Rhythmic Sweep of the Dial

[Carmel]

But how can one sweep be "rhythmic"? Or two? A rhythm needs at least three beats, with about the same amount of time between them. If one names the point where the left-right or right-left direction of an F/N changes as a beat, then DM's arbitrary makes sense (kind of: it would only make real sense if Hubbard's original definition of "rhythmic sweep of the dial" was correct, which it clearly isn't.)

There are different definitions of "rhythmic" - for example there could be and irregular or somewhat erratic sweep of the dial. I would describe a one sweep of the dial F/N as "rhythmic, maybe....I wouldn't describe a fall or a squeeze of the cans as that though, 'cause it looks different (moves differently).

Indeed. But a question here — is the "fleeting F/N" one calls at the end of handling one early line of such a 53 actually there?

Given the perameters of auditing.....If the pc is fine on that particular thing, and there is an iota of relief because of it, despite all the other stuff that's accumulated and still in his face, then yeah it is actually there.

If you had to deny that it was, then you simply couldn't apply the "basics" of auditing, and you'd get into more poo with a pc in that position, as opposed to out of the poo.

Let's say the line seems to be completely handled to the satisfaction of the pc and auditor, and the auditor is a highly competent veteran who knows his business, is there always an F/N at that point, even a brief one? I know Hubbard says there HAS TO be one, so the auditor will call something that looks like one, but is it a real phenomenon or again something Hubbard proclaimed had to be there (per HCOB F/N Everything) and so, Poof!, there it was?

I reckon there is or can be. LRH said there should be, so that's what I was going for. Oh my! In those days though, we didn't have quantams, and sometimes the TA would be at 4.5 or something......Even though that wasn't technically an F/N, a few of us would indicate it anyway, and bowl on to the next thing. A couple of our C/Ses were cool on that. A missionaire who came visiting the AO wasn't though, and we all got into trouble. When he left, we just went back to taking it as an F/N and indicating it anyway because there was no other way to make it *work*.

The "by the book" stuff, didn't just "work" on some pc's needing repair. Ya had to *make* it work, and ya could do so with some kind of licence from snippets of stuff on the BC tapes.

Blimey, what a wrought it all was/is! - So much effort and heartache and anguish and being wrapped around a pole, getting it to work without going "squirrel". It was hard yakka, and even then it didn't always end up like ya wanted it to or thought it should have.

 

[ScnRebel]

Could you be more precise? If your avatar is a photo of you, then I assume you are not trying to disguise your identity. I'm trying to get a real percentage of F/Ns at exams figure. At AOSHUK around 1980 it was always reported as over 99%. I suspect a real figure for by-the-book-non-massaged exams after session is way below 50%.

Paul

No, the Avatar is definetly not me. This is a termporary one that I am playing with at the moment. This is a photo of SP No # in South Africa, Ken Krieger. Commanding Officer CLO Africa. It is his job to keep all the staff and public under control and PTS.

The F/N percentage at the time was about 97%. If you went with the 3 swing F/N, I would estimate it down to 10%.

Are you talking about F/Ns or EPs? I think Hubbard was wrong about an F/N having to be part of a valid EP. I'm not challenging your knowing you EP'd, but I am wondering about your statement that you know you F/N'd.

Paul

I was talking about F/N's being the indicator that you have hit the EP. You know you've EPed, so you must have F/Ned.

Obviously, I think you're right about the F/N being a total arbitrary.

Maybe you could start a thread on FreeSolo, and your experiences with it. We haven't had one on ESMB yet and I'm interested in it.

Paul

At some point I will do this. I have been making notes about the subject and how it relates to current Solo Auditing. I just need to make sense of the notes and put them in order.

 

[ScnRebel]

Better than the Quantum <spit> or better than FZ meters like the Ability 3a or computer meters like the C-meter?

I have a bunch of videos online of a C-meter in use at http://www.youtube.com/user/esmbdof. They're solo, but give the idea.

Paul

I did take a look at the different meters and the C-Meter. I did like the idea, but I don't like the graphics used in the programs. I think it is time we moved away from the old meter dial. Not sure exactly what it should be replaced with, but with all of these years staring at that meter dial, I have formed engrams on the look.

The other point on these E-Meters is the cost. A bit too expensive when you are having to buy in South African Rands. That is why I wanted to develop my own.

 

[esmbanon]

No, that's an arbitrary. If the data conforms to some sort of harmonic function with a corresponding frequency then it is "rhythmic". That is true whether or not it persists for a full period of the harmonic motion or longer. A "half wave" or "quarter wave" is still rhythmic.

However, you are correct that it becomes increasingly difficult for the human eye/brain to recognize the rhythmic nature of the motion the less motion that is actually observed.


Mark A. Baker

i think you need at least 3 to confirm a pattern. any less would not conclude a pattern with an analog needle. hence no rhythm.

unless of course you are talking about mathematical patterns which can consist of very little. obviously looking at a needle is not going to give you the output needed to find a mathematical pattern. as an example im going to reference fractal patterns.

Fractals are mathematical patterns that are scale invariant. This means that the shape of the pattern does not depend on how closely you look at it. Self-similarity is found in fractals. Examples of natural fractals are coast lines and tree shapes, which repeat their shape regardless of what magnification you view at. While the outer appearance of self-similar patterns can be quite complex, the rules needed to describe or produce their formation can be extremely simple (e.g. Lindenmayer systems for the description of tree shapes).

so assuming you could use digital means to obtain data you might have a shot at finding a Pattern with less then three sweeps.

if you were to define every numeric variable in that one sweep that would be a different story. with analog output that would be pretty difficult. especially considering the human interface.

so from the small amount of "homework" i have done it seems(and i hate to admit it) that under the right conditions and the study of the output you could "break the code" so to speak, of the first sweep. there would be no need for two or three.

so that crazy dude mark and his BTs is actually on to something IMO. not that its going to help anyone but he really has a good understanding of that piece of equipment.

im ashamed i even thought about this lol

 

[Veda]

i think you need at least 3 to confirm a pattern. any less would not conclude a pattern with an analog needle. hence no rhythm.

unless of course you are talking about mathematical patterns which can consist of very little. obviously looking at a needle is not going to give you the output needed to find a mathematical pattern. as an example im going to reference fractal patterns.

All that Miscavige, or his eventual replacement, will need to do is tell the membership that more LRH data has been found that shows LRH was much more mathematically sophisticated than was commonly thought, and the 1978 "rhythmic" definition referred to mathematical patterns such as fractal patterns.

I can hear the cheering from the LA Palladium now.

 

[Mystic]

I have no problems with math at all. Just multiply it all by 0.

 

[Vinaire]

If the person being audited has no more attention on that line being addressed then that is the case. His attention is on some other line or somewhere else.

Auditing is best accomplished by following a person's attention and fully uncovering for the person what is there. The purpose of the meter is to do just that.

When the attention shifts from one line to another, should there be an F/N at that juncture?

The mind is very dynamic. It unstacks itself under auditing the way it got stacked up. One simply follows that attention.

This is different from Q&A where a person is avoiding looking at something that is dispersing one's attention. In that case, the person must keep looking at that thing that is dispersing one's attention.

I wonder if "F/N Everything" is valid for every little minutest shift of attention. If it is then it would not be always easy to spot.

Please see ATTENTION

.

 

[Ralph Hilton]

Here is my take on F/Ns:
People with small hands generally have higher TA than people with big hands. The data about TA being from 2 to 3 is nonsense as it depends on the size of a person's hands.
There also appears to be racial differences in skin conductivity. I have noticed that people with dark skin have higher TA and smaller reads generally independent of case condition.
An F/N, as I perceive things, is a needle motion that has a sine wave quality to it. I can see that quality within one swing of the dial. Waiting for 3 swings would definitely be annoying on solo where auditing speed is very fast and would also irritate faster PCs.
Regarding meters the c-meter software is available for anyone who builds their own. Full specs and protocols are available on www.cmeter.org .

 

[Pierrot]

Here is my take on F/Ns:
People with small hands generally have higher TA than people with big hands. The data about TA being from 2 to 3 is nonsense as it depends on the size of a person's hands.
There also appears to be racial differences in skin conductivity. I have noticed that people with dark skin have higher TA and smaller reads generally independent of case condition.
An F/N, as I perceive things, is a needle motion that has a sine wave quality to it. I can see that quality within one swing of the dial. Waiting for 3 swings would definitely be annoying on solo where auditing speed is very fast and would also irritate faster PCs.
Regarding meters the c-meter software is available for anyone who builds their own. Full specs and protocols are available on www.cmeter.org .

I agree with "I can see that quality within one swing of the dial". The needle is idle, and when it sweeps from right to left this is (for me) rhythmic repetition enough.

There is a difference between an FN after a cog and key-out and a persistent FN or Floating TA, like when near release of a Grade or after a NOTs session - and when going though Ruds or L1C on a whole subject, for instance, missing those "tiny" FNs can stall a case. (There are no "tiny" FNs, by the way, they all are great showing the pc does something right about the charge)

But that's not why I interrupted in this thread - I did and do give sessions to African friends. TA on average starting at 3.5 and finishing around 2.5 end of session. Big needle movements, Floating TAs too. I did note no difference with Caucasian pcs, other than maybe heavier reactions to somatics when running Dn. Which might (it's a guess, I'm interested and still study that) mean some peculiar interaction with the GE somewhere. Probably too much tribal dancing ;-)

 

[Ralph Hilton]

Yes, I see a great difference in the persistent F/N and the after a cog F/N.
Possibly DM has the 2 confused and is looking for a persistent F/N when what should be looked for is an F/N.
In solo i kill an F/N as soon as it starts as I'm into the next thing to handle. When it hits a point where the F/N widens to a TA float at sensitivity 3 or 4 and I know that is a session EP. It varies from person to person.
I usually run a session to a persisting F/N within 20 minutes with lower level PCs and under 10 with an OT. I see one of the problems with CofS auditing is bypassing persistent F/Ns to get the auditing hours up leaving the PC with by passed charge.
I haven't audited enough African people to really be able to state a statistically significant difference in TA. It was just an observation from 10 or so PCs.
Not a lot of black skinned people seem to get involved in Scientology. I have speculated that it might be because they have more difficulties with TA arbitraries.
Some have suggested that LRH was racist but ffs the lady in charge of his personal mail for years was black.

 

[Zinjifar]

Is that bypassed charge or overrun?

Zinj

 

[Ralph Hilton]

By passed charge - the persistent F/N prevents things from reading so items which would have read otherwise are skipped. The result is quickie grades etc.

 

[Dulloldfart]

There's a new article at Scientology-Cult on floating needles. It's by Jim Logan, whose discussion ability as evidenced by his antics on Marty's blog seem to be limited to either quoting Hubbard exactly or stomping on anyone who doesn't closely toe the party line, either Hubbard's or Marty's.

He quotes a thoroughly-researched slew of Hubbard statements on F/Ns, which is fair enough for what it is, but of course doesn't for a moment doubt the complete accuracy of Hubbard's assertions. He then attacks the idea of there having to be three swings for a needle motion to be considered "rhythmic," and he does so like this:

FINAL THOUGHT
I suppose I couldn’t leave this topic without a comment or two on the apparent interpretation that abounds of the LRH definition of a Floating Needle. Again, this simple statement is one sentence long: “A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle.”

What about this meaning of “rhythmic”?

The American Heritage Dictionary online defines “rhythm” as: Movement or variation characterized by the regular recurrence or alternation of different quantities or conditions.

“Rhythmic” is defined as: Of, relating to, or having rhythm.

If the needle moves in one direction and alternates its direction, it, by the above definition has “rhythm” and is “rhythmic”. The direction is a “quantity or condition”.

I have offered my OPINION, and labelled it thoroughly as such, on the potential difficulty, but not impossibility of a “one swing FN”. In order to grasp this fully, one would have to study and understand the references given herein. Other than that instance, I can’t for the life of me understand how anybody can interpret the above definition to require an arbitrary number of swings to be “rhythmic”.​

I note that he allows himself to offer an opinion only because there's a Hubbard quote he gives (a line in the Supervisor's Code) that says he can!

But see, the single damn opinion he gives in the entire long article is wrong! That (non-Scn) dictionary definition of "Movement or variation characterized by the regular recurrence or alternation of different quantities or conditions" is exactly and only equivalent to "Movement or variation characterized by the regular recurrence or regular alternation of different quantities or conditions." Such ellipsis, the leaving out of a word with its repetition being understood, is very common in English, much to the consternation of foreigners trying to learn to understand English. But Jim's entire argument depends on misunderstanding this point.

I submitted a comment pointing out this ellipsis, but I didn't say anything else, as it would be like trying to discuss the subject with an anvil. Although he's very welcome to come over here and prove me wrong.

Paul

 

[KissMyStats]

Does OT 2 film show and F/N ?

I remember seeing the OT 2 film where I believe LRH is auditing
himself (or at least narrating) but don't remember if it shows F/N's
being called. If so, that would be the proof one way or the other.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I remember seeing the OT 2 film where I believe LRH is auditing
himself (or at least narrating) but don't remember if it shows F/N's
being called. If so, that would be the proof one way or the other.

I don't recall any F/Ns in that film. He certainly didn't call any. I remember the TA being around 5 and the needle very tight.

Paul

 

[Roland ami]

F/Ns

(I skipped the middle 432 pages of this thread, sorry if I repeat anyone)
It is clear that the behavior of the meter, and also the effect of the session, depend on the presence of two terminals, not just one - the auditor is just as important as the PC.
Again and again I saw what LRH says that one auditor can't get the meter to read while another has no trouble: for one auditor the pc is a block of wood, for another he flies. LRH said it was a matter of TRs, but I think it's more a matter of the human connection between the two, including TRs but also the degree of ARC and the intentions of the auditor in the session.
Just how long an F/N lasts, and how it swings, depend on lots of factors. With a PC that's all balled up in a knot, you call the slightest swing when accompanied by the other end phenomena, as you peel of each bit of charge, until you get to the point where you can really deal with something.
Once you've done that, he gets actually keyed out and will F/N for a while, until the next thing keys in - which might be in a month, or might be when he sees the a-hole examiner with his fixed glare. If you worry about that, you can discharge all sorts of trivial stuff about that kind of thing, but that's not on the bridge and basically distracts the PC from what you are really trying to do.
The Russians had a proverb - the better is the enemy of the good - which really applies. All you have to do is to get the PC doing better, and you win. If you try for perfection, you will badger the poor guy to death and screw up everything that you did accomplish.
As we can see from the stories coming out of the CoS.

I agree with the person who commented that it was obvious that DM never actually audited anyone. In considerable contrast to LRH, who, whatever one may say about him, did spend a LOT of time actually auditing.

Roland

 

[Dulloldfart]

I submitted a comment pointing out this ellipsis, but I didn't say anything else, as it would be like trying to discuss the subject with an anvil. Although he's very welcome to come over here and prove me wrong.

Steve published my comment:

# Dictionary definition — Paul Adams 2010-08-22 06:30
Jim, you quote: The American Heritage Dictionary online defines “rhythm” as: Movement or variation characterized by the regular recurrence or alternation of different quantities or conditions.

I think that definition means exactly and only the same as "Movement or variation characterized by the regular recurrence or [regular] alternation of different quantities or conditions." Thus I disagree with your opinion in this area, which depends on "alternation" and not "regular alternation."

Paul​

And Jim responded. No-one else of the faithful there commented on the matter. Jim said:

# RE: Dictionary definition — Jim Logan 2010-08-22 16:58
Paul,
Rhythmic has been interpreted according to some sort of musical definition in the 'three swing' arbitrary. I'm a musician and have studied rhythm. I play drums, it's my thing.

I can tell you from a musical perspective there is 'regular', as in metronomic and there is 'regular' as in say, rubato. Music, if it's alive, 'breaths'. Just like the FN.

What would constitute regular? Is two enough to be a pattern? It certainly is musically if you know anything about music. You've missed the whole point if you are going to quibble over the meaning of 'regular'. Read the LRH refs again, especially Arbitraries.

# RE: Dictionary definition — Jim Logan 2010-08-22 17:03
Paul,
What constitutes 'regular'? How many swings establish a 'pattern'?

As a musician, I can play a bar of two, three, four or eighty seven. It's still 'rhythm', no matter the duration and 'regularity' of alternation.​

I'll just toss in the beginning of Wikipedia's article on Rhythm, not that it's likely to make any difference over there.

Excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm:

Rhythm (from Greek ῥυθμός – rhythmos, "any regular recurring motion, symmetry"[1]) is a "movement marked by the regulated succession of strong and weak elements, or of opposite or different conditions." [2] While rhythm most commonly applies to sound, such as music and spoken language, it may also refer to visual presentation, as "timed movement through space."[3]​

EDIT: I've said this before in this thread, but I'll repeat it. I think a lot of the trouble stems from Hubbard's silly use of the word "rhythmic" in his "definitive" 1978 definition, and all the conniptions people go through to try and match reality to that arbitrary of his rather than simply note it's a stupid definition.

Paul

 

[Terril park]

EDIT: I've said this before in this thread, but I'll repeat it. I think a lot of the trouble stems from Hubbard's silly use of the word "rhythmic" in his "definitive" 1978 definition, and all the conniptions people go through to try and match reality to that arbitrary of his rather than simply note it's a stupid definition.

Paul

I agree. Note that Hubbard also refers to a "fleeting F/N. This would unlikely go to even two sweeps.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I agree. Note that Hubbard also refers to a "fleeting F/N. This would unlikely go to even two sweeps.

Yeah. Sometimes it's so fleeting that the electrons don't even make it to the needle before it turns off.

Again, I think it comes from another of Hubbard's arbitraries: that when something "EPs" it F/Ns. I don't have a problem with something big F/Ning, but when the pc is a caved-in mess and is borderline rested and the TA's high and the needle stuck and you're trying to dig him out little bit by little bit and *any* win is acceptable? No way.

Paul

 

[Ted]

(I skipped the middle 432 pages of this thread, sorry if I repeat anyone)
It is clear that the behavior of the meter, and also the effect of the session, depend on the presence of two terminals, not just one - the auditor is just as important as the PC.
Again and again I saw what LRH says that one auditor can't get the meter to read while another has no trouble: for one auditor the pc is a block of wood, for another he flies. LRH said it was a matter of TRs, but I think it's more a matter of the human connection between the two, including TRs but also the degree of ARC and the intentions of the auditor in the session.
Just how long an F/N lasts, and how it swings, depend on lots of factors. With a PC that's all balled up in a knot, you call the slightest swing when accompanied by the other end phenomena, as you peel of each bit of charge, until you get to the point where you can really deal with something.
Once you've done that, he gets actually keyed out and will F/N for a while, until the next thing keys in - which might be in a month, or might be when he sees the a-hole examiner with his fixed glare. If you worry about that, you can discharge all sorts of trivial stuff about that kind of thing, but that's not on the bridge and basically distracts the PC from what you are really trying to do.
The Russians had a proverb - the better is the enemy of the good - which really applies. All you have to do is to get the PC doing better, and you win. If you try for perfection, you will badger the poor guy to death and screw up everything that you did accomplish.
As we can see from the stories coming out of the CoS.

I agree with the person who commented that it was obvious that DM never actually audited anyone. In considerable contrast to LRH, who, whatever one may say about him, did spend a LOT of time actually auditing.

Roland

Yes, all of the above is the way it is.