ON THE PURITY OF TECH by David Mayo

(Written in late 1983)

In the open letter that I wrote in July of this year, I mentioned my concern for the purity and standardness of the tech, and for what appears to be a corruption of the tech. I thought I’d amplify on that with some fairly recent examples.

Over the years from 1978 on up to PT [1983] there have been some changes in the grade chart. These started with the announcement of people going Clear on NED, and the subject of Dianetic Clear. After the wave of attests I began to notice what might be called simply false attest; large numbers of people were being sent to attest to Clear who hadn’t in fact made Clear. Unfortunately, some of these people went on to the OT levels and had a hard time, indeed.

This brings us to the purpose of auditing. The purpose of auditing isn’t so that one can get a piece of paper, obviously, and it isn’t so that one can have different numbers assigned to one. The purpose of auditing is to make gains in life and livingness, and to attain what we could call theta abilities. In short, to increase abilities.

Over the years there have been several times when the real purpose of auditing has been set aside, and we’ve had what is called a “quickie era”. Each time that has happened, it has resulted in people’s reaching a higher level on the grade chart than what they have actually attained as a being, and invariably there have been a large number of people dissatisfied about lack of result. This is disastrous, both because the person has been cheated out of the gains he should have made, and because he is then a poor example to others.

Since approximately 1970, there have been various waves of Clear attest; some were valid, and some were not. There was an HCOB in which the subject of Natural Clear was first introduced, and although that issue said that they were very, very rare, within a few months literally hundreds of people attested to it. It would not matter at all to me if each of these were a natural clear. What does matter that if these people came to get auditing to handle the reactive mind, and someone then mislead them into thinking they were a natural clear, they would then skip the processes  that would have handled the things they needed handled.

This makes the entire subject appear to be without real value, to others, because they look at somebody suddenly attesting to this and that, and the next thing you know he’s called “an OT 3”. It can be quite a bad example if the person does not in fact have the abilities he should have.

Quickies occurred in the late 60’s and early 70’s. On 21 June 1970, in an HCOB called Superficial Actions, LRH stated that there is a point where speed is simply a cover for a cheap, worthless product, and he goes on to give an example of somebody saying, “Yes, but we sell results. If we can get 200 PC’s done in 100 auditing minutes, we would make 18,233 pounds clear profit.” He goes on in the HCOB to more or less, say “Well, the cruel answer to that was when orgs began to do that on lower grades they didn’t attain the result on the PC and stats went down. Quickie grades, instead of making fortunes for one and all, crashed the whole Scientology network, because quickie results are lazy and dishonest. Let’s just face up to the fact of life: selling out the integrity of the subject for a buck wrecks the subject”.

Now there is an SO ED #2379 International, dated November, 1983, which was not written by Ron, it was written by Services Exec International and Senior C/S International. It states that, “At the lower levels on the Bridge, introductory services, the routes on to the Bridge, grades 0-4, NED, right up to Clear, the route is very very fast, and looking at the chart you can see that the distance from the first service up to Clear is a short one too”. This issue is entitled “Questions and Answers on the New Grade Chart”.

Another issue, dated 2 Oct. 83, states that in the instance where a person has started OT 1, yet has not attained the lower levels, (called a bypassed case), the person could be put back on some lower action that was not honestly attained after he finished OT 3. It says it is very important that the person gets this actions, but at the same time we have this “Questions and Answers on the New Grade Chart” that says it’s very very quick. I feel that this heralds another era, with compromises of technical integrity.

All too often we have seen people who are OT 3 or OT 7 in name only, and I feel that we should put an end to that sort of thing.

I’m sure you all know that things can be changed by shifting definitions of words. There is an HCOB of 23 Oct. 1983, which says “The auditor technically is not interested in CONFIDENCES OR OVERTS AGAINST GROUP”S ENEMIES OR WITHHOLDS THEREOF. He’s looking for overts against a group, as above, and the withholding of having committed them, by omit or commit”. This is quite important as far as the maintaining of the purity and standardness of the tech is concerned. That HCOB is purportedly written by LRH, but LRH said, in the Technical Dictionary, there are three definitions for an overt: 1) an overt act is not just an injuring someone or something. An overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics.  2) an intentionally committed harmful act in an effort to resolve a problem. 3) That thing which you do which you aren’t willing to have happen to you.

This recent HCOB shifts the definition of a “real overt” to something contrary to the mores of the group. The statement that “The auditor technically is not interested in confidence or overts against a group’s enemies or withholds thereof” I feel is a very serious point of technical integrity. It will affect the case gain of PC’s generally because if people don’t get off harmful acts, they won’t feel the relief and betterment from having confessed them. The door is open here to give license to people to commit harmful actions, provided that they are considered all right by the person’s associates. Historically and philosophically there are a tremendous number of precedents for this. Every major war of a religious or holly nature has always been justified by the idea that it was okay to do harmful things to other people if they weren’t part of your group. This sounds like a re-introduction to the old “Fair Game Law”. Is it really an LRH issue?

Strictly on the basis of decency and honesty, and on the basis that a thetan is basically good, this shift in definition is one to be abhorred, not upheld.

As a final note, I urge you to maintain the purity of our religion and its doctrines and technology as it was originally written by Ron so that we can continue to set people free and not get involved in entrapment. That is part of the reason I am here, and doing what I am doing.

Thank you

David Mayo 

Source: The journal of AAC vol 1 No 2, March 1984

  • Добавить ВКонтакте заметку об этой странице
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LiveJournal
  • В закладки Google
  • StumbleUpon
  • email
  • PDF
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Trackback are closed
  • Comments (4)
    • Bill Franks
    • June 18th, 2012

    He is the best this “technology” ever had. Present situation should be liquidated by a court appointed conservator with special attention to the 2-3 billion that Miscavage is currently sitting on. Mayo should be placed in charge of salvaging anything worthwhile of the “technology while given a generous per diem to work with. The word Scientlogy should be sold off along with all of the other assets and buildings and the $ distributed at the discretion of the above mentioned conservator. (a suggestion for the super duper power building) might be to donate it to clearwater as a ymca/ywca, or whatever, to help make up the terrible injustices done to that town over the last 37 years. bill franks 

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

    • jim wolery
    • March 30th, 2013

    Hey Bill, not sure if you remember me- did some special recovery actions for you and Jeanie at LAO, then part of the infamous Msn Holders meeting at Flag- worked for ACW at Sac Mission, later had 5 Msns in the mid-west. Just wanted to say Hi!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • Tony DePhillips
    • March 31st, 2013

    Hi MR. Mayo,
    I was in the cult for over 30 years and am now an “SP”.
    I made it onto Solo Nots for six years.
    I read your story and thank you for the actions that you took in the early 80’s.
    You are a hero to me and I thank you for your valliant service.

    We have a nice group here in the pacific northwest, we would love to host you if you ever wanted to come to our area and give a talk.
    With much respect,
    Tony

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    • Sofía Krysny
    • June 26th, 2013

    Hi Mr. Mayo,
    I met you around 1980-81 in LA when you were giving the WTHRD tech.
    Do you have a group in PT?
    Best regards,
    Sofia
     
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0