This is the old (read-only) version of the site running Mediwiki 1.25

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Reading and Unreading Auditing Questions"

From Scientolipedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Re: Reading and Unreading Items -- Dl88008 19:31, 15 February 2012 (MST))
(→‎Reading and Unreading Items -- Thetagal 15:22, 14 February 2012 (MST))
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Reading and Unreading Items -- [[User:Thetagal|Thetagal]] 15:22, 14 February 2012 (MST) ==
 
−
 
−
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.
 
−
 
 
== Answer to Pat ==
 
== Answer to Pat ==
  

Revision as of 22:25, March 19, 2012

Answer to Pat

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 postA position from which a terminal operates in an org, where one knows that somebody is at. (FO 2200) Aug 1982. CBR left the church already beginning 1981. So did many others in that time. Also 1982 17th Oct the USUnited States. (Modern Management Technology Defined (C) 1976). 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 LRHL. Ron Hubbard 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 auditor1. one who listens and computes; a Scn practitioner. 2. one who has been trained in the technology of Scn. An auditor applies standard technology to preclears. 3. a person who through church training becomes skilled in the successful application of Dn and Scn to his family, friends and the public to achieve the ability gained as stated on the Gradation Chart for his class of training...more. 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 HCOBHubbard Communications Office Bulletin (technical bulletin) Also colloquially referred to as "red on white" HCOB's are always red ink on white paper. later sought to cover these actions by "discovering the error," attributing it to someone else, and "calling it to my attention.""[Quote of HCOBHubbard Communications Office Bulletin (technical bulletin) Also colloquially referred to as "red on white" HCOB's are always red ink on white paper. 23 June 80RA]

I other words I doubt that LRHL. Ron Hubbard wrote those issues, all of them.


Next question is what is the purpose of the grade processes? To take charge1. harmful energy or force accumulated and stored within the reactive mind, resulting from the conflicts and unpleasant experiences that a person has had. Auditing discharges this charge so that it is no longer there to affect the individual. (Scn AD)..more off as in Dianetics1. DIA (Greek) through, NOUS (Greek) mind, deals with a system of mental image pictures in relation to psychic (spiritual) trauma. The mental image pictures are believed on the basis of personal revelation to be comprising mental activity created and formed by the spirit, and not by the body or brain. (BPL 24 Sept 73 V) 2. Dn addresses the body. Thus Dn is used to knock out and erase illnesses, unwanted sensations, misemotion, somatics, pain, etc. Dn came before Scn. It disposed of body illness and the difficulties a thetan was having with his body. (HCOB 22 Apr 69)...more or to provide the pc with abilities? If the answer is "to take charge1. harmful energy or force accumulated and stored within the reactive mind, resulting from the conflicts and unpleasant experiences that a person has had. Auditing discharges this charge so that it is no longer there to affect the individual. (Scn AD)..more off" because you are handling locks – then I have to deny that. You do not handle locks, for that we have other techniques, Dianetics1. DIA (Greek) through, NOUS (Greek) mind, deals with a system of mental image pictures in relation to psychic (spiritual) trauma. The mental image pictures are believed on the basis of personal revelation to be comprising mental activity created and formed by the spirit, and not by the body or brain. (BPL 24 Sept 73 V) 2. Dn addresses the body. Thus Dn is used to knock out and erase illnesses, unwanted sensations, misemotion, somatics, pain, etc. Dn came before Scn. It disposed of body illness and the difficulties a thetan was having with his body. (HCOB 22 Apr 69)...more and Lock Scanningone contacts an early lock on the track and goes rapidly or slowly through all such similar incidents straight to present time. One does this many times and the whole chain of locks become ineffective in influencing one. (HFP, pp. 99-100), etc. And if to "take charge1. harmful energy or force accumulated and stored within the reactive mind, resulting from the conflicts and unpleasant experiences that a person has had. Auditing discharges this charge so that it is no longer there to affect the individual. (Scn AD)..more off" then I ask what's about Objectives? Don't we see pcs going through heavy charges and masses sometimes? Then whyThat basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats. (HCO PL 13 Oct 70 II) not to check those processes on the meter2. Hubbard Electrometer. An electronic instrument for measuring mental state and change of state in individuals, as an aid to precision and speed in auditing. The E-meter is not intended or effective for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. (Scn AD)...more?

The intention is to increase abilities - does that then mean abilities are suppressed by charge1. harmful energy or force accumulated and stored within the reactive mind, resulting from the conflicts and unpleasant experiences that a person has had. Auditing discharges this charge so that it is no longer there to affect the individual. (Scn AD)..more? 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 auditedThe application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor. (Dianetics & Scientology Technical Dictionary (C) 1975) in HAS Co-Audit you don't use an e-meter2. Hubbard Electrometer. An electronic instrument for measuring mental state and change of state in individuals, as an aid to precision and speed in auditing. The E-meter is not intended or effective for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. (Scn AD)...more but you do on the grades?


And last but not least the experience: It runs fine.


I don't damn the e-meter2. Hubbard Electrometer. An electronic instrument for measuring mental state and change of state in individuals, as an aid to precision and speed in auditing. The E-meter is not intended or effective for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. (Scn AD)...more, we certainly need it, but put it where it belongs to!

Don't take Class VIIIThe Class VIII Course teaches exact handling of all cases up to 100 per cent result, as well as Class VIII procedures, all case setup actions, all processes and corrective actions, as well as flubless Class VIII auditing. (Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary (C) 1975) down to Class 0 or even lower.


Max Hauri, 19 March 2012

Retrieved from "https://upgrade.scientolipedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Reading_and_Unreading_Auditing_Questions&oldid=2005"