Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead
Pilot'sPosts Z2
[[ I have decided also to send the weekly excerpts from The Pilot's fortnightly postings here every week. But if you would like them sent weekly to your inbox You will still need to go to:
http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio and sign in there.
Pilot'sPosts Z4
The Auditor’s Code – Old and New
(From Post 44 – January 1999)
I liked the old auditor's code of 1954. The later standard tech version of 1968 seemed to be overly wordy, less accurate as far as the relative importances, and also biased towards standard tech, which at that time was the unworkable system that we now know of as "quickies". It certainly did little to prevent the subject from deteriorating into a sham.
It would seem to me that it should be possible to do a better job on a code for processing.
To start with, lets review the old codes:
---------------
First, here is the
old code from
Creation of Human Ability which was posted to the net awhile ago.
The bullet points are Ron's. The commentary is mine.
1. Do not evaluate for the preclear
Very important. But I use the old definition of eval where it is described as forcing a datum on the pc. You must not do that even if you are right because it cuts down the pc's knowingness. But that does not mean that you can't suggest something.
It does, however, mean that you can't insist that the person has withholds and better tell you. You can ask. You can even beg (joke). You can vary the question. You can even run a process to raise confront. But you must not insist even if you are correct. So much for modern sec checking as done by the CofS.
2. Do not invalidate or correct the preclear's data
Inval is even more important than eval. It should come first in the list. You can't make more of the pc if you make less of him.
As written, this could be misinterpreted to mean that you must not invalidate the pc's data but it’s ok to invalidate the pc.
3. Use the processes which improve the preclear's case
Yes. Or perhaps, use whatever process is needed to improve the preclear's case. And be responsible enough to find or research a workable process or pass the pc on to somebody who can if one's particular standard techniques are not making it on this case.
4. Keep all appointments once made
It is definitely bad form to break appointments, but this is not of comparable magnitude to the significant points above. And the common CofS method of keeping everyone sitting around waiting without a firm appointment (so that it isn't broken) is not a good idea, excessive waiting makes the case more solid and harder to process. Sensible and efficient scheduling with some flexibility and care to reschedule if an appointment can't be made would seem to be the most workable.
5. Do not process a preclear after 10:00 p.m.
An evaluative absolute. Correct is don't process too late at night if at all possible.
All the rules which are aimed at processing the pc when he is at his best are a) relative to the pc, and b) can be violated if necessary if you limit yourself to processes which are easy for the pc.
A more advanced case at its worst (tired and poorly fed) may still process as well as a more heavily charged case at its best. But you must not assume that the person can run on his usual gradient if he is in poorer shape than usual.
Since this is slower and more difficult for the pc, it is disadvantageous and you should not waste his time in this manner unless there is an overriding concern. So this is mainly done in emergencies (assists, etc.)
6. Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed
As above. And note that the e-meter metabolism test is not properly benchmarked or validated. It is given as an absolute and there is no data as to what variations might really occur due to body weight, normal metabolism values for that particular body, or relative sensitivity settings. If such a test is used at all (instead of simply trusting the pc as used to be done), it should be relative to his usual metabolic reaction rather than measured against an absolute standard.
7. Do not permit a frequent change of auditors
Avoid would be better here.
8. Do not sympathize with the preclear
It is important to avoid sticking him with sympathy. It is bad to give him too much agreement on how bad things are or validate him for being messed up because it makes the condition persist. At the same time, you must not put out a heavy "no sympathy" or blame the pc or insist that he act tough. That encourages him to dramatize the condition further to prove to you how bad off he is. Best is to communicate that you understand how he feels and intend to do something about the condition.
9. Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision
This is far too absolute. You mustn't let him run off when you are in the middle of something.
10. Never walk off from a preclear during a session
If there is a need, always tell him that we're taking a break, don't leave him hanging.
11. Never get angry with a preclear
Definitely. But this is part and parcel with not invalidating the pc.
12. Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process
This is specific to a particular processing methodology.
13. Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and no longer
This is more generally applicable than 12 above.
14. Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear
Better stated as actually granting it rather than just being willing. This is one of the most important points, possibly THE most important point since even inval and eval might simply be considered violations of this specific point.
15. Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices
Foreshadowing of KSW. Toss this one.
16. Maintain two-way communication with the preclear
Another of the most important ones.
17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor's own personal profit
I'm tempted to add "or for the profit of the CofS" to this one. There is something to this and CofS is in chronic violation.
But it’s not really correct. The better statement would be that it should never be used "purely for profit". That doesn't mean that you can't charge, it just means that the profit must not be the overriding concern.
And whatever is said here must apply equally to the organization and registrars and so forth.
18. Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not process another imagined case
Good point.
19. Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined
Note that you can (and should) indicate that something was a mistake. You can even apologize if it seems appropriate. What you mustn't do is try to make excuses or explain it away.
------------------------
And here is the
later Auditor's Code. This is from old Tech Vol. 6 that was posted to the net last year. Although this is the 1976 revision, it is pretty much the same as the version used in 1969 (the last 3 points used to be in a separate 1969 HCOPL).
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 OCTOBER 1968R
REVISED 1 JANUARY 1976
THE AUDITOR'S CODE
In celebration of the 100% gains attainable by Standard Tech.
I hereby promise as an Auditor to follow the Auditor's Code.
1. I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session.
See point 1 of the old code.
2. I promise not to invalidate the preclear's case or gains in or out of session.
See point 2 of the old code.
3. I promise to administer only Standard Tech to a preclear in the standard way.
Originally this meant to do quickies and never use anything other
than a handful of processes. This is in direct violation of
point 3 of the old code. So lets stick with the old one.
4. I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made.
See point 4 of the old code.
5. I promise not to process a preclear who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically tired.
A better statement than point 5 of the old code, but see the
comment there.
6. I promise not to process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry.
As above.
7. I promise not to permit a frequent change of Auditors.
See the old code.
8. I promise not to sympathize with a preclear but to be effective.
See the old code.
9. I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism but to finish off those cycles I have begun.
This is a better statement than the old code, but see the comments there.
10. I promise never to walk off from a preclear in session.
See the old code.
11. I promise never to get angry with a preclear in session.
See the old code.
12. I promise to run every major case action to a floating needle.
As with the old code, this is tied to a specific methodology.
13. I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle.
Again specific to a methodology, and furthermore is in violation of FN and EP. A correct statement for modern standard tech would be to say "beyond it’s end phenomena".
If we define EP loosely to mean the appropriate result instead of using a fixed method specific definition, then we could define both this one and 12 above in a general manner which is appropriate to a broader selection of methods.
14. I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session.
See the old code.
15. I promise not to mix the processes of Scientology with other practices except when the preclear is physically ill and only medical means will serve.
Toss this one along with the old one.
16. I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear and not to cut his comm or permit him to overrun in session.
This is better stated in the old code.
17. I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case.
Not a bad point, but perhaps better stated as simply not distracting the pc from his case. That puts the endless unnecessary actions that CofS bothers the pc with into the category of code breaks, and that feels right. It’s just as bad to distract him with supposed standard tech as with comments.
18. I promise to continue to give the preclear the process or auditing command when needed in the session.
Of course. But does this need to be in the code or are we
distracting from the key points given earlier.
19. I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly understood command.
Excessive. This leads to 25 hours of defining things to do 5 hours of processing. Better to avoid letting him run a wrongly understood command and fix it fast if it does happen.
20. I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses in session for any Auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.
See the old code.
21. I promise to estimate the current case state of a preclear only by Standard Case Supervision data and not to diverge because of some imagined difference in the case.
Point 18 of the old code is better.
22. I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.
Very good. Except add "or for the benefit of the org" and also promise never to turn these over to Ethics or OSA and also never write them down in the folder as an extra safety measure.
23. I promise to see that any fee received for processing is refunded following the policies of the Claims Verification Board, if the preclear is dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the processing, the only condition being that he may not again be processed or trained.
This is policy rather than processing tech. Yes, give refunds, but
it doesn't belong in the code.
24. I promise not to advocate Scientology only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing well it was intended for spiritual gain.
More politics. This should be org policy but don't dilute the code with it.
25. I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.
More KSW aimed at suppressing the tech and keeping it from being used or further researched. Definitely a reverse point to be tossed as quickly as possible.
26. I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of "mental treatment".
A nice point. I wonder if this means that the CofS auditors are all breaking the auditor's code until they unmock the Flag organization (remember Lisa?).
But in fact this has nothing to do with the auditor's handling of his own pc and therefore does not belong in the code.
27. I promise not to permit sexual liberties or violation of the mentally unsound.
Again a generality rather than anything specific to the pc one is handling. Possibly there should be something like this specific to one's pc and you certainly shouldn't violate them sexually even if they are mentally sound.
But old point 17 is better.
28. I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of practitioners any being who is insane.
More political grandstanding.
------------------
[Pilot's suggestion]
So let's see if we can clean this up and simplify it a bit. Shorter is better as long as the important points are covered.
This is not an ethical code or organizational policy or a list of what would be nice. It is a minimum statement of what has to be there to have successful sessions.
And let's put the most important points first.
1. Process for the purpose of helping the preclear and not to take advantage of them.
2. Grant Beingness
3. Maintain 2 way communication
4. Do not invalidate or get angry with the pc or correct his data
5. Do not evaluate for or force the pc
6. Never let anything divulged in session be used against the pc
7. Do not upset the pc or distract him from his case or act overly sympathetic
8. Use the processes which work for the pc
9. Do not confuse the pc or fail to clear up a wrongly understood command
10. Finish what you start and do not continue a process beyond its expected result
11. Do not justify or make excuses for any mistakes
12. Avoid processing under non-optimum conditions such as insufficient food or sleep
This seems short and simple enough to be broadly applicable and easy to teach and apply.
---------
I must admit that I'm thinking of this especially in terms of co-auditing. What would 2 beginners have to know to keep from messing each other up.
Best,
The Pilot
I would say that the 'conscious mind' works in the realm of knowledge, whilst the heart works in the realm of wisdom. Mental processes are quite rough, strong, and 'electrical' in nature, whilst the processes of the heart are very subtle, refined, and essentially non-verbal . The ability to listen to the heart is an aquired skill for most people. It's often not developed until late on in life. Children can do it, but the ability tends to get lost at about seven years of age, as 'education' generally ignores and devalues it. The 'conscious mind' is a marvelous thing, but it has limitations. For instance, it can't love. It can form attachments, which some might confuse with love, but it's not love - it's a posture, a gestalt. Real love is beyond definition, but the closest I can get to putting it into words, is 'a total acceptance, an allowing, and a joyful state of awe-filled reverence - independent of relationship type, towards another being.' That's not it, but it's nodding in the right direction 
