OT Levels Violation of Auditor's Code? Auditor's Code Internally Inconsistent?

[Kha Khan]

For years, since the heyday of ARS, I've seen people make the argument that the OT levels, and particularly the OT3+ emphasis of BTs, is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Auditor's Code. Consider rules 1 and 17 of the Code:

1. I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session.

17. I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case.

I certainly see the argument that instructing someone to communicate with and/or eradicate their BTs both evaluates for the PC and tells him what he should think about his case in session.

I also see the argument that that instructing someone to communicate with and/or eradicate their BTs enters comments, expressions and/or enturbulence into a session that distracts a preclear from his case. [Unless, of course the pc's "case" is only what Ron say's it is, Ron damn it.]

[Also unless, of course, the Auditor's Code is completely inapplicable to Clears who are on their OT levels because, after all, they are no longer preclears. Has the argument ever been made that the Auditor's Code does not apply to Clears on their OT levels because they are not, by definition, preclears? But I digress.]

But I wonder if the Auditor's Code is not internally inconsistent. Now consider rules 1, 3 and 17 of the Code:

1. I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session.

3. I promise to administer only standard tech to a preclear in the standard way.

17. I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case.

Rule three says you must apply only standard tech in the standard way. At some point, after the pc is clear, standard tech standardly applied requires that the OT levels be applied. But, as discussed above, application of the OT levels requires that an evaluation be made for the pc, and that the pc be told what he should think about his case in session, in violation of Rule 1. Further, application of the OT levels requires that comments, expressions and/or enturbulence be entered into a session that distracts a preclear from his case, in violation of Rule 17.

Therefore, following the Auditor's Code requires violation of the Auditor's Code.

Put another way, the only way not to violate the Auditor's Code is to violate the Auditor's Code.

 

[RogerB]

I Would Say The Whole Bridge is a Violation

For years, since the heyday of ARS, I've seen people make the argument that the OT levels, and particularly the OT3+ emphasis of BTs, is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Auditor's Code. Consider rules 1 and 17 of the Code:I certainly see the argument that instructing someone to communicate with and/or eradicate their BTs both evaluates for the PC and tells him what he should think about his case in session.

I also see the argument that that instructing someone to communicate with and/or eradicate their BTs enters comments, expressions and/or enturbulence into a session that distracts a preclear from his case. [Unless, of course the pc's "case" is only what Ron say's it is, Ron damn it.]

[Also unless, of course, the Auditor's Code is completely inapplicable to Clears who are on their OT levels because, after all, they are no longer preclears. Has the argument ever been made that the Auditor's Code does not apply to Clears on their OT levels because they are not, by definition, preclears? But I digress.]

But I wonder if the Auditor's Code is not internally inconsistent. Now consider rules 1, 3 and 17 of the Code:

Rule three says you must apply only standard tech in the standard way. At some point, after the pc is clear, standard tech standardly applied requires that the OT levels be applied. But, as discussed above, application of the OT levels requires that an evaluation be made for the pc, and that the pc be told what he should think about his case in session, in violation of Rule 1. Further, application of the OT levels requires that comments, expressions and/or enturbulence be entered into a session that distracts a preclear from his case, in violation of Rule 17.

Therefore, following the Auditor's Code requires violation of the Auditor's Code.

Put another way, the only way not to violate the Auditor's Code is to violate the Auditor's Code.

From my experience, I would say the whole "Bridge" is a violation of the "Auditors Code" and of good correct and workable tech.

An individual's case unravels and becomes available for handling in a manner that is individual for each person. To have introduced the arbitrary that the "standard grade chart" is the way the case has to be addressed, run, handled is a nonsense and is fraught with the problem of running what in essence can be (and very often are) wrong issues or items of case on the PC.

What should be handled at any point in time is what is available, and/or is "in the PC's face" to be handled. By-pass that and you create charge. Opening up something that needs not be addressed is a nonsense.

And, of course, the "OT levels" are a cock up and a violation of just about everything . . . even though case change and gain are achieved by some on these levels . . . there are better, wiser way to achieve better results on the same areas of case.

Rog

 

[Dulloldfart]

Although I don't do Knowledgism or whatever you do these days, Rog, I would agree with all of that.

Paul

 

[Tiger Lily]

From my experience, I would say the whole "Bridge" is a violation of the "Auditors Code" and of good correct and workable tech.

An individual's case unravels and becomes available for handling in a manner that is individual for each person. To have introduced the arbitrary that the "standard grade chart" is the way the case has to be addressed, run, handled is a nonsense and is fraught with the problem of running what in essence can be (and very often are) wrong issues or items of case on the PC.

What should be handled at any point in time is what is available, and/or is "in the PC's face" to be handled. By-pass that and you create charge. Opening up something that needs not be addressed is a nonsense.

And, of course, the "OT levels" are a cock up and a violation just about everything . . . even though case change and gain are achieved by some on these levels . . . there are better, wiser way to achieve better results on the same areas of case.

Rog

I'm not highly trained or anything . . . . but this makes total sense; and so simple. I just had a nice release reading this Roger. Thanks.

TL

 

[RogerB]

You are Both Welcome

TL and DOF,

You are both welcome. It is the truth of the scenario as regards case progress. The client is an individual with his or her own priorities and emphasis of issues. To violate that is a very wrong action.

The cookie-cutter "bridge" does commit that violation.

Rog

 

[uniquemand]

That's why a lot of people seem to find Idenics so friendly: no Bridge. Handle what's there.

I think a good scientology auditor who thinks for himself can also apply whatever's needed, once they are independent, without worrying about the Bridge or the Grade Chart (except as a general outline if someone wants a session but doesn't have any particular thing they're focused on).

 

[Iknowtoomuch]

Never thought of it. Very good points.
But it doesn't suprise me that Hubbard yet again steps all over his own toes.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I think a good scientology auditor who thinks for himself can also apply whatever's needed, once they are independent, without worrying about the Bridge or the Grade Chart (except as a general outline if someone wants a session but doesn't have any particular thing they're focused on).

Yeah. If someone has nothing hot right now and is wondering what to address I would tend to suggest doing a basic R3X-type Lifetime Scanning/Clearing, where one runs through the entirety of this lifetime in bite-sized chunks, maybe 5 years at a time, either generally or by flows. One cruises along doing a sort of general lock-scanning, then when one bogs one zeroes in on that particular incident or series or incidents, handles that specifically, then continues with the general scanning until the next sticky bit. Wonderful stuff. I did it on myself (using my Robot R3X — an earlier version of the freebie in my sig) a year ago and ran stuff for a few hours, cleaning up the odd thing that had been missed in all my other auditing. I reckon it makes a good foundation for other stuff later. The one person I ran it on personally who had done Purif and Objectives took about 25/30 hours to complete. I didn't have the Rub & Yawn in use then — it would speed it up considerably, I should think.

Calling someone who has done that a "Lifetime Clear" or some crap like that is a bit much, but it is what I would definitely class as a Life Repair.

Paul

 

[uniquemand]

I like doing inventories with people, but instead of doing it by time periods, I tend to do it by dynamics (or "domains" as they call them in Metapsychology), and key concepts within them.

For instance:

Tell me about identities you've had, property you've owned, subjects you've been interested in, major goals you've aspired to, etc.

Or, girlfriends/boyfriends you've had, your parents relationship, other sexual or intimate relationships you've either engaged in, witnessed, desired, been curious about, etc.

Or... down the dynamics.

Just TWC, scanning the area until something jumps out, and then, if they're interested in it, prepchecking it, or running out o/w with justifications, etc.

I finish up with reach and withdraw on the dynamic. Then I ask them if there's anything else to handle.

 

[Kha Khan]

I think a good scientology auditor who thinks for himself can also apply whatever's needed, once they are independent, without worrying about the Bridge or the Grade Chart

Oh no! This actually makes me feel hopeful about independent, non-official Church of Scientology Scientology, and/or the Free Zone. LOL

I wasn't around at the time, but from my reading of the history of Dianetics and Scientology, it appears this was how things were done in the early days. A lot of Auditor flexibility and use of professional judgment. Use the best tool available. Address that which the PC wants to have addressed.

Do I recall correctly that the Bridge first appeared in the mid-1960s?

 

[Veda]

Info about the "OT levels."

Contains Hubbard's handwritten "OT 2" and "OT 3" (link in bottom post):

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=6528

 

[RogerB]

Yes

Oh no! This actually makes me feel hopeful about independent, non-official Church of Scientology Scientology, and/or the Free Zone. LOL

I wasn't around at the time, but from my reading of the history of Dianetics and Scientology, it appears this was how things were done in the early days. A lot of Auditor flexibility and use of professional judgment. Use the best tool available. Address that which the PC wants to have addressed.

Do I recall correctly that the Bridge first appeared in the mid-1960s?

Yes, Kha Khan. 1964-5. A friend and fellow staff member out in Melbourne, Ross Turnbull, wrote to the old man that we had been over-running our PC's. Out of this came the recognition that there are "release points (or Grades)" along the way to "Clear".

And the rest, as they say is history.

RogerB

 

[knn]

is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Auditor's Code.

You are already 3 or 4 steps too far ahead.

• The Bridge is an evaluation (= what steps to take).
• The need for the Bridge is an evaluation (= that one needs steps).
• The need for the Auditor is an evaluation (= that one cannot make the steps solo).
• The need for the eMeter is an evaluation (= that one needs MEST to tell what's going on in the mind).

Thus already the first word of the Auditor's code ("Auditor") is an evaluation.