{"id":3988,"date":"2024-01-16T06:17:38","date_gmt":"2024-01-16T11:17:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/makingripples.com\/?p=3988"},"modified":"2024-01-16T06:17:38","modified_gmt":"2024-01-16T11:17:38","slug":"an-important-lesson-for-srt-students-from-paul-adams","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/?p=3988","title":{"rendered":"An Important Lesson For SRT Students from Paul\u00a0Adams"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Paul Adams was a long-time Scientologist and a well-loved Ex-Scientologist who helped a lot of people recover from Scientology. Paul’s true value was not his Scientology work, but his kind heart, his desire to help people, his wit, his friendship, and his goodness as a human being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Paul Adams<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I corresponded with Paul when I was first developing Spiritual Rescue Technology and I admired his light-hearted approach to spiritual research and his views on authoritarian spiritual doctrine. I have tried to avoid the pitfalls he describes in this delightful essay, \u201cSquirrel Tech and Standard Tech\u201d which follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

STANDARD TECH (HOORAY!) AND SQUIRREL TECH (BOO HISS)<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Everybody knows Standard Tech (\u2013Hooray!) is good and Squirrel Tech (\u2013boo hiss) is bad. Right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Everyone who considers himself a Scientologist wants to be associated with Standard Tech (\u2013Hooray!) as it is good for one\u2019s repute and good for business. I mean, look at all those Hubbard quotes that litter such people\u2019s writings. A Hubbard quote gets instant agreement with that audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So you would think Standard Tech (\u2013Hooray!) \u2014 SHUT UP! \u2014 is easy to define. Well, let\u2019s see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hubbard gave many definitions. I don\u2019t want you to think I\u2019m just cherry-picking some that support my point of view and ignore others more prominent that refute it. There are five definitions in the Tech Dictionary. A typical one there is<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70).<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Sounds great, doesn\u2019t it? But WTF does it mean? What exactly are the rules of processing? Everything in the Tech Volumes and 3000 lectures? \u2013No, no, one might say, don\u2019t be an idiot! There are just a few core basics, like the axioms, the auditors code, auditor plus pc is greater than the bank, things like that. Is there a list anywhere? \u2013Oh no, you have to do the Class VIII course in order to know them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Class VIII Course was developed in 1968. Its product per the pack is \u201cA zealot for Standard Tech.\u201d I used to supervise the Class VIII Course at Saint Hill in the early 80s. Anyway, let\u2019s go to the Class VIII course, thanks to the magic of Wikileaks, and toss off some quotes from there. Here are a couple I think are pretty typical:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    You say, \u201cYes, but this PC could sit there for a month without any auditing.\u201d It\u2019s god damn well better he did. If there\u2019re two people who have entirely different opinions on what ought to be done with this case, then either one or the other of those two different people do not know standard tech, because if they knew standard tech they would not have any divergence of opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Standard tech isn\u2019t what I say it is. It\u2019s what works. And what works has already been established. So it isn\u2019t for me to say it\u2019s different. And it isn\u2019t for anybody else to say it\u2019s different either, because we fought for it, and we won it the hard way. Now let\u2019s consolidate it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It sounds fine when put like that. I\u2019ll use my own wording here, in keeping with the above. LRH had it all worked out by this time. And Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1968. Does that sound OK?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2014\u2013<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Here is one of the purposes of the International Freezone Association, a stalwart of Standard Tech:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    IFA Purpose #1: Preserve, protect and promote the exact technology and original workable philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard for future use so it is available for all mankind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That seems to go along with my definition there. Right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2014\u2013<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Let\u2019s zero in on \u201cthe exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH.\u201d At various times over the years Hubbard would say that the technology is all wrapped up. One such time is on this very Class VIII Course. In tape 4 he said, \u201cBut Scientology has a very definite body of technical application, which is the only body of technical application in all of the data of Scientology. There are not two ways to do anything in Scientology. In 1966 this was totally summated.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Oh, OK, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1966, not 1968. I\u2019m sure you see where this is going.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    After 1966 came things like F\/N Everything, Running Quad Flows, Dianetic Clear, NED, NOTs, and so on. Should these be considered as Squirrel Tech (\u2013boo hiss) because Standard Tech was all wrapped up in 1966? \u2013Oh no, of course not, don\u2019t be silly, they\u2019re all Standard Tech (Hooray!) too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    All right, so it\u2019s following his instructions exactly, after 1968 too. But Miscavige has brought out the Golden Age of Gack, saying it all follows Hubbard\u2019s instructions, and yet everyone knows it is Squirrel Tech (\u2013boo hiss). \u2013Yeah, but we use 1982 as a cut-off point, as that is when DM got on the line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I got it now, so Standard Tech would be exactly following his instructions up to 1982 only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2013Yes! Hip Hip\u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Shhh!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    All right. But in 1950 he described all those marvellous attributes of Clear, including eidetic memory and so forth, and no-one knows anyone who got that out of going Clear. And there\u2019s that stuff about \u201cmale clear read\u201d and \u201cfemale clear read\u201d and a genuine F\/N only occurs between TA 2.0 and 3.0, and in Method 4 Word Clearing if you disagree with anything Hubbard said you must have a misunderstood, and. . . . So some of what he wrote is just plain wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2013Yes, but everyone knows how to separate out the good bits from the bad bits. You\u2019re just trying to obfuscate the issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Hmm. So Standard Tech would be exactly following his good instructions (and ignoring the bad) up to 1982 only?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u2013Yes. Right. Hooray!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Now, if you poke around online a bit, you\u2019ll see that Hubbard didn\u2019t originate it all. For example, the Berners developed Study Tech over many years and Hubbard just ripped it off, claimed ownership, and got rid of them fast. And Alan C. Walter developed the first correction list. In these cases, Hubbard just pretended he had originated the tech. There are other similar examples of basic tech developed by others, in distinct contrast to what Hubbard said in KSW about being the sole source.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Similarly, there were HCOBs written by others, supposedly with Hubbard\u2019s approval, which were issued in his name. The old tech volumes showed the actual source of these issues, but the current tech volumes don\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So now Standard Tech has come down to exactly following the good instructions (and ignoring the bad), whoever was the actual source although it was called Hubbard, up to 1982 only.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It\u2019s a long way from \u201cthe exact technology and original workable philosophy of LRH,\u201d isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered \u201cStandard Tech\u201d is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Paul<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    March 20, 2010 Posted by Paul Adams |<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In studying and using Spiritual Rescue Technology, you are free to use or ignore the thousands of observations we have made based on our conversations with spirits. Your results will be best if you continue to make your own observations and confirm anything you read with personal communication with spirits until you gain certainty on what works for you. If you do this, your abilities will grow and your certainty will be unshakeable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There is a memorial thread for Paul on the EXSCN website which will show you how he was remembered by others: https:\/\/exscn2.net\/threads\/rip-paul-adams.1014\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Paul Adams was a long-time Scientologist and a well-loved Ex-Scientologist who helped a lot of people recover from Scientology. Paul’s true value was not his Scientology work, but his kind heart, his desire to help people, his wit, his friendship, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1818],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p3R4iK-12k","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3988"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3988"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3988\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3990,"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3988\/revisions\/3990"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/makingripples.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}