Way back in 1979, when I was on the HQS course, which included student co-auditing on both objective and subjective processes, I took a special interest in better understanding objectives, and read scores of HCOB’s on objective processing that weren’t part of the checksheet. Not only did that give me a much greater understanding of thetans, cases and case handling, but it was time well spent in that it greatly expanded my skills to understand what was happening with my PC’s as I ran them on objective processes, and I was far more able to catch and notice automaticities turning on and off, that otherwise would have gone unnoticed, and it would have appeared that little or no change was occurring. I’ve seen in so many PC folders where objectives were quickied, and ended off at the first little thing the auditor could escape with as an indication of increased awareness, falling far short of the true end phenomenon for the processes, and in fact leaving the PC unflat, and not set up to run to the depth they otherwise could have gotten to on subsequent subjective auditing. Objective processes, properly programmed and run to full EP, achieve dazzling results. When they don’t, the PC has been shortchanged.
I also learned from this and other experiences in training and auditing, that most of the checksheets, I trained on gave a student just enough to take a PC in session and then get pink-sheeted on all the the other technical data one has to know to be fully able to get full results on a PC.
One more point of importance. It is always readily observable that those whose only training is the solo course do not get all that there is to get out of auditing at any and all levels. In fact, it is an overt to permit a PC to progress only through the processing side of the bridge without doing everything possible to successfully enlighten them to train as auditors. If you’ve only done the one side, and wondering why you don’t feel like you’ve “got it”, you need look no further than that.
In my viewpoint, one of the most important skills you want in an auditor is what I call thinking with the tech. As per the policy Keeping Scientology Working, by auditing PC’s after studying materials, I learned that when I followed procedures precisely as given in L. Ron Hubbard’s technical bulletins, my PC’s got the intended results from each process, and when I made errors, it became hit or miss. And so it was established for me that doing what Ron says works. I think that could be described as the 3rd of several levels of learning about the tech, the first being that it exists at all, and the 2nd being that it can get very good results. The next higher level would be coming to understand why running the processes the way Ron says works. By comparison, the prior level is somewhat of a robotic level of function. It is above doing something just because you are told to, because you have your own purpose to accomplish the results, and you do it knowing that it will work, but until you understand the dynamics (axioms, etc) behind the processes, you have not made them your own. I know that Ron says that any Class VI (one who has successfully completed the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course) worth his salt should be able to figure out the necessary processes to recreate the bridge. This to me would be one who can now think with the tech. His actions would be based not on doing something merely because an HCOB says to do it, but because of personal knowledge of what will succeed well to help the PC get the gains he should enjoy in order to progress up through the gradient levels of the bridge.
This video-interview with Dexter was taken on the 4th of July 2009, in Los Angeles.