|||||
From: martinottmann@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann)
Subject: Inspector General Network Bulletin "A new Golden Age of Tech" from May 10th, 196, Part 1
Date: 20 Jul 2003 09:41:22 -0700
Message-ID: <71d327bb.0307200841.2cde7399@posting.google.com>

["The sun *has* risen on the horizon." And here is Miscavige's
internal justification for his pet project "The Golden Age of Tech".
Find out his thoughts about Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata". And be
touched by his poetry-like final thoughts under "Conclusion":]

INSPECTOR GENERAL NETWORK

BULLETIN NO. 22

from
Religious Technology Center
Holder of the Dianetics and Scientology Trademarks

10 May 1996

TO: ORG EXECUTIVE COUNCILS
ALL ORG TECH PERSONNEL
ALL NETWORK PERSONNEL
ONLY

FROM: CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER

A NEW GOLDEN AGE OF TECH
(A Summary of Whys Found and Details of the Investigation - for Staff
Technical and Executive Personnel)

At the May 9th celebration, I announced training breakthroughs that
will launch a new Golden Age of Tech for Scientology. Numerous events,
beginning nearly a year ago, have brought us to a position today where
we have the greatest potential for technical results in our history.
The events I am referring to concern the massive investigation and
research to determine exactly what is required for the making of 100%
perfect auditors in any organization and in sufficient quantity to
actually clear the planet.

We were trying to attain an ideal scene for orgs and for Scientology
and the above is an apt description. The investigation of how to
achieve that ideal led to the discovery of various WHYS which truly
opened the door to a handling. In HCO PL 12 Aug. 74, Data Series 37,
WHYS OPEN THE DOOR, LRH states:

WHY: "A REAL WHY OPENS THE DOOR TO HANDLING."

It was imperative the real Why be found. During an investigation one
can find many outpoints. In HCO PL 19 Mar. 72 II, Data Series 25,
LEARNING TO USE DATA ANALYSIS, LRH states an outpoint is:

"Simply an illogical departure from the ideal scene. By comparing the
existing scene, with the ideal scene, one easily sees the outpoints."

If one handles outpoints only, we do not necessarily get a resolution
of the entire situation itself.

For example, one could say, "The PL on what is a course is not fully
in" and then order, "Get in HCO PL What Is A Course?" And certainly
this would improve any course room where that policy was not in
application. But, would it achieve the ideal scene? In other words, is
the statement, "The What Is A Course? PL is not fully in" a correct
Why? The test is, does it open the door to the handling? We found it
did not. So, our search continued until we determined the Why which
did open the door to a handling and which did achieve the ideal scene
when handlings were implemented.

OVERVIEW

The Why and handlings which follow were the product of our
investigation. As covered in the Data Series, one can find right Whys
and wrong Whys. A wrong Why leads to no improvement in a scene. A
right Why does lead to a bettered scene. And the Whys found are RIGHT
WHYS, for they have been tested out extensively and based on results,
truly opened the door wide to making perfect auditors in unlimited
numbers!! Situation:

AN INSUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF AUDITORS TO MAKE PLANETARY CLEARING A
REALITY; RIGHT NOW IN THE PRESENT TIME, DUE TO THE INABILITY TO
INVARIABLY MAKE 100% FLUBLESS, STANDARD AND PERFECT A UDITORS, IN ANY
ORG ON EARTH.

The Why we discovered was:

INSUFFICIENT DRILLING TO OBTAIN PERFECTION

The handling called for drills that are sufficiently thorough to
achieve nothing short of perfection in an auditor.

Yet the investigation yielded another Why, and fully explained why
current drilling was not producing all expected results (as well as
explaining course failures or graduates who were not successful after
graduating). This Why is:

THE BLIND HAVE BEEN LEADING THE BLIND.

The handling then, was to create drills that tell a coach exactly how
to properly coach another auditor even if he himself has technical
deficiencies, thus handling the aspect of an untrained coach ("blind")
coaching an untrained student ("blind"). In other words, the handling
called for drills which are totally on-Source and allow the coach to
train his student twin as though LRH himself were doing the coaching
by putting all Source data right in the coach's hands!

Finally, the investigation revealed why organization Tech and Qual
staff were not remedying this situation:

LACK OF ADEQUATE AND ESTABLISHED PASSING STANDARDS RESULTING IN
PERMISSIVE SUPERVISION DUE TO CONFUSING "FAST FLOW" WITH THE SUBJECT
OF DRILLING.

The handling is to create an exact passing standard all supervisors
can adhere to, and that passing standard is perfection. Instead of
letting students go through meter drills until they "have a win", we
require they be perfect. To ensure such, we define what "perfect"
means as regards such drills. And we implement this same standard -
PERFECTION - on all auditor drills. To maintain this standard and to
do so in such a way that Supervisors are not required to watch
students do a drill from start to finish in its entirety, we create
drills which are totally "self-explanatory" and "self-coaching".
Instead of telling students to drill with a generality such as, "fly a
rud bullbaited", we create drills which list every step, line by line,
including all responses the coach is to give and the correct student
response to such, and so ensure every technical procedure is drilled.

And by making sure such drills DO cover everything about any given
technical procedure, we open the door to achieving PERFECTION, as a
passing standard. That is, by simply requiring students to do each
drill over and over until they can do it flawlessly from beginning to
end, without flunk, we establish a passing standard for true
perfection. Then, too, there is an added benefit of leaving no room
for student argument regarding technical procedures or that passing
standard. Instead, students gain certainty every step of the way with
the assurance that the coaching is RIGHT.

While far more detailed bulletins are being issued that describe the
new STANDARD TECH drills and other developments and breakthroughs -
including the new Drills Simulator and Quantum E-Meter - the
descriptions of handlings given above provide an overview.

These handlings do solve the situation we needed to solve. And, that
isn't just a postulate - pilot results show the net result is a
perfect auditor, unlike any we have ever trained!

STANDARD APPLICATION EQUALS STANDARD RESULTS

The investigation undertaken to find the Whys was certainly the most
searching and thorough on technical lines ever conducted specifically
addressed to application. Auditing quality and results were inspected
at all levels, including many different orgs and units. We continued
searching until we found Whys which described EVERYONE of the
different out-points we observed through the course of an incalculable
number of sessions.

Full details of every outpoint located are too extensive (and
unnecessary) to cover in this bulletin - since the Whys found do
describe the reason for each of them. However, an understanding of the
general and common outnesses is in order so that technical personnel
and org executives are aware of such and can take actions to raise
technical standards in their own zone. This does not require you
devise any new handlings - those issued as part of the new Golden Age
of Tech will resolve it. However, where out-tech exists in your area,
it is important that any underlying ethics situation be resolved so
that the newly issued tech handlings can go in. After all, this
concerns the very essence of Keeping Scientology Working.

As a further note, the outnesses listed below were, of course, not
evident in every session! But in sessions with less than 100% standard
results, one or more of the following were always found.

Needless to say, technical results - that is, successes from pcs -
were routinely quite high. However, a technical or organization exec
cannot gauge his performance simply on how "happy" or not is the
preclear. After all, the tech is so powerful that it produces
incredible results even when poorly applied! Standard tech does not
mean one explains away flubs by saying "it came out okay". If one
applies 100% standard tech - no flubs - it always comes out right and
invariably that means results and freed beings. That's why tech
seniors and org execs are interested only in perfect application.
Explaining away flubs because "it came out okay" is really just PR.
That's why all technical personnel and executives must push for 100%
STANDARD application. Only then the results will come as sure as the
sun will rise tomorrow.

It can be done; it must be done; and with our new handlings, it will
be done.

HAVING THE TECHNOLOGY

For years, voluminous actions have been taken on technical lines. This
was coincident with a long-term strategy to get in all ten points of
Keeping Scientology Working. Point one of Keeping Scientology Working
says:

"Having the correct technology."

Therefore, the great majority of such actions centered around the
verification of all technical materials as on-Source. This included
verifying every HCOB, PL and book as totally accurate and taking
actions to bring such into conformance with Source where and if it had
been alter-ised. Additionally, omitted materials were found - Source
materials never issued or which had been erroneously cancelled but
which, in fact, were Source data! Further, plans were instituted and
implemented to bring never-released materials to the public, including
the issuance of all LRH lectures on auditor classification levels as
well as the lecture series from the 1950s that cover LRH's research
into states of OT. This is an ongoing project, but has already
provided all taped lectures for every technical course. It will also
ultimately mean the release of all restorable LRH lectures, as well as
transcriptions of every LRH lecture ever, including those which have
so degenerated in sound quality they cannot be released on tape.

Finally, massive efforts have gone into producing technical films to
give all orgs a standard of technical application to be emulated. In
other words, the tech films show visually the way auditing should look
so a student auditor can learn the right way to do it just by viewing
the films. That was LRH's intention, and that is what they achieve.

In summary, the majority of efforts over the past several years to
publish and release on-Source materials has concentrated on the first
point of Keeping Scientology Working. And so much progress had been
made on this point (factually, more than in the entire history of
Scientology), the target of our present investigation was on
APPLICATION.

So now let's look at what led to our discoveries.

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION

Hundreds upon hundreds of actual sessions were reviewed to find the
most common difficulties auditors were having.

On this point, the most prevalent outnesses were an omission of basics
- specifically TRs and metering. Without TRs, one can't get a pc in
session (per definition) and without an ability to use an E-Meter or
make one read (which itself goes back to out-TRs), one can't obtain
results. LRH describes TRs and the relationship to the comm cycle.
After all, the definition of in-session is:

"Pc interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor."

Lack of perfect TRs was found to be preventing sessions from getting
started. That is, the session would begin, there would be no F/N, the
auditor would try to fly the ruds, proceed to get no reads; he would
then pullout a correction list and still get no reads and so it went.
And why was he getting no reads? Because, his TRs were so poor he
wasn't impinging on the pc's case.

Thus, our first target of address as regards improving application was
the subject of TRs.

Rather than requiring any "bright" or "special" solution, we simply
did what LRH said and ran a TR course standardly. What we found was
that auditors whose TRs were out had not, in fact, done real TRs, but
had in some way quickied their TR Course. We found everything from
having not done the various Clay Table processing steps (a vital step
and major LRH breakthrough on getting in TRs) because they "didn't
need it", to the silliness of only doing TRs to a "win". Factually,
there is an exact and precise way to get in TRs and that is to DO the
entire course in full, without additive or variation. There is also an
exact and precise standard for TRs and that is PERFECTION.

By running a TR course exactly in accordance with the technical
training film, TR Instruction Film Number 4, TR 0 - 4 we started
making auditors with perfect TRs. As a note, all delays were found to
trace back to an alter-is of the Professional TR Course tech. When
these arbitraries were removed, people made it through the TR course
uniformly and reached the EP.

Once this TR handling was completed, a great advance in auditing
occurred. Sessions actually started!

And so began the next phase of our investigation. Assuming we had an
auditor with good TRs, the most frequent error found was auditor
inability to obtain the full end phenomena of a process. That is, the
auditor could not take a process to a full F/N, cog and VGIs. Even
more fundamental, however, auditors demonstrated an inability to clean
up bypassed charge, as in handling rudiments and correction lists.

Typically when this session outness was observed, the scenario went
like this:

Start of session. No F/N. Check a rud. It reads. Run the rud
standardly, going earlier-similar when needed and so forth. At a
certain point, the pc would say, "That's all there is to it." However,
there was no F/N on the meter! The auditor would check for an
"earlier-similar" incident or whether there was "anything else to the
previous incident run." The pc would then assert that that was all and
yet, there was still no F/N. It was at this precise point that
auditors bogged.

Some auditors would simply badger the pc and ask the same question
again. And again the pc would say "nothing there" and even the meter
would show no read. In extreme circumstances the pc would get upset
and make quite clear (and quite forcefully) that there was "nothing
there!" And auditors, not knowing what was really happening would then
check for missed withhold! Of course, one does check "missed withhold"
on nattery pcs, but that isn't what they had. They had a pc who said
there was nothing there (in response to their auditor's question) and
the meter even confirmed the pc's answer! The pc was justifiably
upset. His answers weren't being accepted and so went the session.
After all, in-session is defined as "Pc interested in own case and
willing to talk to the auditor." And pcs in this instance were no
longer willing to talk to their auditor.

Amazingly, in some instances we even located auditors calling an F/N
because the pc said, "I'm F/Ning." And yet there it was, his tone arm
at 5.2 and the needle stuck on the dial!

Variations of the above example were found at practically every level
of auditing.

As for the indication of an F/N when there wasn't one, the apparency
was the auditor didn't believe his meter, and upon further examination
this was found to be the case. That was a big out-point. After all, an
F/N must be evident as an EP - a fact so basic it is even covered in
the Auditor's Code! Indeed, it was the pulling of this string (on how
an auditor could come to the point of calling a floating needle when
there wasn't one) that ultimately led to the discovery of our Whys.
That's not hard to understand. Not getting an EP and yet indicating
such with a "Your needle is floating" is an abandonment of everything
having to do with auditing.

This situation was addressed immediately.

Auditors were made to study basic HCOBs on what occurs in the bank
when an auditor runs a process and how and why a floating needle
relates to this. A practical demonstration was even developed to bring
home the reality of this situation:

The offending auditor was made to take the role of the "preclear". He
was then told the process was being started on him. To signify what
happens in a session when one checks the command of a process for a
read and then begins running the process, restimulating the bank and
bringing mass in on the pc, a ten pound sandbag was placed on the
"preclear's" lap. This sandbag represented the pc' s bank. That is,
when a process is run, one keys in or restimulates the bank. By
running the process, one handles it to a blow or erasure. But instead
of "running the process to EP" and thus "blowing or erasing that part
of the bank", an "F/N" was indicated even though none had really
occurred. How did we demonstrate it didn't occur? We kept the sandbag
on top of the "preclear" to show that the bank was still restimulated
and that just because an indication of "Your needle is floating" was
given, the fact of that indication did not make it so nor did it
result in the sandbag "blowing". This was to demonstrate to the
auditor that if he indicates an F/N on an un-F/Ning process he has, in
effect, left that part of the bank sitting on top of his preclear. So,
the ten pound sandbag was left in place while another "process" was
started, and another ten pound sandbag placed on the "preclear".
Another "F/N" was indicated, which did not really occur. And so, that
second sandbag was left in place. After five or six such "F/N"
indications and five or six sandbags sitting on the "preclear"
(representing restimulated but unhandled portions of his case), it
dawned on the auditor what happens to the preclear when a process is
begun but then not taken to a genuine F/N, cognition and VGIs. It's
not just "not good". It brings the pc's bank in and leaves him
floundering in it! And that's what falsely called F/Ns really are!
(And it's also why the correct phrase for such is not "false F/Ns"
but, "Suppressive Act"!)

Of course, the offending auditors were further crammed on the subject
of floating needles. Their misunderstoods on floating needles were
cleared up. They studied all references on what a floating needle is,
how it applies to auditing and what it indicates. Then they were made
to clearly demonstrate what an F/N really is. (As a note, some
auditors claimed "they had a misunderstood on what a floating needle
looked like" and they "thought it could just be a swing to the right".
In every such instance sec checking revealed they did not really
believe this, but at best had "convinced themselves of it" to justify
their overt. Not one instance of an auditor calling a false F/N was
found to be the result of misduplication on what a floating needle
looked like. Rather, while misunderstoods were found on the subject of
F/Ns, every auditor who called one falsely was found to have done so
knowingly.)

And this brought us to the last point of handling these "false F/Ns",
and it is a key point indeed: We put in ethics. As LRH says, the
purpose of ethics is to make it possible for tech to go in. In this
case, the word was laid down with a branding iron that under no
circumstances - no matter how "desperate" or seemingly "hopeless" the
situation - were auditors to call F/Ns that weren't in full view, even
if they were "positive" their meter was broken and it "should be
there!" NO EXCEPTIONS.

So, what was the result of these handlings?

They gave us auditors who knew what a floating needle was, who knew
the importance of such, and knew that a process was to be taken to
real EP every time. These handlings also gave us auditors who knew
that ethics or justice proceedings would ensue from any false report.
And so, we did achieve the total resolution of auditors falsely
calling floating needles.

However, what next happened was the biggest surprise of all, and it's
what ultimately led to the handlings you see today!

Instead of auditors taking processes to total EP with floating needles
- real ones - in many instances, sessions ended without F/Ns and even
red tags. Sure, no false F/Ns were called, but then real ones weren't
there to be called either. In other words, addressing the subject of
floating needles did not bring about the resolution of this situation.
Rather, it disclosed the fact that:

WHERE AUDITORS HAD BEEN MISCALLING F/Ns, THE UNDERLYING SITUATION WAS
THEIR INABILITY TO GET ONE!

Auditors did not know what actions to take to clean a meter read to
F/N. Once the auditor got an instant read on a process, on a rudiment
question or prepared list item, he did not know what to do to produce
an F/N on the meter, which is, as we know, the verification that the
charge on the process or question is "clean."

We found auditors unable to handle session situations where the pc had
no more to say about a question, or could not find an earlier-similar
incident, yet the needle was not F/Ning. The auditor rapidly ran out
of tech to apply to these situations and so found himself at an
impasse.

In other words, while we'd ended ANY attempt to just rabbit and either
call a "false F/N" or simply quit, we now had auditors who would
persist. But where those auditors previously were not getting F/Ns -
some still couldn't. And -  every time such an outness was observed it
was not on some advanced auditing procedure or rundown, but on
rudiments or any other BPC handling such as correction lists or
Confessionals.

Confronted with this situation, auditors began searching through their
HCOB volumes for a description of the problems they were encountering
in session, looking up bulletins on flying rudiments or on the process
that bogged. Yet, that wasn't even the right place to look. The
answers had already been covered in materials they had studied and
drilled over and over. They just didn't know it.

In essence, the auditor was not using his basic tech on the E-Meter,
all of which would have allowed him to ask questions until he did get
a read and so then know what to do to resolve the situation to F/N.
AND THE PLACE ALL OF THIS IS COVERED IS IN THE BASIC E-METER DRILLS!

For example, an auditor was going earlier-similar on a prepared list
question and didn't get an F/N despite checking various buttons. The
auditor had not been noting meter reads occurring in the session and
thus was now at an "impasse" because he had no read to direct the pc's
attention to. If he really knew his E-Meter Drill 14, "Needle Motion
and No Motion Recognition," cold he would have been noting reads and
would have known that fifteen minutes earlier the pc had BD'd on a
terminal associated with the chain. Instead, lack of a full command of
E-Meter Drill basics, the auditor didn't know what to do, because
there was "nothing to run", and ended the session!

To give an analogy, if an auditor is running a process and the
preclear comments on something outside the window of the auditing
room, the auditor would repeat the auditing question, using TR 3, and
carry on with the process. In any process or any type of auditing, the
auditor is expected to use his TRs. The many different HCOBs which
give process commands do not remind the auditor to use all TRs to run
the process. But every auditor knows that TRs apply to the whole of
auditing.

Observation of actual sessions, when they would reach an apparent
"impasse", revealed auditors' use of the meter was practically
nonexistent in session. The understanding they lacked was this:

E-METER DRILLS ARE EVERY BIT AS APPLICABLE TO AUDITING AS ARE TR
DRILLS.

Together, TRs and metering are the basic skills an auditor uses.

If an auditor failed to acknowledge his pc in session, he would not
think it unusual for the C/S to say, "Your TR 2 is out" and order him
corrected. Nor would the auditor go to the bulletin which contained
the process he just ran to see if it specifically covered the datum of
"acknowledging the pc". Auditors know that TRs apply to any process.

It is the same with the E-Meter. Although not all process bulletins
say to "ensure the command read with an instant read" (Reference:
E-Meter Drill 19, INSTANT READS) or to "mark any blowdowns of the tone
arm" (Reference: E-Meter Drill 10, TONE ARM BLOWDOWNS), the auditor is
expected to apply all meter drills to each session just as he is
expected to apply the TRs! Yet, auditors were found in practice to
only note down instant reads at the end of questions, and F/Ns at the
end of processes. That is like an auditor using TR 1 in a session but
not applying OT TR 0, TR 0, TR 0 Bullbait, TR 2, TR 2 1/2, TR 3 or
TR4!

In summary, we found auditors had done E-Meter drills as if they were
an expanded "reach and withdraw on the meter", teaching one how to
operate the meter as a piece of MEST (i.e., how to turn its knobs and
so forth). Yet they did not do those drills for total application in
session! And this was a significant breakthrough.

The first step was to assign auditors to redo meter drills. But this
did not fully resolve their problems. Why? Because to use a meter
properly, one must understand it, not just as a piece of MEST, but
what it is saying when its needle reacts or its tone arm moves. That
is, a specific meter reaction indicates to the auditor what is
happening to the pc which, in turn, tells him what to do. And that's
what it means to learn metering.

After all, what is the meter for? The answer to that is, "The meter
tells you what the pc's mind is doing when the pc is made to think of
something." (Reference: E-Meter Essentials).

But to make the pc think of something, the auditor must ask a
question. And for the auditor to know what question to ask, he must
know what is happening with the pc-how these phenomena reflect on the
meter as needle actions and changes of the tone arm. Without such
understanding, how can he know what question to ask?

This understanding is gained by thorough study and duplication of the
LRH books on the E-Meter, where all fundamentals of the meter and its
operation are delineated. Yet, just as we discovered E-Meter drills
had not been done for application to session, we found auditors had
not read these basic books for session application. In fact, it was
the failure to fully understand these fundamentals as applicable to
all levels of auditing in every auditing session, that underlay
auditors' failure to fully master E-Meter drills.

For instance, of many auditors checked, only one could answer a basic
question such as:

"Why does the Tone Arm stop moving and stick?"

Yet an auditor would certainly have to know that datum since it is
something which could occur in any session. It's data the auditor must
know instantaneously so he can give the next correct auditing command.
And the answer is right in E-Meter Essentials:

"The Tone Arm stops moving and sticks because the process has dragged
in a picture, chain or mass upon the pc that the command as-ises only
part of."

Thus, an undercut to the E-Meter drills was to bring auditors to a
full understanding of the fundamentals of the meter. They were
required to learn its operation and what it is telling the auditor,
every second of the session, about the pc, his response to the process
being run, and the session itself. And learn it they did. Indeed, they
learned Understanding the E-Meter and E-Meter Essentials to
perfection.

Then they were made to clay demo how each meter drill applies in an
auditing session.

Now, with increased understanding of what the meter is doing and what
it is saying, as well as a full grasp of why they use a meter and how
the E-Meter drills applied to a session, they were newly put through
the meter drills.

The result? Dramatic improvement in their auditing resulted!

So, these auditors could now do TRs perfectly. They understood the
meter and could operate it perfectly. And these two skills, TRs and
metering, are the fundamentals of auditing.

But there was one final step.

Even with all these points handled, and even while great improvements
had been made, some auditors were found to still have difficulties on
various auditing actions and session situations. And, of course, we
were looking for the answer which would open the door to every auditor
delivering a perfect session every time!

Despite having their TRs in and metering perfect, auditors still ran
into session situations where they did not know what to do. Yes -
their TRs were in and they could get reads on questions and
assessments. But still they would sometimes reach an apparent
"impasse" in session. The pc would say, "That's all", but there was no
F/N. "Bypassed F/N" didn't read. Rehabs wouldn't resolve it.

As a result, there were a few auditors who still thought their meter
was "wrong" or broken, since "it must be F/Ning", "the pc is smiling"!

LRH wrote in HCOB 23 May 62, E-METER READS, PREPCHECKING, HOW METERS
GET INVALIDATED:

"Meters work. They work every time. Only auditors fail by failing to
use the meter reactions to guide a session. Only the auditing question
or the auditor's inability to read can be wrong."

And so - the answer is obvious. We had brought the auditor up to
perfection on ability to read a meter. Thus, it became clear that the
outness lay in the auditor's inability to ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION!

To further clarify, investigation found auditors lacked the total
command of tech necessary to always know the exact right command or
question to ask next! And so they had abandoned the use of the meter
to FULLY  guide the session since they didn't know the questions to
ask to get reads which would thus guide the session!