END POINTS

Peter Graham

4 October 1991

An end point (EP) is the point where a viewing (auditing) procedure should be ended. The term end point is a modern equivalent (originated by the IRM) of the term end phenomena, which has been around since the early seventies.

A technical error has existed in the materials on EPs for a long time, which has resulted in many repetitive procedures or techniques not being used to their full potential.

Background Data

First, some history. Prior to 1965, the principle indicator used to determine when a procedure was "flat" (completed) was that meter (tone arm) activity had ceased on the meter (biomonitoring device). Procedures were often done for long periods then, far too long sometimes.

In 1965, the idea came out that the appearance of an FN (floating needle) while doing a procedure was all that was required. For the next five years, procedures tended to be "completed" very quickly with little benefit for most.

The error of requiring only an FN was picked up in 1970 and the concept of End Phenomena (EP) was developed, which required that the FN be accompanied by a realization and good indicators. This was a positive step, but did not go any where near far enough.

Prior to 1965, it was well known that some procedures were less limited than others. This meant that some procedures could be done beneficially for longer periods than others (ie. not just to three equal communication lags or to the first realization or win) andlor that they could be done more than once.

A number of references to limited and unlimited procedures can be found in technical materials prior to 1965. The fact that some procedures are less limited than others was not taken into account when the concept of an EP was developed. This article reconciles the concept of an EP with the idea that some procedures are more or less limited than others (all things being relative).

Limited vs Unlimited Procedures

The datum that some procedures are more limited or less limited than others is quite valid and extremely useful.

For example, the procedure "What have you done?" is less limiting that "What have you done to a man?" which is less limited than "What have you done to Joe this week?" The more general versions are less limited because they provide a wider scope of view.

Although it is valid for procedures that are very limited, the idea that ALL repetitive procedures should be ended on the FIRST cognition with an FN and good indicators is quite faulty. But that is what the then technical materials recommended.

Technical Rule

The rule should have been: The less limited a procedure is, the more meter (TA) activity should be considered in determining when a procedure is fully completed and the less one should consider the needle (FN). Conversely, the more limited a procedure is, the more one takes the needle (FN) into account.

Thus, procedures that are relatively unlimited (such as the general form of "What have you done?") should be run against meter activity (rather than the needle) and continued until all meter activity has ceased or when a major success has occurred (like they used to be dGne before 1965).

Most of the better and less limited procedures are capable of producing MANY cognitions and many FNs along the way before a.fi~ll end point has been reached. This may involve ending each session on a win and FN, which is a session end point, and continuing the same procedure the next session. It could involve doing a certain procedure for dozens of hours or more before a full end point has been reached. It takes as long as it takes to reach a full end point.

It sometimes only takes minutes before the first realization occurs when doing a procedure, especially with a person who is grooved in and doing well. This is seldom a full EP as the procedure has not really been run yet and meter activity may not even have started. Routinely doing procedures this way denies the buL~c of the potential benefits that are possible from a viewing (auditing) approach, as little or no charge is released from the person' s case (even if some enlightenment has occurred).

Conclusion

Ending all repetitive procedures after the first FN, realization and good indicators has virtually wasted many of the better procedures for lots people over the years.

There are a number of factors that tend to determine how limited or unlimited a procedure may be. These include how general or specific it is, whether it addresses the person as being at effect or at cause, whether it is positive or negative gain in its approach, and a number of others.

This article is a summary of a technical paper entitled "Types of End Points" by the same author, which covers this topic much more thoroughly. For a copy of this paper, contact: Peter Graham, 8A The Grove, Wembley 6014, Western Australia.

[Peter Graham has been involved with auditing technology since the early sixties. (H~completed the SHSBC in 1965, the Class VII Internship in 1966 and the Class VIII Course in 1970.   resigned from the C of S in 1983. He has been active as an independent for the last six years, delivering services, lecturing and doing research. He is a member of the Institute for Research in Metapsychology. After leaving the C of S, he studied to get a Bachelor of Business degree (majoring in Information Systems) and works as a computer programmer/systems analyst. ]