|
|
|
ARBITRARIES ROSS - 1 Copyright (C) 1993 Bob Ross |
|
|
|
|
|
WARNING!!! Church members read this at their own risk as it could lead to their not being in good standing. COVERT VERBAL TECH = Typos Enforced as Tech. I had not done the PRD so I had to get every bulletin word cleared. I learned as a
student, to not tell my word clearers when I was aware of typos or other errors in the materials. That way
I avoided having word clearers use a form of covert verbal tech by insisting that I find a way the typo could be
true. I avoided this by studying the background of ENFORCEMENT OF INCORRECT DATA = Robotism Ron has said, Robotism results from enforcement of wrong data (Vol. VIII 127-30). I have a list of over a hundred typos and other errors in the Tech bulletins and books. The biggest one and one that props up the power of Church admin people is to be found in the Responsibility Scale on page 121 of Scientology 0-8 (Page 119 in older editions). This scale has two typos which can be discovered by inspection or by listening to the tape, 6204C05, Sacredness of Cases, Other Determinism, Self Determinism, Pan-determinism. This scale has been in error since it was issued as HCOPL 17 Jan 62. I leave it to you to listen to the tape or figure it out for yourself. I will however give you one clue. The word "other" should be "either" in one place on the page. YAWNING ALWAYS MEANS A BYPASSED MU WORD = BPC There are more reasons than MU words for yawning. Read DMSM to find out. DEMO AS YOU GO = constant meaningless fiddling Insisting that people be demoing what they are listening to constantly leads to automaticities of fiddling with demo kits pieces to make it look as though one is demoing when it is actually unnecessary. This being a withhold causes eventual disaffection on the part of the student. FLUNKING = Invalidation When I was running the PE course in NY Org in 1966 I saw that flunking by twins on an introductory TRs course was always evaluative and frequently invalidative. This caused upsets and frequent losses rather than only gains for new students. This resulted from the fact that flunking by new students was based upon social rather than auditing considerations. I invented and introduced validative TRs (See Doc 002 The Path to Happiness.) I consider flunks in 0-IV Academy Training, by supervisors, to be extremely dangerous.
Incorrect flunks by an instructor are a covert way of enforcing verbal tech, without saying anything except "Flunk."
Incorrect flunks by fellow students are arguable and merely throw doubt STUDY TECH IS COMPLETE = No further Progress I have had the temerity to discover and develop undercuts to church Study Tech. One undercut consists of clearing the alphabet. Alphabet symbols are part of all reading, therefore MU's on the alphabet interfere with learning phonics and learning to sound out words for oneself and being able to use a dictionary successfully. See Doc. No. 141, ABC's a Study undercut. I have also found a bit of incomplete Study Tech, namely that the way to check for an MU is to ask for the definition of the word being tested. With some words, it is important as well to ask for the meaning of the word for many words change meaning with context. OTs CAN COMMIT OVERTS WITHOUT PENALTY = Reduced Pan-Determinism The church, I have heard, teaches that after one has run out the source of the Overt-Motivator mechanism: one can no longer be hurt by committing overts on others. Therefore, it is OK to follow the Fair Game Law and commit overts in body or psychically on "Enemies of the Church." The truth is that committing overts reduces ones willingness to be the other person and hence reduces one's potential pan-determinism because one becomes unwillingness to be the person overted against. NEVER AUDIT A PC ON DRUGS = Emergencies Not Handled About the same time, also in D.C. I blew off another rule, that of not auditing a PC who had taken drugs. A young man, who had been on drugs, kicked them and had done a DRD lived on the floor above me down the street from the Org on S Street. He had to go to a local hospital to handle a condition. At the hospital, as part of their procedure, they gave him an injection of morphine over his objections. He requested an assist at the Org following his stay in the hospital and was refused by the C/S, because he had been injected with morphine. The injection had turned on his craving again. A few days later he OD'd from drugs. I then reread what Ron had said about auditing over drugs. I discovered that what Ron had said was, "If you run something on a PC who is on drugs, you may have to run him on that again when he is off them and they are out of his system." The later rules of no auditing were admin rules not PC rules. ACCEPTABLE COGNITIONS = Invalidation of PCs. Another arbitrary but unwritten rule I have experienced, and been told of by others, is the practice of not validating or even punishing PCs for upper level cognitions or abilities, achieved on lower levels. When I had a DCSI at Flag in 1979, my past upper level release points were totally ignored. I have heard since from exFlag auditors that they learned to not write down upper level cogs from their lower level PCs because if they did so, their PCs would be penalized by being given Sec Checks. On the theory that they could not have had that cog without being privy to confidential materials. F/Ns MEAN STOP THE SESSION = Preventing the PC From Looking. While it is true that an F/N heralds an EP and is considered part of an EP, remember that an F/N can get wider and wider. So, never stop a PC from looking at the first sign of an F/N. In fact don't stop a PC ever, only because you saw an F/N. Instead, ask the PC whether he is finished looking or whether there is more there he wants to look at. Don't even ask, if the PC is still talking and obviously looking at something. Both ask whether the PC is finished and whether the PC has something else there he or she wants to look at. Doing that will neither pull the PC away from or push the PC further into it. PC's are often in propitiation and will take a question asked only one way as a suggestion to do it that way. e.g. "Would you like to go to the movies?" pushes in the direction of going to the movies. "Would you rather go to the movies or do something else?" is more neutral. Even better might be, "Would you like to go to the movies, or continue what you are doing?" On beginning PCs, it sometimes seems that keeping them from overrunning is necessary. However, I prefer to let the PC go on past an F/N, in the hope that it will widen, and wait until the PC realizes that she is through with the subject before rehabbing the F/N. This I am able to do easily, because I noted it together with what was going on at that point in the session. e.g. "Did you feel better when you said _______ ?" When a PC has the bit in his teeth and is looking at something don't stop that PC from looking because of some imagined danger that you have heard of and don't really understand anyway. Just be alert to help the PC any way you can. ARC BREAK F/Ns = The auditor did something wrong Well, yes, the auditor failed to notice that the PC was not bright at end of session, and did not take out a repair list, though this degrade of VGIs might not have occurred till after the session was over and the PC on his way to the examiner. Primarily an ARC break F/N results from the revealing of a long standing, but suppressed and buried ARC break which has surfaced as a result of getting charge off the case. This is so much the case, that one can say, that comments especially nasty comments or protests about a process always signal that the question or process one is working on is flat just as much as having a cog. I ran into this two ways. I saw this on a PC about 1967. I was running her on CCHs and she was complaining. I thought the process was unflat whereas it was flat and I should have been going on to the next process in sequence. I saw another aspect of this earlier in 1964, while I was auditing Stan Stromfeld at Saint Hill. After each command of a process I was running per Ron's instructions the needle went dirty just as the PC said he was done. This continued for several days about once an hour until I recognized that I might be dealing with a prior comm break. The earlier comm break that was causing the dirty needle had been seven years earlier. I have more recently encountered the same phenomenon off the meter. The PC had been going along quite willing to spot charge on a postulate. Then immediately after his last answer and a cog the PC suddenly became quite upset and said that time had been wasted. Recognizing that a prior ARC break had been revealed I asked about it and the PC immediately quieted down and ran off the earlier ARC break which had occurred millennia before and consisted of failing to achieve a goal after years of effort. His remarks about wasting time really applied to the earlier incident. PCs CAN BE HARMED = Fear of Committing Errors In the 1960's, peaking up for me in 1963-4, Ron had much to say about wrapping PCs around flagpoles. This was an apparent danger at that time, which resulted from the kinds of charge being run and the methods being used to handle it. Yes, indeed, people occasionally felt very strong somatics following sessions. I experienced two hours of intense agony myself in 1970 at ASHO, as the aftermath of being asked to look for something that was not there and being prevented from looking at what was there, during an Int RD. Having a PC experience severe pain or agony for a short time, is not the same as causing permanent harm to the PC. In fact, it could be a salutary learning experience. However, a short repair session with a list works wonders and all the agony, upset and damage is corrected. My own agony would not have occurred if I had not gone along with what the C/S had ordered over my own protests. If you always work with a PC and handle protests instead of overriding them the PC will not get into trouble. In 1950, when the PC protested in some way one did not push the PC to do what was protested against, instead one ran off the protest by having the PC repeat the protest to discover what earlier charge was under it because obviously Dianetic auditing was going to do the PC good, so any protest had to be an aberration. As Ron said, any auditing is better than no auditing. He could have added unless the PC is being overwhelmed by the auditor and the auditing. Some people are so compulsively polite and propitiative that one can easily override their protests. Just recognize that any protest no matter how weakly stated or displayed should be recognized and dealt with. At the very least ask for earlier protests. ADVANCE PAYMENT = Prevented Auditing Another arbitrary I ignore is that PCs must pay in advance. Ron said, and I agree, "When a PC is satisfied the PC pays cheerfully." This is to be found in Ron's comments when setting up rules for Review auditing, which is the only kind of auditing at one time that could be given on credit. REVIEW AUDITING TO BE PAID ADDITIONALLY = Unfair That reminds me of another rule I once broke, when I was Qual Sec NY. This was shortly after the form of the Org changed, and Review was supposed to be paid for over and above prepayments made for an intensive. A PC who was too tough for the HGC auditors was sent to review for handling. That PC had saved for two years to pay for her intensive and did not have extra money for Review. So having influence at that time, I arranged for her unused credit to be transferred to Review. With other PCs who only needed an hour or so in Review, I arranged that a portion of their prepayment be credited to Review so that I had a Stat without making them pay more. NY Stats increased. DON'T GIVE AN ASSIST WITHOUT C/S OK = Unhandled Conditions IF RON DIDN'T SAY IT, IT'S SQUIRREL = No creativity I once had the temerity to give an assist to a student who was planning to leave her internship incomplete at FCDC. Senior staff at the Org had been unable to get her to change her mind. She felt upset about leaving but just had to do so because she had promised to be back home at a certain time. My assist based upon basic theory, kept her from blowing. I was rewarded by being called in to qual to discuss whether I had violated the rule of not getting prior permission from the C/S. I wrote up my simple program and it was called squirrel. Here it is. Here is the Assist C/S I wrote on the situation described above. "Let the PC tell you about the upset or problem. Whatever the motivator, listen to it. Then, at an appropriate moment ask whether the PC had ever committed a similar overt on another. Following that run General O/W, ("What have you done? What have you not done?") until PC feels better. Then end off off by running problems of comparable magnitude on whatever problem remains. I wrote my assist and turned in the report to be put in the PC's folder. The reply I got to my successful suggested C/S was the word "SQUIRREL" written large on the top of the sheet of paper I had submitted it on. I spurn other's interpretations of how to run Problems of Comparable magnitude. i.e. "Invent a Problem of Comparable Magnitude to THAT Problem." I consider that the word 'THAT' refers to the last invented problem each time. DON'T C/S IN THE CHAIR = Limited Case Gain. Kathy, one of the other auditors on staff in Riverside looked very down in the mouth one day. I offered to give her a session and she accepted. I ran off all the charge I could find from her viewpoint with some gain but not real VGIs. So, I went outside the boundaries of what was then considered proper tech and had Kathy run the charge from her husband's viewpoint. To my amazement, she ran not only the mutual charges of this life but continued to run all sorts of track charge on his case for him, that he had never mentioned in sessions she had given him. We ended up with the PC VGIs. I broke the rule, that one does not exceed the C/S for the session or change it in session. In fact that is the major rule I now break consistently in each and every session. I don't bind myself to following any session C/S my own or anyone else's prepared before hand for the session. Instead I look at the case in front of me from the start of session on. I sometimes write a Plan Of Action (POA) as a general approach but it does not bind me to anything. NO METER READS = PC Invalidation In 1984 as an independent auditor at the Independent Riverside Mission I usually got good results but often did things in a way my C/S, Mary Corydon considered non-standard and wrote critical notes to me about. Then she assigned me a PC along with a note saying, "Do whatever you want, I won't criticize you." This PC, an old time mission holder, was in a bad way. He had come to Riverside begging to be handled and with a reputation that he was a tough no-gain case. I went into session with him doing a C/S 53 and using a meter. The PC answered up on many of the list items but the TA was high and there were no needle reads. I had a choice: not indicating BPC because the meter did not read or taking what the PC said and indicating BPC on the basis of his understandable answers. "What to do?" I decided to ignore the meter and indicate every charge that he told me about that I could understand. This wasn't hard. It was easy to see how each thing could be upsetting. I was much encouraged when each time I indicated, "Charge was by-passed on that," as though the meter had read, he heaved a big sigh of relief and the TA began to come down. Within an hour of taking the PCs word and not invalidating the PC by the fact that the meter did not read, the meter finally began to read along with each thing he told me. His success story after session was that it was the best session he had ever gotten. This was the first time, I violated rules about using Meter reads. I did not put in Suppress or Inval I just took his word for it, acknowledged and indicated there was BPC and charge came off. That was the start of my becoming independent of meters. This was relatively easy for me, because between 1950-'57 I had audited several thousand hours successfully without a meter, doing Book One Dianetic auditing. These days I seldom if ever use a meter with a PC and even audit PCs successfully over the telephone to handle problems and achieve case gains. IGNORING COMMENTS = Out of Sessionness In 1963 I became highly aware of and fought against, the "ignore comments" part of TR-3. "Ignore comments" made sense in 1957 in the context of repetitive command processing, before much was known about ARC breaks. It stopped making sense in 1963 when the causes, cures, and signs of ARC Breaks were discovered and remedies became available, such as asking if a withhold had been missed or using a prepared list. At that time, I refused to "ignore comments" but instead would immediately say, "ARC break, End of Session," if my coaches threw a comment at me, in a drill other than an ARC break handling drill. If the PC has been running well and suddenly makes a polite comment about the room or auditor, recognize that attention has come off the PCs bank and onto the auditor or the room. In dianetic days I can recall a PC commenting on some loud noise which had pulled her partially out of session. I simply asked if there were some loud noises in the incident. The PC said, "How did you know." And, continued recounting the incident. The charge was the unrun incident which was being partially dramatized. Any comment on auditor or room is a sign that the PC does not have attention within, on his own case. The Itsa line has come off the bank into PT either because the process is flat, the question is flat, or the PC has been jarred out of session by an outside noise or something the auditor has done. PCs in propitiation will show their protest in polite ways which must be recognized. Any time a question is flat the PC is likely to comment on some present time condition. The best handling at such a time is to go on to the next leg of the process but be alert for any more signs of protest and handle the underlying BPC as soon as it becomes more evident. A PC who is more aware and does not have any buried BPC will tell you quite directly that the question is flat. TR-4 HANDLE ORIGINATIONS = sometimes leads to BPC The most usual use of TR-4 is to understand and acknowledge originations and return the PC to the process. But, TR-4 is not limited to returning a PC to the process that elicited the origination. Sometimes the PC's origination concerns a PTP which requires a session break e.g. putting money in a parking meter, or having to urinate or defecate. Sometimes the origination is actually a cognition which signals that the process has completed. Sometimes the PC's cog signals that the process being run has uncovered a new subject that needs to be taken up. The process that was being run may or may not be flat at that moment. TR-4 is misused when it is used to not handle important items that come up as that creates BPC in the name of anti-Q&A. UNHANDLED BDs IN SESSION = BPC = Unhandled Cases From about 1970-1979, the last years I was in the church, I was told as a PC, when I originated something that blew down and I wanted it handled, that the C/S would be informed and the item handled. My items were never handled because they conflicted with the session C/S and current Program. When I was an auditor I wrote down originations the PC gave me that blew down on the worksheet, circled them, and often wrote C/Ses to handle it, but my session C/S's were never approved nor do I think my PC's items were ever handled. TA ACTION and GETTING CHARGE OFF THE CASE = Slow or No Gains Recently I have come to realize that the "truths" that TA action equals charge off the case and that charge off the case equals case gain are both of limited truth and usefulness. They are somewhat useful in training auditors, for if an auditor can not let TA action happen and cannot get charge off a case, gains will not occur. I learned this first in mid-1963 at SH when I was put back in "W" unit to relearn basic Itsa Style auditing. TA action alone does not invariably bring about visible case gain. I was given one of two PCs for whom a subject that would give TA was known. One guy got TA action if he spoke about cheese, the other guy got TA action if he was kept talking about his life as a rancher in South Africa. Though they got TA action, they did not make case gain by my observation. I was assigned the guy whose subject was South Africa. After a week of TA action on South Africa without case gain, I found a way to get TA Action with case gain. In that second week he achieved every goal he had come in to Scientology for. TA ACTION = Bank moving in and Out In 1966 when I was review auditor in the NY Org. I got an EP on a Review PC and called in the examiner, who happened that day to be Stan Stromfeld, Org Sec NY holding the post from above. Stan not content with just giving the exam, demonstrated to me that he could get the TA moving up and down by talking to the PC about various things. This to my perception was TA action without any release of charge, just bank moving in and out. ANTI Q & A = BPC sometimes In the name of Anti Q and A, C/Ses ignore BD items that a PC is interested in that are written down on worksheets because it is considered that changing to that new item would be abandoning the original process or program. Apparently there is an unwritten rule that a Program cannot be changed once started. This rule would parallel the rule that one must not C/S in the chair. Failure to handle the BD item ensures that charge is by-passed. New auditors have a strong tendency to ask questions about things the PC has said, i.e. "Questioning the PC's answer." It is reasonable when training a new auditor, to restrict a new auditor from asking other questions than the process question, as new auditors have difficulty with duplication. However, it is often good to ask a pc to expand upon an answer. I propose the following rule, "Any question may be asked once, including a question about a PCs answer to a process question." "Do not question or ask for amplification of a PC's answer more than once unless you intend to change the process." C/S RULES = Unhandled Cases As a PC and also as an auditor I slowly realized that C/S rules based upon early definitions of Q & A resulted in not handling what was important to the PC and what could have produced tremendous case gains if handled when they came up. This was driven home to me, when one of my PCs shortly after I arrived at Saint Hill in 1963, had a BD while I was cleaning Ruds. I shifted to taking up the subject that had caused the BD. This led to the PC running an engram chain which left the PC with VVVGIs. Instead of being praised for getting VVVGIs and case gain on my PC, I was given a pink
sheet to teach me not to do a case action during Ruds. As I write this I realize that the Ruds were completed
and had gone in at the moment that the BD occurred. The PC was willing, more than willing, happy, at that
moment to look at his own case and communicate to me his auditor. The C/S system as I experienced it is a system in which the C/S is in charge of cases and the individual auditors do only what they were told to do. The C/S is boss. The C/S is responsible for results. A C/S system in which the C/S acts only in an advisory function and the auditor on the case has primary responsibility for results is far to be preferred. I propose that auditors write a Plan of Attack (POA) for his next session or overall program to achieve the purpose of the auditing. This POA may be commented upon, by a C/S but not vetoed. NO VERBAL DATA = Limited Understanding I consistently violate the rule of "No verbal data." I discuss cases and theory with other auditors. Then I make up my own mind. I'll even give the PC ideas to handle a PTP in the middle of a session, announcing what I am doing before I do it. Sometimes my ideas help sometimes they stimulate the PC's thinking. C/Ses ALWAYS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING = Reduces Auditor Certainty FEAR OF OUT LISTS = Avoidance of listing processes The biggest culprit in the 1960s was charge resulting from Out Lists. The remedy for Out Lists was and is using an L-4 list to find and indicate the BPC and then to correct what went wrong. Fortunately, you don't have to know ahead of time that it is an out list phenomenon that you are dealing with, as today all lists have on them at least one Out List question on it. If that question reads you then go to an L-4 list. Looking at this today I see several reasons for severe somatics from out lists, that do not apply to Free Style auditing. One reason is that Lists were being done on PCs who were not really up to running that kind of charge. This was shown by the fact that lists were long. Two. Out List phenomena were occurring during Ron's research program mostly '63-'64 when nobody, including Ron, knew fully what they were after. Listing Tech was not well understood by anyone including Ron, at the time that Ron warned against wrapping PCs around flagpoles. The rules of Listing and Nulling grew out of correcting List errors, once the rules were known few people got into trouble. Unfortunately, the bulletins on the subject of Listing and Nulling are imperfect. (See my list of Tech errors.) If you do not run a PC over his head, lists become one item lists, and PCs have no problem going back and correcting the wording of past found items (in running a GPM or any other process requiring listing) without suffering from heavy BPC from wrong items. If any charge does show up, however, it can be handled quickly and easily now that Listing Tech has been refined. It is possible to run PCs smoothly and to correct errors, if any, quickly and easily. RON IS SOLE SOURCE = Everybody else including you is invalidated I have violated the unwritten rule that Ron is sole Source. Ron often said to acknowledge source, but I am not aware of any place where he said on tape or wrote in a bulletin that he was sole source. That seems to have been an interpretation that he fostered but did not say. THE SITUATION NOW = Not Dangerous If you work with the PC rather than ON a PC and you run the PC where the PC's attention is, without arbitraries, few problems arise. PCs will not run into things over their head unless pushed into it by an auditor. Use Ron's rule, "Any question can be asked once." "Asking more than once turns a question into a process, and tends to force the PC." Avoid doing anything that forces the PC and you will avoid inadvertently pushing a PC in over his head. Consult the PC's willingness and power of choice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
