New Era Dianetics
and Standard Dianetics
COMMENTS ON CASPAR DE RIJK'S ANALYSIS
In
his article,
Caspar
takes a
close look at the three main technical changes of New Era Dianetics in
1978, namely:
1.
Redefinition
of erasure i.e. postulate off=erasure
2.
Redefinition
of somatics
3.
Drop of
principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only) running
with minimum TA
1.
Redefinition of Erasure
I
agree that this is a
critical point. Because undoubtedly there can be many, if not dozens of
postulates found while running a chain, and many could be buried in
incidents later than basic. Even if you accept the NED datum that to
find the basic postulate will be equal to erasure of the chain, the
question is: How could you tell the difference between the pc finding
one of them and by that having a cognition and the unrun rest of the
chain keys out and the pc finding the "basic postulate" and erase the
lot?
But
actually this is not a new problem which occurs only on NED style
engram running. In the HCOB 23 June 1969, "F/N", LRH speaks about that
problem. He says that a PC who gets F/N, Cognition and VGIs has either
achieved an erasure or just a key-out and that the latter is rather
common. When the last incident run did not have any impact or injury in
it, one can assume that the F/N was just on a key-out and continue with
running the chain earlier similar. But the safe rule is, says LRH, to
let the pc have his win. The worst is that the pc will get the same
symptom again sooner or later. But when you push past a win, you might
make the pc jump chains and get him into trouble.
So
the same will be true for NED: Assumed the Postulate, F/N, VGIs you get
is in actual fact not an erasure but just a key-out. Then there will be
charge left connected with the original item and also - although at the
moment not present - with the running item. You will sooner or later
get at it. In any case the handling of the situation does not differ
whether you are using Standard Dianetics and R3R or NED and R3RA: In
the latter case you take it as EP and assume an erasure. In the former
case you would also take it as EP because to find the postulate would
presumably always count as a cognition.
But
behold, here is one advantage of the NED technology: because you would
after an erasure then continue to preassess the same original item,
your chance of getting at a possibly just keyed-out but not erased
chain is probably bigger than in Standard Dianetics, where you only
come back to the same somatic when it appears again in the pc.
The
only point where R3RA could get you in trouble is when you hit an EP
valid by former Dianetics tech - i.e. F/N, Cognition, VGIs - where the
cognition is not a postulate. By NED tech you would probably ask
whether the incident has erased, and if yes, whether the pc has made a
postulate at the time of the incident. If the pc then finds no
postulate, you have to continue running the incident - by Standard
Dianetics theory a mistake as it was already assumed erased. The pc, if
he doesn't find a postulate on this incident in re-running it, will
finally be sent to earlier incidents which, by Standard Dianetic
theory, will be a jumping of chain. Eventually it would have to be
sorted out by a Dianetics correction list - if the chain does not go to
a valid NED EP.
My
conclusion out of this is that the differences between the NED datum
"postulate off equals erasure" and the Standard Dianetics datum
"Dianetics EP = F/N, Cog, VGIs" are minimal and only in rare situations
will make a real difference in session. NED will rather overrun the pc,
Standard Dianetics rather underrun him. As overrunning is easier to
repair than underrunning, that might be a point for NED.
Nevertheless
the question is, from where comes this sudden datum that the chain is
held together by the postulate in the basic incident? We don't know,
but we must concede that even if maybe the NED HCOBs are mostly or all
not written by LRH it is possible that this is a datum which just was
found out in research 1978 and changed the tech - actually not the only
example where a new datum occured and changed some aspect of the tech.
What
is interesting is the HCOB 26 May 1978 I, "Dianetics: Urgent Command
Change". This is still a pre-NED bulletin, if only some weeks before
NED was released. Besides other points it says under the heading of
"Getting the postulates in the basic incident":
"Now
and again a pc will run Dianetics whereby they F/N on the basic
incident and have VGIs but no cognition has come off. The pc has not
fully viewed the postulates in the incident here to obtain full end
phenomena.
When
this occurs and you have your F/N VGIs yet no cognition is voiced, ask
the pc "Was there something that you postulated in that incident." The
results will be quite astonishing and the pc will have his or her full
end phenomena and that will be it for that chain.
...
There
may be more than one postulate in the basic incident. You as the
auditor want to get off the postulates in the basic incident
accompanied by F/N and VGIs. This is your Dianetic end phenomena. When
the pc voices the postulate and has the full end phenomena there is no
need to check further."
This
can be seen as a precursor to R3RA and actually a transition between
R3R and R3RA. It looks probable that the research data which prompted
the issue of this bulletin was shortly afterwards completed and led to
the datum "postulate off = erasure". How much of this research was done
or supervised or at least approved by LRH is another question we
currently have no means to answer. However the HCOB 26 May 78 I is
signed by "L.Ron Hubbard, Founder, Assisted by Paulette Cohen, LRH Tech
Expediter".
A
further hint is another direct predecessor of this HCOB, which is HCOB
18 March 1978, "Postulates and engrams". Basically it contains the same
data, cautions the auditor to ask for a postulate when the basic is
apparently flattened but no full EP. It also explains that "what the pc
postulated just before or while under the stress and pain of his engram
could be any manner of significance to the pc, but it is of no
significance to the Dianetic auditor other than as a means of ensuring
he has gotten the full Dianetic EP and has removed all the charge and
force in the pc's engram." This HCOB is signed by "L.Ron Hubbard,
Founder, As assisted by CS-5" who, according to the last line, must
have had the initials JE.
It
would be interesting to find out who JE was and ask him or Paulette
Cohen about the matter of how much LRH was involved in the research of
NED.
However the datum that an engram can be erased by finding a postulate
is not new and actually stems from LRH: In his SHSBC lecture of June
12, 1962, LRH mentions that an engram is immediately preceded by a
postulate and you can theoretically dissolve the engram by finding this
postulate.
But
let's take a look at the next issue:
2.
Redefinition of Somatics
Caspar's
point that the re-definition of "somatics" by introducing the word
"awareness" instead of "feeling" is well taken as this seems a bit odd
and unnecessary.
However
the HCOB 18 June 1978R, revised 20 September 1978 (and thus later than
the revision of the HCOB "Somatics" which Caspar quotes) contains still
the original definition which includes the word "feeling". So whoever
cared to change the definition did not deem it so important that all
mentions of the definition were revised.
This goes along with
Caspar's conclusion which I would support that after all the change is
not very meaningful and the preassessment categories are covered by the
old definition as well as the new one anyhow.
The next issue is
certainly more relevant:
3. Drop of principle of unburdening by going through
incidents once only and running with minimum TA
Here
Caspar contends that the NED rule that you should leave an
incident even after the first going through when the TA rises is a
false datum because earlier it was a stable datum to go through at
least twice before checking for an earlier similar incident.
To
be exact, the HCOB 26 June 1978RA II, "Routine 3RA, Engram Running by
chains", states:
"Ordinarily
one runs an incident through twice to unburden it and allow the pc to
locate eralier incidents on the chain. However, the TA rising on Step 9
is an indication that there is something earlier. If the auditor
observes the TA rising, he should ask the pc if there is an earlier
incident, using in the command the exact same somatic or feeling used
in Step One. If there is no earlier incident he asks if there is an
earlier beginning.
An
auditor should never solidify a pc's bank by putting him through an
incident TWICE, when by observation of the TA it is clear that the
incident has gone more solid by the end of the FIRST rund through.
Checking for an earlier incident after the first run through (if the TA
has risen) is the solution to this."
At first sight this seems to be a direct contradiction to the earlier
tech, taking into account the references Caspar quotes, e.g. HCOB 23
April 1969 II "Dianetics, Erasure, How to attain", where it says that
only after the second time through you should ask for an earlier
similar.
However
one of the first references on how to run R3R is the SHSBC lecture 11
June 1963, "Engram chain running". It explains in great detail what
happens while you are running a chain of engrams, e.g. that you tap
each engram on the chain for charge by running it, until the earlier
engram on the chain comes into view etc. (I recommend listening to this
lecture very much.) In it LRH also talks about that very question of
how often should you go through an engram before going earlier:
"But
to finish this incident off, just move them through it again.
They’ll pick up some more stuff. That’s the time
they’re going to tell you there’s something earlier. And it
doesn’t much matter how many times you run them through an
incident. Less than twice is suspect. That’s maybe a little
careless. But might very well – if the thing appeared to be awful
gummy, and so forth, and messed up – once would be plenty.
There’s where judgment comes in. More than twice? Well,
you’re getting into questionable ground – very questionable
ground. Trying to chug them into it and make them have more view of it
or more picture or get more event out of it or do something else with
it than they can do at that particular time? Nah! Verboten. It’ll
turn up in an earlier incident or you got no business running engrams.
That’s all there is to that."
In
other words: when the incident clearly solidifies on the first
run, "once would be plenty". Absolutely okay to ask for an earlier
similar in this case.
Thus
the "new" NED rule is not so new after all and in accordance with
earlier tech. However if we take serious what LRH said - that judgement
comes in at that point - we should be aware that we speak of a distinct
solidifying. If you apply the NED rule so mechanically that if the TA
at the end of step 9 is 0.1 higher than at step 1 you must find
something earlier, you are overdoing it. The datum that an incident
should be run twice to unburden it enough should in this case take
precedence. You will hardly damage the pc, but very probably help him
considerably by getting the necessary TA off the incident. But if the
TA rises by 1.0 or something like that - there is no doubt you should
immediately ask for earlier.
Thus
my conclusion on all three counts is: R3RA is not such a fundamental
change compared to Standard Dianetics, and none of the three points
discussed make a clear case against NED. To discard NED utterly based
on these points would not only be overrating them but also hardly find
a broad agreement amongst those auditors and C/Ses of the Free Zone who
hold with Standard Tech. I find it essential that we agree at least on
the major points of what Standard Tech is, and to cut out such a major
piece of tech as NED is we need more convincing arguments I feel, even
if there is some suspicion on how much of it is genuine LRH.
If
anything I could say that NED seems to be an attempt to make the
auditing of Dianetics more mechanical and thus more easy to teach it to
new auditors. To use judgement in the question of EPs and in the
question of when to ask for earlier you might need more background than
what you get on the modern NED checksheet. Thus I find it a very good
idea to train auditors on the checksheet which is used in most Ron's
Orgs which is a combination of the NED course and the HSDC, thus
containing all the "good old" Dianetics bulletins of 1969 and giving
the auditor a solid background and understanding of Dianetics.
Heimdal
Caspar's article about New Era Dianetics
and Standard Dianetics
Back to top
of page
Back
to Contents