A CRITIQUE OF THE "BRIDGE"

by Peter Graham

18 January 1992

Auditing is a subject that never reached its full potential. I hold the view that the potential value of an auditing type of approach is great but that it may only be realized through a derivative of auditing, such as the system known as Viewing. By the way, I now regard "auditing" as a particular system used by a particular organization (with which I have had no contact since 1983) and only use the term in that context.

Although there were many pluses, there were also some arbitraries, omissions and technical errors in auditing technology (and the way it was delivered) which tended to limit its effectiveness.

One of the contributing reasons for the limited results of auditing, even when done "by the book", was that there were (and probably still are, even in the "final" version) some basic technical faults built into the Grade Chart (the "Bridge") that was being used.

There is definite value in having a chart of levels, providing that we don't make the same mistakes that were made in the past. A well thought out chart of levels can give direction, an ultimate goal to work towards and highlight a way for continued personal growth. It presents a series of steps or levels that focus attention on the key points that may need handling or enhancing and these steps also help to provide a way of measuring progress.

I think it is quite possible to develop a new chart of levels that is consistent with the fundamentals of the subject and which can evolve and develop in the light of experience and the use of appropriate research methods. So, rather than simply throw the old chart out, its limitations and any technical errors in it should be identified and also its strengths and pluses. All that experience should not be wasted.

The original reasoning behind the modern grade chart (1965 onwards) was the idea that those factors which interfered with sessions (eg. communication breakdowns, problems or upsets) would also stop a person living successfully. The subjects of the levels Zero to IV were thought to be the primary factors needing to be handled on a case, other than the "R6 bank" (the alleged core of the "reactive mind"). Later, other levels were added and it gradually evolved over the years.

The grade chart lacked a sound theoretical base and consequently did not hang together logically and consistently. It was an attempt to provide a series of steps to attain certain STATES that were believed to be attainable, specifically "release", "clear" and "operating thetan" - all of which have had questionable or shifting definitions. And none of which communicated to the uninitiated.

Rather than the undefined and nebulous "total freedom", an ultimate objective for such a chart should have been something like: to rehabilitate and enhance a person's ability to play the game of life by helping that person becomefully functional as a being.

The assumption here is that the principle reason that a being is not fully functional and has personal disabilities is that there are casefactors (unwanted reactions or involuntary responses) associated with his/her natural abilities, such as his/her ability to be in the here and now, to place attention, to have things, to remember, to communicate, to handle problems, to experience things, to play garnes, to love, and so on. For example, a person should be able to face and clean up some spilt milk without having to cry over it.

Each of the levels should address (and have as a general theme) one basic natural ability. The emphasis should be on abilities, not states of being. The techniques available at each level should be capable of helping a being either enhance that key ability and/or handle the unwanted reactions (involuntary responses) associated with it. All the important primary levels would need to be identi~led and arranged in a sensible sequence. The general idea is that a person can systematically work towards being more and more functional in each area and thus make substantial progress towards becoming fully functional as a being.

The concept of "upper" and "lower" levels was and is fallacious. The "lower" levels were not lower at all, simply basic or fundamental. For example, the importance of communication and the ability to communicate do not diminish or cease to be relevant as one advances as a being. If a level is a valid level, then it would remain relevant as one expands because abilities are improved on a gradient.

Branding some levels as "lower" made them seem unimportant or something one had to do (as quickly as possible) to get to the "real stuff". That viewpoint has been very destructive to personal growth. There are no lower levels, but there can be basic or primary levels. And there may also be preliminary levels and remedies or rundowns in addition to the primary levels. There can also be sub-levels within primary levels. Special rundowns (or similar) may handle things that are not necessarily required by all persons or address topics or areas of life which relate to more than one level.

The grade chart was generally done from bottom to top and (as has already been pointed out by others) the attainments at each level were mostly stated as "absolutes". In other words, there was no going back unless "something had been missed" or a person's lower grades were "out". That was also incorrect. As viewpoints change and a being expands (and reaches outside of former comfort zones) new material or another layer of a person's case tends to manifest or become available. This is normal, there is nothing "out". Example: A person handles all known communication difficulties and feels good about it. Later, after further personal growth and bravely becoming involved in a relationship, some other communication disabilities or unwanted responses become evident. The person can now benefit from further work with communication, using some of the same and~or some different tools or approaches, as needed. Thus, the concept of cycling through the levels a number of times (or selected levels as required) is valid and highly workable. This way, one can then continue to enhance each one of these basic and vital abilities. Cycling really takes the lid off as far as personal expansion is concerned.

The processes or procedures used in these "lower" levels were usually done in the sequence they were listed in the technical materials. This did not take into account a person's current case situations and requirements for personal growth. This sometimes resulted in a level being "completed" but somehow never resolving what a person really wanted and nee~led handled at that level (and may well have contributed to the idea that "it must be coming from a higher level"). The procedures to be used on a particular level at a particular time should be selected and sequenced (programmed) to match a person's current case situations and needs.

Based on the viewpoints I now have, the grade chart had (and appears to still have) a number of missing levels. For example, important topics such as control, identities, goals, games, etc. did not appear as levels or were not adequately handled within any level. Ideally, a being should be able to assume identities, set and follow goals, control things and play or not games with full power of ~choice without experiencing unwanted and sub-conscious responses.

Some levels addressed more than one theme. Examples: The Recall Level was a collection of many recall or remembering techniques, only some of which were aimed at improving memory. Some actually addressed the topics of other levels and thus were assigned to the wrong level. Just because a procedure starts with the word "recall" does not make it a candidate for that level. Level One (Problems) included a series of Help techniques, which could easily qualify as a separate level. They did not belong in Level One. Neither did any objectives procedures that were not directly related to problems. Level Three addressed both Change and Upsets and although there can be a connection between them, there often isn't. The result was that neither were adequately addressed or dealt with. Another exarnple is Level IV which was a sort of potpourri level with arguably no consistent central theme at all.

Level V (Power) was underpowered. There were a very limited number of "power" techniques available to use (none of which directly addressed the subject of power), it was a one-off type of thing (more of a rundown perhaps) and it is questionable whether Power deserves to be a level. Ideally, there should be a healthy range of techniques or approaches to choose from at each and every level or that potentiality should definitely exist (where the techniques are yet to be developed). Where that is not the case, it is probable that the theme is not general enough and should not be a level or that it should perhaps be a sub-level. Level VI should not have been a level at all and the technique R6-EW should be assigned to a level to which it applies.

There have been some faulty concepts and questionable technical rules regarding the state of clear. These have akeady been discussed in several earlier Free Spirit articles. The idea of the state of "clear" being an absolute or a near absolute state is not consistent with the basic datum that "absolutes are not obtainable". It contradicts the principle of gradient scales. What has been known as "the state of clear" may nonetheless be an important personal milestone (enlightenment experience) on a person's personal growth path, an achievement which the person can then continue expand on and grow with. It does not mean one has no more case tO handle.

The concept of certain levels being "advanced" is debatable. There is certainly a case for having advanced levels, as some case handling actions or being enhancement methods have natural prerequisites and there are such things as advanced or spiritual abilities. On the other hand, there is also a case for the idea that there can be advanced abilities and natural pre-requisites within any level. For instance, telepathy can be viewed as an advanced communications ability.

Making a primary level confidential has little to recommend it, although certain techniques or rundowns that apply to a particular level may be proprietary (a fact of life in a free market world). However, having a wide range of effective tools to choose from at each level (possibly from a variety of sources) would help to ensure that progress can still be made. No person or group should have or can have a monopoly on personal growth.

Objectives techniques tended to be all lumped together in one level or program, instead of appearing on the levels to which they actually applied. This is a bit like putting all subjective procedures together and having a "Subjectives Rundown". There are different types of objective techniques with different purposes, which points to the possibility of some more missing levels. Some are objective equivalents of subjective procedures and should appear on those levels. Others are aimed at bringing a person more into the here and now or orientating a being in the present. Others are aimed at remedying a being's ability to have things. Others address very basic abilities (like reaching and withdrawing) and could be •used profitably on many levels.

Interestingly, there were a number of unique and workable procedures on a variety of themes (existing in earlier technical materials) that were not part of and did not fit in with any of the existing levels. This also indicates the possibility of missing levels.

Generally, the grade chart was rather inflexible and too structured. What was needed was a framework one could work with, not a straight jacket. Enforcing the same sequence of levels on all persons was based on the assumption that there is only one right path, the one reflected in the current grade chart. The fact is, each of us is on our own personal path, hopefully a spiritual one. Such a chart should be complete enough and flexible enough to satisfy a person's current needs for personal growth. This could mean working on those selected levels that are currently applicable and using those tools that are most appropriate for that person at the time.

There were also a number of other technical problems that had a negative influence on the results from those levels which mainly made use of repetitive procedures. One of these was a major technical fault on the subject of End Phenomena (discussed more fully in a separate article). This technical error made sure that many of the more effective procedures were ended prematurely with minimal successes and little charge released.

I believe that it is quite possible to develop a new chart of levels that takes full advantage of an auditing type of approach and that the benefits of it would be far far greater than ever achievable before. I estimate that the old chart worked well with only about 50 percent of persons and even then only delivered about five percent of what was actually possible.

Naturally, all the above are my personal viewpoints and opinions at this point in time. Any comments would be welcome.

The Institute for Research in Metapsychology (of which I am a member) has developed a new chart of levels which it calls the General Curriculum. It is very usable and a big improvement over the old chart, but I believe it can still benefit from further development. Please note that none of this is meant to belittle Hubbard's invaluable developmental work in this area or in the development of the unique and effective approach called auditing.