Talk:Reading and Unreading Auditing Questions
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| SUBJ1 | 3 | 21:59, February 20, 2020 |
| Using the Discussion feature | 0 | 22:38, March 19, 2012 |
Max you are quite right that Grade processes and/or their flows were not checked for reads up in early auditing up to 1980 or so. We did get good results doing it that way, but sometimes we got "processes that didn't bite" and much protest and wasted auditing time also.
Your understanding of tech is based on what you have read and experienced so I am not here to tell you what is standard, what isn't or why. You are doing a great job with what you know, and we did a great job for 30 years doing it the way you do.
When "Unreading Questions and Items" HCOB came out, I was in instant protest. How could an HCOB wipe out everything we were trained on, the various instant reads, ticks, theta bobs, change of needle characteristics and so on? And students were tending to take that as new data thought it really cancelled out their earlier training. I had to review that HCOB so I could make sense out of it.
One thing I did was make a pack on E-meter Instant reads. I put together every statement I could find that LRH said on that. (Thanks to the search feature on the computer). And I would show that pack to an auditor who (god help us) didn't take up the ARCx because it just ticked.
So I want to quote some of those HCOB's:
HCOB 23 May 1962, E-Meter Reads, Prepchecking, how Meters get Invalidated "...it is "fatal" to pass an instant reaction on a pc and may cancel fruther reads."
HCOB 25 May 1962 E-Meter Instant Reads, "The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except null. An instant read may be any change of characteristic, providing it occurs instantly"
HCO PL 14 July 1962 Auditing Allowed "One instant read missed out of 200 can deprive a pc from all gains".
I think we can agree that if a rud reads per the statement above we would handle the rud.
Now I would like to introduce HCOB 1 March 1964, Meter Reads, Size of. It points out that "all mistakes on goals or situations in Classes V and VI can be traced to a failure to appreciate that metering is different at different levels" Auditor finds goal on list that ticks(1/8th inch) Asks if it's the correctly worded goal. Gets a tick( 1/16") Runs it on the pc. Pc collaspes. Here is the real way it should have been: Auditor finds goal on list that only ticks. Gets in Suppress and Invalidate on the list..." So here you can see that LRH wants the major items to read well. And that when they don't one resorts to rudiment type handling.
Now you don't disagree that when you do listing and nulling the item should read well, I'm sure. It is where it gets applied to Grades Processes that you have your disagreements.
The 1980 HCOB "Checking Questions on Grade Processes" is so clear that it is hard for me to understand why anyone would have a disagreement with it. It explains clearly that if a subjective process doesn't read it won't run and also that not reading stems from three sources: 1) The process is not charged, 2) The process is invalidated or suppressed or 3) Ruds are out in session.
But when it comes to the handling of students you aren't going to get reads if the pc isn't in session and willing to talk to the auditor.
To continue with the HCOB I want to quote this paragraph, "One doesn't make a big production of checking as it distracts the PC. There is a system, one of many one can use. One can say, "the next process is (state wording of the auditing question)" and see if it reads. This does not take more than a glance If no read but, more likely, if it isn't charged, an F/N or smoothly null needle, one hardly pauses and adds "but are you interested in it?" PC will consider it and if not charged and the PC in session, it will f/n or f/n more widely."
Now consider the pros and cons of using this HCOB as compared to simply running everything on a Grade whether it reads or not. (Actually this is tantamount to saying"run every process on a Grade whether the pc is interested or not) Now I know you wouldn't run something the pc wasn't interested in...I know you would not force him to go on. That would be a gross auditing error. PROS 1) If it doesn't read on clearing the command, doesn't read when called out, doesn't read with sup/inv and doesn't read on interest you know right away that re: Auditor's Rights C/S Series 1 that the pc has out ruds or no interest in the first place. It gives you an opportunity to catch a pc who is not properly set up, or an auditor whose ARC with the pc is too low to get reads.
2) I'd like to point out that Grades are run with Quad Flows, so when "checking the process" we are actually checking the flows of the process, and one flow may be more available to the pc than another. You have a motivator flow, and overt flow just to name two. Most people have both. But someone could be sitting in the overt flow with something he'd done to on the subject, and now, without checking you want to run the motivator flow? He is going to have to dub it in if you ask him to run it. He may pull in track to try to find something to run (yuck).
CONS 3) The con is that it takes a more skilled auditor to do it this way, and when you are training students at level 0 you need to be able to train him to do something at all, listen and get case change on his pc. So to get a level 0 auditor to be able to do all of the above may be expecting too much. Gradient scales. If it doesn't go well the level 0 Auditor applies Auditor's Rights and ends off if it isn't going well.
You can't assume the pc has charge on all flows. I believe level 0 pcs are taught clearing commands, so why not just teach them to clear commands per the 23 June 1980 HCOB on Checking Questions on Grades Processes? I wish I knew what it was about that HCOB that you disagree with, or can't clarify. It does work--I know, I've done it both ways for years each way, and find that Checking Questions on Grades Processes is valid tech.
MY APPROACH
So when I train an auditor, I care most about:
1) Auditors Rights, especially do not audit over out ruds. 2) Is the pc really set up for session (Per Tech Dictionary F/N VGIs) If I tell an auditor to fly a rud if no f/n, and he takes an ARCx to GI's f/n I would expect him to fly another rud until the pc is f/n VGIs) 3) On subjective processes I want those babies to read, or f/n. (Pardon my slang, but you get the point) If they do neither, even when ruds are in, then pc is on the wrong program. Big red flag. Maybe pc had the ep of the grade, and is no longer intersted in it. To continue to run him would be a wrong program, as he should be on the next one. Maybe he roller coastered a bit, or the auditor is trying to get a read over a missed withhold. Not reading at the level it should tells a c/s a LOT. I want to see those sf's falls or better!
Patricia Krenik
- P.S. In case you aren't familiar with "pros and cons" it is like reasons for, reasons against.
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.