Using the E-meter in a Biofeedback Mode - I



  I have been doing some solo auditing on the lower levels in a biofeedback mode, and have found it helpful.

  I first realized this could be done when I bought a Micronta biofeedback machine ($14) at Radio Shack and experimented with it. The goal is to relax and this is done by lowering the audio tone. Calibrating the Micronta against the e-meter, I discovered that th Micronta indication of sucessful relaxation (a lowered audio tone) corresponded to an increase in TA on the e-meter. So the relaxation obtined actually gave a non-confront and a high TA, at least at the beginning.

  When I first began working with the e-meter solo, I used this information in the following way:

  1) Relax in such a way as to move the TA up, up, up.

  2) Then run "What could you confront, what would you rather not confront?" This, at times, was almost like a roller-coaster ride, the TA would come down so fast.

  3) then repeat 1 and 2.

  This is probably the simplest way to begin.

  While doing 1 & 2 I ran into a sizeable R/S which lasted through one evening and was still there the following morning. I did not know how to turn it off, and just kept exploring it. On the "confront/rather not" part of the cycle, I could easily confront a relationship and the "rather not" was ECT equipment.

  These, played against one another, drove the TA down to 2 and tightened the needle to a 1/4-inch can squeeze, and at that point the can squeeze gave a "reverse response" and that is when the RS turned on.

  I couldn't locate a clear-cut goal or terminal, but it was related to "sexual activity," and in the area of teaching at a private school. I found this especially interesting, since when I first came in contact with the "Mental Health System," I was teaching in a private summer school. I also R/Sed by spotting areas in my head, and this is probably related to the four electroshock "treatments" I had in 1951. When this occurred, I continued until the R/S wouldn't turn on anymore.

  I found that after I had made some progress with OT-TR0, I could loosen up the needle with this by simply being fully present. This would usually move the TA down, much like confront. The next discovery was that I had a habit of being present without really admitting I was there. This sounds very odd perhaps, but I can still get some very rapid BDs by being there and admitting it.

  So I could vary the first cycle of relax-confront wih relax-"be there and admit it." This is an example of how one can tailor-make an exercise over a period of time that will give TA.

  More recently, after being present and admitting it, I have been making space, e.g., since I have had a lot of attention on my throat with sub-vocalizing, I got the feeling of expanding my space out a foot or two and began to get the feeling of what my own space is. By simultaneously also doing this at the back of my head; I feel bigger, more relaxed, and free, with TA.

  I have also used Rising Scale, again looking for those concepts which would give TA action. I have had some surprising cognitions in this area; for example, on Dead-Alive, I found that there was a resistance to being "too alive," since this was not acceptable to others. Quite a cognition!

  From my experience, I would say that this kind of low-level informal approach can be quite successful. It provides a lot of actual experience with the meter, and one can end up feeling good and even exultant.

Stable Data

  In the explorations I used the following stable data:

  1) Maximize TA.

  2) Use the guiding style approach. That is, fish around until I get TA action, and then continue until it stops or I get a very loose or floating needle.

Present Procedure

  Right now my procedure is to begin by "being present," and then, by "fishing," look for TA. Sometimes the TA is high and sluggish. Then I keep searching for the hang-up and it is really surprising how it can suddenly blow down on a specific item.

  Often, after the TA has come down, I will take a short break, with or without alternate touching, and when I begin again, the TA will have come up to 3 or 3.5. More recently, I have found some items which will cycle up and down smoothly. One of these has been a feeling of "uncertain space," along the lines of "no matter how I reach out I'm going to be proven wrong" - something like that.


  I can keep track of my havingness by giving an occasional standard squeeze, and when it is low I have found that "touch that object and body part," alternately, will loosen the needle and orient me in PT.

  Interestingly enough, there are also some sexual mockups which will increase my havingness squeeze very rapidly. This seems to contradict Ron's statement that one can't run havingness subjectively, but I'm not sure exactly what he meant by that since in the early days shoving in and throwing away mockups was the way "loss of hvingness" was handled.

  Also, acceptance level processing was a mockup feeding of the hungers of the body for this stuff. At the time this process came out, however, it wasn't correlated with a can squeeze.

  Anyway, my observed data is that, for me at least, after I have gotten the TA down to 2 or so at which point the squeeze is reduced to 1/2-inch, that this can be increased, not only by an objective process but by a subjective one as well.

  My general feeling about havingness, since it is basic to getting improvements, is that, theoretically, if one could clear up any of the hvingness processes so that they work, this would be of benefit.

Theoretical Considerations

  There is no explicit material that I have seen in Hubbard's writings about the above use of the e-meter in a biofeedback mode as a beginning. Those materials on Solo Auditing at the OT levels have not been available to me.

  The general theory on blowing charge hs been that a comm line is required, and that the comm cycle must meet very strict requirements of quality for the charge to be as-ised.

  An additional requirement, dating back to the first book, is that the analytical mind of the PC requires the help of the analytical mind of the auditor in order to overcome reactivity. The implications of the above are that the biofeedback mode is not ideal. However, there are other considerations.

  I have not seen any theoretical justification for the "non-interference zone." Presumably there are some, but I do know the critical importance of accurate feedback.

  The Introspection Rundown was apparently based on the extraordinary malignancy of a misindication. The misindication portion of this rundown was not expanded, however.

  Considering the importance of avoiding misindications, evaluations, and invalidations, the ease with which reactive game conditions could kick in, and Hubbard's observation that muzzled auditing was so frequently necessary; it is apparent that some form of very simple, straightforward, and accurate feedback could be a tremendous advantage.

  As in many practical situations, there is a balancing of advantages and disadvaantages.

  As I have stated, my own feelings are positive. I hope you find the above of interest, since it is my belief that worries about "doing something wrong" while audting, have reached such a level that it has resulted in a failure to do any auditing.