The basic steps of an audit can be described as: 1) Set a +quot;full memory+quot; frame. 2

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: Nihasa The basic steps of an audit can be described as: . 1) Set a "full memory" frame. 2) Induce revery. 3) Install canceller. 4) Age regress. 5) "Find" appropriate example. | repeat steps 5 & 6 until 6) "Discharge" example | enough examples handled. 7) Return to present. 8) Trigger canceler. 9) Dispell reverie. . Now, let's explore this step by step: . 1) Set a "full memory" frame. . Reassure the subject that he will be able to remember every part of what will happen, and that he will be able to break his state at any time he wishes. This allows the subject to relax, and suggests that he will not be subjected to the stereotype of hypnosis. Notice that this suggestion is made BEFORE the state induction. . 2) Induce revery. . Despite LRH's repeated reassurances, reverie IS a hypnotic state. Neither amnesia nor "sleep state" indications are definitive of hypnosis. Using a standardized induction helps subsequent sessions achieve the desired state more quickly and efficiently. . 3) Install canceller. . This construct, when triggered at the end of the process, will go a long way towards preventing the consious mind from examining the events of the session too closely. It also serves to reassure the consious mind into relaxing critical evaluation of the suggestions within the process. This is a standard practice among Hypnotherapists when dealing with potentially disturbing memories and processes. It does not negate any of the changes made under trance, nor does it eliminate any but the most superficial suggestions. . 4) Age regress. . This is a common technique in hypnotherapy, "past-life" therapy, and NLP. This multiplies the effect of an emotional reframe or response change by allowing it to cascade through "later" life, changing other related "events". The "earlier" the change is made, the more effective the cascade. It also allows you to address unresolved issues from that time, and to head off "later" problems by changing the premises. It is useful when used right, and quite dangerous when misused. . 5) "Find" appropriate example. . This is one of the steps which can create significant problems. When told repeatedly to find (or remember) an event by someone authoritative who expects and believes that it is there to find, the mind will manufacture it if it is not there to find. The implications of these manufactured memories can be quite seroius, especially when they involve in-utero or early ex-utero physical traumas...such as a coitus engram at a time when the father was physically absent from conception to after birth. While therapeutically useful, these manufactured memories should be carefully monitored and contextualized...and should NEVER be used to draw diagnostic conclusions. . With the made-to-order memory targeted, the desired change can be made in the context and manner of the operators choosing. Where the "memory" predates the formation of some related response chain, the change can effectively address it. . 6) "Discharge" example . In this step, the targeted emotional response is chained to a new response. The two primary chains are: [target -> counteremotion] and [target -> extinguish]. The first is accomplished by having the subject experience the target emotion immediately followed by the counteremotion several times. The second is accomplished by having the subject relive the target experience, each time making it a little more intense, until the reaction "blows out" (at which time the new reaction is reinforced). In either case, after some number of examples of the emotion are chained in this way, it generalizes to the point that anything which evokes that emotion (or any sufficiently close emotion) instead evokes the counteremotion or a sort of ground state. Functionally, this leaves the subject unable to "feel" that emotion. . Steps 5 and 6 are repeated for as many examples as the auditor deems suitable at the time. . 7) Return to present. . This allows painful memories to subside, and avoids severe disorientation. When done well, it will also cascade the changes forward through time. . 8) Trigger canceler. . As set up in step 3, this "command" tells the consious mind it need not pay any attention to remembering the events of the session. While it does not generally induce amnesia per se, it does create a disinclination to remember. It also alerts the subject that the session is functionally over. . 9) Dispell reverie. . Standard process for returning the subject from the hypnotic state. Basically, clean up and wake up. . Thus you are depriving the individual of the ability to get emotional feedback from the unconsious mind, by installing manufactured memories and engrams in steps 5 and 6. This psychic castration is not the way the process is represented to the client beforehand. . To all intents and purposes, a "clear" has no conscience. While that part of him may still exist, it has no way to communicate with his conscious mind - a clear BY DEFINITION has no internal dialog or verbal thinking, and is unable to feel or acknowlege negative emotional feedback. This leaves the clear exceptionally open to hypnosis as well as verbal presentation of rationalizations. This is what many see as the major danger of Scientology - that these people will shamelessly and ruthlessly pursue any course of action they consiously decide on, with no real sense of compassion, honor, conscience, or remourse. Clinically, they are the perfect psychopath, with no "sense" of wrong...literally. When it suits their purpose, they will lie, cheat, steal, kill, or destroy with no more thought than selecting a book to read or a movie to watch. . Since you have stated that you are not a "clear", try the following: construct an internal visual image of you beating and raping a 10-year-old girl. Notice what, if anything, lets you know "this is wrong - this is not the me I want to be". Now, take away your internal "voice" and any negative feelings, and what do you have left? How would you know to stop and check that? . The central fallacy of LRH's philosophy is in his estimate of the nature and capabilities of the unconsious and consious parts of the mind. The consious mind can handle approximately 7 plus or minus 2 pieces of information at a time, while the unconsious handles millions at once. To argue that the unconsious should simply pass all data to the consious for processing is to ignore this fact. . If you wish to demonstrate this, try the following: Sit in a chair, with a full glass of water close at hand. Now, while singing a song, stand up, pick up the glass, and walk to the far side of the room without spilling the water. This task is easier to do than to describe. Now return to the chair and replace the glass. Raise one hand to a comfortable position in front of your face and allow yourself to become consious of the actions of the joints as you bend and unbend the index finger. Now repeat the above process while being consiously aware at every step of: the actions of every joint you are using to walk, sing, and hold the glass; the distance to the far wall; the position and orientation of the glass and the state of agitation of its contents; the position and actions of your lips and tongue as you sing (as well as the tune and words!); and the position and orientation of each foot relative to the floor. The first time through is relatively trivial, while the last is next to impossible (actually, it IS impossible as far as I can tell). . Is this specific enough for you? . Nihasa <-: From: Nathan Velcroh To: Nihasa Well, Nihasa, you've done it again. We learned in 1950-51 that it was well nigh impossible to teach a 'psych' how to correctly run Dianetics. That observation is as true today as it was then. If that is your 'interpretaion' of the procedure, then so be it. But, what you think it is, and what it actually is, are two different things....(Thank god) I take it that you would also consider 'past-life' recordings a 'mental construct.' It appears more than lost that man is a spiritual being......C'est la vie, c'est la guerre.... But that is what I'd expect of you, and your ilk. From: Nihasa on 1:104/11 To: Nathan Velcroh NV> Well, Nihasa, you've done it again. . Are you saying that you are Ronald Reagan in disguise? Or that once again I have cut through the institutional smoke-screen and gotten to the core of the issue? . NV> We learned in 1950-51 that it was well nigh impossible NV> to teach a 'psych' how to correctly run Dianetics. . Not surprising, considering the prevalence of Freudians and Behaviorists at that time. And the massive amount of denial involved in using hypnosis and operant conditioning and steadfastly calling them something else. . NV> That observation is as true today as it was then. . Not quite as true, depending on how you define 'psych'. Still, the requisite self-deceit is as much a problem now as it was then. But how is all this relevant to me or the discussion at hand? . NV> If that is your 'interpretaion' of the procedure, then NV> so be it. But, what you think it is, and what it NV> actually is, are two different things....(Thank god) . I notice that you choose to make a vague generalization rather than dispute any of the specific points I raised. Why is that? When I spoke generally and addressed principles, you asked for specifics and implied ignorance on my part. When I have addressed specifics, you replied with broad, sweeping denials and personal attacks. Again, why? . NV> But that is what I'd expect of you, ane your ilk. . Exactly what do you think constitutes my "ilk"? Ever since we started this conversation, you have been unsuccessfully trying to pigeonhole me into some comfortable category of "enemy" to fit some group of pat answers, and when I didn't fit any of them you tried to use the answers anyway. For example: . NV> It appears more than lost that man is a spiritual NV> being. . completely ignores my statements about my concern with the spirit, which is especially ironic in light of your refusal thus far to address my questions about how you see it as beneficial for the spirit to be bound, gagged, and castrated as I have contended it is in your system. You have replied to my posts with nonsequitors and apparent evasions, rarely answering direct questions but insisting that you had been "addressing" them. Why are you wasting this opportunity to correct these detailed "misconceptions" about Scientology... unless they are not misconceptions and thus there is no answer? . NV> I take it that you would also consider 'past-life' NV> recordings a 'mental construct.' . When produced per "Mission Into Time" and "Have You Lived Before This Life?", yes. The methodology is leading and flawed, and the results suspect at best. Other techniques are a separate matter. Care to discuss those? . Nihasa <-:

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank