Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Gross, Switzerland
FS Bulletin of February 3, 2005RB
Revised on October 17, 20071)Revised to add the series number. In the previous edition, I had radically repealed the e-meter drill. However, it can be done in the modified version to be prepared for the rare case of such dating. For this, I have added a section with the title The modified EM-25. , August 2, 20092)Extended with the following four sections: “EM-25 is only expected by advanced auditors”, “Auditing styles and KSW” and “LRH objects to the EM 25” and the P.P.S. , and July 8, 2014
Hereby the e-meter drill 25 “Dating of the whole track” is being modified.
This drill was not created by LRH and degrades students in the Church by forcing them to admit that they cannot do it (which signifies the termination of the auditor’s studies at this point) or force them to continue to cheat through this drill and claim to have done it when it’s not the case.
A survey with several auditors (including one of class IX) has shown that they are neither capable of presenting this drill according to the book nor that they know of someone who is. I have received dubious reports about how you can cheat your way through this drill in the respective Orgs. There seems to be an extensive technology in every Org for that. Usually, the course leaders look away so they don’t have to take responsibility for how a student marks the check sheet as fulfilled. The course leader couldn’t help him either.
It is time that this rough lie finds an end after being part of the Scientology training for over 50 years.
It may be true that the dating is based on an LRH reference because Ron says in his writing “Electropsychometric Auditing OPERATOR’S MANUAL” (printed in the Red Volume 1):
“And remember this about the mind: It files first by time. Therefore, your best approach is by asking WHEN. And ask until you get a reaction on your numbers of years. And then, by small reaction adjust to bigger reaction. Ask GREATER THAN? LESS THAN? your query. If it bobs left, it’s NO. If it drops right, it’s YES.
Ask if it was tens of years ago, hundreds, thousands, millions, billions, trillions. Ask until you get a drop, even a slight one. And then go above and below that number until you get a really good-sized drop. That’s how long ago that facsimile was recorded. For facsimiles have sharp date lines in them even when all else is foggy.
And use the newspaperman’s questions: WHEN? WHERE? WHO? WHAT? HOW? and WHY?
This E-Meter will find lost articles for anybody simply by dividing up the area of the loss and going over each area with a question and then narrowing it down until you get a drop. It will spell words of towns, names, by dividing up the alphabet and asking. It sees all, knows all. It is never wrong.”3)The e-meter has become a better Oui-Ja-Board because it can even repair false reads with the respective correction lists and rehabilitate the ability to use it OT-like.
This seems to completely refute my view, doesn’t it? –– No! Ron isn’t talking about an e-meter drill but from dating in a session! This means there is a real facsimile with a certain date and this can usually be dated in session most of the time. As opposed to the e-meter drill 25, you would simply ask the PC for the date and receive an answer. If the PC is not sure, he can be supported with the e-meter and you can date the charged incident together. There is no invalidation of the auditor and the meter reads in this situation because there is no hidden piece of paper anywhere with “the right date” that could possibly put the auditor in the wrong.
Instead, the e-meter drill 25 is missing this 2WC and the active participation of “the PC” to find out the date. The session is just about dating the incident as precisely as possible to get to an as-issnes. The PC can determine the measurement system himself. For me personally as a PC, it was often successful to project the time track onto the table edge in front of me (the left corner shows the beginning of the whole track and PT is on the right side) and point to the “timely position” of the occurrence with my finger. This always caused the event to be blown and that is all you want. There are many places where Ron says such OT-like things, for example during his lecture from October 10, 1968 Auditor Attitude and the Bank:
Now you’ve educated yourself into believing that you have to have this hand in order to open the cover of something. I don’t know what’s wrong with you, because you can just as easily intentionedly open the cover of something with intention. Except you have to be able to permeate the cover to the degree that you’re willing to permeate your hand.
However, it would be invalidating and equally wrong to expect this performance and have such a drill formulated by someone, e.g. of the higher TR’s.
Maybe there has actually been someone who was able to successfully finish the E-M 25 under certain circumstances and with certain Twins, as I was assured. (But maybe this someone only cheated in a smarter way and there is nothing to it.) –– But even then it is suppressive to put this drill on every student’s check sheet and expect all students to pass it while neither course leader, ED, C/S, Qual Sec, RTC representative nor anyone else can demonstrate it.
Usually, the coach can’t even remember the 12 to 36-digit-long date (in the version of the e-meter drill book from the 70s, there were trillions of trillions of trillions of years, which would be 36-digit numbers without counting the months, days, hours, minutes and seconds that would add another 10 digits) for the duration of the drill.
EM-25 is only expected from advanced auditors
The dating of EM-25 is an ability that is only taught and needed on Power and Level VI4)However, advanced dianetics auditors can use dating effectively to help their PC’s find the date and duration of the events. But you wouldn’t expect this ability from an HSDC student yet. (SHSBC):
Until the late 80s, the old DINA-5-sized “Book of E-Meter Drills” had been used in the CoS, which was then, in 1988, replaced by the new DINA-4-sized, spiral-cased book with the same title. The front page of the originally published book in 1965 read, “The Book of E-Meter DRILLS – BASIC DRILLS BY L. RON HUBBARD Compiled by MARY SUE HUBBARD – CLEARING SERIES VOLUME III.” Before the actual drills and right after the table of contents, there was a page which has been removed in the modern edition: “Drills List by Levels.” Here is a summary of this list:
Level II: EM-1 to EM-20
Level III: EM-11 to EM-21
Level IV: EM 22 to EM-24
Level V: EM-18 to EM-26
Level VI: EM-18 to EM-27
For many scientologists trained in the past centuries it may be surprising that there are no e-meter drills planned for level 0 and 1. But this is how it used to be: in the past, you would learn to audit on level 0 and 1 without being distracted by the e-meter: the main point about auditing is listening and not the controlling of the e-meter. In the 80s, the pro-metering-course has been introduced in which students got tortured with EM-1 to 27 even before the academy. Of course this was completely over gradient and turned auditing into a really mechanical act in which listening got more and more pushed into the background.
Auditing styles and KSW
You can see a similar development in the HCOB November 6, 1964 Auditing Styles: Although the listen style is defined for level 0 and the muzzled style for level 1, in today’s training, level 0 is expected to have at least the style of level III: This is completely over gradient, it overwhelmes every student.
And even though scientologists all over the world – in and outside the Church – study these references, they won’t protest against these obvious contradictions in their materials! LRH described this phenomenon in his study lectures as “glib students” who can cite the material fluently but are not able to understand and apply it correctly. Otherwise, there would be protests against such an absurd EM-25 which can only be passed by the skin of one’s teeth or by not looking or changing the drill mentioned in the text. Someone from the RONS Org told me that the drill in RONS Org is being executed according to my modified drill, however, without referencing this FSB.
One could think now that the RONS org and I are of the same opinion now but there is a substantial difference: I openly protest against the faultiness of the practical material and call the book of e-meter drills insufficient and publish a modified and executable version of it. By that, the Free Scientologists regain their studying integrity: they study and practice and attest something that really is doable and applicable. The RONS Orgs, however, pretend to agree with what they think is the source and cheat their way through it with verbal data and add-ons to the “source”. In doing this, they teach their students a glib attitude of studying and hide the fact that there are inadequacies in the material, as is seen in the EM-25 in the book of e-meter drills. This EM drill booklet has, by the way, not been created by Ron but by Mary-Sue Hubbard. Maybe she just forgot to point out the manual can pushing by the coach because she took it for granted.
“Constant alertness and the willingness to fight back is the price of freedom”, according to a famous LRH quote. And this alertness must be kept up with the students to cancel all changes in the tech and to be able to deliver the pure LRH teachings.
The Free Scientologists, however, defend the standpoint from the HCOPL KSW1 that LRH alone is the source of our knowledge and the group (even including MSH, some class XII’s and leaders and the “Senior C/S International”) tends to change and finally mess up the tech. That is why it’s important to separate the wheat from the chaff and to find out what really is from Ron and what isn’t and how it works or doesn’t work. Thus, it is completely unacceptable that the new edition (since the end of the 80s) of the EM drill booklet does not mention the originator MSH.
LRH contradicts the EM-25
In the second half of the LRH lecture SHSBC 323 new August 14, 1963 AUDITING TIPS LRH explains how dating on the meter is done on the basis of detailed examples and you find out that it’s not just over after such a drill. Among other things, he says that it was definitely necessary to provoke such a date for seven sessions and that the exclusive attempt of assessing it via the meter would cut off the itsa line of the PC and fail. So you constantly help the PC back on track with a partial assessment expecting that the right date comes to the PC’s mind on its own. Everyone who wants to learn how to date should definitely listen to this tape.
The modified EM-25
Since I am solution-oriented, I suggest the following modification of the e-meter drill 25 so that an auditor is prepared to date an occurrence.
Instead of looking out for “real reads in a drill situation”, the coach should simulate the respecitve reads with, e.g. manual can pressure. It’s not about recognizing an instant read in this drill. The student had already learned this in a previous EM drill. So these acted reads should also be accepted if the coach was not able to create an instant read. The goal of the drill is to practice the speech process until the auditor’s student is confident in dating.
The auditing student should know that it’s not required to carry on with the dating down to seconds in practice. Actually it is usually sufficient to find the order of magnitude (e.g. “hundreds of billions of years”) and one to three digits as a number (e.g. three million or 486 billion etc.) when you have to help the PC in dianetics with, e.g. the question of when an occurrence took place. At least when a Blowdown-F/N happens, the dating is over.
The e-meter drills are supposed to be done to create auditors and not intimidated guys who simply learned how to cheat to get through and “know exactly they would fail in real life”.
Whoever wants to earn a “quick” 1,000 euro reward, and disprove me at the same time, can make a suggestion under which drill conditions he would like to present the successful conducting of the original e-meter drill 25.
This provocative FSB has now been published for almost 10 years with the request to “quickly” earn a thousand euros. I have even personally talked to a bunch of top trained auditors and confirmed this offer: an AO-trained class 8 who still belongs to the Church, a class 9 of the Freezone and a few class 6 and others. Some admitted with relief right away that they had never been able to do the EM-25 either. The two class 8 and 9 auditors, however, have claimed at the beginning that they have mastered the EM-25 and defended the reference. After I confirmed them and said I would like to learn from it, that it would be well worth the 1,000 euros for me to see them do it, they took their heels and ducked out of it: “Well, the drill was done decades ago and it was a very special time back then. I was on the drill for months and I had finally found a suitable PC who I was able to do it with and we worked night after night and, at the end, we were so keyed out that I was able to do it once. But I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to do it again today.” – Not even for 1,000 EUROS! – Of course I wonder what such a meter drill is worth that can only work once in a lifetime “under very special circumstances” and with the right PC. Why go through all this trouble if it’s not applicable in life, in a regular session? The scientology training aims for application. The EM-25 aims for “passed” and, therefore, does not belong into the category of scientology training. It’s a part of suppressive “study tech” that wants to turn the student into a glib, dishonest graduate. And this must be eradicated.
Have fun with the realizations! – AG
References [ + ]
|1.||↑||Revised to add the series number. In the previous edition, I had radically repealed the e-meter drill. However, it can be done in the modified version to be prepared for the rare case of such dating. For this, I have added a section with the title The modified EM-25.|
|2.||↑||Extended with the following four sections: "EM-25 is only expected by advanced auditors", "Auditing styles and KSW" and "LRH objects to the EM 25" and the P.P.S.|
|3.||↑||The e-meter has become a better Oui-Ja-Board because it can even repair false reads with the respective correction lists and rehabilitate the ability to use it OT-like.|
|4.||↑||However, advanced dianetics auditors can use dating effectively to help their PC's find the date and duration of the events. But you wouldn't expect this ability from an HSDC student yet.|