I think there has been some confusion for Scientologists as to what exactly “Standard Tech” is, especially because it is a term that has often been used synonymously with KSW #1 to make Auditors wrong, and suppress PC’s with Black Scientology. For this reason, I would like to clarify exactly what Standard Tech means (at least to me.)
One of the best definitions in my opinion is in the LRH lecture entitled “Standard Tech Defined” given on 27 September 1968:
“A science is a body of truths. A technology is a body of truths. Now somebody who can’t confront action, or something like that, thinks a truth would be a datum of some kind or another. Well a truth can also be an action. And the road through all of the untruths of a person, from all the way south to all the way north has been mapped. It exists. It has been on a chart for years. There have been bulletins which announced its’ processes. The doingness of those processes are exact, precise. There aren’t two ways to do them. There is one way to do them.
“And that is what you are here learning. And if you can’t learn that basic fundamental you might as well quit now. You are not learning this wide subject of philosophy.
“You’re not learning every student’s got a chance to think his own opinion right now. You’re not learning that right now. You’re learning the technical application of exactly how it is done, exactly to whom it is done, exactly and precisely the steps and actions taken to an exact, precise results. And that’s what you’re learning. And you haven’t anything to do with how many needles sit on the head of an angel.”
The key note is of course “results.” When applied correctly Standard Tech gets results. That’s the whole point. Without results, robotically following some set of rules is pointless.
If we were talking about building an actual bridge across a chasm (and not just an allegorical one) then I don’t think there would be much argument that in order to achieve the end result we would need to apply certain unalterable rules of the subject of engineering. Unless we wanted to have a bridge that collapsed and killed people that is.
Likewise, any argument about KSW #1 (or Scientology as a technology) being destructive can be defused with this one definition. There is no doubt that a technology can be used for something other than what it was intended, or be corrupted into something that it originally wasn’t. But, you can’t argue with results. I don’t think anyone would argue that a “road through all of the untruths of a person,” or actually helping someone achieve greater ability and happiness, is a bad thing. Unless that person were a psychopath that is.