From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 6 - May 1992

Technical Evolution - 2
By O.J. Roos, Holland

Mike Wray's (Article "Technical Evolution", see IVy 4, page 3. Ed.)
article could be summarized as auditing the case in front of you. This
is very standard indeed!

I was very happy to read the above article; over the years there has
been considerable negative publicity about the subject of "standard

Yet, on the old Flag VIII Course in September 1968 where LRH sort of
officially -adopted- the word standard, he used a handful of
dictionaries in order to arrive at a precise definition, which he -
did!- He gave us an exact wording which possibly might be improved
upon, but which was very workable all the same.

Mike Wray's article gives some very good examples of what was -sold-
as "standard tech". This does not mean to say that it actually -was-
standard. With "standard" I mean here an application of the technology
in exact meaning as it was given in the definition.

In many cases there has been quite a difference between the wording,
the original intention, the definition and the actual application. By
not differentiating between the two, the word "standard tech"
gradually acquired some very negative connotations.

This got worse when on Flag itself the standard became violated by the
introduction of "quicky grades", which already started on that same
first Class VIII course, to what finally became a regime of ruthless
oppression in the name of "ethics", allegedly to "safeguard" the

Throwing away either this standard or ethics, because of what their
use had been turned into (especially when done by the very top
itself), can be compared to the proverbial baby and the bath water.

The -Mis-application

I have received many comms over the years on this subject. Didn't I
think that standard tech and this ethics just "didn't work", "were
suppressive", etc., etc? My answers have never been affirmative. It
never was either the standard or the ethics, as it was originally
intended and stated in the early days, which were out but it was in
their -mis-application that the error lay.

The items given in the Mike Wray article under the heading "Standard
Actions" were -not- standard, regardless of who called them so. Even
the old man himself initially called what became known as "quickies"
standard. I was there on Flag in the very course room when he did it.
But even -his- say so did not make -out tech- into the standard as per
the original definition. LRH himself also changed and became -more-
standard, at least in the 70's.

Standard is auditing the case in front of you and not another imagined
case. None of the examples in the Wray article fall under the heading
of "standard", regardless of who said that they did! The fact that a
C/S decided something was standard still didn't necessarily -make- it

The more advanced training from Class X on up, when it was still being
conducted by LRH himself, -was- dedicated to this thing called
"standard". Even then, this still does not say that these auditors
became completely faultless (the unattainability of absolutes), but
they certainly, at least in the early 70's under LRH himself as C/S
and supervisor, did discover and become very proficient in the use of
that same -standard-.

This had very little to do with rote commands, not needed "standard"
grade actions, objectives or what have you, but had everything to do
with a near total command and -application- of -basics-, like Codes,
TR's & metering! In fact, the very exact procedures of the L's X to
XII just couldn't even be run in any other way.

That very same precision was, at least by these same advanced Flag
Auditors, applied in whatever other lower graded procedures they ran.
"Rote" would be the very last word could be used to describe this
auditing. Understanding and handling the case in front of one
summarizes it!

Wrongful Use

That the Out Tech Mike mentions happened virtually as a matter of SOP,
is unfortunately very true. He hit the nail right on the head! But all
that, has very little bearing on the standardness of -the Tech itself-
, as defined in the old Flag Class VIII Course, but only on its
wrongful use.

Life Repairs and Standard Basics

It is fun to read wins Mike has had in his Life Repairs, etc. He
obviously, at least judging by the results he mentions, must have a
good grasp, and make a good use of .... the -standard basics- of the

"Professional" Opinions

Many of the things he writes he does -are- standard. Very much so.
Hence his wins! His in depth D/P Interviews are very much IN Tech -and
standard- (getting data to audit the case in front of you ... etc.).
Giving pc's a professional opinion of what is charged and what areas
need to be addressed is something I omit. Via the meter and pc
interest the pc concerned has already given the charged areas in need
of handling without the eval of another's opinion, regardless of how
"professional" this opinion is. Mike avoids the mistake of rote
procedures. This only means that to a large extent he -is- a standard
auditor in the tech. sense of the word.

Under LRH's Supervision

I have spent a number of years under LRH's direct supervision (and he
was not an easy boss, -nor himself always standard in practice!-)
working at and supervising getting the Tech applied standardly all the
way from the first Comm Course on up to XII C/Sing.

Despite all the things which have happened with/to/about/in the name
of this Tech, and the later misuse of Ethics, I have never changed my
mind about their validity or workability when applied according to
their basic standard rules, nor did or do I intend to Q&A with their

Not Knowing Being Standard?

There are a lot of good auditors (out there) who are standard but who
possibly don't know it after having heard the word itself being
slandered to the extent it has been.