



 

Click here for affordable and dependable long distance! 

 

 





 Message 802 of 56350 for search alt.clearing.technology

   » Return to search results help 

 

FZ Tech Lover 3/7 Level 0 Tapes  

Author:   Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net> 

Date:   1999/03/24 

Forum:   alt.religion.scientology  

      

 

more headers  author posting history   

  







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



3. 290 319 Jul 25,1963 COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING



A Freezone Bible Supporter



Here is a complete set of Level 0 Academy tapes as a

companion piece to the level 0 pack posted earlier this

year.



Much Love,



Tech Lover





**************************************************





LEVEL 0 CASSETTES - CONTENTS



SHSBC Lectures - (old & new lecture numbers shown)



   Old New DAte



1. 148 162 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART I

2. 149 163 May 24,1962 E METER DATA: INSTANT READS PART II

3. 290 319 Jul 25,1963 COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING

4. 291 320 Aug  6,1963 AUDITING COMM CYCLES 

5. 296 325 Aug 20,1963 THE ITSA LINE

6. 297 326 Aug 21,1963 THE ITSA LINE (CONT.)

7.   5 366 Feb  6,1964 THE COMMUNICATION CYCLE IN AUDITING





These are the 7 tapes that are in the modern clearsound

version of the Level 0 academy lectures.  The first two

(on the E Meter) were not in the old level zero academy

cassettes, the remaining 5 were checked against the old

tapes and omissions are marked ">".



There was also one case (marked "#") where a paragraph on

translating line plots was omitted from the old cassettes

(probably because of confidentiality) but is included in the 

new clearsound versions. (SHSBC-319)



There was also one case (SHSBC-320) where some material was

edited out of the clearsound academy version but was left

in the clearsound SHSBC version, so that even the modern

clearsound tapes do not quite match in the two versions

that are currently being sold.



Since even the old versions of these tapes have omissions,

it would be of great help if somebody could check these

transcripts against an early set of SHSBC Reels.





**************************************************



FREEZONE BIBLE MISSION STATEMENT



Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology

Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.



The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of

Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the

copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.



They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be

stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians, 

Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered

to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.



The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings

of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.



We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according

to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.



But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,

the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 

testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.  



We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion

as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures

without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.



We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do

not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope

that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose

to aid us for that reason.



Thank You,



The FZ Bible Association



**************************************************







COMM CYCLES IN AUDITING



SHSBC 290 renumbered 319



A lecture given on 25 July 1963



[checked against the old level 0 cassettes, omissions marked

with ">", also note one case where the old cassettes were

missing a paragraph that was restored in the clearsound version,

this is marked "#"]



[applause]



All right. Beautiful, sunshiny day here; cherish it. Go out

and make a facsimile of it.



This is what?



Audience: 25 July.



25 July. What do you know about that? A.D. 13, Saint Hill

Special Briefing Course.



The auditing cycle. Once upon a time there was an auditor

and he knew he could audit; he knew he could audit. But

pcs, they just wouldn't pc worth a nickel. And the auditor

said, "Well, I'll have to get out of Scientology because

pcs are no good."



You'd be surprised how often this line of logic - ha - gets in

the road. Most auditors, early on, have a definite idea

that there's tremendous variation in pcs, and that some pcs

can be audited and some pcs can't be audited, and that

there are good pcs and bad pcs, and all different kinds of pcs.



Well, there are worrisome pcs, but just to the degree that

you can't get them to get tone arm action. And some pcs are

closer to aquiver on the subject of a communication

breakdown than others; they're more nervy. Those things are

true. But practically no pc can stand up against a good

auditing cycle, you know, and say, "Well, I'm going on

being aberrated for the rest of my days because that makes

everybody wrong and makes me right."



The difficulty that an auditor gets into is normally found

in his own auditing cycle and his own impatience. His

disabilities in this particular line are last detected by

himself. In other words, he's really the last to find this out.



If an auditor wants to polish up his auditing, I recommend

putting a piece of session on a tape, at least a piece of a

session, and then listening to that tape back, and not

listening to the ramifications or the flubs. Anybody is

liable to make a duplicative-type flub, you know. Like,

you've had to change your auditing command - you heard me

make one the other day on that tape. I had to change the

command, because I was getting so much bang out of "mainly"

that I had to put "mostly." And then I was grooved into

saying "mainly," and my concentration, of course, was for

the pc, and I was slipping up and I was occasionally saying

"mainly" again when I was trying to say "mostly."



Well, you're liable to pick on that kind of thing as being

a very important error. Actually, it isn't very important.

What's important is: Did you complete your auditing cycle?

See, it really isn't how gracefully you completed it, but

did you complete it?



> Now there are two auditing cycles involved.  This is

> sequitur to the lecture I gave you last time.  And those

> auditing cycles are ... - pardon me -



There are two communication cycles that make up the

auditing cycles, and those are: cause-distance-effect with

the auditor at cause and the pc at effect; and

cause-distance-effect with the pc at cause and the auditor

at effect. Those are completely distinct, one from the other.



Now, the only place they impinge on each other at all - and

this is the only thing that connects them and makes an

auditing cycle - is the fact that the auditor, on his cycle,

has calculatingly restimulated something in the pc, which

is then discharged by the pc's auditing cycle.



So you see, you've kind of got a V lying on its side. You

see, you've got the upper V here with the auditor at the

top of the wing, you see, and he's cause, distance, effect;

and here at the point of the V, you customarily think of

that as just one turn. Actually, there's a complication

right there: It's what the auditor has said has caused a

restimulation at that point, and then the pc is honor bound 

to start an auditing cycle to get rid of the restimulation. 

Can you see that? And that is the game that is being played 

in an auditing cycle, and that's the entirety of the game. 

There's nothing else esoteric about it at all.



Don't think otherwise than that the auditor is

restimulating the pc. Now, some auditing - some

auditing - breaks down because the auditor is unwilling to

restimulate the pc. Now, you'll see this on a gross level

when somebody said, "I had to stop auditing him because the

somatics were so great." You see? I've actually heard

somebody say that - seriously.



And I think to myself, "The poor pc, man." At that point of

the V where those two come together and where effect turns

into cause, where the pc is there, at that point, you have

a restimulation and then the necessity of answering the

question to get rid of the restimulation.



Now, if the pc doesn't answer the question, the pc does not

get rid of the restimulation. If he alter-ises at that

point, then every restimulation is going to become an

alter-is. And all pcs who are having any trouble alter-is

at that point of the V.



Here, I'll draw you a picture. [See Lecture Chart] Here is

your V. And this is cause and this is distance and this is

effect. Now, here's your auditor, see? And here's the pc.

Now, at this point here is where you get your restimulation

factor. And this point is again, now, cause-distance-

effect, see? So we get cause-distance-effect, see? And

that's what an auditing cycle in actual fact looks like.



Now, there are some little inner cycles - there are some

little inner cycles that throw you off and make you think

that there are some other things to the auditing cycle. And

these little inner cycles are when you get

cause-distance-effect, and he has answered the question,

the auditor then says, "Thank you." Well, actually, that's

a shadow. And this now starts the shadow back, you see? You

understand?



See, there's a little extra communication cycle on here;

it's an extra cycle, see? And you have this as the

acknowledgment cycle. So you have here an ack, and of

course that goes this way, you understand, and is received

over here; and that's all there is to it. That's a little

fade-out, don't you see?



Well, I very often berate you for being not perceptive, and

not auditing the pc and not seeing what's happening to the

pc, or what's going on there, don't you see? So I get this

kind of an action here: There is another one of these

little shadow cycles. The pc has received the auditing

command. And that is such a tiny cause that nearly all

auditors who are having any trouble finding out what's

going on with the pc are missing that one.



You say, "Do birds fly?" and then you fail to perceive that

the pc received the auditing command. Now, that's because

he doesn't say anything. See, here's your main cycle:

cause-distance-effect; "Do birds fly?" See?



And the pc says, "No."



Well, actually, there's another cause in here; there's

another little tiny one, and it's right here and it's a

little c, see? And you're missing that one where you're not

perceiving the pc. Does he receive it?



You say, "Do birds fly?"



And he says ... That's all the cause that is emanated at

this point, by the pc. See, he just ...



See, that would be exaggerating it.



But you can tell by looking at him that he didn't

understand what you'd said, or that he was doing something

peculiar with the command he was receiving, you see? Doing

something peculiar with this command.



Well, it's actually whatever that message is that is in

response here, whatever message that is, does ride on this

line. And an auditor who isn't watching the pc at all then

never notices a pc who isn't receiving or understanding the

auditing command; and all of a sudden, somewhere along the

line, there's an ARC break, and then we do assessments and

then we patch up the session and all kinds of things go

wrong. Well, they actually needn't ever have gone wrong in

the first place.



What is the pc doing, completely aside from answering?

Well, that what he-is-doing is this other little

sub-cause-distance-effect line. So a complete auditing

cycle consists of no less than six communication cycles, if

you really want to get it down to the last ramifications.

But the important ones are four. You've got four

communication cycles.



Well, where are the other two? Where's the other two?

They're so tiny that you wouldn't really notice them, but

they are there. Cause-distance-effect of "Is the pc ready

to receive an auditing command?" See, is he ready to

receive an auditing command? He's going, "Oh,

rum-rum-rum-rum- rum." Well, that action is actually pc

causing, isn't it? And it has to ride up the line across

distance and [be] received at the auditor; and the auditor

perceives that the pc is doing something else.



You say, "That's not very important," you see? But it is;

it is. You'll find auditors goof that one very often. And

the pc is going... And the auditor says - he's nulling, let

us say - and he says, "catfish," "cat fur," and so forth. And

the pc is going like this, you see? See, he's not noticed

this first one.



That causes this kind of trouble: You've got the item "fur"

on a list that you're nulling, and you hit the item "fur"

and it goes through, actually, a complete auditing cycle,

one way or the other, because you very often say thank you

after you've done so. It's a very jammed-up auditing cycle,

but it's there, you see?



And then you go on to "catfish" on the next one, without

performing this top cycle: Is the pc ready to have

"catfish" read to him? No, he's hung up on "fur," and the

only time you ever get into real catastrophe is when the pc

is really hung up on "fur." God, when you said "fur," the

pc went, "Ew-w-w-w." Dong! and there he is, see?



"What's happened? Where is it? Ho! What's happened?" See?

You ever have that happen to you? Somebody goes over a

line - bong! it goes. And the next thing you know, in the

far-off distance you hear "catfish," "cat whiskers ... "



And you say, "What's that? Where's this? Who's what?" This

one becomes terribly important when you run into a

situation like that. You don't really pay too much

attention to it. But it exists. Got it? It exists.



And there's another one down here. There's another little

one down here: Pc received the acknowledgment. And

sometimes you violate that sixth one. You say, "Thank you!"

and the pc goes like this. Or that you say, "Thank you,"

and the pc ... If you were to do old-time Model Session

end-of-session mid ruds at that point, you'd find out the

pc asked you why you never acknowledged him. See? You have

been acknowledging him, but you've never seen that he

didn't receive the acknowledgment, don't you see?



That perception has another little tiny one in it, is: Has

the pc said everything? But that actually comes on this

line here: Has the pc answered everything, see? And it

becomes - the auditor is watching the pc, see? And the

auditor sees that the pc has not said all he was going to say.



Sometimes get in trouble with pcs that way.



Pc says, "Oh, yeah, it was sometime in the later days of

the Roman Empire..." You know he's going to say something

else, see? Well, this one isn't complete. So everything at

cause hasn't moved down the line here to you, effect. And

you haven't perceived all of the effect. So you go into the

acknowledgment one before this line has completed itself,

don't you see?



"Well, it was in the early days of the Roman Empire. Um ..."



"Thank you! Now, we will ..." Duh-uh-uh-uh. You've seen

that happen. That's chopping a pc's comm, see?



They didn't let this line here, which is the fourth

communication cycle, flow to its complete end. And then

this one, the acknowledgment, takes place. And of course it

can't go through because this, the fifth communication

cycle, is sitting up here on the fourth communication cycle.



So you say, "Thank you," and of course you're right back

against - and it's an inflowing line and they jam right there.



So there are six - if you really want to break it all

down - there are six communication cycles that make up one

auditing cycle. Six - not more than six, unless you start

running into trouble.



And when you violate that - one of those six, when you

violate one of those six - you of course are going to get

into trouble, then, which causes a mishmash of one kind or

another.



Now, I'll go over these again. I think you would care to

have me do that, wouldn't you? 



Audience: Yes.



All right. Up here we have number one: the pc. His

emanation at that point is simply his appearance and

presence. That's number one. Is he ready to have an

auditing command given to him? See, are we all set here for

the auditing command? That's number one. That's a

communication cycle consistence of cause, distance, effect.



Your next communication cycle on the thing - we had better go

into number three - is your auditor's communication straight

down to the pc. That is the auditing command and that you

normally consider the communication cycle. Got it? That's

what you normally say: "Do birds fly?" That's

cause-distance-effect received at the pc's - here.



Now he has to take care of and handle the charge at this

point (and I'll cover this in a minute), he'll have to

handle the charge at this point which has been restimulated

by the auditor. And now he originates (although we use

another designation; I've used origination otherwise, and

so forth): He has his answer, which is what you normally

call it. His answer, however, is a cause. And that's a

cause, a distance and an effect. You understand?



Now, your next one is an acknowledgment by the auditor

which goes over cause, distance, effect, is received by the

pc; and this is the perception of whether or not the pc

receives the acknowledgment. Got that?



But you go over this, work this thing out, you'll find out

that it's a very complicated arrangement. And you can count

on anybody studying this, promptly and immediately

afterwards not being able to audit at all. It's something

like taking a golf pro and say, "How do you handle your club?"



But this is your main show.



Now, what you've considered ordinarily the auditing cycle

has been this first V which I drew, which is

cause-distance-effect - with the pc at effect, the auditor at

cause. And then, at that V, the restimulation takes place

and you get cause-distance-effect.



Now, I'm not going to go into the rest of the auditing

cycle till I show you the center of this thing, okay?



There is another communication cycle inside the auditing

cycle - another communication cycle.



And that is at the point of the V. [See Lecture Chart]

Here's your pc and here's your auditor, and here was your 

cause, your distance, effect; here is your cause, your 

distance, effect and here was a C and here was an E. Don't 

you see? Cause-distance-effect at the pc. That's the auditing 

command. And then you've got cause-distance-effect which 

is the auditing response.



Well, we've opened up the point of the V. And here is your

little additional one, and that's between the pc and

himself. Here - see what this is. Now, this actually can be

multiple, and it depends upon the complications of the

mind. But because there has been an effect there, that

causes a cause. See? Because you have an effect at this

point of impact, you get a restimulation.



Now, that stimulation brings about charge, which then

causes the pc to emanate to get rid of that charge. So you

have an internal one, here, of cause-distance-effect inside

the pc's skull.



Well, that gives us seven communication cycles.



Now, I said this could be multiple. This is him talking to

him, see? And you say, "Do birds fly?" and this causes a

picture of birds. He receives the effect of the picture of

birds, and he causes a query of the picture. "Are they

flying?" And as a result, the answer comes back of the

flapping of the wings and he says, "Yes, they're flying."

And so with his thought he transmits, then, the causative

action to the auditor - now directed at the auditor - "Yes."

You see how that can be multiple?



Now, you're listening to the inside of his skull when

you're examining that V down there.



Now, if you think that the inside of the skull is more

important than the rest of the cycles, you're going to be

very, very disabused. This happens to be the least

important of all of the actions, except when it isn't being

done. And of course it's the hardest to detect when it

isn't being done. It's the hardest to detect.



Pc says, "Yes." Well now, what has the pc said yes to? And

you sometimes are "insufficiently incurious." You've said,

"Do birds fly?" and the pc receives this, and he gets a

picture of a dinosaur who is eating, and perceives that

dinosaurs eat and says, "Yes." And carrying out the

remaining part of the sentence, it would be, "Yes,

dinosaurs eat."



So this is actually what it sounds like to the auditor: "Do

birds fly?"



"Yes."



"Thank you."



See, that's what it sounds like to the auditor - that's the big V.



Actually, this is what happened: "Do birds fly.?"



And the point of the V is haywire; we get a dub-in, see?

Picture of a dinosaur flies up, because that's safer to

look at than birds, for some reason, or more interesting or

different. It's an alter-is of some kind or another - happens

on an automaticity.



The pc thinks he understands the question now on the basis

of "Do dinosaurs eat?" and says, "Yes."



And the auditor says, "Thank you."



Hey, wait a minute. What's going to happen to this pc?

What's going to happen to the pc? And that, in essence, is

this internal perception of line, which I showed you on the

other side. This cause-distance-effect backflash here, and

so forth, happens to include "Is the pc answering the

command I gave him?" Question.



Now, all of this is very complicated, isn't it? And it's

sufficiently complicated that any auditor ought to sit down

with a piece of paper and work it all out - and not expect me

to tell them. I think there are very few auditors ever

really inspected that to the degree that it's a multiple

cycle. There are seven or more communication cycles

involved in an auditing cycle. Now, it's actually weighty

enough that standing up here giving you a lecture on the

subject, off the cuff, see, it's very easy to get mixed up

on which cycle is which, because it requires a little bit

of concentration. You have to actually mock up a complete

session, see - complete auditing cycle - and pick out every

communication cycle in the auditing cycle.



Now, a communication cycle consists of just cause,

distance, effect, with intention and duplication. That's

all - that's a communication cycle. How many of these are

there in one auditing cycle? And that would include every

nuance of the auditing session. So you have to answer with

how many principal ones are there? Because some auditing

cycles could contain a couple of more.



The pc says, "Huh?" You see, that's a cause. That goes over

distance, effect.



And the auditor says, "Do birds fly?" He says, "I will

repeat the auditing question. Do birds fly?" And that goes

cause-distance-effect. But you immediately have added two

more cycles and so you've got nine - because there was a

flub, see? You got that?



So anything unusual that happens in the session adds to the

number of communication cycles to the auditing cycle, but

they're still all part of the auditing cycle.



Now, we've got repetitive commands as an auditing cycle,

and that's doing this same cycle over and over and over.



Now, I'll give you some homework here; this is for your own

good. You draw out all these communication cycles on a

scrap of paper for yourself. Just take a look at all these

things and mock up a session, like you do this and the pc

does that, and so forth. And all of a sudden it'll come

very straight in your skull how many of these things there

are, and you won't have a couple of them jammed up. Because

actually, what's mainly wrong with your auditing cycle is

you have confused a couple of communication cycles to such

a degree that you don't differentiate that they exist.

That's why you sometimes chop a pc who is trying to answer

the question, see?



You know whether he has answered the question or not.



Well, how did you know if he has answered the question or

not? By esoterics? New subject matter: esoterics. If you're

very skilled at esoterics, you could probably manage it.

But there are no esoterics involved. Even if it's

telepathy, it's cause, distance, effect. Doesn't matter how

that communication took place; you know whether he's

answered the auditing command by a communication cycle. I

don't care if the distance was zero. It was permeation from

same location in space; you were in the pc's head. I don't

care how you sense this or if you know that ordinarily this

pc is green when he answers an auditing command and he

turns pale white this particular time. You realize he's not

answered the auditing command. Well, how did you know that?

Well, obviously, it's a communication cycle inside the

auditing cycle.



So, I'll give you a little assignment there. You work that

thing out. How many of these things are there? And then

expect to drop the mashie and the niblick and hook one into

the woods for a day or two. So that's perfectly all right

to do that, see?



I myself occasionally take apart a piece of auditing and

find myself gapping briefly in a session, because I've been

trying to put together a very flexible R2H, because R2H

(the way it was originally released) is a very skilled

activity. It's too much for me. That's right! It's just too

confoundedly skilled. I know you can't do it. Impossible!

It's too prone to error. Good training: Man, if you can do

that, you can do anything! I mean it. If you can do that,

you can do anything.



But, boy, by the time you get some pc who's got an

insignificant ARC break that doesn't have the punch of an

engram or anything like that behind it, and you're trying

to date that confounded thing on a meter - it's just smooth 

as glass, and so forth - you practically have to ARC break 

the pc again to get the meter to read! Terrific training.



But inherent in that process - inherent in that process - there

are a great many processes which go pretty well south and

which will, actually, practically go one shot to OT, see?

It's masked, however, in the exact mechanics that you're

handling.



I found out that you have to use ten - a minimum of ten - steps

to get the terrific therapeutic result of which it's

capable. At least ten steps. In fact, I got one version of

it on the drawing table right now, which I've been working

with: I don't know, I think it must have about eighteen

separate steps. I'm just trying to milk this thing down for

maximum tone arm action, minimal error and maximal ease of

auditing. You're doing a training version now. It won't be

changed. Go right ahead with it.



But this is really putting that process up to make it get

its most results, see? And, by the way, there are only nine

levels of assessment in this newest version I'm working

out - just nine lines, takes care of the lot. But that's all

progress.



But I'm running all this on a pc. You get the idea? It's

all brand-new, and it's impossible to audit the original

version of it anyway. And I'm handling something that has

fifteen steps in it, all of which are strange and

different, and the pc has done something incredible in the

session that I haven't yet suspected. And boy! You talk

about the mashie and the niblick, man! You know? That golf

ball goes straight through the trees, hits a tree trunk,

caroms off a rock, goes straight up into the sky and

vanishes forever.



All right. Well, if you're nervy on the subject of handling

the basic tool of auditing, if that's giving you trouble

and if you can get yourself into trouble by suddenly

breaking it down and analyzing it, then it should be broken

down and analyzed at the time you're auditing something

nice and simple. That's the time it should be broken

down - not until you have three woods in your right hand and

four irons in your left hand and you're going to putt with

the heel of your golf shoe, see? I mean, this is not the

time to practice this auditing cycle.



So you go ahead and break it down. I've given you a general

pattern for an auditing cycle.



Maybe in working it over you can find a couple of extra

communication cycles in the thing. But they're all there,

and if you made somebody go through each one painstakingly

and painfully, you would find out where his auditing cycle

was jammed up. And it isn't necessarily jammed up on his

ability to say "Thank you!" It may very well be jammed up

in another quarter. Got that?



Now, there's a completely different auditing cycle inside

the same pattern.



Just wanted to make you comfortable and make you feel relaxed.



Let's work this one out. [See Lecture Chart] Here's the pc.

This pc, "he gonna originate." This has got nothing to do

with the auditing cycle. Scrub that other one! This now has

nothing to do with it. The only thing they have in common

is that they both use communication cycles. That they have

in common. But this is brand-new. This is the bolt from

Mars. It comes out of the blue, and an auditor who is

already concentrating ... He's auditing, you know ...

There are people, they used to read - they'd move their lips

while they read, you know? And everybody would make a lot

of fun of them, you know, for ... You know?



Well, an auditor who's handling his communication cycles

and his main auditing cycle on a lip-moving level, see - he's

brand-new at this sort of thing: the pc says something,

see, that is not germane to what the auditor is saying or

doing. And there is just - well, just trucks go over the

cliff, jet ships crash, see? All goes to hell, man!



So you actually have to be alert for this thing happening

at any time. And the way to prepare for it is just to

realize that it can happen any time; and just go into the

drill that handles it, and don't get it confused with the 

drill which you have as an auditing cycle; and consider it 

as its own drill. It's - its own drill. You shift gears into 

this drill when the pc does something unexpected.



And by the way, this handles such a thing as the pc

originates by throwing down the cans.



That's still an origin, see? That had nothing to do with

the auditing cycle. The auditing cycle went to pieces,

maybe, and this cycle came in. Well, the other auditing

cycle can't complete because this cycle is now here. Well,

that doesn't mean that this cycle has precedence or

dominance, but this cycle can start and take place and have

to be finished off before the other one can resume.



So this is an interruptive cycle. And it is cause and

distance and effect. And here's your auditor. The pc causes

something. Now your auditor has to originate, and your V is

inverted.



Now let's investigate here. Let's investigate that point.

Let's expand the point, just as we did in the auditing

cycle.



What's this going to be, a mad spate of question

marks or rockets flying off at oblique angles, or what's

going to happen at this point?



Well, Dankly, you can't put a machine at that point. You

can't put a machine action at that point, because this

thing has to be understood -  has to be understood. So, to

the degree that it is hard to understand, you have

cause-distance-effect, cause-distance-effect. You

understand? This is the auditor trying to clarify this

thing. And every time he asks a question, he's got a new

communication cycle.



Well, the trick that happens at the open V must not be such

as to merely get the original line, cause-distance-effect,

repeating itself. You mustn't have the pc continuing to

repeat that line, because the pc is now going to go

frantic. Because he can't get off of that line, he's stuck

in time, and it really upsets him.



So the auditor, when this V is expanded here, has to be

able to understand what the devil the pc is talking about.

Now, there's really no substitute for simply trying to

understand it.



The pc all of a sudden says, "But the Roman Empire didn't

have any legs!" "Tell me a little more about that, please."

That's a good response.



And the pc immediately goes off into can gesticulations

like mad and explains how because of North Africa being in

its situation, you see, Egypt being in its situation, and

that sort of thing, the Roman Empire didn't run on legs. It

didn't run on legs at all; it ran on rivers. We're now

getting in deeper.



"All right. Good enough; good enough. I hear what you're

saying, now. Give me a little more dope on this so I can

get a good grasp of it."



Oh, and the pc will go on and he'll expostulate and

understand it. And he'll understand it better through

telling you. And all of a sudden, you'll find out that he's

telling you it didn't have any legs, and it didn't have any

legs to stand on - that is what he really meant, and so

forth. And he's got it all doped out, and all of a sudden

you see what the hell he's talking about. And at that

point, you can resolve this point at the open V, you see?

And "Oh, that's what the hell he's talking about" is the

name of that expanded little V. "Oh, that's what the hell

he's talking about" is the name of that

cause-distance-effect, see? And then you say

(cause-distance-effect), "Thank you."



How many more lines can you put in there? Well, you have to

have another little line up here, which is another little

cause-distance-effect, before that origination takes place

so that you don't run into a jam and you don't give the

auditing command. He's originated that he's going to say

something. He says - see, whatever it is - and that's not the

time for you to say "Do fish swim?" See? You suddenly

notice there's a flicker across the table and the pc is

saying ...



See, that's another little communication cycle. So it's

cause-distance-effect. And effect at your point is to shut

up. See?



And then, you actually can have another little one, here,

that's a cause-distance-effect, of "I'm listening." Get the

idea? And then, of course, there's your extra ones down

here - when you've said "Thank you," then it's your

perception of the fact that he has received the thank-you.



And there's your origin.



Got it?



Audience: Yeah.



> Well the network that this is made out of - 

the building brick out of which all of these things are

made are communication cycles. That's just cause, distance,

effect, with intention and duplication, see? That's the

lot, see? But when you say "duplication" - when you say

this - you are carrying, then, the communication cycle over

into the A and the R. because there must be understanding.



Now, this is peculiar: There is a difference between an

auditing cycle and a military communication cycle. "Theirs

is not to question why; theirs is but to do and die" is

definitely the military attitude toward the whole thing.

And whereas this, too, can get into auditing - and actually

is not disallowed and is sometimes used, and not without

benefit. The guy is not going to touch that wall. "Thou

shalt touch that wall," you see? This kind of an action

very often takes place. He's not going to give up the

withhold. "Well, you goddamn well are going to give up the

withhold," you know? Bow! see? That sort of thing is very

often better than not doing anything about it. There are

more adroit ways to do it - but this is real crude auditing.



But that's the only time it gets over into the military cycle.



Now, the military cycle is simply cause, distance, effect,

compliance. And the auditing cycle is cause, distance,

effect, understand. So there is an A and an R at the effect

point. And therefore, there has to be an A and an R at the

cause point, so as to make "understand" acceptable at the

effect point. There doesn't have to be, but there had

better be. You see that? So there's where A and R fit in on

the communication cycle where auditing are concerned.



They are very carefully designed.



Now, a very syrupy affinity is very often highly

detrimental to auditing. But too snarly or abrupt an

affinity is also detrimental to auditing.



> Now lets get back to the fact that the auditing cycle ... -

we haven't completed talking about the auditing cycle by a

long ways. The auditing cycle, you would say, then, is TR

0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and so forth. Well, the auditing cycle has

very little to do with TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, just as such, and

only as such. The TRs have to do with the communication

cycle. And you have to put one all the way together at

about TR 5 or TR 6 to take in all of these communication

cycles. You understand?



What the lower TRs do is teach you to handle one

communication cycle -  see, from one side or the other - in

varying degrees of complication. Now, of course you've got

to have TR 0, because all of these things have to do with

confront. All of them have to do with confront, so you'd

say TR 0 is native to all of them. TR 1: Well, that's an

emanation. And TR 2 is a receipt.



So of course, those just handle what? They just handle

nothing but the communication cycle.



Do you see that?



Now, you can go on and build this up from this point on,

but you will find that a complete auditing cycle would

require a full-dress-parade TR that covered, maybe, at

least six. And then you could have another TR that covered

it up to nine, ten or twelve. And you could have another TR

that handled an origin through all of its cycles - but that's

supposed to be, right now, TR 4.



See, TR 4 - you've always had trouble with TR 4. Maybe I've

shown you why today. Look at TR 4. See, that's a picture of

TR 4. The V is the other way around. This thing is all

upside down, you see?



But that isn't all there is to the A and the R in

connection with the communication cycle. TR 1: How good is

somebody's TR 1? Well, let me tell you that the ability to

say "Do fish swim?" might serve, but how about being

comprehensible? How about being comprehensible?

Enunciatively comprehensible: you can understand the

syllables. How about that? We can get over that point. But

how about giving it an understandable communication? Now,

let's look at this in its widest ramifications. The

R-factor has to be present there so that it can be

duplicatable.



You very often, when you leave some auditors loose on

making up a command, or asking something, or there's a hole

in the routine and it doesn't give them those words, will

do a put-together of the statement to be said to the pc

which, at the arrival at the pc, is incomprehensible.



And yet an auditor is very often called upon to do this.

I've noticed this. I'm not being condemnatory of auditors

in general, but I've noticed here and there. When an

auditor -  some auditors are left completely on their own ... 

Well, something like this: "Well, get me a list.

Get me a list of the stuff he's worried about." And you

expect them to put together a question something like "What

are you worried about?" see? And you get some entirely

different, incomprehensible version, like "What are the

worst part of your worries sometimes?" Something like this.

Now, that's almost sensible compared to some of them I've

seen. They're just absolutely incomprehensible. Absolutely

incomprehensible.



I don't know how anybody - and I have actually seen somebody

run a level fitted into one of these five-to-fifteen

command brackets, which didn't make any sense at all, and

suddenly found to my horror that some pc had actually been

running on this for hours and hours and hours, and every

time they arrive at it, says, "I don't have a clue what

you're talking about at this point."



And the auditor just says, "I will repeat the auditing question."



So there's this factor in this communication cycle, that

the TR 1 aspect must be (1) enunciated in such a way as to

arrive in an understandable form, but very often, when the

auditor is formulating something, has to be formulated so

that it can be duplicated. So these two other factors are

involved, besides simply being at cause - is the cause going

out with any R? In other words, can you understand any part

of this thing? Is this an understandable statement? "Do

fish someti ... I'll repeat the auditing question: Do

fish somet ..." Naturally, no auditing can proceed.



You start dropping s's off of everything; or get somebody

with a Japanese curve; you get somebody doing something

that is a little bit offbeat in pronunciation - somebody from

Boston. Let's go worse - somebody from Maine. You ever hear a

"Maine-iac" talk? I was up there finding the Canadian

border. The United States government lost it. (They'd lose

their heads, you know, if you didn't watch them.) Anyway,

they lost the Canadian border and went up and found it

again. Found a tree had fallen on it and buried the marker.

They have little pyramids that look like the Washington

Monument that mark the border.



It was very necessary, because the Prohibition agents

didn't know where their authority started and ended, see?

It caused terrible things. We took the problem off because

what we were doing when we were surveying is we would stop

the rum runners and tell them we were Prohibition agents,

relieve them of their cargo, and we always had a lot to drink!



Anyway, we solved this problem practically. The U.S.

government could've taken a lot of leaves from, I think,

most of us on practical solutions to these problems.



But I spent the most delighted summer trying to learn to

speak "Maineiac." Gorgeous. And the French that had been

living up along the St. Lawrence didn't speak French and

they didn't speak English. They spoke something else. But

it was sure interesting. Got so I could speak the thing,

you know? I'd talk about "Baa-haaba" [Bar Harbor] with the

best of them. But it wouldn't go in an auditing session.



And very often, some pc gets saddled with an auditor that

he can't quite comprehend along some corner or another.

Now, you should recognize what's out. The only thing that

is out is the R-factor in the TR 1. And an auditor should

actually take great care to keep that one smoothed out. If

he knows he's doing something weird that the pc can't

comprehend, it doesn't matter how clumsily he sets it right

so long as he sets it right.



> The pc always questions -

supposing you can't tell the difference between the way he

pronounces flue and the way he pronounces six. You can

imagine these two getting jammed. The pc, for some reason

or other, always thinks the auditor is saying five when

he's saying six, and six when he's saying five.



What do you think's going to happen in R3R, see?



So therefore, it is up to the auditor to be comprehensible.

That's where the R-factor comes in.



Be comprehensible. Not only from standpoint of accent, but

sense: the comprehensibility.



Diction enters into this. I can see some university in the

future teaching auditing English, you see, or auditing

speech. Actually, it'd be a big department, because you'd

have to have the translation of all this stuff into German;

you have a translation and then its enunciation in

German - same factor would apply, don't you see? The same

factor in Swedish, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, all of this

stuff. How do you audit these guys, you see? Well, all

right. So you're going to have auditors perhaps from that

country, but remember, they will have the same frailties of

pronunciation.



> ** [the following paragraph was cut from the old level zero 

> version  but is present in the modern clearsound version

> - probably cut from the old version for reasons of

> confientiality]



# How about translation of line plots, what line plots

# actually sum up into. Some of these countries don't have

# good terminology to follow through on a line plot. And yet

# the line plot will only fire on the right terminology.

# Don't you see, there's a lot of stuff to be worked out on

# this particular factor. 



But there's stuff to be worked out on it right now.



An auditor who is not comprehended by the pc isn't doing

his TR 1 right. And therefore the R-factor is very germane

to whether the communication cycle can take place at all.

And if you say "Do fish ?" You can't do that. Do you see

that nothing happens and no communication cycle takes place

at all? So the R-factor can do a complete wipeout.

Interesting, isn't it? Then you have the pc who doesn't

want to be audited. He doesn't want to be audited at all.



Well, how on earth can you start that one going? Because

you've got to have a communication cycle before you can

even put an R-factor in. See, that's worse end to. He just

won't listen to any part of Scientology. This is not a

speech defect, but actually requires a lower-level process

which gets him to talk about Scientology anyhow.



We used to have one, "Well, tell me why you shouldn't be

audited." Tricky kind of an approach of this particular

character.



This is all very feasible. But this comes under the heading

of getting a communication cycle started, and the auditor

is very often confronted by that. So there is something

which actually is prior to the communication cycle, see,

and that you are very often happy to see exists. And when

it goes out the window, you very often are sitting there

with your eyes popped - you don't know quite what to do.

Well, the thing is, you can't get the communication cycle

going.



Now, very often the R-factor is out - wildly. Or the affinity

factor is out. The affinity factor is out because the pc is

being very misemotional. Well, oddly enough, you can do an

ARC Break Assessment today, and find the bypassed charge

and use that to complete the communication cycle which you

started and which wouldn't complete, because it is the

generated charge. And that was why I showed you,

particularly, the expanded point of the V.



What has happened there is inadvertently, one way or the

other, the point of the V has gone awry. The auditor

somehow or another or the pc somehow or another has

restimulated a charge which has then not been originated

either to the auditor or the pc. See, an overrestimulation

has taken place there. It's quite easy to do. It's quite

easy, though, to pick up these days. So, these ARC Break

Assessments is [are] a pilot of completing the

communication cycle and getting the auditing cycle going

again. See how that fits in?



All right. Now, that's all very well to talk about the

auditing cycle and say that's just all there is to the

auditing cycle, but there's (I mentioned a moment ago) the

repetitive auditing cycle. This cycle going over, and over,

and over, and over, and over again, is a specialized activity.



There's an auditing cycle of one cycle and then there is

the auditing cycle of the next cycle and the next cycle and

the next cycle and the next cycle, see? That's a different

thing -  doing it many times. You get your repetitive

process, and this is where that gets you in trouble. There

is a point where this over-and-over-again gets you in trouble.



You must, you absolutely must, complete a communication - all

communication cycles of an auditing cycle. Therefore, you

must complete an auditing cycle. But you must also

differentiate the difference between one auditing cycle and

the repetitive auditing cycle. And why must you generate

this difference? It's because one auditing cycle must be

completed, and a repetitive auditing cycles are very often

overdone, and don't need to be completed in some cases.

There's a difference.



Ooohh, where am I leading you now? You will say, "What's

this? What's this? You mean you don't flatten a process?"

Yes, you always flatten a process. But some auditor can get

so eager-beaver with his series - which is flatten the

process, see - that he forgets why he is flattening the

process. And that is your dominant cycle - is ability regained.



Why are you auditing the person in the first place? To do

an auditing cycle? To do a series of auditing cycles, known

as repetitive cycles, so that you can get a flattened

process? Now, you say, "Well, you're doing that to flatten

the tone arm action." No, that's right there with

repetitive auditing cycle; that belongs right there with

repetitive auditing cycle, don't you see? There is

something that dominates all of this; there's a greater

domination.



I'll show you what these points are. This will intrigue

you; I don't think perhaps many of you have ever looked at

this before. [See Lecture Chart] Here's your big cycle,

which is major cycle. See, that's a major auditing cycle.

And its proper name is Ability Regained.



Ha. I can see some of you now. You're auditing engrams like

mad and you hit this key engram and you hit the thing and

you all of a sudden got an OT on your hands, and the fellow

gets up and stretches and that sort of thing, and he's

getting all ready to square away, and he's wondering what

he should do with the body, and - you know? He's all set and

you're going on: "All right. What is the duration of this

engram?" Well, that's just too much dedication to this next

cycle, see?



And this you can call the Process (Cycle - Process Auditing

Cycle. This, of course, is just your single auditing cycle.

Your progress of case is up, like this, see? Now, if you

don't have your single cycle down, then of course you can't

do a repetitive cycle. Can't do a repetitive auditing

cycle, you can't flatten the process, in other words, you see?



Now, a process is flattened by tone arm action out, no comm

lag left, or

> intermediate, ability regained - pardon me, or

cognition - I'll draw you a picture of these

things - or ability regained. [See Lecture Chart] Now, you

understand, we're going here from the Process Cycle to this

Ability Regained cycle, you understand? We're going just

between those two. You understand here, that if you can't

do a single cycle, then it's certain that you're not going

to be very successful in completing any process auditing

cycle -  which is the repetitive cycles - and if you can't do

this, then you certainly are not going to produce the upper

one of ability regained. See? That's obvious.



But what is a flat process cycle? You sometimes come a

cropper on this and don't realize what you're coming up

against.



Now, three equal commands - this is the lousiest one, see?

Three equal commands. That's smelly, but you say the

process is flat, see? Safe to leave it. Well, you'd better

leave it at the CCHs, otherwise your pc is going to start

being unhappy. But remember that they must be confidently

done, or something like that. You can't have "He screamed

three times," you see? You very often - you'd be

surprised - you very often have this question asked of you.

You have some HPA student sometime saying, "Well, but he

was angry the same way for three different commands, so

therefore the process was flat."



Now, your next level up here - your next level - is a more

interesting level from a standpoint of that, but it's

perfectly safe to flatten it on a cognition. Guy gets a

cognition: "Oh, yes!" see? Even a minor cognition, do you

understand? That's not a major cognition; that's, you know,

minor cognition - he had a win. "Hey, well, what do you know!

That's why elephants fly." You know, that's all set. Hasn't

too much to do with the process, but you sort of stop the

process at that point. The pc is not going to suffer.



You understand that these first two levels that I'm talking

to you about, of "How do you flatten a process?" are

just - oh, that's awful shabby sort of a way to look at the

thing, but that's just the minimum. That's the minimum

security.



Now let's get to the real one, which is TA Flat - flat by TA.

That's your auditing cycles, repetitive auditing cycles,

and you no longer have TA action on it here, don't you see?

And up above this - and there are two levels of this, to make

it better - is a Major Cognition.



You'll see that sometimes. You'll see that sometimes. That

takes precedence. You haven't got the TA flat, but all of a

sudden he cognites all of the level is flat you're running.

You'll see him go pow! pow! pow! - off the meter. You've

got - "failure to scream" was the level you were running,

"about cats." And he says, "Oh! Oh, yeah! Yeah, yeah, yeah!

We used to mock up these forty-mile-high cats and yeah - oh,

well, what the hell! Yeah!" And you see the meter blow down

and bang and everything goes to hell. You try to run this

process again. He hasn't got any level there left to run.

In fact, continuing the process after one of those things

is invalidation of the pc.



Now, this is Ability Regained and that takes precedence

over all of these. This guy couldn't walk and you're

halfway through this and you haven't got the TA flat and so

forth and he hasn't had any cognition you're thinking about

and your processing cycle's a repetitive cycle, and all of

a sudden the pc says, "Hey, what do you know!" you know?

And he throws the electrodes down sideways and he gets up

and starts walking, you know? "Eh! Yeah, I can do it!"

Good, are you going to flatten the process now?



You may think I'm pointing out something ridiculous, but

you do this quite often. You spoil it.



You've got to know when to cut and run. See what I mean?

What you got coming right up is you're all of a sudden

going to make an OT - and continue to flatten the process.



Now, let's look at this, then. This single cycle - you got to

have that one down cold, and there's no doubt about that!

Got to be able to complete that. You got to be able to

complete it repetitively, time after time again, and that's

for flattening out a process. And the thing which takes

dominance over that, of course, is you flatten out the

process until you run into the ability regained.



Now, sometimes you don't run into an ability regained and

you go on and flatten the process, and have to do another

process before you regain the ability, don't you see?

Sometimes you have to flatten a lot of these before you get

up to that. Sometimes you halfway flatten one and you're

suddenly up to it. You see, but I'm just talking about

auditing cycles - repetitive auditing cycles - and where

they're aiming toward. You're aiming toward always getting this

one completed, but the only thing that interrupts it, in

any single cycle, is a cognition. Similar to repetitive

cycles, ability regained - a single auditing cycle that you

are doing runs into a cognition. What do you do in a case

like that? Well, you don't spoil the cognition by

completing the auditing cycle. You can start another

auditing cycle, if it is necessary to do so.



To that degree, to those modifications, these other things

must be pushed through to the bitter end.



All right. Well, I've given you the dope on this. I imagine

that you find this somewhat intriguing. It's a better look,

perhaps, than we have had at it. I've been meaning to get

around to it for some time, actually, and I've been

breaking it down myself so that it could be talked about

better. And you're seeing here a bit of gain; this isn't

something which I've known all the time and so forth and so

on. But I have been studying this ability regained in

relationship to finishing a whole series of auditing

cycles, and then I started breaking down the single

auditing cycle in its communication cycles and got it into

a more communicable form. And I think you'll find this very

useful, both in teaching people and in auditing, yourself.



I wish you luck. Just go on and audit. Don't try to make me

guilty by suddenly knocking the ball into the rough because

you've lost the grip.



Okay. Thank you very much.









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

view for bookmarking

text only  mail this message to a friend

Sponsored by Fatbrain.com {*}  post reply    << prev · next >>  

subscribeto alt.religion.scientology 

return to search results 



 

 





SHOPPING ·  Yellow Pages ·  5¢ Long Distance 

Free Stuff  ·  Trade with Datek  ·  GET IT NOW @ NECX 

FREE downloads! ·  Auctions & Classifieds  

  

 

Home  ·  Communities  ·  My Deja News  ·  Power Search  ·  Post  

 





About Deja News  ·  Ad Info  ·  Our Advertisers 







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 1995-99 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved. 

Conditions of use  ·  Site privacy statement reviewed by TRUSTe  



