http://www.friendsoflrh.org/COBvsLRH/"A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle.
"That's what an F/N is. No other definition is correct."
HCOB 21 July 1978
What Is a Floating Needle
(Tech Vol XI, p. 204)
"One does not sit and study and be sure of an "F/N." It swings or pops, he lets the pc cognite and then indicates the F/N to the pc, preventing overrun."
HCOB 21 October 1968R
Floating Needles
(Tech Vol. VIII, p. 258)
As far as how to understand the definition of an F/N (or any other tech):
"All Word Clearing is done under the discipline of the Auditor's Code."
HCOB 13 September 1971
Word Clearing Series 23, Troubleshooting
(Subject Vol. 2, p. 180)
_________________________________________________
___________
At a Senior C/S conference in 1995, COB hinted at a new interpretation of F/Ns in the works when he told attendees, "You guys have been falsifying F/Ns all over the place. What's more, we not only know you do it, we have the remedy."
That remedy was released a few months later as part of the Golden Age of Tech. Through leading questions and cherry-picked definitions of key words, students were, for the first time since the development of the meter, led to the understanding that a real F/N must swing at least three times.
This definition does not occur anywhere in LRH materials. If it did, the thousands of auditors who had studied and word-cleared LRH's definition since 1978 would have already come to this understanding on their own.
None ever did.
_________________________________________________
____________________________________________
Nov
10
Luis A. Garcia (CLASS VIII – NEW OT
, Letter to Mr. Miscavige
admin on November 10th, 2010
Here is a copy of a letter I’ve written to COB. I hope it helps you cognite. But what you do afterwards is entirely up to you, as it should be.
Best,
Luis Garcia (was COS public)
Mr. David Miscavige, COB RTC <———– November 6th, 2010
____________ _________ _________ _________
Luis A. Garcia, Public Scientologist
Mr. Miscavige,
My name is Luis Garcia. I became a member of the Church of Scientology in 1982 at Orange County, CA. From the very first moment I developed an intense interest in reading, studying learning and applying the teachings of Mr. L. Ron Hubbard. I wanted to go up The Bridge, and I wanted to help others do so as well.
Throughout the years, I have taken many courses and received much auditing, becoming an interned Class IV auditor, a Gold Seal Ethics Specialist, a graduate of the PTS/SP course, and also completed the Basics Book and Lectures among numerous other courses. I am New OT VIII, a Patron of the IAS, a Founding Member of Super Power, a Gold Humanitarian of the Orange County Org, a Supporter of ASI and a contributor to many other Orgs, libraries, causes and projects.
I have learned much and I have had great gains from my involvement with Scientology. I have the utmost respect and gratitude to LRH, and to all the staff across the globe that selflessly dedicate their lives to help others, and the many devoted public who have helped so much.
I am first and foremost a Scientologist; i.e.: “one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scientology technology.” – LRH, Aud 73.
I have made it a practice to adopt stable datums as I learned them in Scientology and found them to be workable and true. One of these key stable datums I adopted early on from The Code of Honor, is “Never compromise with your own reality.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Church of $, Open Letters Comments Off | Edit
Aug
5
Why for the Golden Age of Tech and F/N confusion
admin on August 5th, 2010
From:
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/why-for-the-golden-age-of-tech-and-fn-confusion/Many people here have pointed out David Miscavige’s technical ”why” that lead to the Golden Age of Tech (the blind have been leading the blind) is not a why since it can lead one to ask “why?” of the “why.” Others have pointed out that if it were the why, then the “who” would be David Miscavige since he had been leading the way for a decade and a half by then. I have reported earlier on this blog that Miscavige did not even do an evaluation that then lead to the Golden Age of Tech. He read an eval at the event that released his handling that had been in the works for many months. He wrote the eval as his speech (with the help of Danny Boy of course) the week leading up the the event.
All of your comments got me to thinking about the why for the Golden Age of Tech. I did my own eval.
Policy: Keeping Scientology Working
Situation: Church auditors are being trained to be slaves to procedure, a method LRH stated could lead to the loss of the entire subject of Scientology.
Data:
Toward the end of his life LRH made his technical intentions abundantly clear. After thirty years of development, he narrowed down all major technical problems to two related situations; poor TRs and poor metering. That is why he wrote the technical training film treatments. That is also why he established Golden Era Productions – to produce those films. That is also why during his last five years, his repeated only wish was to return to the Int base (where Golden Era Productions was located) so that he could complete the Technical Training films. Each of LRH’s film treatment titles was preceded by either the designation “EM” (for Emeter training film) or “TR” (for Training Routine training film). LRH reasoned that given good TRs and accurate metering an auditor could not help but get case gain on pcs. It aligned with his SHSBC warning that the only way Scientology could be lost was by Scientologists becoming slaves to procedure. Procedure anyone can learn and do. It was TR’s and metering that were the key to making any procedure work.
Correct target – LRH, correct relative importance – LRH, Correct Source – LRH Read the rest of this entry »
Standard Tech Comments Off | Edit
Jun
17
Conny and Ing-Marie Lundberg Stockholm, Sweden Whistleblowers
admin on June 17th, 2010
Two more well-known scientologists have now left the church in Stockholm, Sweden.
Independence Declaration
Conny and Ing-Marie Lundberg,
Swedish Independent Scientologists
conny-and-ing-marie-lundberg
After careful consideration we have decided to no longer back up or give any support to Church of Scientology International.
N.B. Important information!!!
Church of Scientology or The Scientology Religion (as it´s called nowadays) is not the same as L.Ron Hubbard and the technology of L. Ron Hubbard. It´s two totally different things!
We are only leaving David Miscavige and Int Management and we have now chosen to wholly connect with Ron and the original technology of Ron.
The reasons for this we will show below.
We have both backed up The Church of Scientology for 30+ years in a variety of ways and we have been working on staff at the Church in Stockholm, we both have a sound knowledge of auditing (since we have been trained in the Academy Levels, New Era Dianetics, Dianetik Auditor etc) and have audited lots of pcs. Further we are trained as Course Supervisor and Professional Wordclearer and have been working as such in the Academy.
We both were engaged in various 3rd and 4th Dynamic projects both inside the Church but also on our own initiative outside the Church. Some of them were quite big.
Read the rest of this entry »
Church of $, Independence No comments » | Edit
Jun
1
Coup de Grâce for Auditing?
Dan Koon on June 1st, 2010
For years now, I’ve been hearing about DM’s “interpretation” of LRH’s definition of a floating needle and the trouble it has caused both auditors and preclears.
The LRH definition as written in HCOB 21 July 1978, WHAT IS A FLOATING NEEDLE is elegant simplicity itself:
“A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle.
“That’s what an F/N is. No other definition is correct.”
That’s the entirety of the bulletin.
I’d heard that DM, via his RTC Reps, had begun enforcing an interpretation based on the word “rhythmic” that an F/N had to sweep back and forth at least 3 times, based on the definition of the word “rhythmic.” I’m guessing that the idea was to give a verifiable minimum physical universe standard for what constituted a release in the pc’s mind. Whatever the reasoning, I’d heard a fair amount about this over the years.
Then, just recently a friend sent me a revision to this is simple LRH bulletin issued on 8 October 2000, which amends the definition to:
“A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle, back and forth, back and forth, without change in the width of the swing except perhaps to widen as the pc gets off the last small bits of charge. Note that it can get so wide that you have to shift the tone arm back and forth, back and forth, to keep the needle on the dial, in which case you have a floating tone arm.“That’s what an F/N is. No other definition is correct.”
I’d never seen it before. I read it and thought to myself, “That mother*#!@+%^&#!! He went and changed the bulletin.”
I looked down at the bottom to see who had done the revision and I saw the initials “sk.” Sue Koon. My wife at the time. She was still working in RTRC while I was working in CMU. She never mentioned this revision to me in the 3+ ensuing years before I expedited my route out from the Sea Org. Had I been strong armed into making such a revision, as she no doubt was, I would not have had the courage to tell her had our situations been reversed, so I really can’t blame her. And I can understand her shame.
Her (DM’s) justification for the revision was that LRH had added text to a revision of the book E-Meter Essentials six months later in February 1979.
I suppose that someone who has studied the numerous other references in bulletins, books and lectures where LRH mentions and discusses F/Ns would not be too bothered by this screwball revision. (LRH’s mention of fleeting F/Ns and his famous dictum about “waiting for the meter to play Dixie” immediately spring to mind.) But a brand new auditor trainee unfamiliar with these other references could have this “new” definition hammered into his or her brain with the proverbial atomic branding iron and that would become their stable datum for an F/N.
Let’s now imagine the untold amount of trouble this had made the pcs, auditors, C/Ses, Cramming Officers and the organization since.
The auditor starts the session and asks the pc is he has an ARC Break.
Pc says “Nope” and the needle sweeps back and forth at a slow even pace of the needle. He’s feeling pretty chipper and looking forward to the body of the session.
The auditor stares at the needle to make sure it sweeps back and forth once more. The pc’s attention shifts somewhat to the auditor glancing down at the meter.
The auditor looks up and says, “Thank you. On the question, ‘Do you have an ARC Break, has anything been suppressed?’”
No read.
“Do you have a present time problem?” “On the question, ‘Do you have a present time problem, has anything been suppressed?’”
One Green Form later (because if rudiments won’t fly the auditor knows to assess a Green Form) the auditor and preclear are off to the races and off the pc’s program.
One wonders how many sessions have gone completely off the rails, how many auditors have given up or been removed from auditing and how many pcs and pre-OTs have been driven nuts and driven further into debt by this single revision to this one, simple HCOB.
In fact, if you wanted to kill off Scientology and you could only enter in ONE arbitrary into ONE LRH writing this would probably be the one. The beating heart of Scientology is the auditing session and if you can wreck every session right at the beginning, on the rudiments, or on any process if it gets that far, you will have wrecked the Scientology movement.
And you wonder why no auditors are being made, why orgs no longer sell auditing but only reg donations for other stuff and why people are leaving the church in droves.
Of course, such a coup de grâce would not have been possible during the 1950s when meters weren’t used but the subject still expanded like mad all over the world. Not saying here to get rid of meters. Just that revised definition of an F/N.
Written by Dan Koon (Ex SO member Int base, Sbr C/S Int, ED of the Tech Compilation Unit)
