Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
The following is a tech post related to metering and needle phenomena. It's reposted from a freezone forum with permission from the author. Initial comments are included at the author's request.
Similar topics to those mentioned here have come up recently elsewhere on ESMB. Thus, I considered the material to be of interest. However I chose to start a new thread rather than force the material to fit elsewhere.
Mark A. Baker
>
> Sure you can repost it. Just put at the top that these are my personal opinions and it would be real smart to dig up the LRH references, especially the HCOB on the Dianetic R3R chain where LRH talks about the needle going "back and forth, and back and forth." It was the robotic use of this HCOB that caused the new definition of F/N to occur, from what I can see.
>
> Best wishes, Randy
>
Hi all,
I have been getting a number of emails about this calling of F/Ns because I gave information about this much earlier, maybe a year ago.
I was there in the late 40s and early 50s when the original efforts were made to bring in some metered devices to the auditing session.
At that time Book I did not need a meter. At that time those doing Scientology and research auditing type processes did not need a meter. One was expected to locate masses, entities, facsimiles by questioning, looking at the PC's physical indicators, and directing viewing masses in the spiritual universe.
Black and white processing, direct comm into a mass, affinity processing, mocking up duplicates to restimulate masses, and other techniques were all used.
The recoil was quite heavy sometimes and this is where you get the ten day destimulation rule. Some sessions resulted in the PC being knocked out for as long as ten days.
If you had been through these days then one would really appreciate how valuable the current technology is. But much of this has been forgotten and moved to the side with the current rote standardization. The standardization has allowed a person's advancement without getting kick in the teeth so much and allowed the person to much less skilled with directly handling the spiritual universe. This means more people can be gotten to quicker without as many casualties.
When the first devices came in even oscilloscopes were tried. This meant one could even detect a change in direction of electrical current flow, which some masses caused.
The Wheatstone Bridge device (e-meter) was brought in and the different e-meter reads had to be given names according to what was going on in the PC. The Floating Needle name came much later. The original call on the meter was "a happy needle." It meant basically that the area being handled was as-is-ed or masses released and the PC was happy with it.
I do not remember anyone calling it a floating needle because we were not interested in the state of the needle; we were interested in the state of the PC. Therefore the call was "a happy needle."
Wanted to say a lot more but do not have time so I will rough out the rest.
When I was the Snr C/S Flag's admin assistant (1979-1982) and he would do the final pass on meter video, many times he would sit me down and ask me what I thought - not that my opinion matter but at least I had this experience of watching videos of many of the current auditor's and C/S's in the FreeZone and Class XIIs at Flag. The importance was placed on the PC first and the meter second.
The definition of "uninfluenced motion of the e-meter" was important. The spiritual universe masses and entities were gone. The PC was free of these AND the PC was still involved in the area concerning what had been addressed in the session. The last part of the "AND" was about making sure the PC attention was still in the area that the session was addressing so the auditor would "F/N what was originally reading.
The current definition that is killing could auditor in Scientology is the one pointed out here concerning "back and forth, and back and forth" twice. This is taken from a Dianetic R3R HCOB concerning running down an engram chain. The incidents on a particular engram chain are gone over, then an earlier incident, and then earlier until the earliest is found and erased - with a postulate gotten off. During this process the needle becomes looser and looser with the needle starting to F/N. When the final incident is erased with its connected postulate the needle will go wider with the needle going "back and forth, and back and forth." Find and read this HCOB and one will find LRH is making a point about the needle loosening up more and more. He is not making an absolute definition for all "happy needles" supporting the PC is done with a process.
This same sort of taking one part of the tech and making it universal happened in the early late 60s and early 70s when auditors could only call F/Ns at 2.0 for females and 3.0 for males. Many auditors that went by PC indicators just changed the TA on worksheets to 2.0 or 3.0 even though it was not. A number of auditors were really confused until LRH wrote policy allowing indication of an F/N at other TA positions.
That is all I have time for now. As usual check out all the above for oneself. I have audited thousands of hours on many others including OT reviews and research auditing so this is real to me.
Best,
Randy Payne
Similar topics to those mentioned here have come up recently elsewhere on ESMB. Thus, I considered the material to be of interest. However I chose to start a new thread rather than force the material to fit elsewhere.
Mark A. Baker
>
> Sure you can repost it. Just put at the top that these are my personal opinions and it would be real smart to dig up the LRH references, especially the HCOB on the Dianetic R3R chain where LRH talks about the needle going "back and forth, and back and forth." It was the robotic use of this HCOB that caused the new definition of F/N to occur, from what I can see.
>
> Best wishes, Randy
>
Hi all,
I have been getting a number of emails about this calling of F/Ns because I gave information about this much earlier, maybe a year ago.
I was there in the late 40s and early 50s when the original efforts were made to bring in some metered devices to the auditing session.
At that time Book I did not need a meter. At that time those doing Scientology and research auditing type processes did not need a meter. One was expected to locate masses, entities, facsimiles by questioning, looking at the PC's physical indicators, and directing viewing masses in the spiritual universe.
Black and white processing, direct comm into a mass, affinity processing, mocking up duplicates to restimulate masses, and other techniques were all used.
The recoil was quite heavy sometimes and this is where you get the ten day destimulation rule. Some sessions resulted in the PC being knocked out for as long as ten days.
If you had been through these days then one would really appreciate how valuable the current technology is. But much of this has been forgotten and moved to the side with the current rote standardization. The standardization has allowed a person's advancement without getting kick in the teeth so much and allowed the person to much less skilled with directly handling the spiritual universe. This means more people can be gotten to quicker without as many casualties.
When the first devices came in even oscilloscopes were tried. This meant one could even detect a change in direction of electrical current flow, which some masses caused.
The Wheatstone Bridge device (e-meter) was brought in and the different e-meter reads had to be given names according to what was going on in the PC. The Floating Needle name came much later. The original call on the meter was "a happy needle." It meant basically that the area being handled was as-is-ed or masses released and the PC was happy with it.
I do not remember anyone calling it a floating needle because we were not interested in the state of the needle; we were interested in the state of the PC. Therefore the call was "a happy needle."
Wanted to say a lot more but do not have time so I will rough out the rest.
When I was the Snr C/S Flag's admin assistant (1979-1982) and he would do the final pass on meter video, many times he would sit me down and ask me what I thought - not that my opinion matter but at least I had this experience of watching videos of many of the current auditor's and C/S's in the FreeZone and Class XIIs at Flag. The importance was placed on the PC first and the meter second.
The definition of "uninfluenced motion of the e-meter" was important. The spiritual universe masses and entities were gone. The PC was free of these AND the PC was still involved in the area concerning what had been addressed in the session. The last part of the "AND" was about making sure the PC attention was still in the area that the session was addressing so the auditor would "F/N what was originally reading.
The current definition that is killing could auditor in Scientology is the one pointed out here concerning "back and forth, and back and forth" twice. This is taken from a Dianetic R3R HCOB concerning running down an engram chain. The incidents on a particular engram chain are gone over, then an earlier incident, and then earlier until the earliest is found and erased - with a postulate gotten off. During this process the needle becomes looser and looser with the needle starting to F/N. When the final incident is erased with its connected postulate the needle will go wider with the needle going "back and forth, and back and forth." Find and read this HCOB and one will find LRH is making a point about the needle loosening up more and more. He is not making an absolute definition for all "happy needles" supporting the PC is done with a process.
This same sort of taking one part of the tech and making it universal happened in the early late 60s and early 70s when auditors could only call F/Ns at 2.0 for females and 3.0 for males. Many auditors that went by PC indicators just changed the TA on worksheets to 2.0 or 3.0 even though it was not. A number of auditors were really confused until LRH wrote policy allowing indication of an F/N at other TA positions.
That is all I have time for now. As usual check out all the above for oneself. I have audited thousands of hours on many others including OT reviews and research auditing so this is real to me.
Best,
Randy Payne