|
|
| (16 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Welcome Pat & Ray -- [[User:Dl88008|Dl88008]] 00:54, 23 December 2011 (MST) ==
| |
| | | | |
| − | Welcome to ScientoliPedia! You can use these "Discussion" pages to leave messages for other users...like this. David [[User:Dl88008|Dl88008]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Standard Tech Talk -- [[User:Thetagal|Thetagal]] 23:20, 23 December 2011 (MST) ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If you are recently from the COS you probably know that in the COS there is no "tech talk" or should not be because that is all considered "verbal tech" and you have to read the HCOB.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm not in disagreement with this in training, but when one is trying to introduce someone to Scientology, everything is over the head of the new person. Engrams? What's an Engram?
| |
| − | ARC? What is that?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In the early days we had Introducatory Lectures as a customary thing. The Anatomy of the Human Mind Course visibly demonstrated the difference between the brain and the mind. A lecturer went over the basics, the four universes, mind, body, thetan and the physical universe. Now I'm not going into these basics and others here, and I hope there will be a glossary added to this website to give simple explanations of basic terms.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Having said all of this, I'm leaping to the areas of advanced technology. I'd like to talk about what is standard tech. Not so that you Techies can learn anything, but for the vast number of people and potential people who are going to want to know, "What is this thing called Standard Tech?" One can look up the definition of "standard" to start, a definite level or degree of quality that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose" is how I recall it. If you want your car to run then you don't want a mechanic who doesn't know a bolt from a nut, or who uses a crowbar to open your hood instead of a latch.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Standard Tech came out in 1968. Before that we had lots and lots of tech. LRH did what is sometimes referred to as the experimental track. He was looking for something that will work for everyone, not work for half and not the other half. Those things such as Step Six Clearing were dropped out of the lineup, not because it didn't make Clears but because it didn't make everyone who was run on it clear. In some cases it made things worse. There was something later called "Goals Clearing" and then we had a "One Goal Clear", "Two Goal Clear" and so on. LRH was looking, if you will pardon the expression, for a "one size fits all" tech that would work on anyone.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | He had this sorted out by 1968 in a way that he could train auditors so that all pcs and pre-ots could benefit. It isn't to say that earlier tech wasn't good or didn't work it is more that he took the best of his research and put it in one basket. Primarily it was the basics of Scientology understood by auditors, and the ability to apply getting and keeping a pc in session, and getting and keeping a pc on the "bridge", that is following a Classification, Gradation, and Awareness Chart from bottom to top.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | My favoite thing is "audit with rudiments in." Sounds so easy, and there is this HCOB, C/S Series #1, Auditor's Rights that explains that and basically you can't run a pc on something major to change his case if he is upset with you, has a problem, won't talk to you and so on.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm sure each and every C/S has their own favorites, but this is stated for beginning auditors as a point of understanding.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | "One Size Fits All" is a better and faster tech than earlier methods, but that doesn't mean you should slight such things as Book Auditing, where two people read a book and take turns auditing each other on the processes in the book. Handbook for Preclears is excellent for this; it can even be done by itself as "self-auditing". We want to get charge off of the case and anything that you do as an auditor that gets charge off the case is valid auditing--whether or not it fits exactly into Standard Tech.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A squirrel is someone who alters technology. Freezoners who aren't well trained are not necessarily squirrels. One could say what they are doing is not Standard Tech, but if it is LRH tech from books or other LRH materials and it gets charge off the case that is not squirrel.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It is only if they alter the technology.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Pat Krenik
| |
