Flying Rud's

O Tease

Electronic Box Cellmate of Ron & Xenu
Most would agree that the greatest gains that were had in auditing were on the grades. I break it down further in that your ruds were handled at the beginning of each grades session, and that was a valid counseling type of format where one could keep life's stresses from ever building up to unmanageable extents. Then add to that the therapeutic effect from the grades which are nothing but affirmations disguised as questions and questions requiring affirmative answers, always steering and leading towards ability gained and away from and releasing you from disabilities. Ruds handled frequently or as needed does help keep one out of the soup. We weren't TOTAL fools, the subject did have a lot of relative to absolute truths and some workability or we wouldn't have got in so deep. Too bad there were those who were on an evil tack behind the scenes using our labors and monies to commit criminal, psychotic acts. All mostly unbeknownst to any of us except for a skeleton crew of demented, power obsessed lunatics cheating their way to the top of the dung heap. From it's very beginnings.
 
Last edited:

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
Handling rudiments was supposed to take care of any mental distractions before beginning what the C/S ordered for the auditing session.

My question: was Flying Rud's also done in OT solo auditing?
 

O Tease

Electronic Box Cellmate of Ron & Xenu
Handling rudiments was supposed to take care of any mental distractions before beginning what the C/S ordered for the auditing session.

My question: was Flying Rud's also done in OT solo auditing?
Yes but getting it delivered from a good auditor seemed to work better than auditing yourself or your bt's. Just like confiding in someone about your transgressions would be more therapeutic usually than just going over it in your own head. Like the L's have to be delivered by a highly trained auditor rather than solo, must be reasons for it such as the processes being more effective if dealt with having the precision of an excellent auditor as opposed to going it alone. Just my opinions mind you.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
Most would agree that the greatest gains that were had in auditing were on the grades. I break it down further in that your ruds were handled at the beginning of each grades session, and that was a valid counseling type of format where one could keep life's stresses from ever building up to unmanageable extents. Then add to that the therapeutic effect from the grades which are nothing but affirmations disguised as questions and questions requiring an affirmative answers, always steering and leading towards ability gained and away from and releasing you from disabilities. Ruds handled frequently or as needed does help keep one out of the soup. We weren't TOTAL fools, the subject did have a lot of relative to absolute truths and some workability or we wouldn't have got in so deep. Too bad there were those who were on an evil tack behind the scenes using our labors and monies to commit criminal, psychotic acts. All mostly unbeknownst to any of us except for a skeleton crew of demented, power obsessed lunatics cheating their way to the top of the dung heap. From it's very beginnings.
When I audited people outside the control of the organization (decades ago), it was usually enough to ask, "What's new?" (not a listing question) at the beginning to the session. That was enough to provide VGIs and a wide FN.

The Grades were a kind of broad Ruds and, I think, they were the best part of Scientology. The contributions by others in this area were gradually "erased."

*​

Why do auditors keep auditing? thread: https://exscn2.net/threads/why-do-auditors-keep-auditing.253/
 

O Tease

Electronic Box Cellmate of Ron & Xenu
Yes I remember reading on the old board that Gordon Bell and Allan Walters came up with the grades and Hubbard took total credit like he did with the study tech after a couple in the field of education came up with the concepts. I know that most of the old timers already know this stuff but it's good to revisit those truths from time to time.
 

JackStraw

Well-known member
As I recall, my best gains came from Prep-checks-sort of ruds on steroids.
Also, an important ingredient is an auditir that actually cares and is interested in you and your success.

Jack
 

Veda

Well-known member
Yes I remember reading on the old board that Gordon Bell and Allan Walters came up with the grades and Hubbard took total credit like he did with the study tech after a couple in the field of education came up with the concepts. I know that most of the old timers already know this stuff but it's good to revisit those truths from time to time.
The original "Help" processes of 1957/58 were developed by a woman whose name I don't recall. She too was "erased."

I explored the old late 1950s "Help" procedures, which including identities and listing, and had some interesting results.

And let's not forget others who preceded Hubbard from which he took so much:

Some of the many antecedents of Scientology | Ex Scientologist Message Board thread
 

Paul Adams

(Dulloldfart on ESMB)
Here's my PaulsRobot3 Rudiments Main Options page (6 Ruds, L1C, 20 Prepcheck buttons): PaulsRobot3 Ruds: Main Options

It's a hassle to get the audio to work now that the browsers don't allow background sound by default.

I don't think much of Scn procedures generally, but I haven't "improved" them in this module. These are as close to the originals as I could make them.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

Why is it called "FLYING" a rud anyways?

Just guessing, but the only thing I can imagine is this. . .

Websters​
fly - transitive verb: 1a: to cause to fly, float, or hang in the air flying a kite....​


Am I imagining? LOL. One "flying" a rud because it is done until a floating needle?

The only other definition of FLY A RUD I have seen is in a confidential OSA glossary, with a slight spelling variation:

flying a rude: (Scientology) To stalk by providing a plane ticket and literally flying an OSA goon (i.e. a "rude") to another city-- to rudely dead-agent, bullbat, fair game, shatter, invalidate, enturbulate, spin-in, cave-in and utterly destroy anyone who criticizes or even disagrees with Scientology.​
.
 
Last edited:

O Tease

Electronic Box Cellmate of Ron & Xenu
.

Why is it called "FLYING" a rud anyways?

Just guessing, but the only thing I can imagine is this. . .

Websters​
fly - transitive verb: 1a: to cause to fly, float, or hang in the air flying a kite....​


Am I imagining? LOL. One "flying" a rud because it is done until a floating needle?

The only other definition of FLY A RUD I have seen is in a confidential OSA glossary, with a slight spelling variation:

fly a rude: (Scientology) To provide a plane ticket and literally fly an OSA goon (i.e. a "rude") to another city-- to rudely dead-agent, bullbat, fair game, shatter, invalidate, enturbulate, spin-in, cave-in and utterly destroy anyone who criticizes or even disagrees with Scientology.​
.
,
Just guessing but would it have come from Hubbard's Naval history like so much else has? He seemed to want to relive his Navy career only this time he rises to Commodore then Admiral. He was drug addled & living in a dream world. He was probably day dreaming about planes taking off from aircraft carriers and then pulled that into the lingo he was making up. Like OT 3 was planes matching the planes of the late 60's era.
 

Caroline

clerk #2
Most of the auditing I did was at AOLA and Flag, on OT 3s and above. I co-audited on grades and Dianetics, but don't have much experience delivering the lower bridge.

When I left Scientology, I wanted to know what auditing was actually doing that was called "working," why and how. Clearly, to me, and as far as I knew to other non-OTs, the “upper bridge” was a "mystery sandwich."

In retrospect, the mystery of the “upper bridge” wasn’t what kept me engaged and participating at the beginning. When I first started on “The Bridge” in 1975, I could not have cared less about OT 3 and beyond. My personal “ruin” was to be resolved, or “handled,” with Scientology’s promise to me of an exemplary career. What my disseminator made real to me was that if I worked really hard, I could become a leading-edge mental health professional, and could significantly contribute to a movement that was solving the human condition. These false goals were implanted by my disseminator doing the dissemination drill, which resulted in Scientology-as-solution to [xyz] whatever ailed me.

It doesn't seem to me that there is anything particularly novel about the subject matter addressed with grades processing. I don't know anyone who could honestly deny having upsets, problems, withholds, childish behavior patterns, etc. Overcoming life challenges, betrayals, setbacks, and other obstacles seems to be part of the human experience of growing up, of becoming mature individuals.

As Veda mentioned above, "the grades were a kind of broad Ruds." Auditors fly rudiments at every level of the Bridge, to quickly address any "surface charge" that would otherwise distract the preclear from what the auditor wants to deal with in the body of the session.

In lower grades, auditors assess for, and process by various techniques, common types of emotionally charged content. In psychoanalytic terms this content could be collected in "complexes."

It is a fundamental objective in auditing to flatten emotional affect in the individual. (Auditors are taught that they are measuring this activity in divisions of Tone Arm downward per session.) Affect is located by meter assessment, and “handled” by repetitive commands, listing, etc. Our pre-existing moral and ethical values are replaced by new norms, accomplished in the course of training, interacting with Ethics and other org personnel, peer Scientologists, and in other mandated activities.

A complex is a core pattern of emotions, memories, perceptions, and wishes in the personal unconscious organized around a common theme, such as power or status.[1] Primarily a psychoanalytic term, it is found extensively in the works of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_(psychology)


Hubbard exploited a known psychoanalytic phenomenon, and tool, called the transference. He exploited it, first by misdefining it, then confusing the transference with another issue/phenomenon, which he defined as valence.
  • Ref.: PAB 92 10 July 1956 A Critique of Psychoanalysis (Tech Vol III, pp. 443-9 (1991 ed.)
  • Also: HCOPL 5 October 1971 Propaganda by Redefinition of Terms
From Wikipedia:

Transference (German: Übertragung) is a theoretical phenomenon characterized by unconscious redirection (projection) of the feelings a person has about their parents, as one example, on to the therapist. It usually concerns feelings from a primary relationship during childhood. At times, this projection can be considered inappropriate.[1][2][3] Transference was first described by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, who considered it an important part of psychoanalytic treatment.
Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

The literature says that mental health professionals have to guard against ways in which the psychoanalytic relationship can be exploited to the detriment of patients/clients. The APA ethical codes and standards prohibit certain inappropriate behaviors that could disadvantage patients/clients.
Hubbard described Dianetics in different terms, and gave no warning about the phenomenon of transference that he exploited, and directed others to exploit for his benefit. Dianetics and Scientology auditors are not educated in the transference, complexes, etc. Most of us therefore knew nothing about the sub-conscious phenomena that go into play between auditors and preclears, staff and public, and all other Scientology non-level relationships that involve authority, seniority, submission, inferiority, etc.

By applying Hubbard's technical and administrative policies and procedures over time, the Scientologists running the Scientology machine carefully manage and strengthen our relationships with Hubbard, management, other org staff and our auditors. Resigning from the organization does not end, cure or even necessarily expose the unconscious aspects of our relationship. More Scientology cannot cure this damage, but certainly prolongs it.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
,
Just guessing but would it have come from Hubbard's Naval history like so much else has? He seemed to want to relive his Navy career only this time he rises to Commodore then Admiral. He was drug addled & living in a dream world. He was probably day dreaming about planes taking off from aircraft carriers and then pulled that into the lingo he was making up. Like OT 3 was planes matching the planes of the late 60's era.
.
Ah, nautical! Hadn't thought of that possible etymological link to the term "flying ruds".

If that's correct, other naval-nuanced nautical nomenclature might also finally get "cleared", such as. . .


The Flying Bridge* found on the flagship of the Founder's flotilla

1574826360778.png

Whoa, that was a 2-for-1! Not only did it have "Flying"
but also "Bridge"!
. Wait, I better use that in a couple sentences. . .



The moment the auditor finished flying my ruds,
my needle was floating and I was flying up the Bridge!

When I questioned the reality of the Commodore's UFO stories,
he provided the missing mass, by ordering a live demonstration
of an unidentified flying object--at which moment I was immediately
overboarded
, thrown and sent flying off the flying bridge!



* (wiki): A flying bridge is an open area on top of a surface ship that provides unobstructed views of the fore, aft, and the sides of a vessel, and that serves as an operating station for the ship's officers, such as the captain or officer of the watch.

.
 
Last edited:

Voodoo

Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow
Yes I remember reading on the old board that Gordon Bell and Allan Walters came up with the grades and Hubbard took total credit like he did with the study tech after a couple in the field of education came up with the concepts. I know that most of the old timers already know this stuff but it's good to revisit those truths from time to time.
In recent years I've come to the (well informed) conclusion that ALL of Hubbard's contributions to Scientology were unworkable poppycock, and were the excretions of a disturbed mind. The man could go on endlessly about matters of the spirit, but he was only putting his own spin on the works of others and dubbing in a shitload of fantasy and magic.

Frankly, he was a con man, par excellence - but he did have an extraordinary gift for spotting (and stealing) workable tech from others. Had he simply kept to being a discoverer of 'lost tech', he would have been wildly successful beyond any success he actually did have with his cult. He ruined the whole subject by trying to be a developer of workable tech, which he was not. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Remove ALL of LRH's contributions from the mix, and Scientology as a mental/spiritual practice becomes a pretty workable body of techniques.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member

Whoa, nice find!

It's odd that Hubbard describes an F/N as a needle that "...takes off (and) flies". That seems counter-intuitive to the SMOOTH motion otherwise referenced on F/N descriptions. Odd.

Now a "rocket read" would be a more likely candidate for a needle that "takes off" and "flies", wouldn't it?

Makes no sense.

Unless, whomever did the audiotape transcription thought he was talking about F/Ns when he was talking about Rocket Reads.

Or. . . .

I guess it does make sense, in a Scientology kind of way (e.g. If you got lung cancer from smoking, you need to smoke a lot more to cure it")

I admit I cannot do a clay demo of an F/N "taking off" and "flying". I think to handle this technical deficiency in myself, I will OVERBOARD myself now (into the pool). That's what Ron did to handle the flubby Class VIII course students who first heard that lecture, right? LOL


.
 

Paul Adams

(Dulloldfart on ESMB)
Whoa, nice find!

It's odd that Hubbard describes an F/N as a needle that "...takes off (and) flies". That seems counter-intuitive to the SMOOTH motion otherwise referenced on F/N descriptions. Odd.
Makes sense to me. Now, I consider there's a spectrum of kinds of F/Ns. At one end is the arguable kind, a "fleeting F/N", or where you (can be plural) look at the videotape several times and wonder if the auditor was correct to end the process, or where the examiner stares at the meter for five minutes (it's being video'd for "quality purposes" and he's off-post if he gets it wrong) waiting to "see one". I attribute all this wasted time/energy to Hubbard's unjustified insistence that all major/minor Scn actions should end on an F/N [since no-one knows/knew what causes the needle to move like that, how can anyone say it should be part of an EP?].

At the other end is like a persistent F/N, where it just idles around all over the dial for minutes, hours, days, pc feels great. Nothing will now run because the pc can't find any charge on anything. We're talking about the top of my SUSHI (Subjective Units of Session Harmony and Insight) Scale:
+10Totally calm, serene, expansive, "blown out." Nothing short of an utter disaster could conceivably shatter this state while it lasts (hours at least).
+9Like +10, but briefer in duration. Impossible to find any charge on anything, although if you take a break for half an hour you might be able to find something later on.
+8Can't find any charge right this moment, but feels like you'll be able to dig some up in a few minutes.
+7Very hard to find anything that is charged, and if you do it will tend to go away quickly.
+6You can find charged stuff to stir up, but it is hard. Feeling good to the point that you begin to think nothing could immediately knock you down from the way you feel.
+5Can stir up and discharge stuff OK. Moderately happy, but can still stir up a new hot topic by putting attention on it and working out how it applies in one's own life.
+4Can stir up and discharge stuff OK. Feel somewhat good to the point that anything unpleasant that came to mind could be easily dismissed if you wanted to.
-----



Regarding this second type, "flying" as opposed to being Earthbound seems totally appropriate. Regarding the first, arguable kind, not at all. Regarding the middle-of-the-road type, no comment for now.

-----

Basis for SUSHI guidelines: The individual points have been differentiated mainly on their use in and applicability to sessions, and not so much on how one feels (although that does play a part too).
A normal session should go along fine with items being addressed and discharged. After an item has been discharged the usual state of the client will be shown by one of the Plus points. The big question is, how easily is the client able to stir up another item to address? At the bottom of the positive scale, the client will have no problem at all in stirring up something else to address. At the top of the scale she won't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing so. In the middle of the scale, maybe she will and maybe she won't.
 
Last edited:

O Tease

Electronic Box Cellmate of Ron & Xenu
Most of the auditing I did was at AOLA and Flag, on OT 3s and above. I co-audited on grades and Dianetics, but don't have much experience delivering the lower bridge.

When I left Scientology, I wanted to know what auditing was actually doing that was called "working," why and how. Clearly, to me, and as far as I knew to other non-OTs, the “upper bridge” was a "mystery sandwich."

In retrospect, the mystery of the “upper bridge” wasn’t what kept me engaged and participating at the beginning. When I first started on “The Bridge” in 1975, I could not have cared less about OT 3 and beyond. My personal “ruin” was to be resolved, or “handled,” with Scientology’s promise to me of an exemplary career. What my disseminator made real to me was that if I worked really hard, I could become a leading-edge mental health professional, and could significantly contribute to a movement that was solving the human condition. These false goals were implanted by my disseminator doing the dissemination drill, which resulted in Scientology-as-solution to [xyz] whatever ailed me.

It doesn't seem to me that there is anything particularly novel about the subject matter addressed with grades processing. I don't know anyone who could honestly deny having upsets, problems, withholds, childish behavior patterns, etc. Overcoming life challenges, betrayals, setbacks, and other obstacles seems to be part of the human experience of growing up, of becoming mature individuals.

As Veda mentioned above, "the grades were a kind of broad Ruds." Auditors fly rudiments at every level of the Bridge, to quickly address any "surface charge" that would otherwise distract the preclear from what the auditor wants to deal with in the body of the session.

In lower grades, auditors assess for, and process by various techniques, common types of emotionally charged content. In psychoanalytic terms this content could be collected in "complexes."

It is a fundamental objective in auditing to flatten emotional affect in the individual. (Auditors are taught that they are measuring this activity in divisions of Tone Arm downward per session.) Affect is located by meter assessment, and “handled” by repetitive commands, listing, etc. Our pre-existing moral and ethical values are replaced by new norms, accomplished in the course of training, interacting with Ethics and other org personnel, peer Scientologists, and in other mandated activities.

A complex is a core pattern of emotions, memories, perceptions, and wishes in the personal unconscious organized around a common theme, such as power or status.[1] Primarily a psychoanalytic term, it is found extensively in the works of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_(psychology)

Hubbard exploited a known psychoanalytic phenomenon, and tool, called the transference. He exploited it, first by misdefining it, then confusing the transference with another issue/phenomenon, which he defined as valence.
  • Ref.: PAB 92 10 July 1956 A Critique of Psychoanalysis (Tech Vol III, pp. 443-9 (1991 ed.)
  • Also: HCOPL 5 October 1971 Propaganda by Redefinition of Terms
From Wikipedia:

Transference (German: Übertragung) is a theoretical phenomenon characterized by unconscious redirection (projection) of the feelings a person has about their parents, as one example, on to the therapist. It usually concerns feelings from a primary relationship during childhood. At times, this projection can be considered inappropriate.[1][2][3] Transference was first described by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, who considered it an important part of psychoanalytic treatment.

The literature says that mental health professionals have to guard against ways in which the psychoanalytic relationship can be exploited to the detriment of patients/clients. The APA ethical codes and standards prohibit certain inappropriate behaviors that could disadvantage patients/clients.
Hubbard described Dianetics in different terms, and gave no warning about the phenomenon of transference that he exploited, and directed others to exploit for his benefit. Dianetics and Scientology auditors are not educated in the transference, complexes, etc. Most of us therefore knew nothing about the sub-conscious phenomena that go into play between auditors and preclears, staff and public, and all other Scientology non-level relationships that involve authority, seniority, submission, inferiority, etc.

By applying Hubbard's technical and administrative policies and procedures over time, the Scientologists running the Scientology machine carefully manage and strengthen our relationships with Hubbard, management, other org staff and our auditors. Resigning from the organization does not end, cure or even necessarily expose the unconscious aspects of our relationship. More Scientology cannot cure this damage, but certainly prolongs it.
"Hubbard exploited a known psychoanalytic phenomenon, and tool, called the transference. He exploited it, first by misdefining it, then confusing the transference with another issue/phenomenon, which he defined as valence."
I can see that, valence is one possible end result but the cause is transference or even projection and sometimes the Stockholm Syndrome which empowers one's oppressors in trade for continuance of the license to survive. The more the cult beat it's members down the more they cowered, furiously wagged their tails and begged for more kibble. I left soon after seeing what this process was about and my clam "friends" all turned upon me enmasse. Hence my lack of tolerance for the belligerent baboon Frankensluts assembled and built by Scientology after tearing them down. Many who are left have been converted into mindless paramilitary culties awaiting their Jonestown.
 
Last edited:

Caroline

clerk #2
"Hubbard exploited a known psychoanalytic phenomenon, and tool, called the transference. He exploited it, first by misdefining it, then confusing the transference with another issue/phenomenon, which he defined as valence."
I can see that, valence is one possible end result but the cause is transference or even projection and sometimes the Stockholm Syndrome which empowers one's oppressors in trade for continuance of the license to survive. The more the cult beat it's members down the more they cowered, furiously wagged their tails and begged for crumbs. I left immediately once I saw what this process was about and my clam "friends" all turned upon me enmasse. Hence my lack of tolerance for the belligerent baboon Frankensluts built by Scientology.
It seems to me you hit upon the important thing, which is that out-of-the-box, RTC-approved Scientology is malignant. It delivers more regressed, dependent, emotionally immature individuals who, having stupidly turned off our critical faculties in order to invest in Hubbard's quackery, are even less able to determine who our real friends and enemies are, and who our authorities should be.

On rudiments, whenever I felt "ARC broken" about some abusive situation IRL, some betrayal or injustice, I don't remember feeling any resolution from being told, for example, that my ARC break was a "Desired Communication" or an "Enforced Affinity" or "Refused Reality." My training would tell me that I was ARC broken because I had missed withholds, and I would have to associate my upset with some earlier or similar bad act of my own. Showing up for session with out ruds was itself a "dwindling spiral" of degradation.

To make matters worse, with the style of flying ruds at OT 3 and above, it was virtually impossible to even acknowledge our own upsets. Any charge from out-ruds belonged to our unclear BTs. At this moment, I can't think of anything more infantalizing.
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Whoa, nice find!

It's odd that Hubbard describes an F/N as a needle that "...takes off (and) flies". That seems counter-intuitive to the SMOOTH motion otherwise referenced on F/N descriptions. Odd.

Now a "rocket read" would be a more likely candidate for a needle that "takes off" and "flies", wouldn't it?

Makes no sense.

Unless, whomever did the audiotape transcription thought he was talking about F/Ns when he was talking about Rocket Reads.

Or. . . .

I guess it does make sense, in a Scientology kind of way (e.g. If you got lung cancer from smoking, you need to smoke a lot more to cure it")

I admit I cannot do a clay demo of an F/N "taking off" and "flying". I think to handle this technical deficiency in myself, I will OVERBOARD myself now (into the pool). That's what Ron did to handle the flubby Class VIII course students who first heard that lecture, right? LOL
I recall him saying on a BC level 6 tape the rocket read was named for the look of it - the way it sped up like a launching rocket. There are also some that slowed, but I forget the name he had for those - perhaps decayed?

Mimsey
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Handling rudiments was supposed to take care of any mental distractions before beginning what the C/S ordered for the auditing session.

My question: was Flying Rud's also done in OT solo auditing?
If the PC was F/N VGIs at the start of session the ruds could be omitted. As an auditor you didn't want to make the ruds a big deal, mainly to get anything that would stick the session out of the way. Solo Nots was the same way. A lot depended on the C/S instructions, some said fly one, some said fly all 3, some said: if no F/N VGI at SOS, then fly one. A lot depended on the pc - was he/she new? At the start of a rundown? Continuing on a rundown, etc. Second or third session of the day?

If you look up the HCOB "styles of auditing", you will find the more experienced the auditor, the more leeway he/she has.

Mimsey
 
Top