ross7.memo

[Clearing Archive Roboposter]

((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))

EFFECTIVE DIANETIC AUDITING
Doc. No 163 V3 ROSS TECHNICAL REVELATIONS 16 Apr 1994

ROSS - 7
16 April 1994

Copyright (C) 1994 B. Robert Ross
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

In 1950 a mutual-help psychotherapy was presented to the world with
the publication of DMSMH, by L. Ron Hubbard. The experimental technique
which Hubbard described in his book was proclaimed by Time Magazine to
be "The Poor Man's Psychoanalysis." The book itself made the claim that
"any two people could do it," i.e. could help each other. Many people
tried it and their results sparked a wave of enthusiasm all over the
world.

What excited people the most was the idea that one could become
clear of all neurotic and psychotic tendencies and reach a state of
CLEAR. Becoming CLEAR seems to be another way of saying to become a
superman or superwoman.

Unfortunately, not any two people can do it, i.e. can get good
results by following the instructions in DMSMH. Some people have
apparently been able to do it, others got only indifferent results, and
some people couldn't do it at all.

In the main DMSMH seems rather simpler in concept than Freudian
Psychoanalysis, eliminating id, ego, superego, censor, and subconscious.
In their place DMSMH introduced an unconscious mind, a reactive mind,
and an analytical mind. In place of free association and dream
interpretation Hubbard prescribed running chains of traumatic incidents
starting with "the incident necessary to resolve your case". The
incident necessary to resolve one's case was requested of the awareness
of awareness unit, which doubled as the File Clerk and Basic
Personality. Interpretation on the part of the auditor was forbidden.
Dreams were not handled.

It looked simple and was simple, except when it didn't seem to
work. At that point it got very complicated indeed.

Hubbard took another nineteen years to come up with a more workable
and greatly simplified version of dianetic procedures. This
simplification, made dianetic procedures more workable and also easier
to teach.

HOW THE SUBJECT DEVELOPED

As I see it, looking back 44 years, the major discoveries of L. Ron
Hubbard that he presented in DMSMH were:

1) The concept of Engramic memory recording: The idea that memory
recording takes place during period of unconsciousness as well as when
one is awake and aware.

2) Content of Engramic memories: All sounds are recorded, bells,
whistles, crashes, and also what people say within the range of hearing
of an ill or injured or unconscious person. Recordings were considered
to be made whenever the person was in physical or emotional pain or
discomfort, including when the person is apparently unconscious, such as
after an accident or during an operation. The words people say around
the individual is recorded along with all other sounds and all other
perceptions the individual is capable of experiencing.

3) Hubbard said that sounds or other perceptions which were
reminders of the recorded incident would cause the individual to re-
experience the sensations and bodily state which existed at the time the
recordings were made. He said that this was the mechanism behind all
automatic stimulus response or conditioned reflex reactions. In
addition he considered that the unconscious mind treated words as
identical to things. And that this resulted in recorded conversations
acting like post hypnotic commands on the individual, affecting their
behavior in weird fashions in session and also in life.

4) Hubbard laid heavy stress on certain kinds of phrases, which
were part of conversations acting on the individual and interfering in
various ways with the running of incidents, after they were contacted.
There were deniers which denied the existence of the incident, bouncers,
which caused the person to leave the incident and so on. Misdirectors
which caused the individual to do otherwise than the auditor requested.

The solution to the problem presented by the existence of these
phrases according to DMSMH was to find the exact wording of such
phrases, and then inactivate them by having the preclear repeat them.

5) Engramic recordings of moments of unconsciousness with all
content can be recovered and their effect erased.

6) Erasure of the effect of engrams is achieved by having the
individual consciously recall the full content of those past painful
incidents and incidents of reduced consciousness or total
unconsciousness which are affecting him.

7) Erasure of the effect of past traumatic incidents can be
achieved by recounting an incident over and over until every bit of it
has been made conscious and inspected.

8) If an engram does not "erase" there is an earlier incident in
that chain that needs to be run or some part of the engram being run has
not yet been found and viewed.

9) Another way that individuals prevent themselves from erasing
engrams is by avoiding the pain and discomfort contained in the engramic
recording. They avoid feeling the pain and discomfort of those
incidents by running the incident as one of the other people in the
incident instead of as themselves. This action of running an incident
as another was called being out of VALENCE.

10) Hubbard called the practitioners of his theories "auditors" to
emphasized listening to what the patient or client had to say and to not
add any more suggestions to those already contained in the engrams being
dealt with.

An individual who avoids the pain of an incident by being some
other person while running that incident, will often be found to be
dramatizing the personality of that other person in daily life. The
person avoids the pain of painful memories which would otherwise afflict
him or her by reason of reminders of those earlier painful experiences.

This can result in such things as a man being in mother's valence
or a woman being in father's valence. In either case they are likely to
act in life, in a sexually inappropriate fashion.

Reminders of past painful incidents were called restimulators, and
the experience of pains or unpleasant emotions by reason of such
reminders was called restimulation of the underlying engram.

ROOTS OF DIANETIC PHILOSOPHY

Hubbard, credited Polish Philosopher and Mathematician Count Alfred
Korzybski with having spotted that "identity thinking", or thinking
A=A=A ((Anything = Anything = Anything)) and acting as though one thing
or person was identical to another was at the root of all human unsane
thinking. To combat identity thinking Korzybski had developed many
mental exercises.

In his introductory article "Dianetics the Evolution of a Science,"
DEOS, published by John W. Campbell Jr. in the May 1950 Issue of
Astounding Science Fiction, Hubbard wrote, "Know your General Semantics?
Well same thing, except we take in more perceptics." The footnote at
the bottom of that page explained that General Semantics was the
philosophy created by Alfred Korzybski. This footnote, was altered in
later reprintings of DEOS to avoid naming Korzybkski or validating
General Semantics.

L. Ron Hubbard and his followers strove to recover memories of pre-
natal experiences, in an effort, often successful, to relieve people of
neuroses and psychoses. Sigmund Freud, before Hubbard, had written of
patients having "fantasies" of life in the womb. Hubbard insisted that
prenatal memories were real. In 1950 Hubbard wrote about boudoir beasts
who practiced wife and child abuse while apparently being staid
upstanding citizens, something, which is only now coming out as actually
having occurred in some "good" families.

Hubbard, and later, others, did research to verify the reality of
prenatal memories. He started by comparing the data recorded in
sessions given to both mother and child of that child's birth. This
validated birth memories. Then prenatal memories of the child were
compared with matching memories of the mother having sexual intercourse
or other experience which would have impacted on the child, such as
having been in an accident.

Later, a number of medical doctors and surgeons in the US and South
Africa arranged for patients to get dianetic or hypnotic sessions after
operations, to determine whether patients known to have been unconscious
on the operating table had actually recorded what was said by the
surgeon and nurses in the course of the operation. They found that such
recording took place, after which they made it a rule to minimize
talking during operations.

When an incident and a chain did not blow, Hubbard and other
auditors and students looked for earlier incidents. In the search for
earlier incidents Hubbard's statement that it was possible to retrieve
memories of conception, were verified, even though Hubbard had been
unable to come up with any mechanism whereby the single-celled sperm and
single celled egg could record such memories. It was however, known
that worms and even amoeba could exhibit conditioned responses, and
hence had memory.

Prenatal memories however, were not the end of the line. It soon
became apparent that when a preclear was run long enough they would
spontaneously come up with earlier traumatic death experience of a past
life. No physical mechanism whatsoever could be postulated for such
memories.

The recovery of past life memories, was popularized and described
in "The Search for Bridey Murphy." and in Hubbard's, "Have you Lived
before this life?"

The explosive growth of the new age movement can be largely traced
to the validation of past life recalls by dianetic auditing.

SIMPLIFICATION

In 1963, a great simplification of dianetic procedures took place.
Ron with the help of his students and co-researchers at St Hill Manor,
Sussex, England, developed Routine Three-R. "Which did not demand of
the preclear sonic (i.e. the ability to hear in memory) or visio (i.e.
the ability to see in memory) but developed those abilities."

R3R promised to be easy to teach and use because it could be
written entirely on one sheet of paper, instead of a whole book.
Unfortunately, Three-R in 1963, was not an unqualified success. It
produced upsets and failures about as often as it seemed to work. As a
result, Ron stopped talking about or teaching dianetic processing for
the next six years. As a result many newcomers thought that dianetic
auditing was old hat and a discarded technology.

THE SOURCE OF THE TROUBLE

In April 1963, when I arrived at St Hill, upsets were the order of
the day. I was living together with several other students at the home
of Edgar Watson, St Hill Tech Sec. Edgar's office in the basement of
the Manor building, was directly below Ron's auditing room, and Edgar
would tell us either over supper or while driving to and from St Hill,
of hearing Ron shouting at Mary Sue when he was upset in session and she
was auditing Ron. It was not only the students who were getting upset,
or whom he was concerned about.

That upsets were the order of the day, is revealed by the number of
times in that period, 61-63, that Ron, in the course of a lecture spoke
of the care that had to be taken to make sure that one gave the PC a
right item and not a wrong item, because giving the PC a wrong item
could wrap the PC around the proverbial flagpole.

Ron made auditing seem a hazardous occupation for both auditor and
preclear. So much so, that it was no wonder that the majority of
auditors trained at St Hill in those years, did not pursue careers as
professional auditors, after completing their training.

It took Ron several years to isolate the primary cause of these
upsets which were occurring between 61-64, because so many new things
were being tried during this period. There was Goals listing, R-3A,
then 3G Criss-Cross, then item finding with R2-10, and R2-12, then GPM
running with R3-M and R3-N and finally Dianetic running with R-3R.

What had gone wrong with auditing at Saint Hill, had also gone
wrong with auditing in Academies as well all over the world. Academy
students listened to the latest tapes from Saint Hill, usually a couple
of weeks after the students at St Hill heard them. And senior or Z-unit
Academy students ran the same processes as did Z-unit St Hill students a
few weeks earlier.

Finally Ron realized that the common denominator of upsets was the
fact that E-Meters were in heavy use and that the majority of preclears
had dirty needles. E-Meters were used to dig below conscious awareness
to find and run significant material that preclears did not know
existed. This tended to push preclears into things over their head, and
made them far more sensitive to clumsy comm cycles.

Between 1961-1964 at Saint Hill, and in Academies it was common for
preclears to become upset in the course of a session, over wrong items,
wrong dates, wrong goals, and missed withholds. Some students became so
upset they blew course. Others stuck it out, but after graduating did
not go on to become professional auditors.

That is why we have today, tens of thousands of people who have
gone through St Hill or Academies but very few of professional auditors
planet wide. Whether this result was intended or accidental or because
Ron was really crazy, may be argued.

In 1963 when I arrived at Saint Hill, dirty needles were seen on
almost all preclears at one time or another while they were in session.
Dirty needles were prevalent, expected. Ron thought at that time that
the reason for dirty needles was out ruds, or missed witholds, and
therefore everyone else thought so as well and therefore dirty needles
were BLAMED ON THE PRECLEARS.

Since dirty needles were thought to be caused by out ruds, it was
of vital importance for auditors to be able to spot the read on
rudiments questions at the highest sensitivity through a dirty needle,
in order to clear the session rudiments. I heard one supervisor boast
that the ability to read a meter through a dirty needle was the major
skill taught at St Hill.

On Friday afternoons, students would assemble in the St Hill Chapel
to be tested on their ability to correctly read whether a PC's ruds were
in or out, through a dirty needle. We would watch two TV screens, one
above the other. During TV lectures, the upper screen showed Ron, and
the lower TV Screen showed a Meter face. For the Ruds checks, the upper
TV screen showed the PC being checked and the lower TV screen showed the
meter face of the meter being used.

Chief instructor Herbie Parkhouse, in the TV studio, would call out
the list of ten rudiments questions to selected students, whose Ruds
were to be checked for their sessions that week. He would ask for each
rudiment, "In the past week had your auditor failed to find and clear a
____ on you?" (ARC Break, Problem, Withhold, Missed-withhold, Overt)

One Friday, I was told to come to the TV studio to get my ruds
checked for the week. As Herbie ushered me into the studio he asked me
a question about how I was doing on course and then chopped my attempt
to answer him. I took it for granted later, that he did that with all
students, very likely unknowingly, as Ron had not yet come up with the
reason for dirty needles.

I felt a trifle upset at what Herbie had done, looked at the upset
and blew it. I got my ruds checked and then left the TV studio getting
back to the chapel just in time to hear Herbie say that I was guilty of
putting my own rudiments in. Apparently I had had a clean needle during
the demo, which upset him greatly. I think it likely, as I look back on
this scene that Ron, looking at this demo on the TV in his office,
queried Herbie on exactly what had happened and that led him to realize
that it was not out ruds, but an out comm cycle with the auditor that
caused a dirty needle.

((The above paragraph is a bit confusing. In talking to Ross I was
able to get the following out of him. Apparently Ross thinks that
Herbie instinctively knew that if he chopped people's comms it would
produce a dirty needle. Since his purpose at the time was to HAVE pcs
with dirty needles to demo how to fly ruds through them, he made sure
pcs coming into the demo were dirtied with the chopped comm, maybe
without realizing it was the chopped comm that did it.

Later when Ross's needle was clean anyhow EVEN THOUGH HE HAD OUT
RUDS DURING THE DEMO, both Herbie and Ron figured out that it could not
have been out ruds causing dirty needles, because Ross had out ruds but
his needle was clean, and they finally traced the dirty needles to the
chopped comm.))

This occurred in the fall of 1963, after I had been at St Hill for
about six months.

On August 14, 1964, Ron announced in a bulletin that dirty needles
were caused by the auditor. This was, perhaps, the single most
important discovery about auditing that year. This discovery made
auditing relatively safe and easy for both auditor and preclear. It was
now apparent that the failures of Routines 3-A, 3-G, 3-GXX, 3-M, 3-N,
and 3-R and upsets on L&N had been due mainly to clumsy auditing, rather
than to any inherent flaws in the processes, or to auditor failures to
do the steps correctly in doing the processes.

When the PC is in good comm, with the auditor, charge does not get
by-passed, and upsets do not happen.

IMPORTANT NOTE

The details of how to avoid dirty needles does not appear in the
Red Volumes. This data appears only as a drill on dirtying and cleaning
needles in the "Book of E-Meter Drills."

Today if I was training an auditor I would check from time to time
as we did on old time co-audits as to what the PCs TA position was, and
the appearance of the needle. I remember one meter set up on a co-audit
I attended. Every preclear held cans, but there was only one meter in
the room, the one held by the instructor. The instructor had a rotary
switch at his desk and could check every session from his desk. He also
had a long lead on his meter enabling him to walk over to any session in
the room to ask questions or just observe the session closely while
looking at the meter needle.

Any auditor who routinely got a dirty needle on his preclears I
would then put through the drill on dirtying and clearing a needle. If
this did not handle the situation, I would have that student auditor do
the relevant-irrelevant question drill, until he could do it without
getting a dirty needle.

Lastly, I would have any auditor who caused upsets or got a dirty
needle on his preclear, record his session with an audio or video tape
recorder and then listen to and comment on his own session. I would
have him do this before I listened to it to find his comm errors.

THE REINTRODUCTION OF ROUTINE THREE-R

On January 24, 1969 Ron reintroduced Routine Three-R as a method of
running emotion off a case. The new version had fewer steps, but added
the concept of running chains of incidents in three flows: people doing
things to the preclear, the preclear doing things to others, and the
preclear observing others doing things to others. Much later, Flow
Zero, doing things to self was added to the procedure.

Dianetic processing was reduced to eight steps, repeated in whole
or in part as one went down a chain to Basic. These eight steps are:

1) Dating a newly discovered incident;

2) moving the preclear to that incident;

3) establishing the duration of the incident;

4) Moving the Preclear to the beginning of the found incident;

5) Establishing that the preclear had arrived at the beginning;

6) asking the Preclear to go through the incident;

7) Permitting the pc to go through the incident.

This differed greatly from Book One auditing, in which one talked
the PC through the incident step by step. One just let the the preclear
go through the incident, acknowledging quietly anything the PC said and
telling him to continue.

8) When the PC has indicated that he has completed going through
the incident the auditor acknowledges that he has done so.

9) Only then does the auditor ask Preclear to tell what happened.

Steps 4-9 are repeated on each incident found, until the preclear
spots an earlier incident. If the preclear does not spot an earlier
incident but the one being run keeps changing each time through, the
auditor has the PC continue to run that incident. If there is no change
in the incident the auditor asks if there was an earlier incident or
earlier beginning to the one being run. If there was an earlier
incident one runs it with 1-8. I leave out the rules for using a meter.

FLOWS

The running of flows developed from continuing research on
Hubbard's Advanced Clinical Courses, and the St Hill Briefing Course,
which were in great measure Hubbard's laboratories in which he tested
new procedures on willing subjects. For example on the 21st ACC in
Washington D.C. in 1959 Ron tested running overt incidents, now known as
flow two.

This brought out the fact that often people who had not recovered
from some disability, such as a broken leg by running out the experience
of having their own leg broken, often did so, after running an incident
in which they caused someone else's leg to break.

Further research, often serendipitous rather than intended, brought
out the fact that at times people recovered from a disability after
running an incident where they observed someone else being injured.

Lastly, the discovery was made that some people only recovered an
ability when they ran an incident or series of incidents in which they
had injured themselves or caused themselves to become injured.

These four ways of looking at a broken leg or any other injury or
disability were called Flow One - Injuries to self by another or others;
Flow Two - Causing injury to another or others; Flow Three - Observing
another or others being injured; and Flow Zero - Doing things or causing
things to occur to oneself. Any one of these four could be the one that
caused a recovery of ability or of healing.

In the earliest days of dianetic running, one asked for incidents
containing the undesired feeling. That question encompassed all flows.
This has led me to the thought that the basic incident holding the
injury in place could be on any flow, and that ability regained would
occur when that flow was run.

I see a similarity between running valences and running flows.
Running all valences in an incident runs all the flows of that one
incident.

Using this idea, a friend of mine, unstuck a Viet Nam War Veteran
from a memory which had plagued him for years. He had been unable to
get out of his mind the memory of a fellow platoon member who had thrown
himself on a grenade that landed in the middle of the platoon. He was
blown up and killed while saving the rest of the platoon from severe
injury or death. The veteran being audited had been looking at this for
years but only from his own viewpoint, i.e. only flow one.

What she did was to have him run the incident from the viewpoints
of everyone else involved in it, including that of the man who had
thrown himself on the grenade.

ASSESSMENT

Finding the right chain to run is at least half the secret of
effective dianetic auditing.

In 1969, a workable method of assessment was used consisting of
asking the PC numerous questions taken from what Ron called the Health
Form. One asked each question in turn and wrote down the PC's answers
until one of those answers blew down on the meter. The chain of
incidents named by that item would run successfully.

This was simplified in subsequent years and the Health From dropped
out of regular use. Instead C/Ses would tell the auditor to assess for
AESP, (Attitudes, Emotions, Sensation and Pain) and to run what read on
each list.

I was doing an internship about 1975 at FCDC, i.e. the Founding
Church of Scientology at Washington D.C. I was instructed by the
Dianetic C/S to assess AESP. Having previously been trained on the
Health Form, I asked all four questions and made four lists. On the
fourth list I got a Blowdown item which ran well and broke the guys
case. This PC had been failing as a PC with no one able to improve his
case, before he was turned over to me.

I then realized that the then current practice of doing one list at
a time, starting with "attitude" had the effect of bypassing the main
charge on his case which showed up on the P for Pain list. Therefore he
had no real interest and made no gains.

The AESP questions are good, and I am sure that if all are asked a
meter would not be necessary to find the right item to run. The PC
would know as mine did as soon as he named the item. The BD just
confirmed it for me. One could ask a fifth question as well. "Is there
some item that is not covered by these four questions?"

SUMMARY

Dianetic auditing can be highly effective and get a person who is
in a bad way and being the effect of things into a much better state.
One reason for the success of this kind of dianetic auditing is that it
is so dramatic that the individual accepts it as sufficient reason to
believe that he will be well and therefore becomes well.

((In other words the preclear experiences sufficient fireworks
during the auditing to be given 'sufficient' reason to get well even if
the fireworks are unrelated.))

Another reason that a preclear can become well, is that the
preclear, accidentally finds the decision or postulate he made at the
time of the incident and which has been hidden from view by the pain or
unconsciousness of the incident and by inspecting and blowing that
postulate or decision recovers health or ability.

((This is the real reason that Dianetics works in most case, its
good Postulate Processing.))

Bob Ross

COPYRIGHT (c) 1994, By
B. Robert Ross,
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Nov 29 12:06:01 EST 2022
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ross/ross7.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.