heritage look

By Lana M

Just over a year ago, my family embarked on a new business venture.

It has required thorough communication with locals about what they need and how that can be delivered, as well as extensive planning and subsequent approvals from the local Shire Council.

There has been negotiation with a neighbour (who is not pleased that the vacant block next to his is going to have buildings on it),  and a significant public relations campaign to dampen the worries of people who have been influenced by that neighbour.

In a historic village with very strong heritage values, our proposed development could have been years of debate and controversy — but it is not. It is simply rolling forward, with all plans approved and tradesman on site simply getting the job done.

Never has this village seen such an A to B project – approved in less than 6 months and already footings are in the ground and bricks are going up.

We have the local earthworks man involved in site work, the local cement man, local brick layers, local plumber and local electrician — and everyone is helping to contribute to this project, and make it their own. With easily a zillion decisions to be made on size, scope, materials, demand, work flows, design and aesthetics, this project has consumed hundreds of hours of mine to date, and will undoubtedly consume way more as time continues.

It is a great project.

One of the reasons it has been embraced and forwarded by those involved, is that it has been done based on marketing surveys – finding out what the locals need and want. The venture is a number of short stay accommodation cottages, tailored to cater to the large number of weddings and visitors that come to the village every weekend from the local capital city. The village has not had places for people to stay — yet has some wonderful eateries and a great pub – and this is in a country where the penalties for drinking and then driving are very severe. By not having somewhere that people can stay of an evening, it puts a real curb on wedding parties, family functions, corporate celebrations and more (all of which are held in our small village on a regular basis).

When I reflect on the success of the project to date, and look at what and why it has been moving along so well, at every single step of the way there has been an exact tech applied. In fact, the only time it has slowed briefly, has been when we ran into something we did not have the tech to handle, and then had to figure out what that tech was, and get it applied.

Example:  Public Area Control is an exact technology, and has been used thoroughly on this project from the onset, and as a result, there have been general acceptance and agreement with the project and with what we are trying to achieve.

Example:  The development has a zillion targets, and by using the Org Series, Executive Series, AKH Series, and Dev-T Series, the confusion is kept to a minimum and actual products are achieved each day.

Example:  There is an exact tech to building, in any country, and each step of the way we have to make sure that the technology is applied exactly, from site work, to footings, slabs, frames. etc.  Keeping to the exact tech of building is vital to the soundness of the structures, but also prevents us having to do things over to fix things gone wrong.

I am writing this article and including the below LRH article, as I encourage readers to reread the reference and and work out what the tech is of what they are doing in life (no matter what it is) and get that applied – whether that is LRH tech, building tech, writing tech, bookkeeping tech, IT tech, manufacturing tech, you name it. This LRH reference is one of those “Duh (hand slap to the forehead) – but of course!” and no matter how many times you read it, there is always something else you can apply it to. Even art and sport and music.

“Every action that results in a product has a certain tech.

“One finds out about it or develops it.

“When one adopts false tech he will then wind up with confusion as false tech will not deliver a product. It delivers a confusion – like psychiatry or Nixon economics.

“The more false tech you hold onto or apply, the more confusions you will get.

“When real tech is invalidated then false tech can enter in. So the test of false tech is does it give a confusion and the test of real tech is does it give a product.

“A Mis-U word in real tech then can let false tech in.

“If the tech is not available for a certain job one then has to develop it. His development will be correct only if it delivers a real product.

“When one busily develops tech where proven tech already exists and is available, one is wasting his time.

“Technology is that part of knowledge that is used.

“So it is not enough just to know. One also has to apply.

“If one really knows his tech it is very easy to apply it. When one is uncertain, his application is uncertain.

“Life in living forms depends upon real products.

“When products take too long to bring about or when they turn out to be overt products then they are not economical to produce. Overdue and overt products are both very costly in time and catastrophes.

“If you find in any area you are taking too long to produce a product, then it’s time to review your tech. (A) Does tech exist? (B) If yes, “Am I applying it?” (C) If no, “Do I have to develop it?”

“If it is (C), then one had better get very busy sorting it out. It is easier and less expensive to do that than to go on turning out overt products.

“Any product has its tech.

“Do you know the tech to produce yours?”  LRH, HCO PL 22 June 1974 Tech (OEC Volume O)

53 thoughts on “Any product has its tech

  1. Local Shire, eh? Besides Bilbo and Frodo, did you make sure you got Gandalf the Grey’s ok and blessing too?

    Seriously, though, with a ZILLION things to do, and a ZILLION things to decide, I can understand how busy you truly are. I”m just glad you have time for us, even if you didn’t hasve time to do a spell check:

    Third paragraph typo (in caps): “When one adopts false tech HER will then wind up with confusion….”

    11th paragraph typo (in caps): “IS one really knows his tech it is very easy to apply it.”

    Third last paragraph typo (again in caps): “If it is (C), then one had better get VER busy sorting it out.”

    All joking and typos aside (one of the drawbacks of using scanned documents – books, volumes, lists, etc. – is the need to double check), this is a very good reference applicable to living life. Once one understands that they ARE LIVING LIFE, everything else works out simply.

    Thanks for the post, Lana. Glad to hear things are rolling along! 🙂

    • I’ve noticed a LOT of these kinds of typos in the Field. The great thing about the Field is that, if you were in the Church, they’d swear up and down it was supposed to be that way, and come up with twisted logic why it was. That goes back decades. But in the Field, we are able to use common sense and realize that it was either mis-typed, mis-edited, mis-scanned and/or in some other way distorted from its original intended spelling and/or grammar. And go on. I used to have arguments with supes about misprints or mis-edits a lot.

      The English bible is rife with these problems. Started as an oral tradition, then finally committed to written form, sometimes hundreds of years later, often in languages which were not the native languages of the folks writing things down. And then distorted when later re-translated, because of church politics, or because the language being translated into didn’t have a precise definition for the original word. “Love” was such a word in Greek (one of the original languages of the Bible). It had several distinct meanings in Greek, but they all translate into just one word in English. I don’t know about the Talmud (Jewish holy book), but the Koran suffers greatly from this. It was originally written with no diacritical marks (little squiggles apart from the letters). Diacritical marks are critical to reading modern Arabic today, and their absence from the original Koran makes the text exceptionally hard to understand.

      And yes, I do geek out on languages. Sadly, I only know one really well (Martian) 😉 .


      • “…if you were in the Church, they’d swear up and down it was supposed to be that way, and come up with twisted logic why it was.”

        I’ve seen that occur. Funny thing is, Ron explains why this is in the following quote (as well as in many other places). This also goes far to explain why people still on lines in the CoS – especially auditors and other tech-trained people – rationalize all the alterations that have occurred.

        “Illogic occurs when one or more data is misplaced into the wrong body of data for it.

        An example would be “Los Angeles smog was growing worse so we fined New York.” That is pretty obviously a misplace.

        “Cars were no longer in use. Bacterial warfare had taken its toll.”

        “I am sorry madam but you cannot travel first class on a third class passport.”

        Humanoid response to such displacements is to be reasonable. A new false datum is dreamed up and put into the body of data to explain why that datum is included. (Reasonableness is often inserted as explanation of other outpoints also.)

        In the smog one, it could be dreamed up that New York’s exports or imports were causing LA smog.

        In the car one, it could be imagined that bacteriological warfare had wiped out all the people.

        In the train one, it could be inserted that in that country passports were used instead of tickets.

        The brain strains to correctly classify data into its own zones and is very rejective or imaginative when it is not.” LRH (Data Series 10, The Missing Scene)

        • CB:

          You hit right where I live on that one. I LOVE the Data Series. I’ve read the whole series (and ancillary issues) thirteen times, and every time I’ve gotten more out of it and enjoyed the ride. HIGHLY recommended if you wish to think properly. They should teach this to school kids. Do each of the plus-points and out-points in clay. Imagine the gains possible.

          Reminds me of another story. When my wife was on the FEBC, she had to do an eval and get it passed by the supe. Now, an eval is a very precise thing and can easily be done wrong. LRH gives examples in the Series. Which is why evals standardly went to AVC/AVU for approval (my understanding). (Not that you should hesitate to do them, but AVC/AVU was used to ensure their form and content were correct and consistent.) But here you had this situation where you were expecting a course supervisor to pass an eval, when he may never have even read the references (supes aren’t necessarily expected to have read the data on all the courses they may supervise). And not having done the OEC/FEBC, the supe may not be able to properly critique the Ideal Scene envisioned by the eval as being right, wrong, etc. And I just thought to myself, whose bright idea was that one, having a supe pass an eval? I can only imagine some of the evals that got past the supes at ITO. (BTW, these were not LRH approved checksheets; Ron was gone by this time. Neither did students get the Ls as they did on the original FEBC line-up in 1972/73.) I have since seen some terrible evals come down from int management, mostly with these meandering, over-general Whys, or Whys which were, in fact, “situations” which needed deeper research to determine the real Whys.

          Anyway, love the Data Series. Thanks for bringing it up. You’re exactly correct about the reasoning of Academy personnel who go over-rote and are unable to apply common sense to what’s being instructed on.


          • Hey Paul,

            Interesting story. When did your wife do her FEBC? My wife did hers in 1988 I believe. Her supe – Al (forget his last name right now) – was himiself an accomplished FEBC grad. I heard of another one or two at ITO as well. I guess it depends on what evolution she was on and who was suping and running ITO at the time (Donatella was running it back in the late 80s as I did some handlings for her and debugged the FEBC comps line-up for her).

            You’re right about the quality of evals from Int since GAT and GAK casme about. In the 70s, there were many good evals written for a specific org by its Program Chief based on the stats and an invest mission into just that org. They ran quite well then. But DM’s “blind leading the blind”-style evals are just hit-and-miss throws in the dark.

            Gotta also totally agree on the impact of knowing the Data Series or doing the Evaluators Course. Doing that course totally change the way I think. I love it! I also think it should be on every C/S TIP line-up so they can think with whast they’re doing.


            • CB:

              I think it was 1987. The HAS/HES was Giselle somethingorother, a bad-tempered little French Canadian lady. One of the supes’ names was Steve and I don’t recall the other, but he was fresh off the RPF and holier-than-thou. There was an old guy in Qual who cracked the whip on everyone in his division (students). The supes were, to my knowledge, just HPCSCs, nothing special (as in other training).

              Yes, ITO had a horrible bunch-up on their firing line. My wife spent months waiting for RTC to approve her firing CSW.


              • I recall Giselle. You’ve got her pegged correctly. Don’t recall the other guys as that was before I was down at ITO in 1988. Yeh, that bunch-p continued into spring 1988 and that was what I debugged for Donatella. After I debugged it, six came off the line and then 3 a week for a while. What’s your wife doing now with all that tech?

                • Thanks for bringing up such “fond” memories guys.

                  I worked as a Non SO tech consultant back then and we’d program all these outer org cases for what was called Exec Series 40 and they never had the auditors at ITO to do them for some reason.

                  Same with the ones we were qualling for Int. Of course Int being Int or as I called it “the Magic Kingdom” they said they’d put in the prospective staff’s quals in on Base which would usually never happen.

                  So basically they’d fire off all these Execs back to their Orgs who even though they did the FEBC/OEC never got the required auditing to go with it and would basically cave when they got back to their orgs.

                  Well Int we can all see what happened there.

                  Anyway just like Ron says in the above PL. One can see how tech gets invalidated. In many cases. It isn’t just misapplication but in many cases *no* application at all or worse the assumption that it was applied when it wasn’t.

                  Like as in the case of Lisa McPherson.

                • CB:


                  You mean AFTER she got sabotaged at CLO, sabotaged at her org, and eventually routed off staff? She works for Megacorp (one of the largest insurance companies in the U.S.) And if you think the Church is being run in a psychotic way, you should work where she does. If there’s a way to do things the absolute WRONG way, these bozos have figured it out and are doing it. I’m regularly surprised companies like this can stay in business, and yet they’re not much different than other companies of their size across the US.

                  She does what she can at the office she works in, but she’s absolutely hamstrung by corporate policies formulated in some offices in a some far place elsewhere.

                  Suffice it to say, it’s stressful.


                  • OMGosh, Paul! What a ride she must have had! One main outpoint in most of those evolutions was that they were supposed to fire back as a team: Prod Off; Org Off; ESTO. That rarely, if eve, happened. So they got sent home to be chewed up by the wolves and their minions.

                    Re the way corps run, I agree. Few are there that really run things well, even if they are “successful” (whatever that might be). Government departments and ministries are usually much worse. Honestly, I sometimes am in complete astonishment that we’ve made it as far as we have! I’m sure we haven’t been attacked by aliens yet because they’re incapacitated from rolling on the floor laughing at our “Dumb and Dumber” antics down here!


                    • CB:

                      It’s funny now what she went through. But at the time it was tragic. Like I said, sabotaged both at CLO and locally. She was not prepared for it. I think anyone who had to face what she did would need the Ls, if not an OT level or three.

                      Yes, she, too, had to fire back alone. Her “twin” got all the way through her training and then was found to be unqualified for executive posting. Not to mention no EstO candidate.

                      Yeah, as if viewing sex from an exterior viewpoint wasn’t enough to cause aliens to brand us as crazy, the rest of our antics would probably guarantee us for “quarantine zone” status.

                      One of my favorite pastimes is to imagine our friends on Mars happily carrying on, as an early model Chevy hurtles toward them. Or perhaps a refrigerator dropped from low orbit. Or perhaps a railroad box car full of silverware. Maybe plastering their hidden bases with tons of old income tax forms, making them plainly visible from space. Can you just imagine their astonishment? I can just see those little doll bodies running around like roaches, waiting for the next shoe to drop. The piece of resistance would be to materialize a huge bolder in their “reception” area one night. Just imagine the alarms going off. I can keep myself giggling for hours imagining new ways to aggravate those guys.

                      Yeah, I’m twisted, I know. 😉


        • CB:

          Also, when Ron says you can find tons of out-points in newspapers, he’s not kidding. And they are exactly like the ones he mentions above. I’ve edited thousands of words of fiction and non-fiction both (though never newspapers), and newspaper writers take the cake for worst writing, as far as I’m concerned. It’s actually painful sometimes to try to make sense of some of the drivel that gets put out by news outlets. There are often huge gaps in logic and reasoning which appear to go by unnoticed by most people, and certainly most newspaper editors.

          Oh wait. I just realized there’s one class that’s even worse than newspaper writers: marketing types. Their ads often defy even the most gargantuan efforts to define what it is they use for logic.


      • Paul: “I’ve noticed a LOT of these kinds of typos in the Field. The great thing about the Field is” … “we are able to use common sense and realize that it was either mis-typed, mis-edited, mis-scanned and/or in some other way distorted from its original intended spelling and/or grammar.”

        It gets worse with translations. I started Scn, in the 80s, in a non-English speaking country. When something didn’t make sense, I asked for the English original, an English dictionary and a bilingual dictionary. It turned out that the original English word was polyseme (or homonym) which was incorrectly translated. The friendly supes liked this method and they used it when needed.

        After a couple of years we got a Flag trained supe. But she (the Flag trained supe), even though we tried to explain her the usefulness of this method, forbade it. (She also was a cold chrome steel, a huge contrast with the friendly supes we used to have).

        Is Martian your first or your second language? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_language ) 🙂

        • Mabu:

          Good for you, taking the approach you did. It’s unfortunate that English is a very hard language to learn (properly). Worse, Ron was quite literate, and his English included a lot of what are now nearly obsolete words and phrases. On top of that, he had spent a lot of time in the armed services, so there is specialized jargon thrown in there as well. I remember struggling with the words “chit” and “evolution” for a long time. “Chit” simply isn’t defined in a lot of dictionaries and is, I think, more common in British English. “Evolution”, as used in Scientology, is really a specialized military slang term, for which you can’t find a good definition anywhere. The standard English definition just doesn’t fit, even though it was forced on us by supes. You basically had to clear the word the way the supe wanted you to, and then figure out your own definition and hope you got it right.

          I also lament the fact that, going forward over the decades, English and society will change such that reading or listening to LRH will be like trying to decipher Shakespeare (which ain’t easy). For example, there’s a passage in a previously quoted reference, where Ron talks about the end of a meal being characterized by, among other things, “full ash trays”. This was common when 40+% of the population smoked, but now that only 20% do (and mostly outside these days), it’s no longer “an expected scene”. At some point, we’ll be forced to add commentary to many references just to explain context. Even now, some things are hard to untangle, like the “Remimeo”, “Gen-Nonremimeo” and other routing and distribution terms. These were dreamed up at St Hill, but it’s been decades since things were handled that way. Back in my day, our references were sent to us by Pubs. (And as I write this, I realized there are no “Pubs Orgs” any more. It’s “Bridge” and “New Era” now.)

          Martian, LOL! Who would have thunk it? (For those too lazy or busy, there apparently is something called “Martian” that is a sort of modified Chinese, according to the Wikipedia entry.)


          • Paul,

            Thank you for the info about Ron’s vocabulary.

            The biggest difficulty I found with English is being highly non-phonetic/phonemic. (Contrasted with my first languages which are highly phonetic/phonemic).

            Unfortunately all the languages change over time. I also have been thinking about the need to handle it in LRH’s writings.

            By the way, I used to geek out on languages. So, I like reading your geeking out on languages.

  2. Jeeze Chris.

    Lana, well done to you exercising LRH datums on standard tech in your business venture to make things go right. You are truly in a condition of power across the dynamics. Your ranch is soon going to be the center of power in your sector of the world. And I love the article. Where did you get it?

    ML Tom

  3. That’s an excellent LRH stable data to guide us through life, Lana.

    So simple and yet so useful. I am really happy for all your success and for your excellent application of LRH to your life.


  4. Great job Lana,

    This reminds me of the LRH quote from HCO PL 30 Jan 83, “Your Post and Life”:


    You guys are doing a wonderful thing for your community by providing what is needed and wanted there. It sounds like you are having a blast and are using scientology as it is intended.

    Someone (Tony DePhillips?) made a great analogy once regarding scientology. He said (paraphrased?): “Scientology is like a hammer, you don’t worship the hammer, or worship the guy that invented the hammer, you use the hammer to build things.”

    I cannot think of a better example of this than what you are doing. Well done and thank you!

    • Great analogy Scott ( and Tony). Over time I have heard naysayers say that in Scn you are not allowed to read or apply anything but LRH tech in life – but this policy letter, published in the Basic Staff OEC Volume and to be read and understood by every staff member, makes it clear that LRH did not have that view or issue such a policy.

      At the Int base there was a project to compile specialist hat packs and this was testimony to this LRH policy about knowing the tech of what you are doing. These packs were thorough, whether you were a gaffer, a film editor, an arborist, a cook, you name it. The full hat pack I did as a cook, in 2001, included thorough training in nutrition, and LRH recommended LRH the 1908 Army Cook Book be included ( I kid you not!). In that old Army cook book ( which was small enough to squeeze into a knapsack pocket) was vital information on how to prepare decent recipes, in volume for hundreds of men, that will keep them well nourished and able to work and fight.

      That was what LRH wanted for his crew.

      He wanted them looked after, regardless of circumstances or finance. He wanted warm food in their bellies, that tasted good and allowed them to do their job – and there were incredible recipes in that old manual, including deserts, puddings, and more.

      LRH never wanted crew to live in rice and beans ( poorly prepared and bland) , nor peanut butter sandwiches.

      He wanted Scientologists to learn the tech of what they were doing so they could do it competently and well.

      • Lana:

        Another example of this was that wog book on PR that Ron marked up in the margins, etc., and which Pubs got permission to sell with his comments and mark-ups in it. Don’t recall the name of the book
        Oh wait… maybe “Effective Public Relations”? Something like that.

        It’s too bad we don’t have access to all those hats which were written up based on LRH advice. There is doubtless a world of good tech there which will eventually have to be rediscovered and/or re-invented.


      • Thanks for the wonderful reply Lana. I agree that LRH had in mind to just help make people competent as a foundation for their success. “The accent is on ability” –LRH

        As the E/R Org Officer, I had to make Mini-Hat and Full-Hat checksheets for Engineers on the Freewinds. It was really a pleasure for me to see someone get through his or her training, get Esto’d onto post and go along happily producing their products while moving on to receive auditor training and auditing during their personal enhancement time.

        The world will be a much better place when we can establish this universally workable model as the norm.

          • Just ran across this, Chris. Thank you! Yes, indeed I am still truckin’ – at the rate of 1 session per week due to my work schedule. After a break due to budgetary concerns, I am now back in the capable hands of Trey Lotz doing Grade Two!

  5. Great achievements Lana 😉

    so, let me remind the obvious, as it’s à propos here – the datum comes from a policy that many seem to find controversial, and there were/are discussions about the value of that one.

    Back then, when I discovered the subject Scientology is, I was looking for everything, any tech, any data, that would enable me to be a better Artist, a better guitarist.

    On the first course I studied in Scn I found the real gem. How to practice, how those Masters I admired did study and practice their instruments, the “rituals” they got through to attain those master works that raised Art to greater heights –

    Getting the correct technology applied consists of:
    One: Having the correct technology.
    Two: Knowing the technology.
    Three: Knowing it is correct.
    Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.
    Five: Applying the technology.
    Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.
    Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
    Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.
    Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.
    Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.

    Whether studying baroque guitar, Indian Music, Blues, Rock, Jazz, playing with Africans, … you name it, every Musician I met was going through the above cycle in order to master their Art. You cannot really play Classical without that fully in.

    Even though instinctively 😉

  6. Lana,

    I have read about – and have listened to anecdotes from students who were on the original SHSBC – how LRH would be researching some area and how a new HCOB would be rushed through mimeo to the Ds of P and into the hands of auditors. And how sometimes, just as an auditor was about to start session, they’d hear a rustling behind them and would turn around and see this new HCOB that had just been slid under their door. And how this new HCOB would apply to what they were going to run in that session, and how that would change the outcome of that auditing, or how it would explain something for the pc. It was true “hot off the presses” auditing.

    Well, I just wanted you to know that in session today, a pc I was auditing had a situation that was bothering her and for which she didn’t know what to do, and so I asked if she knew what the tech was for the product she was trying to obtain. I had her read this exact quote you posted, right from this webpage, and she realized she didn’t have the tech at all but had been operating off of false tech and that she needed to get the tech to help her get the product. And she brightened right up and continued to cognite on this.

    And I’ve had this type of situation occur before, with something I had just read that day, or something I myself had just posted. So, just like in the old SH days, a piece of tech can have an impact beyond what we thought when we posted or disseminated it. We can forget how far reaching the tech of LRH can be, how doing something like simply posting a reference from a win or realization in one’s own life can impact people’s lives halfway around the world.

    Just wanted you to know.


  7. It looks like Lana is missing some XXI century cutting edge techs:
    Multiple Exclamation Marks tech.
    Hyped Collectible Memorabilia tech.
    Moving Status Higher Up tech.
    Hyper Hype tech.
    Borg Thinking tech.
    Butterfly Effect tech.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s