What do you Freezoners think of L.Ron Hubbard

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Any action which isn't following the person's interest (in other words, they haven't voiced something like: I seem to be following purposes that aren't mine, or I have no idea why I'm always falling in with a crowd that does things that I think are self-destructive, etc., in the case of the FPRD) is likely to cause a problem, or set up a situation where the "preclear" is being harmed by "auditing". No matter how well-intended, I think it's always wrong to try to get someone to look at something other than what their interest is on. When their interest is wide open, then I suggest a grades approach, because I think it logically follows (if they are interested in SEEKING something to run). When interest is focused on something in an unhealthy way, there are a variety of procedures which could be used (prepchecking certainly comes to mind, but there are a variety of c/s lists that might also come in handy). I'm not sure about Scn C/S tech concerning FPRD, but from past experience, I feel safe in asserting that most of the time, FPRD is assigned where it isn't needed or wanted by the person receiving it.
 

acertainratio

Patron with Honors
Any action which isn't following the person's interest (in other words, they haven't voiced something like: I seem to be following purposes that aren't mine, or I have no idea why I'm always falling in with a crowd that does things that I think are self-destructive, etc., in the case of the FPRD) is likely to cause a problem, or set up a situation where the "preclear" is being harmed by "auditing". No matter how well-intended, I think it's always wrong to try to get someone to look at something other than what their interest is on. When their interest is wide open, then I suggest a grades approach, because I think it logically follows (if they are interested in SEEKING something to run). When interest is focused on something in an unhealthy way, there are a variety of procedures which could be used (prepchecking certainly comes to mind, but there are a variety of c/s lists that might also come in handy). I'm not sure about Scn C/S tech concerning FPRD, but from past experience, I feel safe in asserting that most of the time, FPRD is assigned where it isn't needed or wanted by the person receiving it.

Thanks for that - so clearly put.
 

acertainratio

Patron with Honors
Uh huh.

You did your upper OT Levels at Ron's Orgs - and were "totally transformed by OT 9, 10, and 11," at Ron's Org - an Org which was founded by a guy who called himself Astar Paramegjian, deputy Commander to Elron Elray (Hubbard), Sector 9, and you were never exposed to any kind of 'cult of Ron'.

Okay dokey.

Just as you say!

You seem to have a very fixed idea about what someone you have never met has experienced.

I knew Bill only as Bill, and Ron not at all.

But believe what serves you best!
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I'm not sure about Scn C/S tech concerning FPRD, but from past experience, I feel safe in asserting that most of the time, FPRD is assigned where it isn't needed or wanted by the person receiving it.

I agree one should address what the pc wants to address in PT. I had two main thoughts regarding the FPRD, at a time when I thought I might benefit from it. One was that I definitely wanted to get rid of some ev purps; the other was that I didn't want to start the FPRD and then be trapped in the middle of it because it was hard getting into session (free staff auditing in the SO after OT3). By "trapped" I don't mean suffering from some imagined restim, but suffering from the very practical problem of the C/S Series saying I had to finish what I started, say the basic FPRD list at least, but needing (and wanting) to get on with something else like KTL or the New New New Super-Pro TRs course or whatever the latest push was.

So my comment on the interest is that one can indeed have interest in getting rid of some ev purps to the extent that the FPRD addresses and discharges such [hedging comment!], but that interest does not necessarily extend to getting rid of all the ev purps that might be dug up by whatever the C/S deems is proper.

And now that I think of it, interest in whatever was deemed to be next was often limited to wondering if it would help rather than being asked what I wanted to address and taking it from there. The mere thought of "standard tech" routinely doing that instead of at a few special points. What a foreign concept. "Hi there--what would you like to address in auditing? We'll get right onto it."

Hah!

Paul
 

Veda

Sponsor
Just as you say!

You seem to have a very fixed idea about what someone you have never met has experienced.

I knew Bill only as Bill, and Ron not at all.

But believe what serves you best!

Fixed ideas? I was quoting you word per word. They're your ideas not mine.

As for "Deputy Commander Astar Paramegjian," "Sector 9," and the rest of it, Bill Robertson concocted that, not me.

These ideas are yours and his.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Don't get me wrong, Paul, I'm not saying "Standard Tech" does what my ideas concerning how parts of the tech could be used. Not in the slightest! Like you, I'm a tinkerer, and I think for myself, and help how I feel I can best help. I believe that interest can be handled in a well-done Life Repair program, and that people are quite willing to pick up an orderly series of questions after that, and that the best series is something like the grades approach, with "corrective" actions (more "repair") as needed or wanted, dependent on where the person's interest goes. I believe the "file clerk" should be trusted, I'm not on-board with the Implantology belief that the "file clerk" has been perverted through implants to prevent the person from making progress: I consider that paranoia.
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, I had look and it's very interesting - thanks.

I spoke with a guy who had to literally escape from Flag, as he felt that the FPRD was 'doing him in' completely psychologically.

Maybe it's all about the application - I dunno.

Any sort of "counseling" that focuses on negative aspects will crash a person because the entirety of being is creation. Create the negative and you will go down. Thus the stupendous insanity of "sec checking".
 

Lemuria

Patron with Honors
:happydance:

So many viewpoints. Well, thanks for giving me a little more to look into. I don't think that the man himself was evil to the core. I think that there are many dynamics that come in to play in different people's lives, and they cause them to act out a certain way. And you can only understand it if you have experienced what they have.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Any sort of "counseling" that focuses on negative aspects will crash a person because the entirety of being is creation. Create the negative and you will go down. Thus the stupendous insanity of "sec checking".
spotting why you are creating the negative, and then consciously stopping doing so, is different from just focusing on the negative. prior confusion tech can be useful in this, and is the real thing to focus on, rather than the decision which was "negative" that came out of it and it's effects, IMO
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
spotting why you are creating the negative, and then consciously stopping doing so, is different from just focusing on the negative. prior confusion tech can be useful in this, and is the real thing to focus on, rather than the decision which was "negative" that came out of it and it's effects, IMO

Agreed except I'd say you never create negatives, you just create. Where you get hung up is confusion, as you said. Confusion is one basis of idenics.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Semantics! If you are considering it negative, now, that's probably why you want to handle it in session. Negative, impediment, whatever, you pick it up and you handle it! Of course, this is LIMITED. Doing it in an ongoing basis, to me, is evidence of introversion. Get a GAME! Have a job, enjoy a lovelife, get an academic interest, start a hobby, do some sport... Which isn't to say introversion cannot be useful, but being stuck in introversion (or stuck anywhere, for that matter) ain't good.
 

nexus100

Gold Meritorious Patron
Semantics! If you are considering it negative, now, that's probably why you want to handle it in session. Negative, impediment, whatever, you pick it up and you handle it! Of course, this is LIMITED. Doing it in an ongoing basis, to me, is evidence of introversion. Get a GAME! Have a job, enjoy a lovelife, get an academic interest, start a hobby, do some sport... Which isn't to say introversion cannot be useful, but being stuck in introversion (or stuck anywhere, for that matter) ain't good.

?? We were talking about counseling, not lifestyle, I thought. An unwanted condition is simply something you can't confront. The reason is a confusion that keeps you from seeing it as it really is. You can live around such things but if you can eliminate them so much the better. IMO Problem A with SCN auditing is the auditor decides what is going on to a large degree and a CS decides whether or not it was handled. And they address a vast amount of stuff that doesn't need addressing. Those are unnecessary large items to confront if you're trying to spot a confusion because of additives. It is really really easy in Idenics, in fact it works fine over the phone. Why? We'll see when the book comes out.
By the way I unstuck.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Don't get me wrong, Paul, I'm not saying "Standard Tech" does what my ideas concerning how parts of the tech could be used. Not in the slightest!

Sorry if I wasn't clear, Kev. I was trying to add what you said, not disagree with you at all. I do mostly take a contrary view when I post, but not always. :)

Paul
 
Any action which isn't following the person's interest (in other words, they haven't voiced something like: I seem to be following purposes that aren't mine, or I have no idea why I'm always falling in with a crowd that does things that I think are self-destructive, etc., in the case of the FPRD) is likely to cause a problem, or set up a situation where the "preclear" is being harmed by "auditing". No matter how well-intended, I think it's always wrong to try to get someone to look at something other than what their interest is on.


Well, if he is "frying" my emeter at the same time he is telling me "he isn't interested in looking at the item", I am rather disinclined to take his statement as a "given".

Had one of those happen recently in fact. 2WCed him into looking at the topic. Doesn't hurt to look, right? :)

It turned out to be an "o/m/mw" chain on the track. PC's state of mind was much improved by the end of the session at his origination. Also made it CLEAR to him what a "missed withhold" was and how it could be restimmed without him necessarily being aware of it. Afterall, HE never did anything even remotely like that. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
 
I've yet to meet anyone who says that they benefited from the 'False Purpose Rundown'.


Had a private discussion with a friend which included the FPRD. This person is HIGHLY knowledegeable & experienced on BOTH sides of bridge, giving & receiving. The person is not at present Co$, however since it was a private discussion I am not revealing "personal" details about the individual.

Per the person's origination, FPRD was among the most fun auditing EVER experienced. Ran lots, as I recall it was on the order of hundreds of hours.

However, the person emphasized that CRUCIAL to the delivery of the FPRD was to NOT overrun the pc at ANY POINT during the program. When the person blows out, then STOP handling the chain. DO NOT PROCEED with further auditing at that point. Give the pc the win. If the material comes up again in a LATER session THEN do further handling as appropriate handling.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CONTINUE TO RUN THE PC PAST A MAJOR WIN.

Based on what I was told I could only liken the results of the FPRD to some auditing I received while on the HRD which dealt with similar matters. That experience for me was also similarly wonderful & utterly transformative.

I expect that in the hands of a competent and ETHICAL auditor a pc would quite likely have a similarly glorious time on the FPRD.

Unfortunately, most FPRD program "grads" are Co$ products and the Co$ has VERY peculiar ideas about what is unethical & how to run ethics related auditing sessions.


Mark A. Baker
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Again, Mark, I think it is an error. You can get a win, even on an error. However, you would be better served by going where their attention is. Later, that same area will still be hot, if it's hot, and you can pick it up. Of course, if the needle is dirty, you might want to fly some mid-session rudiments (including m/w/h). Just don't rabbit to rudiments when you already have something hot.
 
Again, Mark, I think it is an error. You can get a win, even on an error. However, you would be better served by going where their attention is.

If he is "frying my meter" he HAS got attention on it, he just hasn't (or won't) acknowledged the fact to himself or the auditor. Typically this occurs on "hot areas" of "low responsibility".

Audit it and responsibility level rises. Rabbit and pc natters about the item in question.

Recognizing that is just another example of your own dicta of the "file clerk is never wrong". He brings it up, he frys the meter, he is interested.

By the time any item is "completely real" to a pc it is no longer charged.


Mark A. Baker
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
In the case where the meter is "frying", as you put it, then steering using the meter is probably going to be helpful. Yes, he has got attention on it. But it's not a contest of wills to make him tell you. Steering him into it doesn't violate any precepts. I wasn't talking about when a person's attention is on something and they don't want to talk about it. I was talking about assigning a rundown to someone because you think they have false purposes, when they've never voiced anything to indicate that they have interest in looking at that.

When you're in session, running something, of course you follow the reads and steer as needed (whether those reads are on a meter or otherwise). We're talking about apples and oranges. You're talking about something that is hot right now and needs handling. I'm talking about bypassing what's hot to run something assumed to be there.
 
I was talking about assigning a rundown to someone because you think they have false purposes, when they've never voiced anything to indicate that they have interest in looking at that.

Best thing I ever did was HRD. Didn't indicate at the time but I gave the C/S the benefit of the doubt.

Some rundowns are sufficiently "broad" that they nevertheless find material which "bites deep". HRD is one. I suspect the FPRD is also.

The question is: are you running the program for the benefit of the pc or for the benefit of the "group"?

FPRD is easy to abuse. It can be seen as an intentional MAKE WRONG of a pc. Any program which is intended to address areas of "low responsibility", "personal out ethics", "service facsimiles", "overts/motivators/missed withholds", etc., although quite likely to produce spectacular gains for a pc if run ETHICALLY, can very EASILY be perverted into a tool of group domination & control when used unethically.

So, do you never program "ethics related actions" for auditing because the pc isn't "interested", or because it might "screw the pooch"? That kills running out "service facsimiles" or just about anything having to do with personal ethics. NOT a smart move.



I'm talking about bypassing what's hot to run something assumed to be there.

Obviously you run what is PRESENT & HOT first.

As I understand the purpose of "life repair" programming is to do just that. Similarly, competent C/Ses are not unwilling to tailor unique programs for pc's where appropriate. In many cases just having them do the lower bridge often counts as an excellent general "case set-up". :)

Requring a pc's interest, before starting a program is not necessarily essential provided this is not done as an excuse for bypassing that which is important to the pc. ALWAYS requiring the pc's "interest" may not be the quickest way to accomplish what the pc has in mind.

Many of the basic rundowns & programs are used precisely because they serve to undercut a case and make subsequent auditing go more smoothly. They often don't "indicate" until sometime in the middle when a process BITES and the pc starts to cognite why this may be worth looking at.

I like to think of NED & the grades as "general requirements" and other rundowns & programs ("advanced levels" included) as "special studies" or "areas of concentration". Generally programs are best recommended as appropriate for a given pc based on BOTH what the pc's interest is as well as what the current case circumstances are for that pc.


Mark A. Baker
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Yes, I had look and it's very interesting - thanks.

I spoke with a guy who had to literally escape from Flag, as he felt that the FPRD was 'doing him in' completely psychologically.

Maybe it's all about the application - I dunno.

Mostly at Flag FPRD is used in compulsory sec-checking. On OT 7 its done every 6 months if you want to remain in good standing. In that context could often be considered " reverse processing/ black dianetics".

Mine was done at my own request because I felt it would do me good and the results were great. I'm by no means a unique example.
 
Top