New Era Dianetics and the original Standard Dianetics

[auditor]

The difference between NED New Era Dianetics and the original Standard Dianetics

Posted on 5. November 2018 by Andreas Gross
TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF 24 OCTOBER 2005 -II

Independent Scientologists
RO NL Public


Original Bridge Series 2
NEW ERA DIANETICS vs STANDARD DIANETICS
by Caspar de Rijk

The main technical changes of New Era Dianetics in 1978 were:

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
Note: Other changes as in some commands are of minor importance, the NED Rundowns were more sophisticated ways of locating items to run, pre-assessment as such was already introduced as double/treble assessments in Expanded Dianetics in 1972.


1. Redefinition of erasure

There are several references by LRH on postulates:

THE DIANETIC AUDITOR’S BULLETIN Vol 2, No. 6, Dec 1951 Postulate Processing:
“… Behind most postulates, however, is an enormous amount of effort and emotion which may have to be run before the postulate can be contacted; or on occasion the effort may be run simultaneously with the postulates. Often, merely contacting the postulate collapses the emotion and effort tied into it.

If a postulate does not de-sensitize on first recall, … . Help the preclear to recall a decision again and again, or try to get an earlier one on the same subject. If he does not experience relief, there is an even earlier one on the same subject. Later postulates are lying as a sort of burden on the earlier ones.”


The above seems to confirm the idea of charge off = postulate off or vice verse. But…

ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS (Nov 1951) re POSTULATES:
“… Postulates surrender just like any other lock, or, in engrams, just like any other perception in an engram.”

HCOB 20 AUGUST 1963 R3R – R3N, THE PRECLEAR’S POSTULATES:
“Any incident, wherever it is on the track, contains postulates (comments, considerations, directions) made by the pc at that time.

Thus in all incidents the pc’s postulates must be called for and removed.”

And…

HCOB 16 JUNE 1970 C/S Series 6 WHAT THE C/S IS DOING:
“… Thus if you run out the force the words drop into insignificance. This is often how the pc gets cognitions: the words and meaning concealed in the engram are changing value and devaluating. The pc can then think clearly again on a subject previously pinned down by the force. Get the force out and the words take care of themselves and need no special handling.

The meaning of things plays a secondary role in processing to forces.”

“Engrams, secondaries, locks all add up to mental masses, forces, energies, time, which express themselves in countless different ways such as pain, misemotion, feelings, old perceptions and a billion billion thought combinations buried in the masses as significances.

A thetan can postulate or say or reason anything. Thus there is an infinity of significances.”

In 1978 the Dianetic EP is redefined as “Postulate off equals Erasure” (Ref: HCOB 16 Sep 78 POSTULATE OFF EQUALS ERASURE.). This suggests the first mention of a postulate is the ending signal and seems to imply there would only be one postulate per engram and that would be the only charge to be removed from the engram.

= CONTRARY DATA, ALTERED IMPORTANCE


HCOB 23 APRIL 1969 BASIC DEFINITIONS:
“FLOATING NEEDLES occur when a key-out occurs or when an engram is erased”

HCOB 14 MAY 1969 II FN AND ERASURE:
“You can expect the rapid end sequence of (1) Erasure (2) F/N (3) Cognition in a well run standard Dianetic session.”

If it is only a matter of the postulate coming off as a cognition, then this is already covered in the above HCOB. And occurs after erasure.

In actual practice therefore, when the FN is obtained on a basic it will have erased and the postulate is then an ‘after the fact’ issue.

Also see: SCIENTOLOGY Issues 8-G–12-G [1952, ca. early December-15 March 1953] New Data Doesn’t Invalidate Early, Proven Techniques


2. Redefinition Of Somatics

A somatic used to be defined as awareness of a body; as in:

HCOB 26 APRIL 1969 SOMATICS:
“… By somatic is meant a pain or ache sensation and also misemotion or even unconsciousness. There are a thousand different descriptive words that could add up to a feeling. Pain, aches, dizziness, sadness – these are all FEELINGS. Awareness, pleasant or unpleasant, of a body is what we are trying to run in Dianetics.

All chains are held together by one similar feeling. That is a new discovery. Chains are not held together by narratives or personnel or locations. They are held together by FEELINGS. Thus we ASK FOR AND FOLLOW DOWN ONLY FEELINGS. Those can be aches, pains, sensations, misemotion – any FEELING.”

In 1978 we get the revised HCOB 26 APRIL 1969R SOMATICS stating:
“All chains are held together by one similar AWARENESS. That is a new discovery. Chains are not held together by narratives or personnel or locations. They are held together by AWARENESSES. Thus when running R3RA (not Narrative R3RA) we ASK FOR AND FOLLOW DOWN ONLY AWARENESSES CONTAINED IN THE PREASSESSMENT LIST….”

“There are a thousand different descriptive words that could add up to an awareness. Pains, aches, dizziness, sadness, these are all awarenesses. Awareness, pleasant or unpleasant, of a thetan plus body is what we are trying to run in Dianetics.”

This is an alteration without explanation
=OMITTED EXPLANATION, ALTERED IMPORTANCE, ADDED INAPPLICABLE

Despite the above altered definition; all the pre-assessment categories still fall under the heading of somatics as defined in 1969.


3. Drop of principle of unburdening by going through incidents once only and running with minimum TA is violating:

HCOB 16 JUNE 1970 C/S Series 6 WHAT THE C/S IS DOING:
“The E-Meter records what force is being discharged in every slash, fall and blowdown. The amount of TA per session is the C/S’s index of gain.”
“The amount of significance recovered or realized by the pc only shows up as cognitions.
As the TA works off the case, then one has two indicators:
1. There is needle and TA action.
2. The pc cognites.
One shows that force is coming off. Two shows that thought is releasing from force.”
HCOB 23 APRIL 1969 II DN ERASURE HOW TO ATTAIN:
“The rule is invariable—IF IT ISN’T ERASING OR IS GOING MORE SOLID AFTER TWICE THROUGH GET AN EARLIER ASSESSED SOMATIC AND RUN IT.”

HCOB 20 AUGUST 1963 R3R – R3N, THE PRECLEAR’S POSTULATES:
“A stuck TA is always caused by running the pc above the pc’s tolerance of charge. You can stop any TA by ramming the pc into incident after incident without cleaning them up. …”

HCOB 1 MAY 1969 GRINDING OUT ENGRAMS:
“A pc not put through each incident on a chain twice before going earlier could get into grinding. The pc who is run through each incident once only before being sent earlier will certainly fail to get off enough charge to get earlier.”


Conclusion:

NED introduced firstly an arbitrary into the subject of the Dianetic EPs and secondly a false datum regarding TA Action. It appears otherwise merely to be an altered, repackaged version of Dianetics without any fundamental change in R3R Procedure.

Cl IX
RO NL Case Supervisor - Source http://blog.scientology-1972.org/