 |
|
|
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Copyright 1996
All commercial rights are reserved to the author, who currently wishes to remain anonymous and therefore is writing under the pen name of "The Pilot". Individuals may freely copy these files on the internet for their own use and they may be made available on any web server who does not charge for them and who does not alter their contents.
---------------------------------------------
5.1 The Grades as Basic
As I have said before, the lower level grades of release are also the ultimate OT levels. The theory behind the grades processes does not require the presence of earlier engrams or secondaries (incidents of loss) and can stand alone without the existence of prior aberrations.
Because these are basic, they can be addressed on anybody at any level and, as long as the person's attention is not fixated on something else, they can be run to a point of release. But all we get is a temporary release (which may last for years or lifetimes) rather than erasure because of the problem of accessibility.
It took me a long time to come around to realizing this. I kept looking for a bigger basic that would undercut these grades. But everything I found (including the penalty universes and the reality wars) was preceded by earlier problems and upsets and failures to communicate. And before the penalty universes, the implants are lighter rather than heavier, usually just consisting of aesthetically presented false data which encouraged aberration.
The only thing I ran that did not have some underlying feeling of already being slightly out of communication was the original jewel of knowledge. That experience was simply interesting and aesthetic and talks you into a few subtly abberating ideas such as the idea that communication could be harmful or it might not be good to know too much because it might spoil the game. And we were shown the lie that if you could really forget something, it would stop bothering you.
So we were talked into starting in on this path, but we were not forced into it. There is no force or pressure in the original jewel of knowledge.
Our earliest mistakes were cutting communications, blocking knowingness, choosing not to connect with (or reach) certain things, and choosing to forget things. And these were all done willfully with no prior reason except for the convincing arguments of the jewel of knowledge. And we did not do these things with everything. You did not start out by cutting communication with everyone. You initially just cut communication with one person and kept talking to everybody else. You only forgot a few things and decided to not-know a few things rather than obscuring everything at once. And that is how we all differ because we applied these things very selectively initially and we each made different choices.
And then we built the next layer of aberration on top of these, and that layer was the more complex aberrations of problems, overts, upsets, making yourself right, etc.
5.2 The sequence of grades, corrected
Ron originally put out the grades 0 to 4 in 1965. Initially these were set up with the idea that each entire grade ran to a single floating needle and could be done with a single process. For the purposes of training, a number of other processes were also lumped together with each level because they required comparable auditor skill. As a result, help processing was included with level 1 problems and recall processes were include with level 0 communications. It was soon realized that recall processes needed to be run as a separate grade and this was included with grade zero as a sort of freebie.
Then the theory of expanded grades came out and as many processes as possible were added to each grade. This made deeper and more stable releases.
But we still have multiple grades (such as running help processing as part of the problems grade) lumped together. This is not a fatal flaw, but it can give trouble.
Each of the grades should be run to the point where a big release happens and then it should be dropped for the moment rather than trying to push too deep on one line while other areas are being bypassed.
If, for example, you combine help processing with problems processing, you will either:
a) fail to get the big release on help and shift over to running problems when you should be finishing the help release first. b) get the big release on help and then overrun it trying to finish all the help processes so that you can run some problems c) get the big release on help and then mistakenly think it is a problems release and miss the entire problems grade d) get lucky and make both release points even though you don't know what you're doing
We also have missing lower level grades. The very fact that we sometimes need to run an invalidation or evaluation rudiment indicates that there are grade releases available on these. I can't say for sure what all the processes would be at this time, but it is an area to be addressed and a subject for further research.
We also have a case where some much more advanced processes have been included with grade 0. These are the "From where could you communicate to a ____" style processes. These were originally developed in the late 1950s as high level OT processes. These are actually a gradient towards power processing and probably belong somewhere between grade 4 and grade 5 on the current grade chart.
Here I will lay out a tentative series of grades. To avoid confusion, I will label them Step 1, Step 2, etc. because the words grade, level, stage, and section have all been used already in Scientology.
A. FIRST GROUP: POSTULATED ABERRATIONS
These are the earliest and have no underlying prior reason (except for the predispositions in the jewel of knowledge) and at basic are handled by postulate and by pushing through instead of finding reasons why.
Step 1: Confront and Knowingness Release The person doesn't look and doesn't know because he decided not to. The org often gets this one accidentally because the TRs (given in the communications or HAS course) can produce it. But processing can also be done here. It would use "willingness" type processes like grade 0 does. For example, "What would you be willing to find out about yourself" would be a key process. The "Look around and spot something you like" style processes also belong here.
Step 2: Doingness Release This is reach and withdraw type processing. At basic, the PC chooses not to reach by his own decision, the reasons why can be bypassed because they don't really stop him, he stops himself. At beginning levels, these are the objective processes, and the org currently delivers them on the Survival Rundown. But in more advance running, this also includes many of the OT drills.
Step 3: Recall Release This is currently trained on level 0, but delivered (correctly) as a separate grade in auditing. The book self analysis also fits here and shows us how to get the release on a self audited basis.
Step 4: Communications Release Here is the real grade 0. The "from where .." processes shouldn't be run as part of it. They are nice processes but belong higher on the chart. The org gets away with running them here because they put such an emphasis on endless arduous setup auditing before starting grade zero. In truth, the real grade zero processes can usually be run immediately and you can probably even get a self audited release with some kind of book similar to self analysis. But if you did it in a quick and easy way like this, you would get in trouble on the current processing lineup because of having more advanced routines mixed in with the easy grade zero ones.
B. SECOND GROUP: BASIC ABERRATIONS OF THOUGHT
Here we have the things which build up on top of the original aberrations. These can be pushed through sometimes, but you often need to pay attention to underlying reasons (such as problems coming from incomplete communications) or mechanisms (such as solutions becoming new problems).
This is generally where the person is most aware of being abberated. If he notices an aberration of communication (and he often doesn't), he has some hope of pushing through it, but if he notices a problem, it often doesn't work to try and push through it (because he must dig out something earlier) so he tends to sit there with a pile of problems that he is aware of but can't handle.
In this list, I have put problems processing before help (currently the org runs help first as part of grade I) on the basis that problems are earlier (they can rest on incomplete communications, whereas help doesn't even show up on the track until things are going badly) and because help involves a bit more responsibility.
Step 5: Problems Release The org trains this on level 1 along with objectives (which are covered in step 2 above) and help processing (which should be a separate grade). They have a good lineup of processes in this area, but they put much to much in the way of the PC before they get around to running it. These are actually easier to run than the problems rudiment (which they start doing right away). Although I have this down in step 5, this is intended to be a fast lineup without endless preparation or other higher level processes mixed in, so that you should be able to get here pretty fast.
Step 6: Help Release Now is the time to do the help processes that they currently teach on level 1 and mix in with problems processing.
Step 7: Overts (Guilt Release) This is grade 2 as taught and delivered by the org. If we are doing multiple passes through the grades, this is the longest one and a subset of the processes could be used in the first pass. It also includes some "confront" processes which might belong in Step 1 above (but maybe only on a second pass through the grades?).
Step 8: Change Release The "Change" processes (which handles resistance to change, etc.) are currently taught and audited as part of level 3. They are really a separate grade and should be run that way. There is an early aberration on how it is a betrayal of others if you change your mind etc. and it would be possible to add more processes here which address that.
Step 9: Evaluations Release This is a new level. It is easier to confront than real upsets, but is one of the underlying causes. Early on, people jammed ideas down each others throats (often to be "helpful") and eventually they started getting upset at the enforced communication and reality. This is new ground that needs to be researched, but it would include things like "what evaluation have you enforced on another" and running off the reasons for evaluating ("give me some reasons for evaluating for somebody"). This level should also include some handling on false datums ("what false datums have you pushed on another" etc.).
Step 10: Release from Upsets (ARCXs) This is grade 3 as delivered by the org. But when we remove the change processes, there is not very much left. They never did enough on the subject of taking apart the aberrations of enforced and inhibited affinity, reality, and communication. The write-up I did on actual GPMs includes some new processes on this which I aimed at the GPM terminal and which could be generalized into non-specific grade 3 processes that should be run here.
Step 11: Invalidation Release I put this after ARCXs because it is a very high gradient. Whereas evaluation is only "pushy", invalidation is a direct attack and often exceeds the force of most ARCXs. People's service facs (see below) and other heavier factors also often come into play in this area and this a gradient towards running those levels.
Step 12: Responsibility Release The org mixes this in with grade 4, but it should be it's own separate level.
C. THIRD GROUP: ABERRATIONS OF EMOTION AND LOSS
Unlike the earlier groups, these areas cannot become abberated until the person has sunk low enough to lose things and feel emotion. ARC Breaks can happen on purely enforcing or inhibiting ARC, but hate, vengeance, and jealousy only occur after the fact of loss. The same is true of all the problems in survival and self righteousness and making yourself right (grade 4). The earliest problems in survival are connected with loss (not pain or engrams) because you had the problem of making your mockups survive long before you yourself could be smashed or wiped out.
Also, it is only at this stage in our evolution that we began to have real problems with havingness. That also rests on earlier losses.
Games processing also comes into play here. It is possible to have games without loss, but loss is often a factor. Certainly playing chess or poker requires loosing things during the course of the game even if there is no subsequent loss or penalty.
Unfortunately, there has been no where near enough research on these areas and more needs to be found. I will do the best I can here, but be prepared for future revisions.
Step 13: Games Processing Since the earliest losses are only during the course of a game and are accepted by choice (and are of short duration), this is the easiest entry point. There are some good early processes such as "please pass the object" in "Creation of Human Ability", but more are probably needed.
Step 14: Wasting You have to be able to waste things to play a game successfully. This is another area that touches on loss and also on the subject of exchange (see below). The processing here should include the money process ("mock up a way to waste money"), and similar processes such as "mock up a way to waste work" (which will undercut many of the societies aberrations), and "mockup a way to waste energy" etc.
Step 15: Exchange This is a key aberration which underlies our later societies. Exchange is basically a trap and is one of the nasty predispositions that gets us in trouble because it pushes our buttons on fair play and uses them to make us trap ourselves. It is one of the reasons you are in compulsive agreement with the MEST universe law of conservation of energy, which is really a way of blocking your own efforts. Getting rid of the charge on exchange doesn't mean that you start stealing from people (that's a dramatization of being trapped by exchange and rebelling against it without confronting it), it simply means that you don't care and are not blocked by some crazy idea of all the equations having to be in balance. Some research is needed here. You might start by running off overts (cheating others etc.) and then reasons and finally getting around to the basics which is that its only a game and you shouldn't have to play unless you're in the mood. This has to include the willingness to give things away for free.
Step 16: Protect This is a new level, but it is run basically the same as Help (step 6 above) with "protect" substituted for "help" in the commands. This is the earliest button on loss. The SOP8D safe places type processes (see the 5th ACC and also the bright think rundown which was used briefly and then canceled) might also fit in here.
Step 17: Service Facsimiles (Making others wrong). This is the grade 4 process. The org uses it sooner, but it is really a handling for failures in survival and on that basis it belongs late in the sequence. Also, in the standard grades lineup, it requires listing and nulling techniques because it is too heavily charged and done at this point it should probably be addressable directly with simple processes or could even be handled on a self audited basis.
Step 18: Loss Here we need some specific processes to key out loss. One would be the "in this lifetime, what do you use to keep others from leaving" that I mentioned earlier. There should be a lot of others, but research is needed here. See the stuff on loss in the assist section above.
Step 19: The evil emotions (hatred, jealousy, and vengeance) Here we are into some really hot areas. These things show up in mysticism as major roadblocks that need to be conquered, but they have no processes for them. Neither does the org except for using the general incident running and cleaning up ARCXs as an undercut (which does work to some degree). Here you want to raise the person up to the point where he doesn't need to take vengeance and doesn't get jealous if his wife sleeps with someone else or he gets beat out of a promotion and so that he no longer has a need to hate green skinned people or whatever. Its not that you would encourage your enemies or turn the other cheek, its simply that you would play things as a game (if you felt like it) instead of being swamped by a blind drive to smash others. These emotions bring about a blindness which is terribly self destructive. Maybe we would even need 3 levels here instead of one. I can hardly guess at the processing needed, but it would include a willingness for others to have and a freedom from consequences.
One key to this area is that its not the action but the tremendous significance placed on it that invokes the blind reaction. It's not that the guy's wife spent an hour exercising with his best friend, no matter how intimate those exercises were, it's that he places an incredible significance on the fact and imagines all sorts of think going on in the other peoples heads and postulates all sorts of consequences that shatter his life. The old processes on "This Means ..." (see the anatomy of the spirit of man congress tapes etc.) might be useful here. Mocking up unpleasant thoughts in other peoples heads might also help. Also inventing consequences.
I never had a lot of charge in this area myself, but I see other people going just crazy on it. If someone's shooting at me, I damn well want them to stop, but I could care less if they made amends for the damage as long as they mend their ways and don't do it again. I'm not sure when or how I blew the charge on this, but I can find early incidents where I'm swamped with jealousy and vengeful impulses, so it must have been handled at sometime.
Step 20: Suppressives People do suppress each other. This is the final stage of the game when you're the only one and its kill or be killed. An individual suppressive situation needs to be handled when it comes up (and its nowhere near as common as the org thinks), but that's not a general handling. Since we've already handled most of the factors involved in suppression, this is a good point to finish it off so that the person neither can be suppressed (in other words start roller coastering) by anyone else nor will he have the urge to do others in when he is sinking (because that never really helps him). Again we could use some research here. The suppressed person rundown gives us a starting point. So does the rundown for handling "an engram matching present time dangers". We can also get things from the general anatomy of suppressive behavior, such as loosing sight of individual targets and blurring them into generalities.
D. FOURTH GROUP: THE UPPER GRADES
Middle period Scientology only had 3 upper grades. These were Power (grade 5), Power plus (grade 5A), and grade 6. These have mostly disappeared because they are not supposed to be run on a clear, and most people get run on Dianetics instead and reach Dianetic clear when they do.
I think that this is a mistake. Power processing sometimes produced a case state that was higher than the current OT7 and its a shame to bypass it. It probably can be done on a clear, but you would probably get in trouble trying to introduce it into the middle of the orgs current OT processing because they've got the person all stirred up and in the middle of stuff for the entire run from OT2 (or the old clearing course) up to OT7 because they are restimulating things without complete handling until he makes it through solo NOTS. With the correct data and techniques (see earlier in this write-up), that probably ceases to be a problem, but even then you would have to be careful not to jam these levels into the middle of something that is only halfway handled and drawing the guy's attention.
In an ideal lineup, I think you would run these things before you went into a major Dianetic processing level. That doesn't mean that you can't do some Dianetic handling or other incident running (a bit of that is nice as an introduction to the subject) but that the thorough go for broke intensive Dianetic rundowns should be done after power processing etc. The whole idea of power was to key out engrams wholesale and that would set the guy up to run Dianetics as a fast and effective level. He might even run Dianetics solo with that kind of preparation.
Step 21: Location
One of the basic aberrations is being located in a single location. Here is where we should run the "From where could you communicate to ..." style processes. Then do a similar rundown on "from where could you (agree / disagree - alternately) with ....". Then run "from where could you perceive a ...". If possible, you should get to the point where you don't need to be here to perceive and operate here. That would be going exterior to the physical universe.
Step 22: Causation
Now in the same style, run "from where could you mockup ...". You should work up to things like somatics, sensations, emotions, bodies, games, and machinery, and then finish off with "from where could you mockup a bank". This might produce a clear.
Step 23: Sources
Here would be the place to run spotting sources (power process 4 which is the first one normally run). But with the above preparation, it would probably be runnable as a simple spotting process instead of an exotic listing technique. They used to run this on people who had received a total of ten or twenty hours of auditing in their whole lives and of course it ended up as a hot out-gradient process with all sorts of special rules and worries connected with it.
But this needs to be an expanded level instead of a single process.
One interesting thing I noticed in various freezone write-ups on this process is that the people who wrote them generally thought that the process ended with the cognition that "I'm source" or something like that. Well that's nice and its probably what you get most of the time (and you have to take what you can get without invalidating or continuing), but I went clear and keyed out OT on this process and something more happened. When I was run on it, I thought that the command was a covert way of getting me to spot the time and place where I had first mocked up a reactive mind and from where I was still mocking the bank up even now. And that is what I spotted, and that's why I got the spectacular result instead of the mundane one.
So lets run more processes here, aimed at reaching that higher state. This might include "spot a source that you/another/others are mocking up". "spot a time when you mocked up a bank", etc.
Another good process to run here would be (run alternately): a) What have you created b) What has another created c) What have others created
Step 24: Power
Here would be the rest of grade 5. Again, it probably needs to be expanded and have more processes aimed at the result.
This would be an appropriate place to put some more processes on the subject of not-isness.
A) Recall not-ising something Recall another not-ising something Recall others not-ising something
B) Write down some things that mustn't be allowed to appear. If one doesn't blow by inspection, then mockup copies of it and throw them away / shove them into the body.
C) Spot times when you decided it was safer not to look, then mockup looking at what you avoided seeing.
D) Handle overts of getting others not to look Handle overts of getting others to not-is things
E) Write down some things it would be better for people not to know about. For each one, run alternately, what should/shouldn't be known about it.
Step 25: Power Plus
Here would be the grade 5A processes. Again, more are needed.
Some possible ones are as follows:
25.1 Agreements (run alternately) a) What agreements have you made b) What agreements have you disagreed with. (then run the same on flows 2 and 3)
25.2 Enforced Agreements a) What agreements have you enforced on another b) What agreements have you inhibited (also run on flows 2 and 3)
25.3 Create a) What effect would you be willing to create b) What effect would you be willing for another to create
25.4 Enforced Create a) What do you have to mockup b) Give me some reasons for mocking that up (also run on flows 2 and 3)
25.5 Win/Lose a) Give me a reason for winning b) Give me a reason for losing (also run on flows 2 and 3)
Step 26: Perception
This might be a good place to run some processes on perception. Maybe "What would you be willing to let others see" etc. Another action might be to do the rudiments on each of the 5 senses.
Step 27: Protest
This is a hot button. It not only causes things to read that are not there, it causes the PC to mockup things that aren't really wrong with him. What you resist, you become. If you insist that somebody is stupid and they protest heavily, it can get them resisting being stupid and trying to prove that they're not and that can lead to dramatizing stupidity.
Currently we only use this as one of the prepcheck buttons or a repair question. We could use some general processing here. Possibly something like "what have you protested", "what did you mockup to communicate that" run alternately.
Step 28: The Force on Words
Part of the reactive A=A is to equate words with the force or mockups that the word represents. GPM end words and root words are actually locks on real impacts associated with words. Here we want to blow the mechanism by which the person mocks up the force when the word is said.
This is slightly experimental.
Take a fiction book filled with violence etc., find a violent section of it, and start reading it.
Repeat the following with each paragraph (if the paragraph is really long, break it in half, if its excessively short, then combine two paragraphs):
As you read, mockup an impact for each verb, based on the literal meaning of the verb (not the story content that you are reading).
Read the paragraph again, this time, mockup a picture of impact without force for each verb.
Read the paragraph again, this time only reading the words and mocking up nothing.
Read the paragraph again, and mockup a mass for each noun.
Read the paragraph again, and mockup a picture, without mass, for each noun.
Read the paragraph again, this time mocking up nothing.
Then go on to the next paragraph.
Step 29: Dramatization
It would be a shame to miss out on the "what am I dramatizing" process from grade 6. But up this high, and run on someone who is probably already clear, the answers might not be in terms of simple implant GPM root and end words. You would have to let the answer be whatever it was going to be. The handling, per 3rd ACC style tech, would be to causatively dramatize it (or mockup dramatizing it) and then and then not dramatize it (or mockup not dramatizing it) alternately it until it blows. Then get the next thing, etc.
Step 30: Force
It would be nice to get the person's confront up on force before doing extensive Dianetics processing. Perhaps, "what force would you be willing to confront", or even some of the courage processing from the 3rd ACC (discussed in another write-up).
Another good process might be "Spot some impacts you could be curious about receiving".
Step 31: Goals
Before directly addressing goals, it would be nice to key them out. The second and third ACCs give us some techniques here, such as "spot some goals you don't have".
Step 32: The Actual GPM
This would be a good point to find the actual GPM goal as discussed in the write-up on actual GPMs. Unlike implanted goals, this actual goal does not have to be handled or opposed after it is found. It is comfortable and satisfying to know what it is even if it hasn't been fully discharged. On a first pass through the grade chart, it might not be appropriate to do a full handling or line plot, but the goal should at least be found.
Note that all of the above grades are keyouts. You could do them lightly or deeply, and take multiple passes as needed. Only the final one (handling the current actual GPM) might conceivably be taken to erasure early on. I think that at the top, these will erase in reverse order, working from step 32 down to step 1.
5.3 BLOWING THE BANK
If you start a thorough grades rundown, the odds are that somewhere along the way, the entire bank will blow temporarily.
Its a mistake to think that its all gone. But the PC has so much new open areas available to him that you can't continue with grade processing until he has expanded further and run into the next layer of trouble. This is the time to do OT and erasure style techniques (see below) until such a time as he runs into his own case again. When he does, then carry on with the next grade in sequence, and if you finish the entire series, then start over, running more processes and going deeper.
Taking the analogy discussed earlier, of clear and black areas of the mind with a gray band of accessibility, when the person "blows the bank", much of the gray and black clear up and a great deal more stuff will be in the gray band of accessibility. He never looses this gain, he just gets bigger, so that he fills the newly cleared area, and then sees himself to be abberated again because he has run into what is left.
Oddly enough, as you keep blowing more and more layers of the bank, the problems etc. tend to remain mundane but the whys get more and more exotic. For example, at low levels, one might flinch at car fumes because they restimulate an engram. Higher, one might flinch because they are impacting the environment he is trying to protect. Even higher, he might flinch because they offend his aesthetic sensibility. Even higher, he might flinch because its someone else's mockup filling up his space.
The real truth of the matter is that he is still creating his first and most basic problems (from the earliest track period) using the mundane stuff that currently surrounds him. When you do a light handling and blow some current thing, to some degree it keys out the entire thing all the way down at rock bottom, but the bottom has not been viewed or erased and eventually he'll get it back into the mundane world (but it will come in on some other channel because he has handled the specific current thing that was run on the first keyout).
There are a number of big states of regained awareness that blow the bank temporarily and make significant inroads into the black and gray areas. These include but are not limited to:
a) Regaining control over mocking up the force in mental pictures and over mocking up the pictures themselves. This is the usual state of clear as attained on Dianetics.
b) Freedom from (no longer obeys or mocks up) implanted items and commands. This is the state of clear as is usually attained on the clearing course, and which is normally attained by Dianetic clears when they do OT 2.
c) Freedom from all compulsive assignment of reactive or associative significance to things. This is the state of clear (sometimes called theta clear) that occurred occasionally on power processing.
d) Freedom from compulsive creation of a time track. This is the state of clear OT usually achieved on L10 and occasionally achieved on deep running of grade 2.
e) Freedom from (no longer obeys or mocks up) thoughts or mockups provided by entities. Does not confuse his own thoughts with theirs. Can blow them by inspection. This is the state of cause over life, usually attained on Solo Nots and occasionally attained by a thorough run on OT3.
f) Freedom from location. Exterior to the MEST universe. Capable of free thought outside of the game and can consider things independently of his own survival. I got this on continuing past the solo Nots ep.
g) Freedom from arbitraries. This happened on running the penalty universes. The tone scale and all sorts of other stuff blew.
h) Freedom from the limitations to three dimensions. Able to visualize four dimensional mockups easily and capable of spotting four dimensional directions etc. This finally happened for me when I spotted and ran the reality wars.
There are more, but these are the ones that blew the bank for me. If you skip one (I got state c first, then a, then d, then b), the lesser state is still exceptionally good when you make it and clears up some more stuff (but its not as big as the higher one which you got earlier). In other words, this is not a totally mechanical progression where each state covers everything below it.
5.4 UPPER LEVELS
Its almost a joke to identify these as upper levels because the very top would consist of grade processes taken to erasure instead of going for a key out.
These are really aimed at the "force band" which lies between the human condition and the basic area of the track.
Here we have a problem as to what sequence to run things in, especially in the area of switching off between upper levels and grade processing.
The modern Scientology bridge lines up a small percentage of this stuff into a series of OT levels, but, aside from sales and status buttons, the structure is much too rigid, is too narrow in scope, and sometimes bypasses charge by forcing the person's attention in one direction when it needs to go in another.
First and foremost, if a PC is interested in and capable of running something (and you'd be surprised how many things can be run even with little preparation), there is no sense in denying him because of some arbitrary order. But it might be a mistake to try and do a long thorough rundown at the wrong point. A beginner might do well with a bit of Dianetics or some problems processing or even a few OT drills run lightly, but trying to go for a full completion might get you into a long grinding run because there's too many other things being missed and it runs too slow. So you do a short light run and then get him onto the grades or the steps above.
You can always do a little bit of something as an assist as long as it is not over the PCs head.
A student who is studying this stuff intensively and has a good bag of skills can pretty much run anything on himself in any order and get away with it.
Once a person begins doing OT drills successfully, he can always work on a few of them in between each grade as a horsepower booster.
The processes here are characterized by either raising horsepower or erasing things as opposed to the keyouts which occur on the grades or steps given above. Although they can be worked lightly at any time (if the PC is up to doing the action), intensive runs should be left for those points where the bank has blown and should be carried on until he bumps into the next layer of case and is ready to run more grades processing.
5.4.1 Dianetics and Incident Running
The one gray area is Dianetics and other incident running. This does not go well right after the bank has blown because he must pull things back in to run them. On the other hand, when he has too much charge and bank kicking around, it is also not the best technique because it is too slow. It is best done when he's flying but hasn't quite blown the bank, or when he's just starting to bump into the bank again after running advanced levels during a bankless period. This makes it a matter of judgment (the exception is assists, because he already has the incident on his plate and its a short run that's not liable to get him putting things back that are gone). It might be best to do it as a step 33 in the above sequence of steps, but there might also be other times when it is appropriate.
For beginners doing light co-audits, such as the current Dianetic book course, the 1966 technique, modernized, might be the best bet.
Normal R3R in the final NED variation is the most powerful technique until the person blows the bank on a willingness to confront force (Dianetic clear). You could even use it briefly on a clearing course clear until he has the force cognition. But once he has this, R3R becomes too slow and formal and is just asking to have him mock up stuff that is gone and pull in pictures from entities etc. and get into various kinds of trouble. Its not that you can't run incidents, its that you can't grind them to death once he's regained his confront of force.
Above this point, you can either use alternate spotting, or run a souped up recall technique that includes spotting and scanning the incident but does not grind away at the person with unnecessary formal commands. These are best done solo to avoid the problem of the auditor pushing the person into mocking up stuff that isn't there.
Despite these caveats, it is very important for the person to run incidents because that is what restores his awareness of his previous existence.
A NOTE ON XDN:
The biggest mistake made in modern Scientology was the technique known as Expanded Dianetics (XDN) which was intensively used in the 1970s and then was pretty much abandoned. This is the only Scientology rundown that actually developed a reputation for making people worse. The biggest flaw was the use of listing techniques to find incidents that were not ready to be run, or even worse to make mistakes in listing which caused the person to mock up incidents, or pull in the bank, or grab incidents from entities etc. The second deadly flaw was aiming this technology at evil purposes. An evil purpose is always late on the chain (the being is basically good) and its like running the end of a story without finding the beginning. If you actually get a real one, its probably the final items of an actual GPM and there will be thousands of heavy incidents earlier during the decay of the GPM which are unrun and bypassed by this foolish approach. Even worse, the common errors in listing would hang the person with evil purposes he didn't have and really spin him in.
Audited NOTS was originally developed to cure the problem of people picking up entities' pictures and using them as their own incidents in response to screwed up XDN listing and incident running techniques. This is the real reason that the org thinks that NOTS must be run extensively by an auditor before the PC can do it solo (despite the fact that the person has already done the much more difficult OT3 techniques solo). The cases that had too much XDN were so caved in that it took careful work on the part of an auditor to dig them out.
The problem of making listing mistakes in finding evil purposes and sticking the person with ones that aren't there can be handled by correcting the lists.
Unfortunately, the problem of having stirred up a real evil purpose is not so easily handled. The false purpose rundown helps somewhat because it undercuts the evil purpose and looks for what happened earlier. But its no more than a lick and a promise if he got into the wildly RSing (Rock Slamming) closing section of an actual GPM. This is the one RS that still occurs on an advanced case (Clears don't normally RS, most RSes come from entities on an advanced case). Your best bet in digging out a screwed up XDN case is to use NOTS and list corrections and FPRD tech etc. to cool them down, and then (when their up to getting it) go for the Actual GPMs which will undercut these late in the game evil purposes by exposing the high purposes which decayed into the misbegotten and viscous fighting that one sinks to in this universe.
By the way, the XDN tapes and materials are worth studying. If you discard the dangerous L&N approach and drop the madness of searching for evil purposes, there are still some useful insights and advances which should really be incorporated into normal Dianetics.
5.4.2 OT Drills
This is a huge topic. There are the drills used in the various versions of OT 1, and the old OT levels 5 through 7, and the processes in the various early books (such as Creation of Human Ability) and the tons of stuff on the early tapes.
I've also come up with a great deal more of these. They will be included in another write-up.
5.4.3 Implant Platens
Again we have a huge array of materials. There are the platens of the clearing course and OT2 which can easily be found on the internet. I have come up with a good deal more, which will be included in another write-up.
There are also the penalty universes, which will be covered in their own write-up.
5.4.4 Handling Theta
There is also handling entities as is done on OT3 and Nots, plus more advance handling of machine entities and split pieces of yourself as discussed in the write-up titled "Divide and Conquer".
There is also the handling of theta machinery and other structural things. I haven't done a lot in this area yet. Besides blowing entities out of these things, there is the subject of actually dealing with the structure, spotting underlying postulates, and otherwise regaining control of things that are running on automatic. Ron covered a bit of this in the 3rd ACC tapes, but there is a lot of research that is still needed in this area.
Another target is the true anatomy of Matter/Energy/Space/Time and the mechanics of reality. Again we have some of it, but more research is needed.
At a minimum we always have mockup processing, ITSA, and alternate spotting techniques for prying away at unknown areas.
5.5 SUMMARY
I know there is a lot here. It really is a lifetime study. Don't let the sheer size of it stop you. Any forward progress on this line will remain with you in the course of your future lifetimes (if you even need to have future lifetimes instead of simply wishing bodies in and out of existence or learning to operate comfortably in a bodiless state).
If you've read this far with good comprehension, then you are at least an advanced student rather than a PC or patient, so if something really catches your interest, then go ahead and study it and run it and don't worry too much about formal procedure. The Tech is meant to help. Never let it get in the way of forward progress.
=======================
6. REPAIR AND BOOSTER RUNDOWNS
There is a great deal of tech on this within Scientology. I can't repeat all of it here, and most of it is well done so why should I alter it. You will find the materials in the later tech volumes. This is where modern Scientology is at its best and where the professional auditors really shine. It came about partially because there were so many mistakes that they got very good at fixing people up after a screw up.
The mistakes, by the way, included quickie grades, endless unnecessary sec checks, endless drug rundowns, endless R3R Dianetics after clear, XDN (expanded Dianetics), and various goofs at the detail level such as "barking" style TRs, running unreading items (because the auditor and the tech knew better than the PC and the meter), and refusing to handle the PC's originations. These particular faults have all been corrected (when a bulletin comes out to fix something, it should be obvious to you that it was being done backwards up until that point). There were many more and there is no sense in listing them all here. But it was the "repair" technology which kept people from deserting in droves and cleaned up the messes made.
Here I only have a few comments plus a brief summary for those of you who are not trained as auditors. Also I did come up with a new rundown that might be needed occasionally.
6.1 LIFE REPAIR
The org usually runs extensive life repair before beginning on grades. The processing is generally very light, to take charge off of things the person is concerned about. The auditing requires a very high skill level.
The auditing itself is mostly aimed at simply talking with the PC and steering him into coming up with things that he decided, did, or postulated in areas that have charge on them.
This can produce a nice result, but it is usually unnecessary and is going at things the long way around. Unless the person is really stuck in something, he will run faster and deeper on grades processing.
My own experience on doing numerous intro and demonstration sessions on new people in the early days was that almost anyone who came in of their own free will (not pushed) and was searching for truth (rather than crying for help) was immediately capable of running grades level processes. If they can do a TRs course successfully (which is powerful processing), they can certainly run a simple grades process.
Most of the people who weren't up to running grades processes were people who had previously been messed up by auditing or by screwed up ethics handling or otherwise banged around by the subject. They probably could have run grades processes when they walked in originally and probably could again if they went off and cooled down for awhile.
One of the indicators that we have is the "tone arm" (TA) of the E-meter, which reads low when the person is overwhelmed. If the TA is truly low, the person is not up to confronting things and really does need some repair processing. I emphasize "truly low" here because one of the old mistakes was to ignore things like sweaty hands (and possibly low body weight) which might give a very slightly low reading, but you could always see the difference in a real low TA and a false reading because of the "haunted" look of the PC and the tight, unresponsive, needle behavior on the meter.
In handling new people, I never saw more than one low TA reading in a hundred. In handling staff members and people who had gotten quickie grades or been otherwise mishandled, they were extremely common.
This lead the org into going crazy about doing life repair, endless setup rundowns, etc. But they were really solving a problem in the subject itself rather than doing things that are inherently necessary.
I would say that the bulk of new people can bypass the life repair step and get into the meat of the subject immediately. There will only be a small percentage (people heavily overwhelmed etc.) who do need a life repair step, unless, of course, you start trying to process skeptics or people who aren't really reaching for the subject. It's not that you need belief for this stuff to work, but you do need somebody who is willing to dive in and muck around with the mind and try to do the commands. So in the cases where that isn't present, or where the person has been heavily overwhelmed, you do need life repair, and that is best left to professionals.
6.2 AUDITING REPAIR
There is tons of material on this and its well beyond the scope of this document.
There are extensive needs for this if a professional auditor is running somebody who knows nothing about the subject because its very easy for things to go wrong even if the tech is correct, and when there have been flaws in the tech, the pro can really jam them down some poor PC's throat and so the repair actions become quite essential.
For people who are studying the subject and trying things and need to dig themselves out occasionally, the simple techniques gives in the earlier section on assists should generally be good enough to get them back on the rails.
An ideal scene would be to have people mostly working through this stuff on their own and in co-audit groups and occasionally getting a clean up session from a professional. That would be the most efficient use of the technology and handles the problem of the long training needed to make a good professional auditor.
6.3 THE PURIF
I'm listing this with the repair techniques because it's done to get a road block out of the way rather than to produce case gain.
You will need something like this if the person has been too heavily swamped with drugs, whether they are of the medical or the street variety.
This was originally developed to handle people who had taken LSD and still had residual traces of it locked up in their system. The idea was to sweat the stuff out of the body.
The idea that poisons get locked up in the tissues is also proposed by homeopathy and there are a number of good books on the subject.
I have prejudices in favor of vitamins, homeopathy, home remedies, and other alternative medicines as alternatives to the usual drug oriented treatment that is pushed by the AMA and the drug companies. Unfortunately, a lot of the research money comes from businesses that make money from drugs and so there is a prejudice in their favor within the medical community. You can find doctors who are not slanted this way, but they are the exception rather than the rule.
I am not an expert in this field, but from what I have read of biochemistry texts, its obvious that they are not yet capable of modeling the chemical reactions of the human body as a whole. This means that they are only looking at the direct and immediate chemical reactions and they don't really know what other chemical actions might take place. Hence, the continual worry about side effects. This makes me leery of any powerful medical drugs except in emergencies.
I'm also not in a position to judge whether the purif is any better than other exercise and vitamin programs. Ron does have one key thing which is to keep doing something as long as it produces change and not to back off because something starts to happen. An old Scientology datum is what turns it on turns it off. In other words, you keep going and push through the reactions. This would improve any such program, so its hard to say if the program itself is better or whether its simply being carried through more effectively.
Unfortunately, with the usual fanaticism, they push everybody to do this thing. Its a body oriented program and has little to do with the mind or the search for truth. Its as bad as the yogis who practice sitting instead of contemplating truth or doing mental exercises. There are people who need this, but for most, its a distraction and a road block. There may be a need for an exercise or vitamin program in your life, but it has little to do with your spiritual growth. I suppose the org could also give driving lessons and teach cinematography, and might even do well at these things, but it would be off their main purpose and is certainly not needed as a prerequisite to grades or OT levels.
6.4 DRUG RUNDOWN
This is simply a specialized version of incident running aimed at handling the pains, sensations, emotions, or attitudes connected with taking drugs, or that existed prior to taking drugs which caused the person to start taking them.
For a person with an extensive drug history, this probably should be done fairly early in the sequence of levels.
But the rundown can be fairly lengthy on a beginner because they tend to do incident running slowly and its easy to associate the bulk of his ills in this lifetime with taking drugs, whether as a cause or a cure or whatever. Grades will raise his awareness and ability much faster and eventually lead to his being able to barrel through incidents fairly quickly. So the drug rundown should be left until later if it is not needed urgently.
The big missing step is mocking up the drug sensations and putting them in the walls etc. as was discussed earlier. This action needs to be done after the drug rundown or else you will have problems with people reverting.
Since they don't do this last step, the org has a always had an occasional problem with someone reverting to drugs. Since this can be extremely embarrassing, especially if the person is supposedly an OT, there are times when the org has gone positively fanatical on doing and re-doing endless drug rundowns.
6.5 SEC CHECKS
I've already commented on these. The current misuse is an atrocity.
But you probably need to do a thorough one at least once. That can be a horsepower booster. It should be done as a case action at an appropriate point, maybe somewhere fairly far along in the grades.
But given the current lack of safety, I would strongly recommend that the auditor burn the worksheets rather than put them in the folder after the session.
6.6 SETUPS
The org gets really carried away with running setup actions before letting a person get on with it. They have so many prerequisites for letting somebody start their OT levels that its a wonder that anybody ever gets on them.
There is an old and very wise saying which goes "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Ron actually put out a similar one which was in force for a brief period. This was an admonition against "Inspection Before the Fact", and it formed the core of the "Fast Flow" policies. But was applied with such blindness and lack of judgment that fast flow was quickly canceled and the subject swung the other way and ended up more pedantic and prerequisite ridden than the university system. Here I would make a plea for good sense and judgment rather than fanatically making every square, round, and triangular peg go through the same hole.
I don't blame an org for wanting to dust somebody off a bit and get the case flying before launching into a series of major actions. But if he's flying already, then don't get in his way. And if he really takes off halfway through the setup program, then drop it and get him moving on the grades or OT levels or whatever because that will move him much faster and get him much happier with the results. If you don't get him moving up the line when you can, you are just asking for random chance (or motivators that have been waiting in the wings) to derail him again.
6.7 EXT/INT
This is the Exteriorization/Interiorization rundown.
When a person first exteriorizes from the body, they are not likely to remain that way very long, and when something causes them to interiorize and go back in, it can have a bit of an impact and be upsetting.
In the 1950s, when they were trying hard to exteriorize people (and often succeeding), it was discovered that after getting somebody out a few times, it got harder instead of getting easier. Finally, this was solved by abandoning all of the exteriorization processes instead of finding out what was going wrong and fixing it.
The real solution was eventually discovered in the ext/int rundown. At first it consisted of simply running out the chain of incidents of interiorizing. Later it was improved by assessing for the specific charge ("Went In", "Pushed In", etc.).
Unfortunately it never occurred to Ron that the high horsepower exteriorization techniques of the 1950s (which used to be used even on new people with good results) could now be reinstated.
6.8 OTHER RUNDOWNS
There are more in the tech volumes. Sometimes one of these will really fit the bill. Other times, they are just a distraction and a way of burning up lots of expensive hours of auditing.
There are also the L's (L12, L11, and L10) which are pushed very heavily by Flag, possibly because they are extremely expensive. They aim at producing the Clear OT state, which actually is a very good thing to achieve. But you can probably make that one simply by doing a good job on running grade 2 processes after clear.
There is also the happiness rundown (the HRD), which is really a sort of beginner's grade 2 based on the way to happiness booklet. Real grade 2 processes are better because they don't evaluate for the person as to what is or isn't an overt. A better idea might be to use a few ideas from the HRD to beef up grade 2 a bit more.
A really neat idea might be to have the person roll their own way to happiness. You could run "What would improve survival of the body" / "What would detract from the survival of the body" as alternating questions. Then do the same on each of the other dynamics.
A serious flaw in the HRD is that it does not address problems or ARCXs connected with the precept that they are trying to audit. They look exclusively for misunderstoods, overts, or valence shifting mechanisms. So they are going to mess up in a certain number of cases. A key question would be "is there a problem you are trying to solve by violating (precept)?". Another one would be "do you have an ARCX connected with (precept)?".
6.9 A NEW RUNDOWN
This is a new one that I came up with (mainly because I needed to run it) which handles a specific roadblock that you might hit.
WORLD CLOSED IN RUNDOWN
Oct 27, 1990.
This could also be called the collapsed space rundown.
Having space collapse in on one is a phenomena similar to Interiorization but an order of magnitude heavier. It runs more basic than interiorization and is a source of ext/int type maladies. One of the reasons for trouble in handling ext/int is that after it has been flattened on a PC, this underlying phenomena can cause the symptoms to turn up again. Then the PC's ext/int handling gets invalidated, or he mis-assignees the phenomena to BTs (which can be a source, but his own case is senior), and he misses the real charge. It's true that BTs can have out-int, and it does need to be handled, but it doesn't usually give the PC out-int phenomena once he's gotten up a bit of causation by doing a thorough OT3 or some Nots.
Early on, one is capable of creating and owning space. Then one's space collapses. Then comes interiorizing into things which will generate space for you.
Early in 1952, in the Hubbard College Summary Lectures, Ron mentions "world closed in" incidents, times when something happened and all the color and life went out of everything. I used to think that this was simply the experience of interiorizing. It is not. You could be already interiorized, and yet operating fairly well and have some feeling of owning things and doing alright and then have some terrible loss or whatever and suddenly life has lost all of its luster. Or you could be well exteriorized and even operating without a body, and something goes very wrong (maybe you accidentally drop a planet full of nice folks into a sun or something) and suddenly your space is collapsed without interiorizing into anything. Note that this can happen to a free being who is well above the level of needing a body, and therefore runs much earlier and higher on the scale than ext/int.
This rundown becomes urgently needed when you start running OT drills such as those in SOP8C etc. These get your space and anchor points way out there. I was doing quite well with these kinds of processes when some unrelated trouble caused some inval and threat of loss. My anchor points snapped in and it was just like the ext/int phenomena. But there was no interiorization per se, and it wouldn't resolve on ext/int buttons (either on myself or on BTs etc.). Furthermore, it was almost impossible to audit anything else while this was in restim. After much fooling around with various techniques to get charge off of what had occurred, I managed to see enough to figure out this theory and design the following rundown. It worked like dynamite.
The incident consists of one's space collapsing. First you are big, your anchor points are way out there, etc. Then bang, it all falls in on you and you're tiny, withdrawn, etc.
This can be run exactly like ext/int or end of endless int by using the following list of buttons instead of the int buttons. For advanced cases, the following methods of running would be appropriate:
1. As an assist (if this happens to you in pt):
Assess the list of buttons. Then run 3 way (or 4 way or 5 way) recalls on the best reading, and then on the next best reading until you suddenly feel great relief. Don't continue past the EP even if other buttons were reading as well. (for 5 way recalls, add the flow "another to himself").
2. Handling entities with collapsed space.
Actually this is wrong with all entities (BTs etc.), but for some it will be the key button that wakes them up and digs them out. You can do this just like handling out-int on a BT. Just assess (or spot) the button, assess (or spot) the right flow, and run recalls (generally simply recalling it and then recalling the earliest will produce a blow).
3. Full Rundown.
Assess for the best reading, run it as follows, then the next best etc. until the entire list of buttons just FNs.
3.1 Run 5 way recalls
3.2. Run 5 way secondaries as follows: For each flow, first check whether you already went release on the (button) occurring due to a loss (it often releases on recalls).
a) Recall a time when (button) happened due to a loss. b) Spot any postulate you might have made at that time. Run question b one or more times after each incident recalled on question a. If you can't spot any postulates, then alternately spot something in the incident and something in the room until you can spot a postulate you made at that time.
3.3. Run 5 way engrams as follows: check for release as in 2 above. a) Recall a moment of pain and unconsciousness when (button). b) spot any postulate you might have made at that time. (if you can't find any, then handle as in secondaries above).
3.4. Check for any entities who have (button) and handle.
Note that a clear shouldn't run Dianetic pictures on the secondary and engram steps. Above clear, those usually are supplied by BTs and machinery etc. Just remember what happened to you and spot your postulates (which generally have considerable importance even to a clear). Its even OK to do a bit of ITSA on the incident (spotting time, place, form, and event), just don't start trying to pull in pictures.
-----------------
Assessment Buttons:
1. World Closed In
2. Space Collapsed
3. (your) Energy Collapsed
4. Anchor Points Collapsed
5. Anchor Points Snapped in
6. Everything fell in
7. Space Was Unmocked
8. (your) Energy Was Unmocked
9. (your) Frame of Reference Collapsed
10. Caved-In
11. Pulled Back
12. Withdrew from everything.
13. Made it all unreal
-----------
Note that its always you who collapses your own space. Others may do things to you that get you to do this, but its only you who can snap in your own anchor points no matter how many BTs or nasty folks are working you over.
=========================
7. WRONG IDEAS IN STANDARD TECH
Here I am going to talk about the technology of auditing rather than the high level flaws that I have been pointing out all along.
First of all, the bulk of the auditing technology is correct. It has gone through a long evolution and many of the flagrant misconceptions of earlier years have long since been corrected. But there are still some wrong ideas.
The most basic mistake is to consider that the standardness, correctness, and exactness of the procedure is senior to the PC's gains, maintaining communication with the PC, and granting beingness to the PC.
Our primary target is to produce the best result possible for the PC, this is senior to everything. To achieve this, it is more important to remain in comm with the PC than it is to do the procedure right, because communication is the most important basic we have and nothing can occur in its absence. Furthermore, if the PC's abilities and awareness are to be raised, we must make more of the PC rather than making less of him. Therefore, we must always grant and encourage his own beingness and reinforce his own positive efforts even when these don't fit perfectly into the rote procedure that we are trying to inflict on him. These things are known, and they can be found in the auditor's code. What is not known is the correct relative importance. These things are senior to everything else in the technology including the CS series, the class VIII materials, and all formal procedures of auditing.
When he was writing about art, Ron realized that absolute technical perfection was a dead end. For maximum aesthetics, you get as close as you can to perfection without losing the communication line. If only he had realized that this applies to auditing technology as well.
If you deliver absolutely perfect standard technology, the PC will not make gains. This is robotic and you might as well program up a computer to audit the guy. On the other hand, if the auditor just slops around and makes a mess, there wouldn't be any gains either. The quality of the auditing and quantity of results is dependent on how close you can come to standard while maintaining communication, granting beingness, and keeping other basics in. This may mean occasionally violating standard procedure. The real skill comes in in minimizing the violations rather than in adhering perfectly to standard while the session and the PC go to hell.
If you beat the auditor over the head every time he violates standard procedure with a good result for the PC, then you will kill his ability to be with the PC and use his knowingness and understanding to do what is really needed by the PC even though it isn't in the textbook. The CS must validate these successful violations rather than attacking the auditor.
The standards are there for a reason, and that is the fact that they usually work and trouble results from violating them. On that basis, there will be many instances where violations of standards result in failures and poor results. This is where you correct the incapable auditor and teach him the right way to do things. Don't wreck his judgment by fixing a theoretical mistake that might not be a mistake in the specific case. Instead, fix the real mistakes which are obvious in their failure to help the PC.
The above assumes that the standards are always correct. Even in that case, you must allow for deviations because there are no absolutes. But there can also be actual flaws in the standards, or better ways of doing things. In the past we have seen endless corrections of mistakes in the standards themselves. So if you find that the auditors are getting results with some consistent violation of standard procedure, then maybe you had better revise the standard procedure.
--------------
There have been a number of points which have shifted around over the years. Often there were results either way and there were arguments in favor of either approach.
One of these was whether or not a real FN could occur above 3.0 on the meter. At one time this was an absolute (never call one above 3.0) and some cases were messed up. At other times, anything was accepted without any judgment and some cases were found where processes were left incomplete. Maybe the auditor has to actually look at the PC and be in good enough communication to tell whether or not the PC has gotten release from something. If you're good, you should be able to see this even without a meter. And if the auditor is already well trained and the PC seems happy, maybe the CS should take the auditors judgment as being better than the mechanical phenomena of the E-meter.
Another is the exact definition of what is a read on the meter. In the old days, any change of needle characteristic was taken up. In modern times, they limit themselves to falls and instant FNs, rocket reads, and (in special cases) rock slams. In the first case, we sometimes took up something that was inaccessible (a rise generally indicates a non-confront and if you take one up sometimes it is unrunable). In the second case, we might occasionally miss something that does need to be run. In practice, it might make a difference what you are trying to do. In repair actions, you might take up a read that you would not use in normal processing because it might be your only entry point into some terrible auditing error that was done earlier and you might have no choice but to fight your way through something that is barely runable to get the matter straightened out.
There is also the case of rare and unusual meter reactions. One of these is the sharp instant rise which looks like a fast long fall in reverse. These are very rare. They should be taken up. What you have is a dramatic flinch and non-confront, but the person is right on the edge of looking at it. Its one of these "oh my god that can't be" type reactions. Simply calling it a few times will often turn it into a spectacular fall as the person takes a real look at the item being checked.
One problem is spectacularly large reads. Really huge FNs, theta bops, and rock slams can be confused with each other and can also be confused with giant rocket reads that dive off of the dial. These reads can be 2 or 3 divisions wide on the TA and if they are really fast the needle can slam against the pin with audible force as it shifts on and off the dial. Your immediate action should be to turn the sensitivity down to 1 so that you have some hope of identifying the read. You may also have to swing the TA up or down to catch the end of the read and you may have to recheck the item with the TA already sitting at the position where you are guessing that the read will shove it too. We could really use a meter with a sensitivity setting way below 1 for identifying these giant reads.
The super duper ultra sensitive meters are needed for repair actions where there is so much blocking the PCs view that you need all the help you can get. When a PC is really flying, especially on advanced levels, the reads should be spectacular and you need a less sensitive meter. This silly business of needing a more sensitive meter to run NOTS means that they are running the wrong process. If it is the right action, it will read well. If it doesn't, then either its unnecessary, or out-gradient (something else needs to be run first), or the procedure itself is flawed in some manner. The NOTS material can read well on the meter sometimes. Done at the right time, these can be very beneficial. But run by fanatics who are trying to blame all case on NOTS factors, you get this strange quick of needing more and more sensitive meters to find things that are not reading as expected.
By the way, it would be nice to have a super cheep but ultra sophisticated meter for use by solo auditors so that the ordinary population could run do-it-yourself solo processes etc. A simple and cheep whetstone bridge could be plugged into the serial port of a PC (Personal Computer). A sophisticated program could do signal analysis and put up a graphical display. It could probably do ten times as much as the current meters because of the flexibility and power of doing things in software. I would guess that such a thing could be marketed for under a hundred dollars.
-----------------
An extremely misleading datum is "The PC Doesn't Know What Is Wrong With Him". This was coined on the assumption that if he really knew what was wrong with him, it wouldn't be wrong.
This is pretty much the case for somebody walking in off of the street. Anything they could figure out or handle with the data they currently know and their current level of confront has already been handled and if it is still wrong, then they don't have the correct answer to it.
But this changes as soon as you give them more data or raise their level of confront.
Try listening to the PC for a change. When he's halfway on something, he often does know what's what and has a partial view of the truth. If he saw it all, it would be gone, but when he has a partial view, he is often right but not quite free of it. If you left him alone, he would actually get through it eventually on his own but it might take some time. If, however, you keep insisting that he doesn't know when he really does, your going to mess him up and create a big ARCX as well.
An extreme example was the mess up on people who had gone clear on Dianetics before the Dianetic clear bulletin came out. They would usually know that they were being run on wrong actions and they often felt that they were clear but wouldn't dare claim to be. In this case, they knew better than the auditors and CSes and nobody would acknowledge their rightness.
A good button for ARCX correction lists (the L1) and repair lists (the green form) would be "Were you right and nobody would accept it?". This is a key point because we are trying to rekindle the fundamental rightness that lies under all the aberrations and when the PC has it but you shoot it down, you are pushing him right back into the bank and killing his real hopes of freedom. This can cause the kind of ARCX where the PC wants to burn down the org because it is acting suppressively towards his case.
Of course you don't want to lose control of the session or go chasing after every idle thought or get derailed by the PCs attempts to avoid looking at something. But you should be able to tell the difference between a PC who is non-confronting and one who is perceiving truth. And you should be able to finish a cycle of action while noting down things the PC suggests for later handling, and keep the PC reassured, and really address those things as soon as the current process is done.
And don't make a fight out of not taking the PCs orders. You can bend a little and still not lose control of the session. Sometimes the PC is right. Validate it. Getting the PC to the point where his ITSA of his own case is actually correct is the most important gain he will ever make because it is the one which will let him find his own way out.
-----------------
Another sore point is the datum that "All Auditors Talk Too Much". A policy from the late 1960s states this explicitly.
The interesting thing about this one is that it is true and yet the policy was written in such a manner as to be totally destructive of auditing.
The policy presents this as something to be corrected. The end result was that auditors stopped talking and auditing ceased to occur. This was to some degree remedied in later years (by a revision to TR4 handling of originations), but still remains a trouble spot.
The correct datum is that any auditor who is really auditing the PC will talk too much. Maintaining two way communication is senior. If the auditor talks too little, there will be no auditing taking place. If the auditor tries to talk precisely the right amount, he will occasionally undershoot and betray some of his PCs by losing the comm line. Therefore, he will talk too much if he really intends to get results instead of trying to make some CS happy or meet some arbitrary standard. Again, however, it is a matter of coming as close as possible. The highly skilled auditor will only talk a hairsbreadth too much rather than blabbering away at the PC and occasionally saying the wrong thing and getting into a mess.
-----------------
One fatal flaw has been the use of endless setups, preparation, and repair before letting the PC get moving on new grades and OT levels.
This has mostly come about as a solution to the mistakes of having defined clear incorrectly, blaming all case on NOTS, considering things to be absolutes rather than a gradient of increasing confront and awareness, and the many grades and processes which are missing from the current lineup. This makes CSes scared to let somebody start something because it might not handle what is wrong and the PC might fall on his head.
The grades and levels work quickly to increase ability and awareness. Unnecessary repair and setup actions (and the infamous unnecessary sec checks) grind along slowly and waste everyones time and money.
The only criteria that should be considered before embarking on one of these major steps is whether or not the PC is flying (e.g. running well, high toned, FNs and cognites easily, etc.).
In some cases an out-list or out-int will be a roadblock and you have to solve it. In other cases, it doesn't matter. Look at the PC and see if he has the free attention necessary to run something new or whether his attention is fixated. That's all you care about.
There are many things wrong with the PC. You need to raise his confront in lots of areas. No single area is the right reason behind all his aberrations, and that means that you can't get evangalistic and try to cure everything with one approach. Move the PC forward as quickly as possible, getting a big win on each of many different major areas. When you get too thorough in one area, it begins to bypass the charge of the other areas that you are not handling and eventually it will blow up in your face.
Don't promise perfect stability or absolute solutions. Promise instead that you will move him along as fast as possible to increase his horsepower and abilities.
As far as NOTS goes, it is a lesser case factor and mainly causes trouble when it is assigned as the reason behind the PCs problems, overts, and upsets. Its simply the WRONG WHY. Indicating the correct "why" behind something never really harms the PC, even if it is a bit out-gradient and hard to confront. But taking something that does have charge on it (and there is generally some charge on NOTS) but is not the correct why for something and jamming it down the PCs throat is a sure way to mess up the PC.
The point at which to begin NOTS is when the PC starts noticing entities and gets interested in handling them. It shouldn't be kept a secret from him. It should be identified as something which will show up eventually and we have the tech to handle it when it does. Meanwhile, it can safely be ignored. Just don't let the PC start blaming his case on them, because that will kill him.
The correct gradient into doing NOTS is to do OT drills first. That is what gets his perception and horsepower up to the point where he can just dust himself off and get these entities out of his way. You get the PC up to the point where he is trying to project energy and percieve at a distance and things like that and he's noticing that there is stuff in his way that's muddying things up and reducing his horsepower. That is the real effect of entities. They do not abberate the person significantly (the PC was already abberated before incident 2, else why was he walking around in a body and letting himself get bashed around by a nasty ruler), but they do get in the person's way, especially in regards to OT abilities.
-----------------
In comparison with the vague fumblings that usually occur in metaphysics, Scientology is a precise technical subject. But we err in equating it to a mechanical technology such as engineering. This misleads you into thinking that its all mechanics, and its not.
In building bridges, you simply do the tech mechanically and a bridge results.
But Scientology tech is more like the tech of painting or playing the piano. These things have a very high theta component and if you only apply the techniques mechanically, you do not get the desired product. The tech is only a prerequisite to real understanding and ability, it is not the final result.
Scientology is, first and formost, a philosophy rather than an engineering decipline. You need to study and apply it as a philosophy. And because it is an applied philosophy, you also need to master the mechanical aspects of the tech, but don't get lost in them or think that they are the end product.
-----------------
The basic problem is one of attitude. The effort seems to be to defend the technology and make it right when what you really need to do as an auditor is to build up the rightness of the PC and what you need to do as a CS is to build up the rightness of your auditors.
If you validate beingness, knowingness, and responsibility, then you will get more beingness, knowingness, and responsibility. On the other hand, if you validate rote procedure, then you will get more rote procedure (and will in turn need even more rote procedures because the old ones wouldn't be enough in the face of a deterioration of beingness, knowingness, and responsibility).
Despite all of this, there are some really good auditors, supervisors, and CSes working for the CofS. The shame of it is that they are the exception rather than the rule and they are subject to invalidation for the exact things which set them above the crowd.
|
|
|
