The author main argument is the silly notion that adhering to best practice or keeping proven and accepted standards puts a glass ceiling on Scientology when it does the exact opposite. There are millions of ways to apply the incredible vast array of technology (all of them actually following the tenets of Standard Tech), many generally never conceived by most Independents ,and especially the New Order within the Church itself.
There is an odd concept rampant in the Freezone that if one fails to get the results in spite of never having been properly trained in the first place or being quicky-trained, typically with missing materials, that the poor results one is getting are entirely to blame on the technology and fundamental flaws within it, never on its poor and inexpert application.
If a bridge collapses, do Engineers start challenging the laws laid down by Newton over 300 years ago, or do they look for a misapplication of Enginnering principles or a failure to follow what is recognized as best practice?
If I have spent in excess of 40,000 hours auditing some 5000 cases, I have spent about 20,000 additional hours doing Folder Errors summaries on another 5000 cases. This makes 10,000 cases in Scientology that I have studied,spanning 5 decades. This is very significantly more than the few hundred hours that make some people feel the top experts in the field. I feel quite certain that I have seen by now just about every possible error, squirelling and approach that could be done to address a case. Therefore I know from experience alone what works and does not. I know from mere observation what make people go insane and suffer nervous breakdowns or worse, because I have been called all too often to fix the messes both in the Church and in the Independent Field.
A long and verbose argument has been made by an Independent that people be allowed to philosophize”. There is nothing wrong with people thinking on their own. Scientology is well known to have manufactured more than its share of robots.
But somehow few people among the Leading Independents seem to be able to grasp the concept that it is possible to think freely and yet to adhere to a strict discipline and followed proven and accepted principles. NASA would have never sent a Man on the Moon, or bring back safely on Earth the Astronauts of Apollo 13 if they had not done that.
I keep repeating to people: Contrarily to some of my peers and co-workers, I NEVER ONCE followed technical directives solely because “LRH said so”, but only because it made sense and I could integrate the data within the vast array of knowledge I already possessed. This is largely why I became and remained Flag star Auditor for over a decade: I never sold out my Integrity, no matter what were the pressure or the threats. Nobody ever forced me to think one way or another. I did things because I honestly felt it was the best thing to do.
Therefore I have no reverse pendulum swing to follow and have no need to execute a 360 degree since I was never affected by the obtuseness of tunnel vision or fanaticism.
Invoking Freedom to think as an excuse for exploring blind alleys at the expense of proven achievable results,with the preclear paying for it at the cost of his own sanity, appears to me to be a particularly specious argument.
When an auditor is applying the tech, he is not merely theorizing about the Universe, but applying precise technology that has proven to make people potentially worse when it is misapplied. When you invalidate the strict adherence to a standard by mislabelling an Dogmatism or a prohibition from “Philosophizing”, Quality Control (Cramming) Required Specifications (Case Supervision) end up in the trash heap. When Laws and Standards are discarded Anarchy and Self-proclaimed Gurus rule.
There are hundreds of scholars or people of substantial education that view LRH as luminary in the field of the Mind.
Does any of those Independents actually think they can research and produce better, before they can satisfactorily learn they could do it right in the first place? Do they actually think that a hundred years hence their names will stand in bold letters above LRH own?
LRH repeatedly sought to compare the application of the technology of Dianetics and Scientology to the practice of Engineering.
It appears that few of the Leading Independents have a good grasp about how one goes about applying Engineering and the responsibilities connected with an activity proven to make things worse (or potentially fatal) when it is wrongly done.
What about the concepts of “Best Practice” “Duty of Care” “adhering to Proven Standards” or “Doing what has been proven to work”
There is a world of difference between blindly following Dogma and adhering to methods that thousands of hours of experience have shown to work.
Consider the Ethical implications of treating prospective public like guinea pigs to be experimented on, all too often without their explicit consent.
In the Information Technology World there is a saying about “not re-inventing the wheel” when proven solutions are known to already exist.
Why do so many seem unable to grasp the above simple truths?
My experience with “wheels re-inventors” is that all too often their wheel looks more like a triangle or won’t even spin.