymore just to speak ones mind"

"It is said, that what you can't communicate about in society becomes a major abberative factor"

"In Church of Scientology™ the banned subject from conversation seems to be the Tech itself"

"The Holy Cow Rundown that goes along with this series, is intended to handle any personal charge that you may have along these lines"