Part XIII:Application of Technology

Methods of Scientology Application - Standard Tech

In Scientology auditing, there are set ways of applying the technology to everyone. There is, as Hubbard stated on Class VIII tape No. 2, "the accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and OT, the exact method of organizing them, an exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors made on that route". It is assumed that if one adheres to this standard application, they will achieve standard results with all cases. In other words, if one does THIS (standard application), then THAT (standard results) will occur. This procedure, as well as its tacit outcome, are what are known in Scientology as "standard tech". The term, standard tech, not only refers to the activity, but also the purpose and the hypothesized results of that activity.

This activity or application, as well as the promotion of its purpose and assumed results are extremely workable and beneficial for those who deliver Scientology technology. However, the benefits and workability of this application is very limited for those receiving the auditing. The limitation stems from the idea that Scientology's standard application will produce 100% standard results. This may be a nice idea, but it is completely unworkable, as people are not standard.

No two people view life or similar experiences from the same point of view. No two people respond in the same way to particular circumstances. People are each different and unique. Their viewpoints and responses are also different and unique. Yet in Scientology, it is professed that if one applies a rote auditing process in an identical manner, then all recipients of that process will accomplish the same results. It would only take a little observation by a rational person to see that this idea is not workable.

Standard application can be promoted, learned, enforced, and performed. The idea that standard results will be accomplished by this application is a complete fallacy. Scientology auditing, at its best, is only a "shotgun" technique. By firing enough figurative shot at a client, one is bound to hit that client where they live once in a while. In other words, if an auditor runs enough processes on someone, in time a particular question will get close enough to the mark to produce results. Such a procedure is workable, even though its workability is awfully limited. The following example will demonstrate the above statements:

Joe buys 50 hours of auditing. The case supervisor writes a program for Joe's bridge auditing. Joe goes along in his sessions without much happening. Then, 10 hours into the first intensive while being audited on Grade 0, Joe has an incredible result on a particular process, and gets a dial-wide F/N. That same auditor, running the same process and sequence of proceeding processes in the same way on a different person, would not necessarily achieve the same or even a similar result as Joe had gotten. Maybe, the results that Joe accomplished were not as stated in the end phenomena of Grade 0. In order to keep a semblance of standard results, the case supervisor may have Joe attest to some other EP, such as "Clear-OT".

There is no predictability regarding results other than this: if a person keeps auditing, they will probably, in time, get something done. I am not saying that people don't get results in auditing. I'm just clarifying what actually occurs in Scientology auditing when people do get results.

Wants-Handled Auditing

The majority of Scientology auditing is done according to a preconceived agenda of progressing levels. However, there are sections of the auditing that are done according to an individual's interest, or what the person wants to handle. Generally, the most substantial gains are made on the "wants-handled" types of auditing. Life Repair is a wants-handled action. Even though it's located on the bottom of the bridge, many people who have completed the entire bridge have stated that they got more gains from Life Repair than they had received from doing any other level of auditing.

During the years we delivered Book One Dianetics, I was amazed by how may Scientologists wanted to co-audit this form of processing because it addressed only what they wanted to handle. In some cases, even people who were Clear went so far as "unattesting" from that state in order to receive Book One auditing (Reference: Part 8 of The New Regime Takeover series).

Hubbard, even after he had a bridge laid out through OT 7, recognized the effectiveness of wants-handled auditing. Whereas Life Repair was limited to the auditing processes of Grades 0 through 4, LRH allowed a more expansive life repair where a case supervisor was free to utilize any process on the entire bridge to address what the person wanted to handle. But the only place in the world where people were allowed to deliver this style of auditing was at Flag. It was called the "Flag Case Completion Intensive". This is where the term FCCI, referring to a Flag auditing client came from. Limiting its delivery to only Flag wasn't because the case supervisors and auditors in the other orgs were not as capable as the Flag technical staff. Flag's ability to get results the other orgs couldn't added to the mystique of Flag as a "Mecca of tech perfection", and allowed them to sell their auditing at outlandish prices.

In summation, by addressing what the client wants to handle rather than working from someone else's preconceived agenda, the individual has a better chance of resolving their major case issues.

Methods of Idenics Application

In Idenics, there is no bridge of services. There is no preconceived agenda of levels to be completed or predetermined end phenomena that one works towards or measures their results against. The only agenda is that of the individual client, and results are determined and judged only by them.

At a superficial glance, the Scientologist will conclude that the only difference in Idenics' application compared to that of Scientology is that we only work on a wants-handled basis in processing. In addition to wants-handling auditing, Scientology auditors also deliver a bridge of gradient auditing levels. The independent or free zone Scientologist will point out that there are many Scientologists outside of the CofS who deliver Flag Case Completion Intensive style auditing on a routine basis. If this were the only difference between the application of Idenics and Scientology, then why, over the past 17 years, have the speedy and high quality results of Idenics clients so significantly surpassed those results of Scientology clients?

Aside from the obvious differences in mechanics (the processes being run and the questions being asked), there are subtle, yet powerful differences between an Idenics practitioner addressing a client's interest and a Scientology auditor's handling of what a client wants to handle. Furthermore, behind these above differences is a disparity in basic philosophy.