One Comment

  1. This analisys made by Caspar has some error, mainly of the type of ALTERED IMPORTANCE. I may make notice of it here publicly for anyones judgement as an aid for comprehension and knowledge.


    First the most important point, then in lesser importance, 2, 3, 1.

    2. (in the above-original report made by Caspar de Rijk). Caspar argument that…

    The HCOB tells the Auditor who pulls an overt or withhold in Sec-checking or False Purpose RD to ask the pc as part of the procedure “did you justify it?” and “how else did you justify it?”

    He then quotes his basis…

    HCOB 10 Jul 64 Overts – Order of effectiveness in processing states that you don’t use Justifications before Grade IV. “There is no reason to expect any great pc responsibility for his or her own overts below Level IV and the auditor seeking to make the pc feel or take responsibility for overts is just pushing the pc down. The pc will resent being made feel guilty. Indeed the auditor may only achieve that, not case gain. And the pc will ARC break.” = CONTRARY DATA, WRONG TARGET.

    But he misses the data that FPRD can be done AFTER Grade IV, so the pc has the capacity acquired in the lower Grades to take responsability, namely in Grade II (Overts and Witholds).

    Also Sec-Checking, altough very similar in use to a Confessional, is not the same as they are not for the same reason nor in the same situation nor by the same Org Division. Security Checking is for ethics matters, commanded and reported to HCO, aiming at Integrity of the individual. Confessionals are for case advancement, directed, done and reported inside the HGC (might create copies for the ethics folder which IS NOT the pc-folder).

    Thus, the HCOB asking for justifications in Sec Chek and FPRD is valid (from my reasoning).

    3. About the “withold character of the implants” and the “still needle”. Caspar argues that “THINGS THAT WON’T READ WON’T RUN”. But that is a datum applicable to questions, commands or items, not IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ACTION. The right data is a SENIOR DATA to all the Bridge, and also part of the comprehension of the e-meter: “NO MOVEMENT EQUALS PROBLEMS”. The only thing that can stall a needle is a Problem. Be it a mass of past problems got in reestimulation or even stronger a PTP.

    The implant IS a problem, unsolvable to the pc, and it is common to have a final command to “not say” or “not remember” about the implant. That command IN the implant is directly OPPOSITE to the action of AUDITING, where pc is set to remember and talk, that creates a PTP. So the rigth thing to do is already stablished in Grade I, LOOK at the problem, dissmantle its opposing postulates by any means. As the implant is an engram, the right technique is to run the pc trough looking for its Earlier Begining so to be able to really erase it.

    1.HCOB 6 Jun 84 III, “Handling of Missed Withholds”: Caspar states two contradictory affirmations.

    ONE. Caspar: “The best you can achieve with it is that the pc goes release again.” Yes, it is going to be released again immediatly but with less restimulable masses in the bank. Wich is for good use is in the Rudiments, in lower grades, pc tends to key-in again.

    Also the technique itself is part of the PTS/SP phenomena handling and will result in less probable future PTS phenomena. In the case that the terminal actually is a Suppresive Person for the pc, then the simple question could cut a lot of chains at its root and make part of the bank to collapse as a card-castle in that rigth moment giving the pc a tremendous win.

    Even if it is not the case, the answer will give the auditor information about “hot terminals” which are usefull for further programming and handling.

    TWO. Caspar: “(to ask “who” and “what did he did”) …is an overrun”. No. An overrun is “going trough the same concept or mass” again in a situation which does no good but worsen the pc. Overrun make things to key-in, makes pc to protest, and produce Bad Indicators. The asking of who and what in this situations is a Key-In to deepen the as-isness being done, it is on (new) different mass/concept that the ones being handled just before. So there would be no protest. The word “overrun” was not well used here as it is not what is being done. Also, of course, the pc will get Good Indicators.

    Conclusion: No wrong in asking who and what in that situation.

    Wonders me how a Class IX could have this minor errors pointed out by someone that has not ever had formal training.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.