Frequently Asked Questions

Search
Site Map
No Frame

| About Clearbird | Before We Decided to Publish |  | FAQs | About Jo Seagull |

 

Question: Is Clearbird affiliated with Applied Scholastics or Church of Scientology?

Answer: No, we are not. But we use the same technology as Applied Scholastics. They have marketed the system in a big way in many parts of the world and you are welcome to check their website for the dissemination and use of the system around the globe.
Clearbird is an independent publishing house, unaffiliated with Applied Scholastics and Church of Scientology. We do not run courses nor are we advocating any religious beliefs in our publications.

Question: Are you violating Applied Scholastics' or Scientology's copyrights?

Answer: No, we are not. We have simply written a textbook in a subject refined and named by R. Hubbard. To write a textbook on an existing subject is perfectly legitimate and how any subject gets known and advance. For this reason the legality is guaranteed in international copyright law. Ideas, processes and procedures can explicitly not be copyrighted as that would impede cultural progress, lead to knowledge monopolies, and stagnation. Rights to inventions can be secured under the patent law for a limited number of years. Both laws are looking after both parties, originator and the public, and so are we.
Only artistic and literary works (including textbooks) can be copyrighted and Clearbird owns the copyrights to this manual and The Road to Clear.

Question: How and why can you offer it for free?

Answer: We have wealthy sponsors that want to see the technology being used across the boards without any strings attached.

Question: Are you affiliated with the Freezone?

Answer: Yes, we are part of the Freezone, a loosely organized network of practitioners and their clients and supporters. The Freezone uses the technology mainly developed by R. Hubbard for personal development in a non-religious setting. There are a number of other distinguished technical researchers and writers in the Freezone. We support their work but the Clearbird Series are textbooks specifically covering what R. Hubbard called standard technology.

Question: Doesn't the rule about verbal tech make classroom education impossible?

Answer: The rule about not giving verbal information but only use written references (violations are called 'verbal tech') specifically applies to teaching standard technology. Here the students are already through their regular school education and are expected to have a reasonable level of literacy. Also, the materials are written to make it possible.

Question: Isn't the Study Tech designed only to teach Hubbard's standard technology with?

This is how it started and was R. Hubbard's reason for researching study. This does have to be taken into consideration by students and educators wanting to use the system in other fields.
Especially the rule about  "verbal tech". The rule about not giving verbal information but only use written references. Violations of this rule is a bad thing. This rule applies specifically to teaching standard technology, in our opinion.
R. Hubbard was concerned about that the tech itself would get altered. We are here talking about standard technology and auditing more than Study Technology. The assumption was, that the educational materials of standard technology shouldn't be "improved upon" or even be given another form. This policy, in our opinion, has less relevance today than while the technology was still in rapid development. Things have settled down. The technology has been tested and used for years and been agreed upon by seasoned practitioners. There is a final form of R. Hubbard's standard technology that has been practiced for dozens of years. In the beginning the confusion was considerable. You see these phenomena with computer technology as well. When new high tech programs or gimmicks first come out the public is totally confused. After a while things are sorted out and the public is comfortable with it and knows how to use it.

Isn't it illegal to rewrite the technology?

In terms of the law it is not. Copyright laws and possibly the Patent laws are the ones that would apply and speak to that. We can add that ideas, principles, and exact procedures cannot be copyrighted.
R. Hubbard did state in a so-called Policy Letter, valid for the Church of Scientology internally, that re-writes were forbidden. Obviously any organization can have their own internal Policies. They are in place to protect financial and other interests as well. In terms of science and research this is an arbitrary rule that impedes the free communication and further research of a subject. On a practical level, this very technology teaches us that conceptual understanding and application are the ultimate tests. In the section, "How to Defeat Verbal Tech" it says: "4. If clearing the Misunderstoods won't handle it, query it. 5. Get it validated as a written order." So even internally in Church of Scientology there is an almost forgotten procedure of how to update materials.

Our basic view has been, "If it can't be conceptually understood, demonstrated to be factual and restated in an understandable and written form, it isn't true". The lesson in 'Conceptual Understanding' was the most important one for the author. We lean against the theory of 'Demonstrations', 'Conceptual Understanding' and also 'Definitions and Reality' in the essay, "Technical Words and Learning" in our new statement of the subject.

The whole subject of rewrites is a hot topic among seasoned students and practitioners of standard technology. We found that an editing and organizing of the materials into textbook form was needed. We call our Clearbird manuals for Users' Manuals. What we want to stress with that is, that the purpose of these publications are to communicate the existing technology in an edited and final version, not to change the 'program'.

If you use the Study Technology in other fields there may be less need for this whole discussion and the 'Verbal tech' rule. The problem in standard technology, as explained in "Before We Decided to Publish" is, that it is still a relatively new technology in a field that is very opinionated. History has shown us it can take decades, if not centuries, to change basic concepts in this field. 

The principle the verbal tech rule is based on is the system about back-tracking difficulties rather than dream up new explanations or solutions. This applies to all fields of study and is not an arbitrary rule but a basic principle.

Question: Do you expect school kids to be able to follow the rule about verbal tech?

Answer: If they do this course or courses in Standard Clearing Technology, yes. In general education, not necessarily. You have to adopt the methods used to several things: the students' literacy level, as mentioned. But you also have to take into consideration the general nature of the subject, the quality of existing classroom materials, availability of good dictionaries and handbooks, to mention the most important factors. As far as school kids are concerned, they would receive plenty of Word Clearing Method 7, where the Word Clearer explains the words verbally rather than trying to use a dictionary with them. The Word Clearer takes the definition from the dictionary and explains it verbally to the student. Method 7 is further defined in the glossary. The set-up is as in Method 9.
The important thing for the educator in such a situation is to recognize the guiding principles and not compromise on those. Most problems get resolved by back-tracking the difficulty to a skipped gradient, lack of mass, or misunderstood word. Sometimes it takes False Data Stripping. Long explanations are unnecessary if the materials are clear and adequate.

Question: Do you expect students of a trade to be able to follow the rule about verbal tech?

Answer: It would be impossible to teach a mechanic, a hair dresser, or a nurse without using verbal instructions. It is only possible to uphold in a strictly codified subject based on theory and clearly described drills. Here again, you have to think with and apply the basic principles, but also make sure the students get their questions answered and learn what they are supposed to learn. In practical fields videos are maybe the best medium to use. Instructional films and videos are very powerful teaching tools.

Question: Isn't the Study Tech an instrument for indoctrination?

Answer: Define your terms. Indoctrination means two things, (1) To instruct in a body of knowledge, and (2) to teach to accept a system of beliefs or convictions uncritically.
The Study Technology as presented can certainly accomplish the first one. It can also be misused (as any technology can) to bring about the last. We have included several chapters in data evaluation, logic, and conceptual understanding that should make it impossible to "indoctrinate" (in meaning 2) a student. On the contrary it is stressed throughout the manual that understanding, application, and ultimately results are the only valid tests the student should accept.

Question: Aren't the Misunderstood phenomena overstressed and unrealistic?

Answer: Misunderstood words is one of the first things you check. If there are MUs you have a bad connection, just as in a phone call. If you can't make out what the words are or what they mean the message gets lost. It has often been overstressed in practice due to inept supervision, however. Supervisors not knowing the full Study Tech have been known to harass their students with "find the MU that make you disagree or not understand". There are several things that can be wrong with the transmission of data, of course. There are the MUs. There is also the possibility, of course, that the materials don't answer the students' questions. There are three components to such a transmission: 

(1) The materials used to transmit the ideas and message (this is the author's responsibility). Are the writing of good quality? Or are the materials unclear because the author didn't know? Did the author express himself in an understandably way?" 

(2)  The line. The physical presentation and transmission. Are the needed materials on hand, clearly printed, indexed, etc.? 

(3) The receiver. There is the student and his literacy- and skill-level and his ability to duplicate and understand. Does the student have good study habits? 

The study technology covers the student side in depth. It gives advice concerning the materials, including choice of materials. But unless a reasonable quality and physical presentation of the materials are taken care of you don't have an established course. This has to be set up correctly and be delivered in a course room setting before the Study Technology can be applied. This may not have been pointed out explicitly in R. Hubbard's works. When the system was first designed the materials already existed (standard technology) and the job was to teach it to students, not to write textbooks or set up a new course. But it is obvious, if you have to do it from scratch, that you have to create an environment where learning can take place, including picking or developing textbooks geared to such a system. You have to ensure that all the ingredients needed to use Study Technology are there.

Question: Isn't Word Clearing simply a form of harassment?

Answer: It works very well in skilled hands. There is a method of Word Clearing in the Clearbird manual The Road to Clear, called Word Clearing Intensive (Method 1). It is defined in the present glossary as:

" 1. Done with a Meter in a formal session. A full Assessment of many, many subjects is done. The auditor then takes each reading subject and clears the Chain back to earlier words and words in earlier subjects until fully handled.
2. the action taken to clean up all misunderstoods in every subject one has studied. It is done by a Word Clearing auditor. The result of a properly done Word Clearing Intensive is the recovery of one's education."

This is a miraculous type of action.
Using any technology takes skilled hands. This is also true for Word Clearing. You have to know when and how to use it, regardless of type of Word Clearing applied.

Question: There are other reasons for disagreement than MUs, aren't there?

Answer: Absolutely. In Word Clearing it is assumed that the materials are correct and also relevant. This is covered in various ways in the Essays on Study.
One other reason is false or conflicting data. Mr. Hubbard did develop a type of light auditing called False Data Stripping. In our opinion false data  and fixed ideas form a fourth barrier to study. The false data can be in the materials studied or it can be fixed ideas on the student's part. Students that never enroll, although they should in their own best interest, are often found to hold false ideas that prevent them to get near the subject. Students that just can't apply materials correctly, even after Word Clearing, need False Data Stripping. For these reasons we have included the procedure of False Data Stripping in the manual as reading material. It takes a trained auditor to use them correctly.

Graduates of Study Tech don't seem to master the language better than others, shouldn't they?

A person's literacy level improves when he uses the Study Technology. It improves from where he started from. To master the spoken and written language you have to study the language, public speaking, and formal writing as subjects.
When studying using the Study Technology language is seen as a barrier that has to be overcome rather than the subject of your study. To radically improve language skills hard study of grammar, syntax, composition, style, the history of the language, meanings of words and synonyms, etc., etc. have to be done. This is taught in schools and universities. Studying those well defined subjects (using the Study Technology) would be needed to get it up to a professional level. Such a study would benefit the student in many, many ways and improve his study skills in general. Sometimes a basic grammar course is recommended as part of the Study Technology if grammar is found to be a major source of misunderstoods.

Question: Wasn't Mr. Hubbard blind of the tech's shortcomings, just wanting compliance with the tech?

Answer: Mr. Hubbard has been subject to all kinds of criticism. It is time to judge the technology itself on its merits. The way he originally laid it out, with later refinements, is how it is described in this manual. It may be different from what some loud critics have experienced in practice. You will see time and again in the original materials that the student's ability to think with a subject and become a professional in his field was and still is the basic idea behind all of the Study Technology.

Currently there is an off beat practice named  "Golden Age of Tech", teaching R. Hubbard's technology. This application insists upon, that any response from the practitioner of the self-improvement system called auditing, must  be according to a pre-written script which has to be known verbatim and drilled until you have a wound up doll in front of you. To do anything else is "out tech". This is how practitioners are trained under that system. All questions, procedures and responses have to be memorized and be stated verbatim or exactly as drilled in the classroom, even in live sessions. This is in stark contrast to basic principles in the Study Technology and is very shortsighted. The workability of auditing totally depends upon live communication. If you have been trained in anything under that system we invite you to take a fresh look at this manual and the Freezone.

When you take things back to its fundamentals and to the sound principles presented in this manual and in manual The Road to Clear things start to work.

 

| About Clearbird | FAQs | About Jo Seagull | Site Map |

Clearbird Publishing, 2003, 04. All rights reserved.