************************************************************************
The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers,
which was available to all those who subscribed to the
printed magazine, International Viewpoints.
************************************************************************
Invalidation and evaluation: the two "shuns"
by Phil Spickler
18 Jun 00
Greetings and hallucinations:
As I was going up the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today --
I wish to heck he'd go away!
'Way back in the prehistoric past of Dianetics and Scientology, there
came to be something called the Auditor's Code, and over the years all those
who were being trained as auditors were given to understand that breaks in
that Code were not a good thing for one's preclears, and that it was bad for
the auditor too, since most of the items in the Auditor's Code were to
prevent doing harm to the pc.
Over the years, which included many hours of auditing, I've had a
chance to personally observe the effects on preclears when auditors,
including myself, have ignored, violated, or broken that ethical code. The
most obvious reason for requiring auditors not to invalidate or evaluate for
their pcs is that invalidation and evaluation have an awful lot to do with
what's wrong with your pc (or client or whatever you want to call 'em), and
when I speak of invalidation and evaluation in the life of any given person,
I'm speaking of all the flows and the lengthy chains of invalidation and
evaluation that are to be found on each of those flows.
And so the act of just living in the world or the universe has
exposed everyone to pretty heavy doses of that bad medicine; and since an
auditing session is to be a safe place where the assaults on the soul do not
occur, it's a pretty good idea not to invalidate or evaluate for your pc,
since it can easily turn into the top lock on these long chains of
invalidation and evaluation.
There are other things that happen in ordinary life that we try to
keep out of auditing sessions because they would make the space too unsafe
and too unproductive of anything that might benefit the pc.
You may accuse Hubbard of entering arbitraries into a lot of things, and
in some cases I'd probably agree with you, but when it comes to inval and
eval in a session, Mr. Hubbard knew what he was talking about.
It's particularly important if you are training a number of people in
the skills of auditing or processing to have a uniform and civilized code of
conduct that is designed for the benefit of the preclear; and the code itself
must be things that are achievable by anyone willing to undergo such training.
Now let's for a moment consider individual auditors out in the field,
anywhere on Planet Earth, who are auditing people. It's quite possible for
such a person, depending on the development of their skills, to get away with
evaluating for a pc, possibly even to get away with invalidating something
about a given pc, and to be able to handle so well whatever might occur if
the evaluation or invalidation doesn't indicate that it doesn't damage the
session or the pc.
As I have mentioned before, and based on my own personal experience,
there is such a vast array of techniques, remedies and corrections now
available to make it possible for any given pc to be in session (interested
in case and willing to communicate about it), that it seems to me to be a
very unusual solution to a difficulty the auditor is having to go to the
resort of using invalidation or evaluation in order to move the person and/or
their case along.
If my memory serves me correctly, in IVy 36 I believe Alan Walter
published an article that had something or quite a bit to do with by-passed
charge, and at some point in that article Alan mentioned the use of
evaluation, and although I'm not absolutely sure, I believe he also mentioned
the use of invalidation, in session as long as you made sure that when you
were doing it, it truly indicated to the pc, and if it didn't you instantly
admitted that you were wrong and took steps to recover from the wrong
indication.
Well, at the time I read about that, I was thunderstruck, and for
awhile couldn't believe that I had read what my eyes perceived. And at that
time, the thought occurred to me something on the order of "Why would one
need to resort to either of those 'shuns' and risk the possibility of a wrong
item or wrong indication and the necessity for then correcting it?"
At that time, I did not contact Alan to ask him the question and get his
answer. I perhaps should have, but was so displeased with him that I didn't
think a constructive interchange would occur -- meaning I wanted to make him
wrong with all my might.
Ron, many years ago, made the statement that "auditing is what you can
get away with," but added to that was that it should reduce the charge of the
time track and restore the self-determinism of the pc. Early Dianetics spoke
about restoring the person to a condition whereby they are their own control
center, rather than operating on the evaluations and invalidations contained
in their locks, secondaries and engrams, that put other entities and other
valences falsely in control of their lives.
And so even if someone could correctly invalidate or evaluate for
their pc, it is self-evident that you are now acting as the control center
for the pc and dazzling said person with your display of much greater
perception and intuition than the person you're working with. It may wow
them and dazzle them, but it's not doing what auditing should be doing, which
is getting the guy to be dazzled by his own perception, his own intuition,
and his own ability to evaluate his own case and life.
This is another, in my opinion, major reason to avoid performing such
legerdemain: even though it may provide some help for the pc or client, it is
also laying in you-the-auditor on the chain of authorities who know best in
that person's life.
A few of the people who had gotten some training in Dallas were
floating around this area of paradise that I inhabit, and in making contact
with two such people who will go unnamed they were both trying out this
newfound skill of evaluatiing for and invalidating folks around them,
including, after a short meeting, yours truly. Neither of the people was
paying much attention to whether the items and indications they were giving
were producing good indicators, and at my urging they both ceased doing it,
and I asked that one of them point out the liabilities of such conduct to
Alan, whether it was done in or out of session.
And to my distinct pleasure, I believe that the teaching of this as a
skill for auditors or processors has ceased. I hope I am not wrong on this.
If anyone even doing so light an action as a Prepcheck on any given
subject was to take these two buttons and use them well, you would see some
wonderful things happen as invalidation and evaluation in the form of
by-passed charge comes off of a person's case. If a lone practitioner in the
field invalidates or evaluates in session and experiences what they deem to
be success in so doing, we have to take their word for it and hope on their
behalf and the behalf of the people they're working with that this is truly
the case.
Since what IVy is all about is viewpoint, what I am so freely
expressing in this posting is a viewpoint, and I would continue to urge
anyone who is using one or both of these buttons in connection with people
they are working with to look back in time and find out what they ran into
before they decided to use invalidation or evaluation as a solution; and
having straightwired that out on themselves, look around and notice the
tremendous number of case remedies, correction possibilities, auditor
correction lists, etc. etc. etc., and get back to a much simpler approach
that leaves those two "shuns" as things that have no place in auditing except
as areas that are fruitful for the removal of by-passed charge in Life Repair
and in other actions.
I have spoken.
As ever,
Phil