I've already answered this, in my last post to you, and you even quoted my answer which included this part:
Yes, sorry, you did agree that the sort of procedure I outlined would contribute to delusion. Sorry, I was still talking generally about the overall contributions. My mistake.
The rest of this thread is not aimed at you Carmel, but at anyone who may be interested in pursuing this idea of how the meter can and is used in Scn to facilitate delusions.
All scn auditors will agree, if they are being truthful, that the
standard Hubbard Scn tech handling for an implant at lower levels like Dn is to
only indicate the implant and D/L on the meter, then end session.
Anything else, as regards implants, like 2WC, was
not standard and was out-tech, although like Carmel I think it is a better less evaluative tech. But in Hubbard standard tech environments anything other than metered D/L would be crammed as out-tech. Therefore I contend that the Hubbard standard tech handling for this scenario is using the meter as a delusion facilitator.
I don't know what they do in the various FZ techs. I suspect many/most will date the implant on the meter, but the various FZers would have to answer that.
I agree with Carmel and Mark about the skill of looking for protest, confusion or false reads while dating. I took it as read that we agreed that would be done skillfully.
The point I was trying to make about PC knowing the meter read on assessment when the auditor asks the question again is this: On the DnCS1 and the ScnCS1 the PC is carefully educated in a session that the meter measures just below the awareness level of the PC. This is thoroughly covered with the PC on the CS1.
So the PC is educated to believe that the meter shows up things that he is not quite aware of.
Soon in session he recognises the pattern of an assessment. The auditor calls out items and notes the meter read. The auditor then asks back to the PC an item or items from the assessed list, so the PC soon learns in session that these are things that the meter has shown up that he is not quite aware of. The action of the auditor asking him the item back is telling the PC this read and the PC looks to see if it is "real" to him. So the meter is being used as a nudge to guide his awareness to that which he was not quite aware of.
Now I know a good auditor watches for signs of wrong meter assessment, comming with the PC and all that, please don't take that up here or indicate it is only bad auditors who don't do these things. Let's take it as read that the auditor is a good one and is watching for protest, false reads or confusion. Let's stick with the textbook assessment procedure.
So auditor assesses the list on the meter, auditor ask back reading items to the PC, PC knows this means the meter read so PC then looks for an answer that he was not previously aware of.
All other things ("in session" good TRs, good auditor comm cycle, obnosis, etc) being in, the effect of this Hubbard standard tech meter use is to encourage the PC to look for an answer that satisfies the reading item.
Hence the meter can be an aid to facilitating delusion. It has acted as a suggestion, a code break evaluation and the PC, unless he protests the read, will look down his ItsaMaker line to try to
find something that
fits the meter read, which he has been taught measures just below his awareness.
But the metering is a messed up auditing comm cycle. The auditor should ask a Whatsit? the PC should look down the ItsaMaker line and reply with an Itsa. Instead with metered assessment the auditor is asking "Is it?" and the PC is trying to find a matching "It is". This is suggestion, evaluation and opens the PC's mind to delusiory answers that fit the auditor's "Is it?"
Here's the typical session patter again, (especially for those who were not auditors - auditors already know how such a session procedure is done) of how the meter is used in session as regards reads and you can see the auditor asking if it is something specific, rather than asking the PC what it is.
Let me pose a hyperthetical, but I think quite real, auditing scenario and maybe we can discuss if a delusion is facilitated or encouraged. I recognise that different people are more or less suggestible. But the idea that the meter only detects what "is" there can be looked at and critiqued.
So here goes:
Auditor doing a Dianetic correction list on a PC who has bogged on an R3R chain and got confused over some hazy pictures.
Auditor assesses from the correction list: "Is the incident really an implant?" LF on the meter.
Auditor looks at the pc and asks questioningly "is the incident really an implant?"
PC remembers Ron's definition of the words "electronic implant" "a painful and forceful means of overwhelming a PC with significance" The words had always been a bit mysterious to the PC and on his DN CS1 the auditor had cleared him on it until he sort of grasped the concept but not with much reality.
PC remembers sections of the book "Have You Lived Before This Life" which he read after he started his Dianetic auditing and he remembers the confusing electronic incidents described in there. He also remembers a tape or two where Ron talked about implants.
PC realises from the auditor's repetiton of the question that it must have read on the meter. He wonders if this hazy incident may be hazy and unreal because it consists of pictures and confusing concepts that may have been forced on him as described by Ron.
This makes sense to the PC and explains for him why it was difficult to run as an ordinary Dianetic incident.
"Yes!" says the PC in relief at this realisation that explains the bog he experienced. The realisation makes him feel relieved and somehow lighter.
Auditor notes down that the TA blows down on this recognition so feels happy also that truth has been realised.
"I'd like to indicate that the incident is really an implant!" says the auditor.
The PC feels even more relieved at this "truth" discovered. GI's but suddenly he feels intrigued again. Just what are these implant things? Maybe at last this is an opportunity for him to understand and experience one for himself and why would someone "implant" him like that and, and ...
Auditor notices indicators have gone out. Needle has tightened and TA is rising again.
"We'll date that incident now ..." he says. Consulting the PC and and the meter he asks "was it more than a thousand years ago, less than a thousand years ago?" He notices "more than" reads. "was it more than a thousand years ago?" he asks the Pc while granting him beingness with excellent TRs.
Ah the meter read on more than a thousand years, thinks the PC "Yes! I think it was!" agrees the PC, feeling excited.
"Good" says the auditor. "I'd like to indicate it was more than a thousand years ago." He says agreeing with the PC.
"Was it more than ten thousand years ago, less than ten thousand years ago?" He notices "more than" reads. "was it more than ten thousand years ago?" he asks the Pc while granting him beingness with excellent TRs.
PC knows the meter has indicated it was more than ten thousand years ago. "yes! I'm sure it was a long time ago!" It makes more sense somehow to the PC now. "The "bastards!" he laughs.
The auditor sees the TA blows down, the needle floats, auditor pauses and PC says "I used to have nightmares when I was a kid, now I know where they came from!"
PC feels relieved and that he understands himself better now. Auditor indicates the F/N and says "End of session".
PC goes to the examiner and originates "I've just discovered I am an imortal being!" glowing and smiling broadly. "Your needle is floating" says the examiner and maybe the examiner smiles, sharing the PC's win.
I know auditing practice varies slightly over the years, but I think most auditors and PCs would recognise the above as a reasonable depiction of a Dianetics session and a PC's out of session education.
So, what was "there", before the meter reads were fed to the PC? Does the PC feel better because "truth" has been revealed or does he feel better, because a mystery has been explained? And does he feel better because he feels he has had proof of his immortality? What did the original read on "is the incident really an implant" actually signify? Did it mean there was an implant or did it mean that the PC had a mystery suggestion implanted in his thinking by Hubbard's description of such things?
Was the hazy incident an implant or was the PC putting a hazy incident there because of what he'd read about them?
What was validated by the meter? Truth or a suggested delusion?
Did the reads on dates mean the dates were "true" or did the read on dates mean that the PC had been educated into believeing such dates?
Is the meter a delusion facilitator?
LFBD - My needle's floating.
This was particularly true of the LRH C/Sd auditing I had - my goodness - I HAD to find the truth within myself to verify those reads, right? He Himself was C/Sing and telling me to look again! 
