Exploring auditing and training over the Internet

Auditing Grades without a meter

Self Analysis can be audited easily without a meter. Much of the lower grades are not really that different.

Let’s look at what a meter is used for, assuming that the auditor can read one properly.

Seven meter uses:

1. To see if the main process command gets an instant read. If so, assuming it is a valid read, this is supposed to mean that the pc has reality on the item or question, that he has charge on the item or question, and that the process will run properly.

2. To place items in order of importance by assessing a list for longest read. For example, if assessing Joe? Pete? Anne? gives a big read on Anne, a smaller read on Joe, and no read on Pete, one is supposed to run the process first on Anne, then on Joe, and not on Pete.

3. To show whether or not a process that is ongoing is producing “tone arm action”, i.e., whether charge is being dissipated, or stuff is blowing off, or things are happening. The whole address of auditing is supposed to be in this direction, to get rid of charge or mass, not to uncover interesting significances.

4. To show when a process that has been getting tone arm action is no longer getting tone arm action, or is running down, and is likely to be finished soon.

5. To show the needle phenomenon of a floating needle, which, along with a cognition and very good indicators, is supposed to show that a process or process cycle has ended.

6. To show a blowdown, a sudden discharge of emotional energy or mass. There is a meter drill on spotting blowdowns, and the auditor is supposed to note that whatever is blowing down the TA is hot and likely to be a good source of more tone arm action so keep on it! The auditor is supposed to not interrupt the pc while the pc is having a blowdown.

7. To show a sharply rising TA, indicating a protest or overrun (which is really still a protest).

In brief, 1) To show a read, 2) To show a comparison of reads, 3) To show TA, 4) To show TA tailing off, 5) To show an F/N, 6) To show a blowdown, 7) To show a protest.

Without using a meter, one can still deal with these important items. It does require that the pc is interested in what is going on and willing to discuss things with the auditor.

How to do these seven without a meter:

girl with headphones1. Is the process or item charged? You have to make sure that the pc understands the question and what it encompasses, of course. Then ask if the pc is interested in the item or process. He should learn to recognise early on if something is “hot” or not, and that if it is hot it should be run, even if it makes him uncomfortable to do so.

2. If the pc is interested in running the process, run through the list of items and ask him which one he wants to run first. If he can’t decide between two items then just make an arbitrary choice as it can’t make much difference.

3. In a Rub & Yawn session this is obvious, as the pc will be yawning/sighing etc. while the process or item is discharging and will have stopped yawning/sighing when there is no more discharge occurring. In running processes that are not so intense, it might not be so obvious. But at least the pc should be happily running the process, with things happening that are of interest to him. By “happily” here I mean the pc is glad to be doing it, even if he is sobbing his eyes out.

4. As above. If you as auditor are not sure how the process is going with the pc, ask! How it is supposed to go is that one continues to run a process while it is still producing change in the pc, and stops running the process when it is no longer producing change in the pc.

5. As the process is winding down, with less and less change occurring in the pc, the pc is supposed to have a cognition related to the area being addressed, and very good indicators, and that is the end of the process. These points should be pretty easy to spot without a meter.

6. The auditor needs to be aware of the pc while the pc is running the process. If the pc is working something out or undergoing a brief period of personal revelation, and not saying anything at that moment, the auditor should be aware of it and not continue with the next auditing command just because the pc isn’t saying anything.

7. If the pc is protesting an auditing action, the pc needs to communicate this to the auditor! In an ideal situation, a super-perceptive auditor would pick it up anyway from the pc’s indicators, but it is usually far simpler for the pc to stay in comm with the auditor and originate if the process is not going well.

Repairs and correction lists

The auditor reads out the line to the pc. The pc considers it and says something aloud related to the line. Basically either no; or yes, blah blah blah. The auditor then takes up the item as applicable. And so on.

If there is a more complex repair needed, then it may be beyond the scope of what can be done with standard Scn, unmetered style. An effective repair might involve a higher-classed auditor, maybe a face-to-face metered session, maybe a remote metered session, or maybe even a different unmetered procedure that is not standard Scn at all but is still very effective at repairing Scn sessions.

OK. Additions and comments welcome.



March 17, 2010 - Posted by | Uncategorized

1 Comment »

  1. Here is an essay on unmetered auditing brought in IVy Mag a couple of years ago

    1. The Lost Art of Unmetered Auditing

    By Clearbird

    “There are many ways of doing a survey to determine what the pc’s attention is fixed upon now. The E-Meter and interrogation of the pc are the main methods….If you find the exact item or person on which attention is fixed, you achieve immediate case gain, which is to say reality, which is to say interest, in-sessionness, success.”
    Ron Hubbard (HCOB 28 Feb. 1959).

    The technical goal of auditing is to remove charge from the PCs case. Charge in an area is an indicator of reactivity or aberration. The Meter can help the auditor find charged areas quickly and by running a process the auditor and PC will remove the charge available. The Meter is sometimes explained as an instrument that registers “Charge and Interest” (HCOB 9 May 69). We find this a very relevant and helpful definition for our purposes. We have to find some charge, ensure it is available and alive. We have to ensure PC has a strong interest in it as well; interest ensures he is willing to talk about it and has something to say. It all adds up to a productive session: “PC interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor”, which is the all-important definition of in-session.
    Here it is, however, also important to point out that the Meter by itself does not remove any charge. It primarily acts as a help to find it. What removes the charge is that the PC finds answers to the process in his Bank and works his way through it to an End Phenomena (EP). From the PCs viewpoint an EP consists of relief, feeling lighter and better about the whole matter and usually having an insight or cognition related to the subject audited. This is the same whether a Meter is used or not. True, in metered auditing an EP includes a Floating Needle (F/N). The needle of the Meter will swing back and forth at an even slow pace for a short or extended period of time.

    Short History
    When auditing methods and processes were first researched (between 1947 and 1962) Meters were sometimes used and sometimes not. The Electro-psychometer was invented by Volney Mathison in 1951. The Meter did become a research tool by itself as it was useful in exploration. It obviously wasn’t used before 1951.

    Book One™ Auditing: Dianetics®, The Modern Science of Mental Health” was published in 1950. The method of auditing taught in that book swept USA in 1950-51. Groups around the country, and world, sprang up and lay people with little training started to practice on each other and on family and friends. The lack of formal training, rather than the lack of a workable technology, could cause a lot of troubles for early PCs. In the 1950 book “flash answers” were used as one technique to locate charged Items and finding things to audit. It’s described this way: “The flash answer is the first thing which comes into a person’s head when a question is asked him. It will come from the Engram bank, usually, and will be useful. It may be ‘demon talk’ but it is generally right. The auditor merely asks a question, such as what is holding the PC, what denies him knowledge, etc., prefacing the question with the remark, ‘I want a flash answer to this.'” A key question in Dianetics was to find “the next Engram required to resolve the case “; this could be found by flash answers (DAB, July-August, 1950).
    The practical problems, however, with teaching lay people to run Engrams, and the introduction of other techniques, caused Engram running to fall out of use. Ron Hubbard went on to develop new techniques of which Recall Techniques are still used extensively today (it was actually developed late in 1950). Dianetics was pushed aside and forgotten. The original method did, however, get reintroduced in 1980. Now things had been sorted out so it could be taught to the public in a short seminar. The basis was the 1950 book and its original techniques (done without a Meter). The subject experienced a renaissance that is still going strong to this day (2006). Especially in some areas, remote from formal training schools, it is practiced as the main service with considerable success.
    In the early 1950s the Meter was used extensively in research, however. A 1952 book, originally titled, “What to Audit” and retitled “A History of Man”, is an amazing record of what you can dig up from a person’s mind and genetic make-up using an E-Meter. It is an almost unbelievable story of Man’s evolution and past, stretching millions of years back. The time-track of events was put together by asking metered test-persons about past events; most of the events well before historic times, sometimes on other planets and in space.

    “Creation of Human Ability”: This is another book by Ron Hubbard (1954) that contains a lot of processes and how to run them. Many of these processes are part of the Expanded Grades in this handbook. Processes with names beginning with “R2-” are from the 1954 book. This book contains some of the earliest repetitive processes still in use today. A Repetitive Process consists of one command (sometimes a few commands) given over and over to the PC in order to penetrate any social and occlusion mechanisms, which usually would be PCs first response. This is of course done with the PCs full consent and under the Auditors Code. This type of process can have a profound effect on the PCs ability to get to the “root of the problem,” by penetrating all these defense mechanisms and occlusions. Repetitive processes make up 99% of Expanded Grades. The setting for the processes in “Creation of Human Ability” is unmetered. The Meter is only mentioned in one process (SOP 8D, Step IV) this way: “Give PC a full assessment by putting him on an E Meter at this point and asking him to name the people with whom he has been associated since birth.” Terminals, found reading, are then run unmetered in the process. A similar list is used in the Grade-4 Processes R2-59, (#1.F in Grade 4 Processes.) There, the instructions are simply: “Get a list of all people he has known since birth…”
    Note: In the complete line-up of Expanded Grades there are over 800 processes available. A process is here defined as a unique set of commands (or one command) that are taken to its EP. A 4 Flows process is thus counted as 4 processes. Only 9 processes per this method of counting are not repetitive, namely a Two Way Communication on Grade 1, Grade 3 Quad, and Grade 4 Quad. That is about 1% of the total. 152 processes (per this method of counting) are R2- processes from 1954.

    HAS Co-Audit: This was a co-audit program developed over a period of about 4 years, 1958-62, as far as we can tell. We suppose the program went on years after its development. You will see a number of repetitive processes on Expanded Grades originally designed for this program. HAS stands for “Hubbard Apprentice Scientologist”. HAS co-audit was a program for new and practically untrained people. Under the headline “Do It Yourself Therapy,” (HCOB 17 March, 1959). Ron Hubbard describes it this way:

    “At last we have a successful way for the untrained person or the financially embarrassed Scientologist to make it all the way to release and prepare himself for theta clear at low cost. Heavily supervised co-auditing at HAS level has become possible with my development of two things, 1. Processes that undercut most reality levels, and 2. Muzzled auditing. For as little as 2 Guinness [guineas] [£2.10 or $10] a week, one can have the major benefits of Scientology by giving a little and getting a lot. HAS Co-auditing courses are run by all major Central Organizations and are being started in enfranchised centers.
    “The applicant enrolls in the Personal Efficiency Course and receives a week of theory [evenings]. He graduates to a Communication Course lasting two weeks of three nights each and costing 2 Guinness [guineas] per week. He receives his HAS certificate and graduates to co-auditing for three nights a week for 2 Guinness [guineas] per week and continues on until he reaches the state of release. This may take many months but he gains all the way in health, on his job, in his environment. The co-auditing is done ‘muzzled’ and under the heavy supervision of a trained professional who knows how to do it.”

    The co-auditors got trained only in TRs 0-3 (not even TR-4) in order to deliver a repetitive process. “Muzzled” means auditor would do nothing else than use TRs 0-3 in session. “Release” at the time would be a very spectacular EP, achieved after many, many hours of auditing. The instructor was expected to occasionally sit in and get PCs out of tight situations, including out rudiments (co-auditors were not flying ruds on each other.) Occasionally the instructor would find Items, using a Meter, that the co-auditor then would run.
    The program was conducted in a large course room. One student was the auditor and the other student was the PC. They would sit across from each other, next to a pair to their right and a pair to their left, in a long row of ongoing sessions. The auditor would hold a clipboard on which she would keep notes. She would also have a sheet with the commands or questions used. Meters were never used by the students. If the auditor got into some kind of difficulty she couldn’t see her way out of, she would simply hold her clipboard behind her seat and thus attract the attention of the instructor and have him sort it out. A good instructor would see himself as the auditor responsible for the results of all the ongoing sessions.
    The system of the instructor finding Items and sorting out sessions while still in progress can, of course, still be applied. It does, however, take a formal set-up, not always possible. But it is worth mentioning that it is a tested and proven model. A set-up that could be used would consist of a desk with an auditor that would do the assessments for Items and once a number of Items were found the PC would be sent into session with his co-auditor who would now run them in the process.
    In the early years, and consistently till this day, the Meter was found useful to find charged Items and Terminals. On an extensive (and somewhat repetitive) program, such as Expanded Grades, it becomes less critical. In practice we have found that an observant auditor can easily find valid Items that will run without the use of a Meter. We find, when you take the whole program of Expanded Grades, that all charged Terminals will be uncovered sooner or later and run in a number of processes.

    Charge and Interest: In 1969 Standard Dianetics™ was released. It is a system of Engram running techniques that was very successful. In finding Items to run, the Meter was normally used. There is, however, also unmetered techniques that have interest to us and they work well. They were soon discredited, however, as the organizational goal was to make everything “standard” and the Meter fits that line of thought.
    In HCOB of 16 April, 1969 it says, however: “If you are auditing without a Meter, you take the PCs interest as the indicator. You audit the symptom in which he is interested and cease to audit it when it is gone…You audit the most available symptom first. Then find the next one and audit it, then the next, etc. The symptom in which the pc is most interested is the one to do first. You run its Secondary or Engram or chain and it vanishes. Then do the one in which he is now interested and run its Secondary or Engram. Now find the next symptom, etc. Sooner or later the pc will have tremendous good indicators, be smiling, happy. That’s the time to quit. Right there. Until then, keep finding and fully erasing the latest symptom the pc has…A new symptom is located on the Health Form by Meter or PCs interest.”
    What the auditor is supposed to do, according to this HCOB, is to make a list of “symptoms” or complaints and have the PC grade them by interest; then you take the complaint (Terminal or Item) he is most interested in and audit that first. There were, however, also cases where PC would pick complaints that had little charge and therefore didn’t run well. We find it therefore important that the auditor is trained in observing indicators of charge and pre-select the most promising Items. What to look for is further explained in the next chapter. The short headline is “instant emotional or physical reaction”. What you want to see is signs of charge and PC interest: “On a right item the Meter reads well when the pc says it, the pc’s good indicators come in somewhat when it’s announced, the pc is very interested in running it. It’s about as obvious as sky rockets.” (HCOB 21 May 69). If you replace “Meter reads” with “you see instant emotional or physical reactions” you know exactly what you should be looking for. You find some “case” (a complaint) and you ensure the PC is interested. Now you have the PC in-session: “PC interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor.” That’s what guarantees successful and productive sessions and shining PCs.
    Another procedure, from 1962, sheds light on finding Items with Charge and Interest off the Meter: “The essence of this Differentiation Step is to read each item to the pc and have pc briefly explain how the item ____(whatever the list came from). This is done easily and in a friendly and interested fashion. It’s the pc’s list. The answer that must be ascertained by the auditor is whether the pc wants the item left on or taken off the list. This makes the pc look. And it blows charge rapidly. This step is done with the pc off the Meter. The atmosphere is easy and pleasant. When the differentiation is in progress pc may want to add to the list. Let the pc add what he or she likes. Put whatever is added always at the bottom of the list. Pc is taken off the Meter for this step.” (HCOB 22 Jan 62).
    Although not directly applicable to what we are doing on the Grades it shows how the PC is put at ease by taking him off the Meter in order for him to look and find and blow charge.
    Here is another reference for a shortcoming of metering and unmetered auditing works just as well: “False Data Stripping can be done on or off the meter…You may not easily be able to detect a false datum because the person believes it to be true. When False Data Stripping is done on a Meter the false datum won’t necessarily read for the same reason. You therefore ask the person if there is anything he has run across on the subject under discussion which he couldn’t think with, which didn’t seem to add up or seems to be in conflict with the material one is trying to teach him. The false datum buries itself and the procedure itself handles this phenomenon.” (HCOB 7 Aug. 79)
    When you study how early auditing was done, you will find that much has changed in how to run processes. Especially when to end off a repetitive process has changed dramatically. The processes themselves haven’t changed much, except today they are usually run on four Flows. But up until 1965 it was routine to go on and on with just one process until it was “flat”. This resulted in overruns, way past the point where it was beneficial. In 1965 it was decided that an F/N = release. The new routine now became to “underrun” processes and Grades. As soon as the auditor saw the slightest sign of an F/N she would quickly end off. Per HCOB 22 Sept. 65, you would only run one process per Grade and only to the first F/N “and not one command beyond it”. This wasn’t corrected until 1969-70 when EP, as we know it, was defined.

    Avoiding Uncharged Items
    Another concern, in our experience, is avoiding to run uncharged Terminals. Running uncharged Terminals is unproductive and tedious; done repeatedly it is harmful to PCs case. By checking PC Interest before running any Terminal or Item (first time or in a later process) this can be avoided. The PC is given “Veto Power” over what Items to run. This may lead to that Items and Terminals are run in a different order than with metered auditing but over the course of a Grade or Grades everything charged will be taken up and audited. This is what experience has told us. Before you do anything with an Item you ask PC, “Are you interested in running ‘Father’ or ‘a Terrible Fear’, etc?” and only if PC is interested will you run the Item. By applying this system when choosing Items to run in unmetered Grades processes, the risk of running uncharged Items is minimized to a point where it is comparable to mis-assessment due to poor metering. On the other hand, by having the PC more involved in describing his relationship to Items (as part of the assessment) you will overcome a problem often seen in metered assessments: the PC gets bored with the formal and tedious procedure to a point where nothing reads because PC is not listening anymore, PC is not in-session. This can especially be a problem for new auditors; they may do just as well with unmetered assessments, once they are trained in observing PC indicators of charge. The system used is an unmetered form of Slow Assessment, meaning letting the PC Itsa while assessing (HCOB 1 Oct 63).
    There is one type of case or pattern you have to beware of. That is what could be called a “significance case”. The PC had some minor bad experience and will go on and on about how badly it affected his or her life. What generates charge is primarily experiences. It is something the PC did or something that happened to the PC. Experiences have Time, Place, Form and Event. Ultimately it’s painful and life-threatening experiences, called Engrams; or serious losses, called Secondaries. Reminders thereof, called Locks, are also valid auditing material. These types of experiences, whether done to others or happened to self, is what you primarily want to audit. You have to look in the direction of reality and experienced incidents, not in the direction of PCs interpretations of them, which are significances and opinions. You want the PC to Itsa, meaning positively state, “It is a…” That’s what blows charge. Also, if it happened in an area the PC is (or was) deeply engaged in (such as career, love-life, family, friendships or reputation) it is guaranteed to generate “charge and interest”. What sets auditing sharply apart from traditional psycho-analysis is this very point. You look for masses in the Bank and events on the Time-track, not significances, opinions or “explanations”. Get the PC to Itsa. In determining if something is charged, look for realities and experiences rather than significances and opinions, usually formed later than the incident. In traditional psycho-analysis the client could talk about his or her reactions for years without getting any better. The above data are used in next chapter to determine what to take up, or what to take up first, when in doubt.

    There is one other word of warning. With a Meter you can usually go deeper than with unmetered auditing. In other words, you can find Items that maybe wouldn’t come up in unmetered auditing. A reason, not mentioned, that unmetered auditing fell out of use in Standard Dianetics was the high expectations and promises accompanying the action. Auditors had to push on and on to try to fulfill them all. The end phenomena, or envisioned state attained, was “a healthy happy human being” with no mis-emotions, inexplicable pains, illness, etc. This auditing was seen as the cure-all remedy for anything negative in life, way beyond the scope of a single technique.
    In unmetered auditing, we find, it’s better not to push one single technique forever. Take whatever you can find and run it and move on to the next technique. With over 800 processes there is no reason to get stuck in, for instance, Engram running. Also, pushing on forever with auditing actions tends “to replace life with auditing”. The PC will eventually become too dependant on being audited on the smallest incidents and problems in life and less capable of living it.

    Here is another check that can be done to find any missed charged areas and Terminals. This is not necessarily done during session as isolating some of them require case-study and only are revealed over time. Working with the list below, however, the auditor will learn to directly observe many of them. Usually, when such an area or areas are revealed through case study, interviews, etc. the C/S will have to find assessment questions and processes to address it with and make up an auditing program to handle it. The list is from HCOB 30 June, 1967 called “Evidences of an Aberrated Area.” Only (22) and (23) are Meter related:
    1. Bad memory in that area.
    2. Comes up with wrong answers for that area which give PTPs on that subject (since one’s answers are wrong).
    3. ARC Breaks on that subject (as the trauma gives the opportunity for BPC).
    4. Is emotional on the subject (continuous BPC).
    5. Can’t confront its subject matter (as represents painful experience).
    6. Is ill in the body part or part of existence which was injured.
    7. His MEST (belongings) in that area is “sick” (enmested), as degraded by trauma.
    8. Is inattentive on that subject.
    9. Has perception lapses on things similar to the objects in the traumatic area.
    10. Detests or ignores or can’t have the objects similar to those in the traumatic experience.
    11. Acts irrationally on the subject that is uncleared.
    12. Is regarded as odd on that subject (not normal behavior).
    13. Resents any criticism of self regarding the subject or area.
    14. Ridicules the subject or object.
    15. Cannot understand similar objects or experiences.
    16. Commits overts on the subject or object.
    17. Justifies any overt committed.
    18. Thinks critical thoughts of the subject or object.
    19. Dwells on the subject or object continuously.
    20. Desires to get subject or object out of mind.
    21. Wants processing for the subject, area or object.
    22. Reacts on the needle when any near subject word is mentioned.
    23. Reacts on the Tone Arm when any close version of the word is mentioned.
    24. Becomes ill when invalidating the subject or object.
    25. Has withholds concerning subject or object.
    26. Doesn’t want to discuss subject or object.
    27. Alters data about the subject or object.
    28. Tells lies concerning the subject or object.
    29. Subjects PC got low grades on, can’t understand.
    30. Attempts to stop things in that area and uses innumerable methods, covert and overt to do so.

    Metered or Not
    The two critical points of auditing, where the Meter seems indispensable in Standard Technology, are (1) finding something that has charge and interest, and (2) knowing when the charge is handled. (2) is what we call End Phenomena. Indicators, besides the F/N, are so visible and obvious that no auditor worthy of his name would miss them. (1) Finding Items and Terminals to run is the only critical point as far as Expanded Grades are concerned. This is how you individualize processes to be meaningful to the PC in front of you. The Meter is a convenient way to find such Terminals. Over the years interrogation, flash answers, interviews, observing indicators and reactions, Communication Lag (explained below), checking PC interest, checking the pulse, and even observing of eye-movements and pupil dilation have all been in use at one point or another. The Meter eventually won out, as a read is an objective thing. It became the “scientific evidence” needed to convince people. Thus it could be called “Standard Technology”.
    Note: Checking commands was one of the last things to require metering. This didn’t happen until the early 1970s, over 20 years after the Meter was first introduced and about 10 years after 99% of the repetitive processes used in Expanded Grades were first developed and used. With the widespread development and use of correction lists, starting with L-1-C, asking the PC went out of style. Most auditors would “ask the Meter”, often to the dismay of PCs as auditing could develop into “a laboratory test” rather than live communication. “I could have told the auditor hours ago what was bothering me. But he finally ‘found it’, asking the Meter”, are comments you can hear often enough.

    When we talk Grades Processes, we want to audit things that are real and bothering the PC or holding him back. Here, observable signs that tell the auditor if something is charged enough to bother about are very reliable. In different types of advanced auditing the Meter is essential. But that is because all the easily accessible charge, the charge we are interested in, has already been removed and auditors now have to “mine underground” to find things to audit.
    With the upgrades possible, due to discoveries made part of Standard Technology, we have a “new” way to handle cases that is very powerful. It’s the original way with some refinements, such as running four Flows, the Overrun- and End Phenomena, the use of many processes rather than one magic command. It’s the checking of processes and Items for charge and interest before running.
    Once an auditor is capable of doing unmetered auditing, she will become a much better auditor at any point of her career. She will always know these two basic facts about auditing: (1) Its effectiveness depends upon live communication and (2) its directness depends on that the auditor audits the PC in front of her. She has, to quote the purpose of TR-0, “to be able to confront the PC with auditing only or with nothing.” This, sometimes, gets lost in metered auditing. The auditor, the Case Supervisor, and the PC alike can become way too dependant on “what the Meter says and does”, to a point where auditing becomes an impersonal clinical experience and auditors appear as stiff, insensitive, and somewhat robotic Meter operators. The C/S can sink into a routine where he only wants to know if a session ended on F/N VGIs and doesn’t even read the worksheets. The progress of the PC becomes the supervision of an assembly line of processes and Meter reactions. Although this is not built into Standard Technology when fully applied, the risk is, that auditing and C/Sing delivered this way still can be seen as “Standard”. This almost industrial approach is less likely to happen in unmetered auditing, where PCs reactions, statements and interest has the prominence of Meter reactions in metered auditing.
    In the book Dianetics 55! (1955) Ron Hubbard explains very well that using a Meter is a trade-off. From the beginning of Chapter X “Communication Lag”:

    “Yesterday we used an instrument called an E-Meter to register whether or not the process was still getting results so that the auditor would know how long to continue it. While the E-Meter is an interesting investigation instrument and has played its part in research, it is not today used by the auditor except perhaps in testing the basal metabolism of the preclear. The E-Meter is no longer used to determine „what is wrong with the preclear.“ As we long ago suspected, the intervention of a mechanical gadget between the auditor and the preclear had a tendency to de-personalize the session and also gave the auditor a dependence upon the physical universe and its meters which did not have to be there. I knew when we first began to use E-Meters that sooner or later something would have to be evolved, or that something would turn up which would dispense with them. I worked along that line rather consistently and about half a year before this writing developed „communication lag“ as the only diagnostic instrument needed by the auditor.”
    Note: Communication Lag (Comm lag) is the time that passes between a question and an actual answer. It can be hesitation or reflection, but it can also be not answering the question by talking about something that isn’t an answer. In auditing comm lag is an indicator that a process isn’t flat. A long comm lag means there is aberration in the area and the process should be continued. In Auditor’s Code 1954 it says, “#12. Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process,” and “#13. Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and no longer.” This was part of Auditor’s Code until 1968, the period when 99% of the processes comprising Expanded Grades, were developed. In 1968, with the introduction of Standard Technology, the two points were replaced with “#12. I promise to run every major case action to a floating needle,” and “#13. I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle.”

    We are not on a mission to advocate unmetered auditing only. We recognize that some cases may be “too hard to read” for beginning auditors. Such cases should be shifted to professional auditing, metered or not, according to the whole picture. The materials are primarily tested and intended for co-auditing where we have two students trained in the technology. They are knowledgeable about what they are looking for and motivated to find it. This guarantees a high rate of success. We see our mission in this Book Two to restore the original art and skill of being able to audit without a Meter. This is how auditing was done for years with the processes that became Expanded Grades. The method still works. It may fall short of what is called Standard Technology today where the emphasis is on using Prepared Lists Assessment at the smallest sign of trouble. Some PCs need the extra help and “objective testing” the Meter provides. Yet, some PCs are not willing to commit themselves to metered auditing for various reasons. This can be bad metered auditing in the past, where some read on a list condemned them to a long ordeal of trouble. It can remind some PCs about hostile interrogation, since the Meter, to them, is similar to a lie detector. Their auditing may have been plagued with false Tone Arm reading, poor metabolism, false or misinterpreted reads, etc. Also, Meters can be unavailable or too expensive in some parts of the world. Since a professional Meter can cost as much as $4,000 this is a real concern in some countries. On balance, unmetered auditing opens up new avenues. You can reach some PCs that couldn’t be reached before. You can train qualified people that find Meters unaffordable. In short, you can train auditors faster and with less expense to deliver genuine results.
    If for no other reason, being able to master unmetered auditing will make auditors better observers, make them more aware of the PC in front of them, and how to maintain a good communication cycle. It will make auditors more useful in settings where no Meter could suddenly be introduced. It will make a more accomplished auditor and person in the variety of situations you meet in life where the knowledge taught here is invaluable. We also believe, that auditors trained in this Lost Art of Unmetered Auditing, will never forget how and why auditing works as expressed in Axiom 51:

    “Postulates and live communication not being MEST and being senior to MEST can accomplish change in MEST without bringing about a persistence of MEST. Thus, auditing can occur.

    Comment by Rolf Dane | March 17, 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: