iv-10-03.txt

From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 10 - January 1993

... Ivy 8
By Otto J. Roos, Holland

Hereby some notes on IVy 8. I realise that much of IVy contains the 
opinions of others on the subjects of auditing and other technologies, 
that these opinions are real to those who communicate them, and may 
well be very much disagreed with by others. For reasons of length I 
shall discuss only some items of tech seen in your articles.

Power of thought, Hari Seldon

On page 3, col 2, para 3, I wonder who these human beings are who have 
high quality thetans inside their minds. Who are the others who do 
not? The tech nowhere mentions thetans to be something human beings 
have.

Human beings, as described in para 4, who "cannot benefit from 
auditing technology" apparently do exist for Hari Seldon although I in 
very many years of auditing have not come across them. The definition 
of "Auditing Tech" includes whatever other cycles (like medical, 
dental, PTS 3 handling, purif, etc.) may have to precede the 
application of objective/subjective auditing procedures. I have never 
met an individual who could not, and once on tech lines, did not 
benefit from auditing.

Most of the rest of Hari's article is well known data. Increasing an 
individual's R by comm on the subject of Scn automatically increases 
his U. That the best comm is by Training is a matter of course.

Page 4, under "making the able more able", he talks about human beings 
which "cannot be reached by Scn Auditing technology". Again, in dozens 
of years of auditing I have never come across such people. That there 
are many whom it mightn't be <MI>viable<D> to handle in terms of the 
amount of time and money spent versus the attainable results, is quite 
a different matter. That has to do with viability and is not a matter 
of lacking technology. (ps: page 3, "Placebo", mentioning of the "wog" 
world is invalidative.)

"You" can audit, Leonard Dunn

Page 9, column 1, the last 9 lines. During years of auditing as Case 
Officer SHUK, i.e. in England, I have never noticed a pc to have 
problems with the word auditor. Maybe in PT the CoS places limitations 
upon its auditors. In the past the only limitations were ones as laid 
down in the technical data. The -what to do when-, has always clearly 
been stated, even if at times wrongly. In most cases earlier goofs in 
bulletins, once spotted, were corrected at later stage. The top 
auditors on Flag was supposed to know their data (and did!) to the 
point of being able to compute instantaneously, i.e. without the need 
to figure figure think think "what to do next". There was no 
"limitation" placed upon them by the church but only by the demands of 
the technology. Knowing their data and being able to use it, they also 
did not need umpty unusual solutions and others practices!

Page 9, col 2, "TR's in Actual Practice". I ran the Pilot Flag modern 
TR Courses in the early 70's under LRH's personal supervision. The 
unsolicited success stories, even from Flag -staff!- were unbelievably 
positive. (I received similar stories when several years ago I ran 
such a course on and at the request of some Class 8 and 9 auditors in 
the U.S.). Page 9, col 2, "TR's in Actual practice", says that " the 
Church has tended to over dramatise these training routines"; so what? 
Whatever a church or anybody else makes them into has nothing to do 
with their validity! Page 10, col 1, talks about the poker faced 
auditor. An ack (TR 2) has to be -appropriate-. On what data does the 
auther of the article base his assumed need of having to be poker 
faced on TRO? All the auditing data amounts to Realities another can 
have. So, what is all  this nit picking and make wrong of perfect 
technical data? Who says, as this author seems to think, that "one has 
to sit like a stone statue for the whole sessions". I have been 
audited by LRH and have also audited him! I have never been aware of 
any "stone statueing". The fact that the TR's are a -training- routine 
seems to be completely not-ised. The "stone face", like the flunk this 
author seems to object to, are merely training to enable an auditor to 
inflow anything a pc may throw his way. This anything, especially in 
XII auditing, when handling the basis of insanity, can be very 
restimulative indeed and -will- throw the poorly trained auditor. A 
student who gets upset by a flunk is not one to sit in the chair and 
be entrusted to handle a case without endless Q&A and auditor cave in! 
Although flunk may not be nice, it certainly never invalidated me or 
any of my students! In fact, my "wog" office and production staffs 
enjoy non lovey dovey training.

Re Page 10, TR1, I'm glad the author got through by self auditing! It 
makes one wonder why the author needed an auditor at all. To actually 
publish that a sound TR1 is not essential explains about where 
auditing went! If TR1 is not essential, why is clearing the command 
essential!? With a lousy TR1 the pc is not going to receive it anyway, 
so who cares about clearing it! The critique of TR3 ditto. Tech data -
does- give the clear difference between comments and originations. The 
fact that the pc made a reference to a shell on a book case was not 
necessarily indicative of an effort to blow session (a comment)! An 
auditor whose TR0 is IN -does- see the difference and does compute 
correctly! He also spots the rightness of TR3 and looks for his own 
MU's before engaging in criticism. Page 11, col 1, TR6-9. I had 
already done these innumerable times before running the Flag X to XII 
TR training programs and thought I had a very good command of them 
until LRH himself came down from the Bridge (from which he supervised 
my training sessions on the forward deck), ran them on me and trained 
me in their training! This was a superlative experience which I would 
not have missed for anything! Not having trained on these, the author 
(of course) has no reason to believe he missed out anything. Instead 
of publishing what could be interpreted by new people to mean that 
TR's 6-9 are not needed, it might be an idea to get himself trained.

Summary

The TR's and their application are a matter of understanding them and 
their purpose. Making the data wrong for whatever a church, or others 
who did not understand it, may have done with it, is going wrong 
target!

Kemp's Column

Page 13, col 2, "Something new ", Ray Kemp hits it right on the head!!

Comment on Ron, AAP

Page 17, "Comment on Ron". Indeed, the debrief was written only giving 
facts about my years on Flag. It was a debrief and as such did not 
give much by way of eval and opinion. However, the last lines said: 
"The great tragedy of it all is not even that he got caught in his 
overts to the extent that in the end virtually everything restimulated 
his out ruds, but is the fact that he finally penalished himself 
horribly by denying himself the only thing which could have saved him, 
his -own- creation, auditing."

Personal integration by inner listening, Per Schi›ttz

Page 23, "Application". The author, I feel, invals himself when saying 
he is "C/Sing in the chair", when all he is doing is exactly listening 
and computing. He is duplicating the pc's mind and acting accordingly 
with the correct question. He himself says that he is handling the 
case in front of him, which is all an auditor could and should do!

The story of Excalibur, Ulrich

Page 28, col 2, The telepathic messages from -the boss-? As LRH was 
still very much alive in those days, one could look for out points in 
that story, but that's for each person him/herself to decide.

Page 29, col 2, That NOTS was supposed to be the "cure all" may well 
have been someone's interpretation, but is not what the data said. 
That the whole thing, "didn't make sense" may have been Robertson's 
eval but is not necessarily true. Processes needed, if any, in 
addition to valence tech, can be run when such is needed to handle a 
particular item. That many solo auditors can't run these through lack 
of training is immaterial. They should find a review auditor who -can-
! None of this invalidates the validity of OT3, old OT7, OT3X, and 
NOTS data!

Page 29, col 2, I don't know how OT3 is being run today, but I was the 
research auditor/Flag Case Officer in the early SO, so apart from 
doing research work on it, I certainly knew how OT3 was being run back 
then. In these days I was the only person there who had completed OT2. 
Bill Robertson had done the Class 6 and 7 courses, but had very little 
experience as an auditor. Even after having done the Flag Class 8 
course, he audited very little as he was involved in ship matters 
(navigational) or away on mission, setting up orgs. I had him as a 
student, when supervising ships' courses for Mary Sue Hubbard who was 
CS2. (I reviewed most cases, including Bill Robertson, when their solo 
went awry.) He only completed the tech auditing requirements for Class 
8 and had no further Tech experience.

It is also a fact that the original OT3 consisted of several fat files 
(each at least 2 inches thick), none of which data was ever published 
as LRH did not consider it necessary for the actual handling of the 
level and considered the contents too restimulative (they were quite 
heavy!). A few years later, when FESing all the LRH folders, (These 
were all LRH's own pc folders, i.e. concerning LRH's own case and all 
the auditing he received since 1948.) I C/Sed these files also. Again, 
many years later, in the independent days, I read "Revolt in the 
Stars" and large amounts of Bill's material. it is not my job to eval 
the validity of Bill's data, but it wasn't the same as the unpublished 
LRH OT3.

Page 30, col 1, last para, makes it very clear what happened. 
"Verbose" lectures even when training mere beginners, non supervision, 
etc. were, so it seems, accepted as a matter af course by the students 
and C/S trainees: -out ethics, out tech, out admin, and out points-! 
With that kind of irresponsibility for data emanated, and for students 
and trainees, it is no wonder one would feel hunted by assassins. 
Regardless of how that type of omission is justified, it is certainly 
the GAE#1 (Gross Auditing Error number one. Ed.) of not being there!

Page 30, col 2, I worked under LRH as C/S and John McMaster as Qual 
Sec during the development of Power as Case Officer SHUK, then senior 
auditors's post W/W. On Flag - it was LRH (1967/8), not Bill R, who 
brought PRPR's (PRPR (capital letters) and a number were the 
designations (names) for the different power processes. Ed.) into OT3 
(thus NOTS eventually!), especially PRPR6 to handle SP OT3 material! 
Later I, as Flag C/S, originated, test ran and published multiple flow 
Power for LRH C/S, hence consider I know PRPR data. Power processing 
was NEVER lost!!

Ending

Whatever the individuals in the examples given do is their own affair. 
Even if it means making the tech wrong. Others consider that those who 
want it should study the same tech -as it is-. Somebody like myself 
who has successfully worked with, in, and through it, also in 
ethics/admin-tech/policy, in C/S, auditing & exec chairs, -and- in 
life for many years, is one of these others.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Mar 15 00:06:02 EDT 2023 
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ivy/iv-10-03.txt
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to [email protected] 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.