By Milestone Crew

We felt this LRH quote has real applicability for many, many OTs today.

We hope this brings some relief to those who fell on their heads and did not understand why.

Contact Milestone Two if you feel you need an OT Review to handle bypassed charge from missed/ignored FNs.


An OT is particularly subject to FIN abuse as he can blow things quite rapidly. If the auditor misses the FIN due to too high a sensitivity setting or doesn’t call it, as he’s waiting for an “EP,” overrun occurs. It invalidates an OT’s ability to as-is and causes severe upsets.

This error can also stem from auditor speed. The auditor, used to auditing lower-level pcs or never trained to audit OTs, can’t keep up with the OT and misses his FINS or reads.

Thus, overruns occur and charged areas are bypassed.

This could account for those cases who were flying then fell on their heads with the same problems that blew back again. HCOB 21 March 1974 END PHENOMENA

21 thoughts on “OTs and FNs

  1. Excellent quote and explains what happens to so many in the Co$. Overrun is achieved in a number of ways but the 3 swing F/N nailed the coffin for everyone. I handled someone recently on NOTs who was continually over run.What a relief it was for her to know that she wasn’t a hopeless case, just an overrun one.

    • True Ingrid,

      I also found that:

      Aside from the auditor waiting for the meter to play an F/N Dixie was that the “auditor” used the procedure he or she was so severely and rotely “drilled” on to slow down the Pre OT as well.

  2. I’m just starting on learning to solo, but I discovered something that I think might contribute to F/N abuse and errors. The COS in its enthusiasm for roteness made all of us drill the following definition of an F/N verbatim: “That reaction of the needle that occurs at the precise end of any major thought when voiced by the auditor”.
    Since I am studying in the indie field, I get to question and wonder about things, so I wondered how this definition could apply to solo auditing since solo auditors don’t “voice” anything while auditing.
    I also remembered in the HCOB Needle Reactions Above Grade IV Ron discusses surges and double ticks and how they are not necessarily taken up as reads even if they occur instantly. And also false reads.
    So, I decided to do a thorough study of instant reads to see if I could align all of this. After the above references, I went to the BC tapes. “Emeter Data: Instant Reads, Part I” and “Emeter Data: Instant Reads, Part II” from 24 May 1962. They are the original source of the above definition which has been repeated ever since. In these tape transcripts, Ron seems to go back and forth quite a bit on whether there is any lag at all or if there is a lag. In my opinion he seemed to settle on ‘absolutely instant’ for practical reasons for training. But that is my opinion. He did say at the end of the first lecture,
    “Remember, once upon a time somebody delivered me a thing and they said it was an Electropsychometer. And I sat up most of the night trying to find out what it did. And it was actually a week or two before I found out that it read on the needle. So, you’re in good company. ”

    And one thing he said in the second lecture was,
    “The reactive mind doesn’t actually react to words. The words translate through symbolism into thought, you see? You got the symbols of words, and then that melts down into thought. The reactive mind responds to the thought impulses.”

    I highly recommend these two tapes.

    If I am not mistaken Ron had not developed solo auditing at that point, much less discovered needle reactions above grade IV. I am not suggesting that the 1962 definition is “old” or “no longer used”. It is useful. But I am suggesting that this definition has never been “integrated” with his later discoveries.
    Sorry to use one of “Marty’s words”. 🙂
    But I am not talking about integrating LRH with something else I am talking about integrating and aligning an LRH definition with his later discoveries.

    So here is the blasphemy that I have come up with:
    Instant Read –
    “that reaction of the needle that occurs at the precise end of any major thought when received by a PC or PreOT and a reactive mind.”

    OK everybody….. pile on! 🙂
    But seriously, I would be interested in any thoughts that anyone might have about this supplemental definition I came up with.

    • Espiritu,
      As RV points out, “what do your materials state” is the way to take this. That is, have to correct materials to hand, study and duplicate them, with any needed clearing of words, demonstrations, mass/reality to go along with that, and then drill the appropriate drills (you can see them laid out here in the comments) with a competent coach, and you, YOU personally, will gain the surety you can spot an Instant Read in either Solo or any other context.

      I just ran across a tape on the mechanics of perception that may add to your musings on the translation of words, sounds, etc.

      It’s a tape from the Ability Congress, 30 Dec 57, Upper Route to Operating Thetan. He starts the section I’m referring to with this statement:

      “What is perception? What is perception? Good, I am glad you all know! Because I don’t!”

      Then he goes on to describe how knowing relates to perception. You have to actually try this out, that is, give it a shot and know for yourself how this works. Hope it helps in duplicating what an Instant Read is, how it is a “reaction”, what it is reacting to, and so on.

      If not, then please, get a hold of me. OK?


      • “Well, this raised knowingness. I talked to you before about communication, if a fellow didn’t already telepath to you what he was thinking about, then you would never find out by the sound wave.” 30 Dec 57, Upper Route to Operating Thetan, Ability Congress lectures.

        • Also, with that Upper Route to Operating Thetan material, take a look at Axiom 28 again, and note “intention”, as well as review TR1, TR8, and TR 8QN (on your solo drills) and work this out for yourself, exactly how comm works, what intention has to do with it, how an Instant Read is that reaction of the needle that occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor (and what is actually taking place in light of the data you now have to view those “mechanics” with).

          Here’s to a better understanding of what it is all about 🙂

  3. Espiritu, I’m not too sure what your question is, but I’d tend to strictly adhere to these Technical Dictionary definitions :

    INSTANT READ, 1. that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor. (HCOB 25 May 62) 2 . if the needle reacts within 1/5 to 1/10 of a second after the question is asked, it is an instant
    read. This is valid. If it reacts 1/2 to 1 second after the question, this is invalid. (HCOB 28 Sept 61)

    Now you also have this other one :

    INSTANT RUDIMENT READ, on rudiments, repetitive or fast, the instant read can occur anywhere within the last word of the question or when the thought major has been anticipated by the preclear, and must be taken up by the auditor. This is not a prior read. Preclears poorly in session, being handled by auditors with indifferent TR-l, anticipate the instant read reactively as they are
    under their own control. Such a read occurs in the body of the last meaningful word in the question. It never occurs latent. (EMD, p. 37) [E-Meter Drills]

    This last telling you TR1 has to do with it, as well as other basics like “in-session” or “out-of-session” (rudiments in or out).

    Moreover, clearing commands to full conceptual understanding converts “words” to “thought” as per Word Clearing Series 54 SUPERLITERACY AND THE CLEARED WORD. Knowing the mind records every 1/25 of a second (HCOB 15 May 63 on Time Track), this provides quite some margin for the conversion and still have an instant read as per the first instant read definition.

    • WC & E,

      Actually there is a specific definition for what an instant read is when solo auditing in the Solo Auditors Course Pack.

      So the old Course Supervisor adage:

      “What do your materials state?”

      Probably would apply.

      Now if you have any trouble finding this ref. I’m sure I can eventually dig it up for you but probably Jimbo would likely be a lot faster (hint hint ) than I as he is a highly experienced cramming off.

      Note to Lana,

      Maybe we need a section like ask Jim or maybe anyone else sorta like an ask Abby for questions like this.

      Where the person asking could be directed to the appropriate ref.

      Just a thought.

      • This actually is a good suggestion. One of the main ways a tech gets diluted or altered and consequently made unworkable is through the transfer or passage of misunderstoods. The ONLY way to ensure understanding is as Jim pointed out – one has to personally look for themselves, clearing up any Mis-Us along the way and using all parts of study tech. Listening to others has the liability of inheriting that other person’s misunderstandings on the subject and then we end up with a concatenation of MUs on the subject being studied, as Ron precisely mentioned in the KSW PL. This is how imprecise and out-tech gets passed along in the the CoS today. How another does it may or may not be accurate; one’s sole guarantee of doing it right is through study tech and drilling with a good coach, much as Jim mentioned above. Listening to another on how to do it (or reading it) is not much different than following DM’s orders on how to do it.

        A forum or area to provide the needed references to someone in order to study and understand an area is a good idea.

          • I’d be happy to be part of it and contribute as I can. Getting standard tech into the hands of Scientologists is one of my functions as a Class VIII. Ron entrusted Class VIIIs with the responsibility and hat of being the custodians of Standard Tech. We (you, Jim, myself, and any others) can work things out back channel if need be. Or, you can just set it up (MS2 being your baby) and let me know what I can do to help. 🙂

        • Exactly.

          This is why the Golden Age of Tech has basically destroyed Standard Tech in the Orgs.

          Instead of the HCOB being *source* the drills which are interpretations by others of the HCOB or Bs have become “source”.

          Another thing which is a major outpoint and that is altered importance which is how Miscavige and others get away with perverting tech and policy and that is by making compliance to orders senior to following policy or applying Standard Tech.

          For instance ordering everyone to do or redo the purif and objectives prior to Super Power for example.

          Or “verifying” in other words invalidating the PC or Pre OT’s previous auditing because it wasn’t done according the to dictates of the Golden Age of Tech “phase II”.

          Both these examples violate Standard Tech and Policy. Yet Orgs are being force to comply with these illegal and destructive orders because RTC has power to revoke their license if they don’t.

          That and the fact that many within the Scientology accept these changes for reasons already covered in KSW about accepting unworkable technology over workable tech.



    SOLO E-METER DRILL 15: As for EM-15 but the student holding the Solo cans and reading origination’s to himself and thinking the meaning of the origination conceptually. Coach asks: „What did the needle do while reading the line?” etc., as in the basic drill.
    In this drill the student learns that the meter read will occur when he reads the line and gets the concept, and trains the student to be able to read a line and note the meter reaction or lack of it, at the same time. Not read the line and then look at the meter later. It also trains the stu-dent that if he has his attention locked on the meter and doesn’t actually think the meaning of the line, the meter won’t read.

    The 2 other refs. on this subject in Solo Course pack are usual HCOB 25 MAY 62 E-METER INSTANT READS and HCO BULLETIN OF 5 AUGUST 1978 INSTANT READS, with current non solo definitions of instant read.

    • Thanks for reminding me about this one, Word Clearer. I also appreciate the references that Jim gave which seem to be in perfect harmony with my observation. This particular reference is one of the later issues that lead me to notice that the 1962 definition does not incorporate Ron’s later discoveries and that following the exact 1962 definition literally and rotely, when doing
      solo drills is unworkable since nothing at all is being “voiced”. It is pure thought that generates the instant read without a sound wave being generated by the PC or Pre-OT as he reads it (receives the comm via the written symbols).
      I wasn’t aware of having a question or confusion on this, I was just mentioning something which I observed and a cog I had. Does it seem that I have mis-duplicated something? If so, can you tell me what outpoint you noticed?

        • These are fine definitions of the verb “voice”. They are very applicable. As long as it is understood that it is the PC’s or PreOT’s thoughts that read on the meter and not the auditor’s voice or in the case of non-solo auditing, the auditor’s thoughts, then we are on the same page.
          The way I see it in solo auditing the auditor’s thoughts are simultaneously the PC or PreOT’s thoughts and the solo auditor must pay attention to the exact moment when he generates thoughts while simultaneously paying attention to the meter.

      • Hi Espiritu,

        You wrote : “But seriously, I would be interested in any thoughts that anyone might have about this supplemental definition I came up with.

        I took this as some kind of a question, but now you say your comment was and observation and a cognition, I understand it better.

        Sorry I misduplicated your origination.

  5. Brilliant post and thread! Looks like KSW is alive and well and in good Standard Tech hands out here beyond the Squirrel “church” walls. VGIs 🙂

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s