C., long-time classed auditor and C/S:
"I looked at your article and I see your point completely. D. and I have used the FPRD once or twice. Of course when we used it, we didn't use it from the same viewpoint that the church has. For example, when we ask for the evil intention at the time that prompted the overt, we don't assume it was the being's. It well have been someone else's that the being saw as an overwhelm so took it on. I.e., the being went out of valence.
I think that the FPRD does have some use, but it is very limited and has to be run from the viewpoint of "recognition of the rightness of the being".
I do have one other point I want to make about this RD. When we have used it, the pc's had wins, but we saw no major change in their cases. The major changes in case were made by doing the usual LRH and then CBR bridge.
This RD is the only tech dated after 1980 D. and I have ever used, my evaluation of it is that is isn't worth the time it takes to study the material. XDN is much more effective.
If fell out of use because everyone had attested to Clear and Dn can't be run on Clears. We got around that by using StraightWire instead of Dn. I'm still a bit touchy about doing a major Dn action on someone who has not completed Excal. But then after Excal I've never seen anyone that needed XDN."
Robert Dam (See his website at www.robertdam-cos.dk)
Great analysis Heimdal. You are right, the fact that it is a
does not mean that it aligns with LRH. You have pointed out some very relevant
technical details which people can look further into should they wish. Well
done, very interesting and to the point.
As I am not a standard tech master like you, my analysis is more
based on my
experiences with people getting the FPRD and their subsequent change of
viewpoint. I was HCO Area Secretary when FPRD delivery really took on in
1985-86. I got it myself also (several times) and had good wins on it. Yet, the
best wins was when I got it as set-up for OT V and that was mainly because of
the OT III style auditing rather than the FPRD tech itself. Anyway, my
observations with people getting it are as follows:
Cogniting that they themself had caused all the problems they had
with the org -
It was not because of a destructive management, suppressive targets and orders,
but because of their own O/W's and evil intentions. In other words, taking on the
responsibility of all the overts of management and blaming it on their own O/W.
While it is always true that a person completely causes his own feelings and
problems and happiness etc. it is not true that the destructive management came
from his overts. This is far too narrow a viewpoint and has a tendency to cave-in
the person and make him controllable. He usually feels a relief after FPRD because
he now starts to take responsibility, and because he did get some O/W and evil
intentions off, which is always nice. And then goes in a kind of propitiation
and wants to do everything he can to make good again what he fucked up. This is
alright. When you have made something bad you should, after realising it, make it good
again. There is nothing wrong in that, but it gives a very easy going for a
management that wants to take advantage of such a state of mind. And you must keep
in mind that the CoS had lost more thant 50% of their staff and publics during
their "clean-out" http://www.robertdam-ias.dk/events%20preceding%20ias.html
In other words it was no accident that this R/D came out in 1984. It was needed
to get some of the people who were disaffected, but not completely lost, back into
the Church. Many people had to some degree lost confidence in the new management,
and giving those people a R/D which would make them cognite that all the
trouble was solely caused by their own O/W's was very convenient.
And it worked. Good people who discover that they have done bad are fairly easy
to manipulate unfortunately. Taking advantage is nothing less than treason,
betrayal after trust.