SUBJ1
The following was moved to the new Liquid Threads format. It is Max Hauri's response.(Ronsorg) on 3-19-2012
Pat, this subject is actually worth to investigate more thoroughly. I didn't make an easy decision, believe me.
Just to make sure, the bulletin 27 May 1970 Unreading Questions And Items is not at discussion at all, this one is correct, I only discredit that a quote out of context was put into the Tech Dict and taken as a reference for Read.
It is the bulletin 23 June 80R (revised 25 Feb 1982) Checking Questions On Grades Processes which is at stake. To point out clearly, 25 Feb 82 was the first time when we had to check grade processes for read. The first issue 23 June 80 was more or less a re-release of the bulletin 22 Oct 70.
For me it is now not clear when you left the church, probably earlier then I did as you have been closer to the eye of the hurricane, and after all you were so much more experienced then I was then. So I am not sure if you read that bulletin being still in the church or after you have left. The big schism was already in progress mid '82.
This points out a big huge outpoint. Remember Mayo was removed from post Aug 1982. CBR left the church already beginning 1981. So did many others in that time. Also 1982 17th Oct the US Mission Holders' Conference, San Francisco took place. Factually several thousands if not ten-thousands left the church then.
The outpoint is that 1982 the church was already pretty suppressive, Miscavige already took over, and LRH on the other hand is happily writing bulletins and policy letters but not being aware of what is going on in the church – at least not mentioning it but discrediting publicly his earlier friend and auditor. I dare to say David Mayo is meant by that and if not, it is a generalization anyway Hubbard wouldn't have done: "The person who had originally approved – and even taken part in writing – this incorrect and illegally issued HCOB later sought to cover these actions by "discovering the error," attributing it to someone else, and "calling it to my attention.""[Quote of HCOB 23 June 80RA]
I other words I doubt that LRH wrote those issues, all of them.
Next question is what is the purpose of the grade processes? To take charge off as in Dianetics or to provide the pc with abilities? If the answer is "to take charge off" because you are handling locks – then I have to deny that. You do not handle locks, for that we have other techniques, Dianetics and Lock Scanning, etc. And if to "take charge off" then I ask what's about Objectives? Don't we see pcs going through heavy charges and masses sometimes? Then why not to check those processes on the meter?
The intention is to increase abilities - does that then mean abilities are suppressed by charge? What if the ability was never there in the first place?
Very important is to keep the runway small and simple. For example HAS Co-Auditing. Many of those processes are today part of the grades. Do we now introduce two different standards? If audited in HAS Co-Audit you don't use an e-meter but you do on the grades?
And last but not least the experience: It runs fine.
I don't damn the e-meter, we certainly need it, but put it where it belongs to!
Don't take Class VIII down to Class 0 or even lower.
Max Hauri, 19 March 2012 Ronsorg
I was trained in 1988 at the FSO, shortly after the release of the new Levels Checksheets and packs. I completely understand the aspect of relativity in comparison to when one was trained, what they have experienced since that training, who was the training C/S for that individual and when were they trained as a C/S etc.
It has been our observation as an Organization that people do very much tend to stick on technical points that became their stable datum from the time of their training. It almost becomes a service facsimile manifestation of "That's what is right and nothing else!" when it comes to technical issues. Practically to a point that I believe this manifestation is one of the primary "whys" on individuation in the field in regards to out-tech finger pointing amongst auditors and C/Ses in the field. Everyone takes the "The tech was right when I got out!" viewpoint and never changes, adapts, grows, or furthers themselves beyond their stuck point, similar to the phenomena LRH talks about in the HCOB "Why thetans mock up."
In other words, yes there were constant changes in the tech for decades, as it was a dynamic subject during the period of LRH researching the subject. Others were involved, and things did get erroneously deleted or purposefully deleted without his permission. There were other reasons as well, some much more nefarious than others in regards to having the correct technology. In short, its all relative to the comparable that one has in the tech. Some have much less data to compare than others, some are literally stuck in time, as any change would destabilize their ability to audit, to the detriment of their own consideration, monitoring their ability.
What I was taught, and have found to be true in countless sessions with PCs and Pre-OTs as well as solo is this. "Things that don't read, won't run." The meter isn't giving one permission to audit something, it is VERIFYING the charge is there. If the subject isn't charged, one is quite literally making a being who is more than capable of mocking up mass, to do just that, mock something up to run.
NOTS was developed to handle just that, originally, for Dianetics PCs who had gone past clear and were now being asked to look for something that wasn't there, thus mocking up case. Whether its NED or grades, with what we know now, given the NOTS data, running unreading items is contrary to the purpose of NOTS and it's inception in the first place. It was a solution to overrunning those who had no charge left. Yes, on Dianetics, but the same holds true for grades also. Both are subjective processes, DIanetics having an objective manifestation in the physical universe on the body, being the only difference. Charge on a meter validates the axiomatic principle of "For anything to persist there is a lie behind it." If it isn't charged, there is nothing to as-is, for only charge shows persistence in the form of a read on the meter, in the form a manifesting dissipation showing up as a read, if only slightly, as one of the four types of falls, or an instant F/N on some occasions.
With NOTS technology being the most recent on the chain of discoveries, did it only become apparent through research and discovery that the composite being was ultimately, the monitoring factor for the need of reading questions, and obviously items. Just because one part of the composite is free of charge does not discount the balance of the composite case that is left. To me, this is the key concept for needing reading questions. One has to take a macro view on the time line of discovery and its application, and most importantly, be trained in it to earnestly apply it correctly. One does not know what one, does not know. :)
This is not to explain away the lower bridge with NOTS, it is however the point that NOTS tech demonstrates what happens when there is nothing to run and how it can be a tremendous draw down and invalidation to the Pre-OT and demonstrably the concept is the same for those below clear, putting something there that was not charged in the first place. It may even be safe to say it might be even worse for those below Clear as they have yet to cognite on what it is they are being asked to do on unreading questions being run.
Just my viewpoint based from where and when I was trained, lol! Its all relative!
Jonathan Burke
www.ao-gp.org
One thing, as an aside, that I would like to mention, the HAS coaudit. I helped supervise about 200 co-audits in 1958-1959. While true we did not check the HAS coaudit commands for reads, the student auditors each had an emeter and kept the needle on the dial so we could watch the TA action. If no TA we would get in there find out what was going on. If pc was just protesting the process, we would clean that up and flatten or get a new process. Or if we saw the ta wasn't moving, we would step in and handle.