iCans

Exploring auditing and training over the Internet

Auditor ability and distance auditing

David St Lawrence, "Old Auditor"This was posted by David St Lawrence on 11 March as a comment to his earlier post, Distance auditing and open source.


fnx3 [in comment #3] brings up a very real downside of distance auditing. It requires the auditor to “be there” for the PC in spite of distance, distractions and lack of physical presence.

Not all auditors can be there for the PC when they are in the same room, so it is unreasonable to think that any auditor can be successful at distance auditing without the following abilities:

• Able to grant beingness to an extraordinary degree

• Great certainty on what they are doing

• Terrific interest in the PC and what he is doing and saying

• A flawless comm cycle and the ability to perceive what the PC is doing during the comm cycle.

• Ability to focus on the Preclear and the session to the exclusion of everything else.

If the auditor has anything going on in his universe in addition to being there with the PC, the PC will pick up on it and will be out of session to that extent.

The bottom line is that distance auditing is possible and can handle situations where physical presence is not possible, but it requires an excellent auditor who can keep the PC in session, no matter what else is going on.

I have successfully audited in a moving car when I was driving, in a classroom where roll was being called, and at a table in a busy restaurant. If the PC is truly “in session” and trusts the auditor to take responsibility for the session, the PC gets results in spite of external activities that might normally act as distractions.

In successful auditing, the auditor asks the PC to look at something and the PC looks inward to see what can be found. While he is looking, the auditor remains silent and lets him look. In order to do this successfully, the auditor has to be able to perceive what the PC is doing. His attention is on what the PC is doing and nothing else.

Many auditors cannot do this and fail to realize that the PC is aware when the auditor is not there for him. Remember the statement: Auditor plus PC is greater than the bank? It is absolutely true and I verified this once to my complete embarrassment. PC was way down the track running a long incident and I diverted my attention from what he was doing to a piece of paper behind my meter shield. Almost immediately the PC opened his eyes and stared at me in annoyance. He had detected my shift of attention…

That drove home the necessity of being there for the PC at all times. I never made that mistake again.

I have had many informal distance auditing sessions with other OTs where one of us would help the other spot and handle something by inspection. This never required commands or questions or anything but looking at the exact area of distress until everything blew. Once there was sufficient attention focused on the area, masses and ridges just blew. Here again, one had to actually be there and perceive what was going on in order to be of assistance.

I also have the feeling that creative processes may impose a higher requirement on the auditor than negative gain processes like Dianetics which suck the PC in once the process is going.

I say this because I experienced a telephone session recently that was less than satisfactory because the auditor did not have all of the abilities I listed above. My attention was, unfortunately, somewhat on the auditor and I felt that I was not being duplicated. Even though the auditor obviously wanted to help, the session did not produce the results we both wanted because of the factors I mentioned earlier.

For distance auditing to become more widely used and reliable, we need those who can do this successfully to offer coaching to those who wish to improve their skills in this area. It is no more difficult than coaching an ashtray drill successfully. It rehabilitates an OT ability when done to EP.

In summation, distance auditing is not impossible, it just requires a more highly trained auditor.

David

Advertisements

March 11, 2010 - Posted by | Uncategorized

2 Comments »

  1. David: “I also have the feeling that creative processes may impose a higher requirement on the auditor than negative gain processes like Dianetics which suck the PC in once the process is going.”

    “Creative processing” is an awkward term here. Hubbard uses it only in the sense of imaginary images. In R3X and other procedures, the pc is manipulating copies of real incidents or charged images, not the same thing at all, although there are similarities.

    I think it is a question of how heavy or dense the pc’s imagery and associated charge is. If it is relatively light, then the auditor’s light presence would be of comparable magnitude. On the other hand, if the pc is trying to toss around heavy masses, then the auditor’s presence would be negligible by comparison. Which would mean that a fairly competent but lesser-skilled auditor should be able to handle chunky stuff on a person who has not had a great deal of auditing. You, David, wouldn’t fit in that category! My attention is more on broadly reaching people who need some auditing to handle heavy stuff they have been stuck in for years, not doing final polishes on already shiny people.

    Paul

    Comment by Paul Adams | March 11, 2010 | Reply

  2. THANK YOU DAVID! Phewwww … so good to see ALL those qualities required listed out like that – exactly my own experience both as a remotely-audited pc & remotely-auditing auditor. As an auditor it required an EXTREMELY high degree of attention which, as a novice, eventually exacted a huge toll on my health.

    But I do agree with yr comment:
    “I also have the feeling that creative processes may impose a higher requirement on the auditor than negative gain processes like Dianetics which suck the PC in once the process is going.”

    Having delivered R3X I certainly did wonder what the !@#%? the pc was doing with that command – it is extremely nebulous & certainly “creative” – esp. as compared to Dianetics proper where the pc does become involved in the flow of receipt, whatsit, itsa, etc, without also manipulating the picture as per R3X.

    This is all conducted in the field of the mind not as a physical reality thus it is completely arbitrary as to how the pc is going to interpret that command to put the picture here or there – it’s imagination – it’s creative!

    Comment by fnx3 | March 11, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: