raf2.memo

[Clearing Archive Roboposter]

((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))

EVALUATIVE VERSUS NONEVALUATIVE LEVELS

RAF - 2
18 December 1984

Copyright (C) 1984 Ron A. Fitch
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

HUMAN INSIGHTS GROUP

TECHNICAL RESEARCH NOTES

18 DECEMBER 1984

An auditor, as per Auditor's code number two, would "never evaluate
for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in
session. For example, in Dianetics, the auditor would never suggest to
the preclear which incident to run on the whole track. Telling the
preclear which incident to run is evaluation and is never done.

As another example, in Scientology, the auditor would never give
the preclear items in a Listing and Nulling action or on any other
auditing action. Can you imagine the auditor in response to a question,
"I'd like to indicate your items are horses, dogs, cats and penguins".
Giving the preclear items is evaluation and would very likely be a wrong
indication. Continuing to give the preclear items would upset the
preclear and if continued over an upset without correction by an L4 list
would cause the preclear to be sad, downtone and overwhelmed.

The rule of never evaluating for the preclear is a foundation of
Standard Tech and when this rule is violated, auditing and case gain
cease to occur.

All the levels of processing leading up to the Clearing Course
(Life Repair, Drug Rundown, Grades, Dianetics, Power, R6EW, etc.) are
strictly nonevaluative levels where no one evaluates for the preclear as
to what he should run. The preclear is never told which incidents to
run or is he ever given items. The pattern is always followed that the
preclear is asked a question or given a command and the preclear comes
up with his own answers. To do otherwise would, of course, be a serious
break in the Auditor's Code.

These levels add up to the Clearing Course are called NON
EVALUATIVE levels because no evaluation is made for the preclear as to
what he should run. Suddenly at the level of the Clearing Course, the
preclear is given pages of GPM items (items, lights, etc.) and is told
that this material is on his time track and that these items are, in
fact, basic-basic on his time track. The Clearing Course is called an
EVALUATIVE level because the preclear is given items and is told which
incident to run.

At OT I, the clear is given a set of thirteen processes to run
outdoors. The clear or PreOT comes up with his own answers so this is
called a nonevaluative level.

At OT II, the PreOT is again given pages of GPM items with the
evaluation that this material is on his time track. OT II is an
evaluative level.

At this point on the Bridge, the PreOT studies the OT III data. He
is told that Incident II happened 75 Million years ago and that Incident
I happened 4 Quadrillion years ago. He is given the complete content of
both of these incidents and is given instructions to run BT's and
Clusters on these incidents. In a sense, the PreOT is now evaluating
for other thetans as to which incidents on the time track they will run.
OT III is clearly an evaluative level.

At New OT IV, we have a mostly nonevaluative level with some
evaluation. This is an audited action where the preclear date/locates
heavy drug experiences, nonevaluative, and then finds BT's and Clusters
by pressure area, nonevaluative. After the PreOT finds the BT or
Cluster by pressure area, the auditor assesses for the type of incident
which caused the cluster, nonevaluative, and then date/locates that
incident, nonevaluative. This is followed up with the running of
Incident II and Incident I, evaluative. So New OT IV is mostly
nonevaluative.

Now we have NOTS at New OT V, VI, VII. In session, NOTS auditing
is clearly nonevaluative because BT's and Clusters are asked questions
and are allowed to give answers without any evaluation as to which items
they give.

To summarize, here is a table of nonevaluative and eval uative
levels:

NONEVALUATIVE LEVELS EVALUATIVE LEVELS

LIFE REPAIR CLEARING COURSE
OBJECTIVES OT II
DRUG RUNDOWN OT III
ARC SW
GRADES
DIANETICS
POWER
R6EW
OT I
NEW OT IV
NEW OT V, VI AND VII
etc.

Does it work to tell a PC what to run? It might if the incidents
and items being run were common to all mankind and everyone had the same
reality on those incidents and items. However, I have found through
research over the last 7 years that this is not the case. My experience
is that the Clearing Course and OT II run poorly if at all on most
people, with an occasional exception. In most cases, the person gets
few or no reads even though auditing prior to that point was normal and
standard and auditing after they somehow get through the CC, OT II and
OT III again becomes normal and standard.

My experience with OT III is that most are intimidated and
sometimes frightened by the data and prospect of having their existence
terminated by an unexpected freewheel. To a high per centage of PreOT's
the data of Incidents II and I is simply unreal. They are responding
the way any PC would respond to a heavy evaluation on any other level,
ie., no reads, unreality and some degree of overwhelm. I doubt very
much in most cases whether the person is better off after being pushed
through this area of the bridge. In a lot of cases, in and out of the
Church, I would say that they are worse off.

The bottom line is: the levels of the CC, OT II and OT III are
highly evaluative and do not produce uniformly a 100% standard result.
I have endeavored to do something about this situation rather than to
just put people through these evaluative levels like some kind of robot
processing other robots. I have found a nonevaluative procedure to get
people through this area of the Bridge and I am working constantly to
improve it. So far, the results are very good.

The materials of the CC and OT II comes from LRH's research into
GPM's in the early 60's. As anyone who has studied the development of
the GPM material can tell you, the GPM processes used in the early to
middle 60's were strictly nonevaluative up until the introduction of the
CC materials in 1965/1966. Much of the GPM data prior to that time was
frustratingly difficult for most people to run and to receive and
perhaps out of this frustration came the idea of a simple GPM line plot
which all PC's could run by simply calling off items until any one item
ceased to read. A very wonderful idea if the guy who comes up with the
items to run is 100% correct for everyone and providing that it is
really true that these items are common to all.

Recently through the debrief of Otto Roos and the Los Angeles court
case, we have been given a glimpse of the actual personal life and case
state of LRH. He is a guy who could be on of the most brilliant
philosophers of all time who has come up with technical developments
which are truly amazing. Before I say what I am going to say next, I
would like to make it clear that I totally respect, admire and
appreciate the technical developments of LRH. We now know that his case
was a mess during this period of time when he developed the evaluative
levels. He used various drugs and medications during the 50's and 60's.
He participated in experimental auditing which left a tremendous amount
of BPC. As we now know, he was seriously physically ill during this
period of time. So what we have is a most brilliant CREATIVE technical
genius, who at the time is in the least de sireable case shape of anyone
on the planet, giving us his case to run.

If you want to get an idea of what kind of case shape LRH was in
after this period of evaluative development, listen to RJ 37. This is
the voice of a man who sounds very burned out, weak and physically ill.
Listen to RJ 37 very carefully and you will hear a masterwork of lying
and pretending. This is a guy who has just put himself through several
years of self auditing and now he wants us to run his case. And most of
us did do just that, without ever seeing the difference between LRH's
technical discoveries and his case.

From my experience, the basic data about GPM's is fundamentally
correct. It just needs to be run so that it is nonevaluative for the
PC. My experience has also been that if the PC does not go clear on
NED, a thorough run on an audited and solo R6EW will produce a clear.
The ideas of dichotomies producing dramatization and case are as old as
the Tao. So we audit the PC on R6EW and when he is able enough, we have
him study the data and finish it off solo (just like in the audited then
solo sequence of NOTS). Perhaps more nonevaluative GPM running could be
introduced at this point. That could be the subject of further
research. My opinion is that R6EW is sufficient if run to completion.

Next the new clear is given the Sunshine Rundown or OT I to
extrovert his attention.

I have completely removed the CC and OT II materials from the
Bridge for reasons given above. The Clear (PreOT) at this point is
ready to do OT III in a nonevaluative form. I will describe how this is
done in theory and practice.

First we have to look at the OT III material in terms of what is
fundamentally true and correct, and what is not. What parts of OT III
can we be sure are absolutely correct? With this question answered, we
can then structure a level which is nonevaluative and which produces
excellent results.

First of all, we DO know for sure that mutual incidents or
experiences DO occur whenever a severe experience happens to more than
one thetan at one particular location and time. In other words, the
common denominator of mutual incidents are:

-1A group of two or more beings

-2Same Location

-3Same Time

-4Same type of incident (accident, injury, explosion, etc.)

We also know for sure that there many thetans in this universe and
that they will tend to cluster or fixate on severe or shocking
experiences (particularly impacts), continue to mock up pictures of the
incident and each other. We know that these clusters are associated
with the PreOT's body, the space around the body, or in some location
where the PreOT has been located in the past.

There is then some connection between the PreOT and his entities.
These entities are commonly called body thetans. Further, if a PreOT
spots a BT or cluster by pressure area or by read and gets its location
relative to the body, the BT or Cluster can be audited just as with any
other being. We know that for a PreOT who is properly setup, a blow of
mass and charge will occur which is felt by the PreOT and seen on a
meter when a BT or Cluster are spotted precisely and audited on the
correct process. Lastly, a BT or Cluster responds to auditing in
exactly the same way that any other PC responds.

One other piece of information should be interjected here. I have
found that the Hawaiian islands arose out of the Pacific Ocean much
later than 75 million years ago. Also, no archeologist or geologist has
ever found any remnant of civilization prior to recorded history even
though animal and plant fossils are routinely found from periods even
earlier than 75 million years ago. One would think that in all of our
search for the past, some scientist Would have come up with some
evidence of this great advanced civilization purported to have existed
75 million years ago. Could this be some dub in or implant which never
in fact happened in the physical universe, or at least, never happened
on planet earth?

As a result of the above observations, I have come to the
conclusion that a PreOT should be introduced to and run on OT III in the
following manner:

1. Drill TR-8Q

2. Clear all the data in the OT III pack excluding all the data
which refers to Incident II and I. Exclude all data which evaluates for
the PreOT as to what should be run and any data that states any horrible
consequence of goofs on the level. Exclude anything that might scare or
intimidate the PreOT. More specifically, you want to clear the
information on mutual incidents and cluster formation, with the idea
that any impact or severe experience could form a cluster. Clear how
you find a BT or Cluster and how you run them with a narrow focus of
attention. Clear the list of the type of incidents that could cause
clusters. Anything and everything could be cleared except any reference
to specific incidents such as Incident II and Incident I. The material
on ownership and flying ruds on OT's should definitely be included in
this step.

3. Begin with audited OT III (solo later) by having the PreOT
locate a reading pressure on or in his body. Next, have him get the
date of the incident that made it a cluster and have the Cluster run the
incident. This should blow the Cluster and if not, you can get an
earlier similar cluster making incident and repeat the steps of date,
locate, type and run the incident.

4. After a few sessions, when the PreOT is doing this procedure
easily and comfortably, he can begin to solo audit OT III using the same
procedure as in (3) above.

Note: Individual BT's left over after the Cluster blows can be
moved to and run through their own basic incident. All the other
procedures for checking for copies, etc. remain the same.

At some point when the PreOT is running well on this procedure and
is very stable and confident, he can be introduced to LRH's incidents
with the R-factor that these represent what one individual found while
running OT III and they may or may not be the incidents for the BT's and
Cluster's he is running. Incidents II and I are just part of the case
history of one particular PreOT. []

The levels above OT III remain the same as they are nonevaluative.

The above procedure has been producing excellent results with
PreOT's I've been working with. Such good results in fact, that I would
never consider throwing somebody into the Incident II and I data again.

At this point, further bulletins need to be written which clearly
delineate and detail all the steps involved in what could be called "NEW
OT III".


* * * * *

Submitted Anonymously
by a Class VIII Auditor

HIGTB-0005

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 19 00:06:02 EDT 2023
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/rfitch/raf2.memo
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to arc...@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.