FreeZone America




All that needs saying about the art of supervising is clearly and broadly stated in the "Supervisor's Code" and "Supervisor's Stable Data" in "Scientology 0­8".

The supervisor must know the stuff he is checking the student out on through having had years­long experience concerning it. To be creditable, a theory course supervisor must have a few thousand hours of practical auditing behind him. Otherwise it's the blind leading the blind.

A checkout must consult the student's understanding. That means it must take the student where he stands and aid him to combine data in new ways, to make him gain a heightened understanding of the matter at hand.

Good supervising must lead to cognitions. The only way of learning is by cognitions, because cognitions are self­created knowledge.

Rote learning and imitation learning is learning by accepting other­ determined knowledge. If you want to make robots, do it that way.

A good check­out may take hours. It can have the form of an enlightened dialogue between a master and a disciple. The master has data authority (if he didn't, he wouldn't be a master), the student has an eagerness to fully comprehend the data he has learned (if he didn't, he wouldn't truly be a disciple).

Example: The examination checkout I do with students at the end of the theory course checksheet usually takes a good six hours non­stop. Or longer. To fully comprehend something means one arrives at having a conceptual understanding of it. One doesn't "think with it" any longer, one knows it.

"You see, our success in clearing this planet depends upon the success of our courses as this is where we train our auditors, C/Ses, supervisors and administrators, and that is the whole team!" (HCOB 30 October 1978)

"When study tech isn't in full use (...), overt products are produced. Orgs are actually in the hands of and at the mercy of course supervisors (...)." (HCO PL 30 October 1980)

On Clay Demos

Clay demos are the most valuable tool the supervisor has to check up on the student's understanding. They must never be pooh­poohed as children's stuff, they must never be taken off checksheet because people had bad experiences with them earlier on. They beat computer­supported interactive learning by miles.

A clay demo is a challenge to the student in that it demands of him that he create examples parallelling on a mest level the high­flying theta concepts he carries about in his personal universe. This teaches him two things: one, how hard it is to create; two, what his universe really looks like.

This is painful. Why? Because the act of creating restimulates implants. It asks the student to do something which he and all of his entities were implanted not to do, and that is: to create one's own universe. This has become increasingly unpopular since Incident I!

It is also painful in that the student will see his misunderstood words, twisted concepts and foggy ideas become embarrassingly apparent on the clay table. He simply can't help putting his unverse there!

A clay demo will never be any better than the mind creating it. It's the job of the supervisor not to be fooled by a rote clay demo, but to ask: "Why?"

"Why should that part of the demo lead over to the next part? Look at life, look at how people feel and act, look at how the mind works ­ and then show me the real thing in clay, not some symbolic abbreviation." Cracks glibness like you wouldn't believe.

The clay shows the thing. It shows a story, not a row of symbolic representations. Any five­year old should be able to read the story content of a clay demo (although the significance hidden in that story may be beyond him).

Do not use "clay icons" for your representation of concepts, just because those clay icons have become a course room tradition. Don't represent a thetan by a clay ring. That's not what you feel like to yourself. A thetan is a 7th dynamic energy manifestation. He has attention, intention and emotion. Show him as such. Show him as a little clay ghost with arms and legs and a face. A static may be shown as a clay ring, yes. But that's a different matter. That's the thetan's aspect beyond the eight dynamics. And do differentiate between thoughts (postulates) and mental image pictures. Thoughts are 8th dynamic, they are beyond mental mest. So you can't rightfully show them as clay pictures. Show them as spoken words written with clay letters and label them "postulate". In contrast to that, mental image pictures and mock­ups are mental mest (7th dynamic) and
must be shown as clay pictures.

It's a creative act all along. Create what goes on between people and other people, between people and their minds, between people and their bodies. Create it on the clay table to the best of your present understanding. Don't use time­worn clay icons which don't mean a thing but were some past supervisor's subterfuge for passing your clay demo without revealing his own m/u's (misunderstood words).

Why does one have to stick labels on one's clay models? Because a universe consists of created masses and of created significances attached to those masses. A clay demo must parallel that. If it doesn't, the supervisor can't read it.

A well­put clay demo problem will be fun to work out. It will lead to major cognitions. The student will be so immersed that he forgets the tedium and degradation of earlier times at the clay table in earlier but hopefully not similar institutes.

Example: The examination clay demo at the end of the theory checksheet takes two full days. And never a dull moment.

And when you as the supervisor see that your student doesn't work cheerfully and fluently but hangs about staring at the empty clay table with a frown on his forehead, why, sit down and work
with him. No need to let him simmer away and turn into pulp. Do it as a co­action! Have fun with each other! Be lively about it!

The knowledge we are able to transmit is too valuable to be wasted.

On TRs

The auditor creates his auditee and his session by his TRs.

TR's 6­9 mean: control, guidance, firmness. TRs 0­4 mean: smooth verbal interaction based on understanding. It's the old combination of KRC and ARC. One doesn't go well without the other.

A session will be as good or bad as the auditor comprehends and masters his TRs.

To arrive at that sort of understanding TRs must be done often and repeatedly. As usual, the rule of gradient approaches applies: run them lightly on an ever­increasing gradient. And don't do them rotely! Evolve them out of the underlying concept as stated in Factors 1 through 11.

But don't mistake an EP on the drill to stand for an EP in life! A vast difference! People doing them perfectly as a drill don't always manage to transfer them to life.

The real schooling ground for one's TRs is life.

The mark of good TRs is: they are not noticed. They are natural. They get things done without anyone realizing how come.

On TR­4, use loads of tone scale drills. If the coach cannot mock up emotions convincingly, the student won't learn anything on TR­4.

And to settle an old argument: the way I teach TRs is by going over them repeatedly, each time to a win on each TR on the student's gradient. Six days of TRs done sensibly in this fashion result in greater cognitions and abilities than six weeks of TRs "the hard way" as taught in certain places.

And do watch, discuss and be interested in how the student is learning to apply them in life, so you can develop coaching situations that are appropriate.

Copyright © 1997-2001 FreeZone America, All Rights Reserved.   See our Privacy-Policy