Skype Auditing, Again
I just watched a couple of videos from a highly trained auditor who audits on occasion over Skype in the following way: he holds solo cans while the PC or pre-OT on the other end considers and answers the auditing questions.
Now, this auditor, while highly trained, also admits to running Power Processing on pcs who go out-int, rather than running the usual int rundown or End-Of-Endless Int Rundown. He believes it works better, and he may be right. But it establishes that he doesn’t have qualms about altering the Tech where he has determined he has a “better” idea. So having this fellow audit over Skype is not a surprising turn of events.
Another observation about this fellow, a personal one. I don’t know his case level, but if I had to guess, I’d say he’s somewhere in the OT range, from what I saw. I’m by no means an authority, but for the purposes of this essay I’m going to assume I’m right.
The above assumption also says something about this fellow’s ability to perceive and operate in the theta universe. Chances are, if you’re not Clear or only Clear, his ability to perceive and operate in the theta universe is better than yours. There is no attempt here to invalidate your abilities. I’ve known people who, while not yet Clear, had extraordinary ability to perceive in the theta universe, and perhaps you’re a person like that. But in general, one would expect an OT to have superior capabilities on this score than a preclear.
This person’s contention about why Skype auditing works for him is that he occupies the same space as the PC and the meter reactions are the PC’s, something he appears to have proven to himself over time. He also contends that this requires an auditor whose TRs are very “in”, though he doesn’t express it that way. In other words, the auditor is simply being there and comfortably perceiving the session and the PC.
One more point: This auditor claims that he hasn’t used a correction list in years. Leave aside that perhaps he should have. Let’s assume for the moment that his auditing is sufficiently good that he hasn’t really needed to use any correction lists.
I’d like to examine some of the above ideas in a little more depth. First off, the idea that his needle reactions are those of the PC. While this may be true, it is not something which can be guaranteed. If the auditor’s case does react to the question being asked, there is no way to untangle this from the assumption that the needle reads on the PC alone. If the auditor’s case reacts and the auditor then pursues this line with the PC, the PC may be left with a wrong item, which is a deadly thing to do to a PC. A wise and perceptive auditor might realize this, indicate the bypassed charge to the PC, and note that the item was likely his and not the PC’s. But if he were auditing in person, having the meter pick up the auditor’s charge rather than the PC’s would be very unlikely. (Although it is possible.) In any case, such an occurrence could leave the auditor and PC with a tangled mess which was introduced by virtue of the means of auditing.
Second, while perhaps it is possible for an OT auditor to perform this feat, there’s some question whether it could be performed by a Class II auditor who is not yet Clear (as an example). As a preclear, how good are the perceptics of this auditor? How much more case is there in the way when he goes to audit a PC? If the strong possibility exists that he could end up botching the session because of this, how do we set the bar in terms of who can and can’t audit over Skype this way? Yes, I know there is no way to stop someone in the field doing anything they like. But that doesn’t obviate the question. Where do we draw the line that someone should or shouldn’t be auditing via Skype, under the circumstances? Perhaps you can only audit over Skype if you’re OT? But what if you have a pre-OT whose perceptions aren’t quite as good as they could be? What then?
These two questions illustrate why Skype auditing would not be considered workable by LRH, in my opinion. There are simply too many gray areas and too much potential for problems with the PC. And thus I believe that if Ron were here, he would forbid this practice in any way he reasonably could. At least I don’t believe he would give it his imprimatur, and would speak out against it.
Getting your PC to arrive has long been a problem for far away PCs. But it was always resolved by simply getting the PC to arrive, not giving up on his arrival and auditing him remotely instead. While difficult, it is not impossible. And under the circumstances, I believe it would be more satisfactory than picking up the solo cans and expecting the PC’s case reactions to show up on the meter when he’s 1000 miles away.
At the very least, if the PC is on the ledge of a building and you’re a hot shot auditor, wouldn’t you expect that, via two-way-comm over the telephone, you could draw him back into the building? I’d consider that far more likely, and likely to be something LRH did more than once.