Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Several of these have been mentioned here and there. But I have a sneaking suspicion this is a largely unconsidered factor in the "workability" of Scientology.
Here is an example I haven't written much about that I thought of a few hours ago: Dating and Locating. There is this huge HCOB Hubbard issued in 1978 called DATING & LOCATING. The basic idea is that charged incidents have a time tag and a location tag associated with them. Sometimes you can key out the incident by spotting its time and maybe also location. The HCOB goes into the whole thing in MINUTE detail, including drills to learn the procedure of dating to the fraction of a second (if needed) and locating to the fraction of an inch (if needed).
Now, this isn't used all the time, but it can involve incidents supposedly millions of years ago on other planets.
Auditors are probably more familiar with the idiosyncrasies of this than pcs, but the pc can point to a totally wrong location (like he's in LA and says it happened in New York five years and one day ago but he's pointing west) and the needle blows down and F/Ns. Assuming (from personal experience) there is some truth to Hubbard's statement that spotting something about the time can blow some charge, or unstick the incident, what can happen is that the pc spots something at the same time he is talking, but what comes out of his mouth is not necessarily what he spotted.
It's not really a problem *in the session*, as the charge keys out, F/N VGIs, end of process or whatever. But what can happen with a pc is this:
Auditor: "When was it?"
Pc: "723 trillion years, 18 days and 46 1/2 seconds ago. It blew!" (Big win. VGIs)
(Meter: LFBD F/N)
Auditor: Your needle is floating. End of session.
What happened here? Two things:
1. The pc blew some charge on something, whatever it was.
2. The pc has had the ridiculous date he just invented VALIDATED. It's ridiculous because it is almost infinitely improbable that a figure of that magnitude would have so many zeroes in it (EXACTLY 723,000,000,000,000 years, 18 days etc.); and secondly I know of no evidence that beings are that old. Assertions from Hubbard and other people in session are not evidence. Meter reads are not evidence. Dr. Michael Newton's between-lives research on over 7,000 cases (see this thread) isn't too specific but I don't see anyone there "born" more than a million years ago.
-----
Another example which I have much discussed elsewhere on ESMB is the apparent workability of OT2 and OT3. By workability I mean people who do the procedure exactly (and even who screw around with it, knowingly or not) often have the expected things happen. Lots of reads on the proper items occur on OT2, and stuff reads and blows (i.e., it F/Ns and ceases to read and feels like it has gone) on OT3. The statement I usually make is something like "that the *procedure* works is no guarantee that the *theory* is correct."
However, that the procedure works (when it does!) can easily be taken by the solo auditor to mean that the theory IS correct.
-----
I see an earlier post of mine (#52 in the thread) where I said, "When you solo audited, was a possible factor the "self-fulfilling prophecy" aspect of "Oh good, it's F/Ning, phew" causing a prolongation or widening of the F/N? (I think that general idea of the self-fulfilling bit came from Veda.)"
-----
Any other examples or comments?
Paul
Here is an example I haven't written much about that I thought of a few hours ago: Dating and Locating. There is this huge HCOB Hubbard issued in 1978 called DATING & LOCATING. The basic idea is that charged incidents have a time tag and a location tag associated with them. Sometimes you can key out the incident by spotting its time and maybe also location. The HCOB goes into the whole thing in MINUTE detail, including drills to learn the procedure of dating to the fraction of a second (if needed) and locating to the fraction of an inch (if needed).
Now, this isn't used all the time, but it can involve incidents supposedly millions of years ago on other planets.
Auditors are probably more familiar with the idiosyncrasies of this than pcs, but the pc can point to a totally wrong location (like he's in LA and says it happened in New York five years and one day ago but he's pointing west) and the needle blows down and F/Ns. Assuming (from personal experience) there is some truth to Hubbard's statement that spotting something about the time can blow some charge, or unstick the incident, what can happen is that the pc spots something at the same time he is talking, but what comes out of his mouth is not necessarily what he spotted.
It's not really a problem *in the session*, as the charge keys out, F/N VGIs, end of process or whatever. But what can happen with a pc is this:
Auditor: "When was it?"
Pc: "723 trillion years, 18 days and 46 1/2 seconds ago. It blew!" (Big win. VGIs)
(Meter: LFBD F/N)
Auditor: Your needle is floating. End of session.
What happened here? Two things:
1. The pc blew some charge on something, whatever it was.
2. The pc has had the ridiculous date he just invented VALIDATED. It's ridiculous because it is almost infinitely improbable that a figure of that magnitude would have so many zeroes in it (EXACTLY 723,000,000,000,000 years, 18 days etc.); and secondly I know of no evidence that beings are that old. Assertions from Hubbard and other people in session are not evidence. Meter reads are not evidence. Dr. Michael Newton's between-lives research on over 7,000 cases (see this thread) isn't too specific but I don't see anyone there "born" more than a million years ago.
-----
Another example which I have much discussed elsewhere on ESMB is the apparent workability of OT2 and OT3. By workability I mean people who do the procedure exactly (and even who screw around with it, knowingly or not) often have the expected things happen. Lots of reads on the proper items occur on OT2, and stuff reads and blows (i.e., it F/Ns and ceases to read and feels like it has gone) on OT3. The statement I usually make is something like "that the *procedure* works is no guarantee that the *theory* is correct."
However, that the procedure works (when it does!) can easily be taken by the solo auditor to mean that the theory IS correct.
-----
I see an earlier post of mine (#52 in the thread) where I said, "When you solo audited, was a possible factor the "self-fulfilling prophecy" aspect of "Oh good, it's F/Ning, phew" causing a prolongation or widening of the F/N? (I think that general idea of the self-fulfilling bit came from Veda.)"
-----
Any other examples or comments?
Paul
Last edited: