6503C02 SHSpec-53 Technology and Hidden Standards

     "Economics and organizations are a matter of the MEST universe.  Let me
give you a tip:  If someone around you or your organization is having trouble
with organizational matters, you just processed them subjectively too long.
It doesn't matter how long you process them subjectively now.  They are not
going to go anyplace.  The trouble with them is objective.  You want to give
the objective-type processes, not subjective."

     Organizational tech is being formed up into courses for the business
world.  It has taken two to three years to plow this line.  Now that we have a
product to put on the line, it will go like a crash.  Dissemination techniques
have been worked up out of the materials of scientology, which have only to be
written up and issued.

     LRH has found all the points where organizations don't expand and found
what makes them not expand, what contracts them, etc.  You end up with
formulas that you can give to the janitor to apply to his job, and he will
look them over and see that they make sense.  His willingness to work was
jammed by his ignorance of the law that governed that work, under its various
conditions.  All you have to do is to know and use the formulas.  If you apply
them backwards, you shrink and collapse.

     It is no longer a question of our arriving before everything blows up.
We have made all our deadlines.  The questionable period is behind us.
Organization is important to build scientology up to civilization level.  Our
intentions are good, so we will make it.  It is now a foregone conclusion that
we will make it.  As soon as the materials are in your hands, you can't help
but make it.

     In the human race and in the mind, there is a barrier called the hidden
standard.  "When anyone is critical, they are apparently criticizing against a
hidden standard of behavior.  They seldom tell you what ... "  the behavior
should be -- only what it shouldn't be.  Or, if they say what the behavior
should be, it is in antipathetic terms.  There is no definition of a "normal"
person.  [Hence "abnormal" is defined against a hidden standard.]

     The communist ideal would be anonymous.  This is weird.  A person who is
doing a job should make known that he is the one doing it.  If someone isn't
known, he gets no reward.  It is possible to develop odd tests for deciding
what is good or right, e.g.  choosing a doctor for appointment to a hospital
on the basis of his sports career.  "Examination and selection of personnel
gets into trouble continually, for lack of a ... proper standard."  The
hospital blames the medical school for not training good doctors.  But the
hospital is setting up a hidden standard and blaming the school for not
delivering, without saying what they want delivered.  Marriages are made
miserable by the hidden standards that spouses run on each other.  They don't
make clear what they want, when they say that they want a "good spouse".
E.g., the wife says, "You are not an adequate husband."  The husband says, "I
guess I'm not an adequate husband," but the wife's standard remains hidden.
She doesn't describe it to him.  You could handle marital problems
organizationally by finding hidden standards.

     Auditors come up against this often.  "You, as an auditor, have to face
up to PCs who are running a hidden standard on you all the time."  What you
are looking at is not really a standard, but a perverted standard.  It is not
a real standard.  "Nobody's ever acknowledged this standard [and that] holds it apart from the time track."  The auditor should acknowledge the standard, so that it doesn't get parked on the time track.  "The standard is the collection of non-acknowledgments [that the individual has].  If you want to end a cycle of
action, acknowledge.  If you don't want to end a cycle of action, don't
acknowledge."  In auditing, if you don't want to end a cycle, you
half-acknowledge, as a way of keeping someone going.  A full acknowledgment
of a cycle ends it.  Non-acknowledgment keeps it going.  That is why people
tend to get uglier, not prettier.  No one ever says, "My, you look ugly
today!" One reason why a person gets fixed on human bodies is that no one
said, "Oh, I see you are a man, this lifetime!" This datum is very applicable
to registrars, as well as auditors.  "If you acknowledge the person before he
arrives, ... he won't arrive." Nobody will appear for training or processing,
if you acknowledge heavily.  The right way to handle a letter from someone who
announces his intention to come for training or processing is to be courteous
and not too definite.  Give some information, but not solid acknowledgments.

     People generally work towards a beingness.  They don't function so well
just being a post.  This is a question of acknowledgment, which ends cycle on
the post.  "Retirement is an acknowledgment of [a person's] total active
life;" it ends the life.  In many cases, it ends life in any form.  Military
commissions act as an invitation to overthrow one's superiors, because a
commission is not granted by saying, "Thank you for having been a (lower
post).  You now have the right to work toward (commissioned post)."  A
corporal would function much better if, on attaining his new rank, he were to
be congratulated, not on being a corporal, but on having been a private, and
on having attained the right to work towards becoming lance corporal.  If a
person's rank or position is bestowed as an accomplishment, rather than as a
challenge or a becomingness, then the cycle has been ended before it began, by
being prematurely acknowledged.  "The only way a person can get in trouble is
to be George Smith, while he's pretending to be [his post.  There is the post,
which] is a set of beingnesses and lines and actions and policies all by
itself, ... and there's a being, who runs the" set of beingnesses, lines,
actions, and policies which is the hat.  George Smith must not operate as
George Smith, when he is supposed to be being or attaining, say, the post of D
of T.  There is a hat, and then there is a being who runs the hat.  To get a
hat on, you must put it in a category of being in the process of being
attained.  Once it is attained and acknowledged, it ends.

     So, as an auditor, you have to be careful what and how and when you
acknowledge.  If Arthur says that he has had a horrible day at school, LRH
doesn't acknowledge with, "Good!" He would use something more sympathetic and
really acknowledge it, so that it could go onto the backtrack.  You have the
power to put someone's past on the past track and to give them a future.  If
you want to kill them dead, acknowledge everything with a crash.  This gives
them no future.  Be a little doubtful about someone's future plans.  Don't use
certain, solid acknowledgments.  Then give the discussion a good
acknowledgment.

     Recognize that a datum like this, with a lot of uses, could easily "gang
agley", on the back track.  It would get perverted, messed up, etc.  From this
datum could arise such things as hidden standards and amnesia.  Getting shot
is too solid an acknowledgment of a lifetime, so one forgets it.  That is the
basic mechanism behind non-recall of past lives.  Things that aren't
acknowledged, because they are totally out of agreement, while the good things
are acknowledged -- these unacknowledged things bring about a condition where
everything disappears out of the person's past except the non-acknowledged
things that people thought were silly, or that they protested, or that they
were upset about.  "This gives you a decay of personality as a person ...
moves along the" time track, whether the person has GPM's or not, though
without GPM's, the person could do and undo the aberrations, almost at will.

     A person should know that he has a tendency to collect all those things
that were never acknowledged.  That is because the individual has some
dependency on the comm formula.  As long as a person has any desire to
communicate, he will be liable to malfunction of certain parts of the comm
formula.  And when these parts go awry, things do go weird.  A person could
regulate his conduct by knowing what parts of the comm formula were good, and
what parts were bad -- which parts would natively get him into trouble and
which wouldn't.  "If you're gonna associate with your fellow beings, ...
you're ... going to have to use the communication formula," one way or
another.  You will have to know how it works, the part that acknowledgment
plays, etc.  The comm formula can have things go wrong with it, so there is a
potential for native aberration.  There is a direct source of direct
aberration plus the native aberration of beings.  The two can work together.
GPM's, which are agreed-upon aberration, can hold lesser stuff (native
aberration, e.g. failed acknowledgments, etc.) in place and give them
aberrative force and importance.

     Insanity could be two things:

     1.  The person's collection of unacknowledged things.

     2.  Outright GPM commands to be nuts.

     A crazy person is doing a lot "of things that have never been agreed
with, and therefore have never been acknowledged."  [You don't have to agree
with something in order to acknowledge it.] Where you have both factors
working together, the GPM's make the unacknowledged things very solid and very
much in force.  You know that the PC will run into aberration of this sort at
Levels VI and VII. [The latter is power processing.] He runs into the
collection of non-agreed-with things.

     The bank itself has lots of charge.  The non-agreed-with things (locks)
carry very little charge.  The PC assigns the values wrong-way-to, especially
at first, because he assigns aberration to what he can confront.  So you've
got:

     1.  The bank.

     2.  The accidents and incidents of livingness.

The power of these two is eight billion to one.  But it appears to be the
reverse, because that is all the thetan can confront.  You can key out the
locks and pat the bank back into place.  This in itself is a fantastic
improvement over what anyone has been able to accomplish before.  There are
hidden standards about what we are supposed to be accomplishing.  Nobody will
admit that you have reached any state, because they have never told you what
state you were supposed to reach in the first place, amongst your fellow human
beings.  This kind of a cycle takes place:  You finish the PC up in a session;
he feels good.  Then he runs into the human race after the session.  They run
a hidden standard on him and try to make him prove that he is now in a better
state.

     The hidden standard interferes with delivery.  There is no point in
talking to someone about clear or release.  You've got to talk scientology in
terms that are real, in relation to the goals of the person to whom you are
talking, or you will trip all over his hidden standards.  About the only
standard you could have for clear is F/N at clear read.  The standard for
release is, "Do you think that you will get any worse?" People have hidden
standards about who you should be to audit them, what condition they should be
in, in order to have had a case gain, etc.  You could run, "Who would I have
to be to audit you?" and acknowledge the dickens out of it.  For any condition
you have described as a better condition in scientology, there is a hidden
standard.  And a hidden standard exists even for known standards.  For
instance, you say, "We require a pink sheet," but they keep bringing you green
ones, saying, "Is this what you want?" What happens is that the individual,
with his concatenation of non-acknowledged ideas, adds up to a
non-observational point.  He can't observe from this point.  He can't tell
where he is or what you are saying to him about how he should be, etc.  [Cf.
earlier material on service facs as a substitute for observation, "safe
assumptions", etc.  See HCOB 6Sep63 "Scientology Five -- Instructing in
Scientology Auditing:  Instructor's Task; D of P's Case Handling", HCOB
160ct63 "R3SC Slow Assessment", and pp. 497 and 499, above.]

     The PC will keep trying to bail himself out, provided you don't overwhelm
him with things to bail or give him nothing.  Just give him things to bail
with, within his understanding and ability to confront, and he will eventually
float.  In that way, you don't Q and A with his hidden standards.

     "You never realize how much better you are than yesterday, because you
are experiencing negative gain.  [It is] no longer wrong with you, so of
course you are not now worrying about it."

     Just attesting a level and getting a certificate acknowledges the entire
level: the session, the auditing, etc.  The attestation keys it out and puts
it on the back track.  This way also, the PC doesn't get stuck in a win, a
hidden standard.

     Because of hidden standards, the only safe way to evaluate case progress
is a mechanical method, such as a meter, and a completed cycle of processes.
It so happens that if the PC does complete the cycle of processes, he will
have case gain, and this can be strung out along levels with such basic
processes that you don't have "different" PCs all the time.

     An unwritten standard is hidden.  You may feel that there is a hidden
technical standard.  This is an alter-is.  What has happened is just that
there is material that has not yet been released.  Nobody is trying to hide
any technology.  Your best answer to the PC's hidden standards is to hold to
your standard technology and just take the PC on up the line with no Q and A.

