Two Way Communication as a Process
Two way communication as processing can best be characterized as a style of auditing. The process has everything to do with getting the pc to itsa about an area and keep him talking on the subject. To do that, the auditor does not use set commands, but listens with interest and uses light questions and half acks.
The auditor would start by having a charged subject to do the two way communication on. The C/S instruction for the session could be: Do a TWC on 'apples' to F/N, cog, VGI's. The first thing the auditor has to ensure is, that the subject of 'apples' is charged or he wouldn't do the action.
The auditor would give this R-factor:
"I am going to check a subject for charge. If
charged, we will do a TWC on the subject."
PC: "Apple means a common fruit from a
tree" (no read)
He looks interested at the pc and says: "Tell
me about apples", or some such question to get the pc started.
He sits back and listens. Two way comm is close
style from 'Styles of Auditing', but there is one important
difference. Under Listen Style it said: "Listen Style isn't the same
as 'Itsa'. You could say it is an invitation to the pc to Itsa. But
technically 'Itsa' is the action of the pc saying "It is a..."
In other words, that is a pc action. So the auditor only uses a simple
question, attention and interest to get the pc talking. To get the pc to
itsa is beyond the scope of Listen Style."
Tell me some ideas you have about (apples)?
Questions Not to
Do not use a Listing Question in Two way comm.
By a "Listing Question" we mean any question which directly or indirectly calls for items. If you use subject questions with 'Who', 'What', 'Which' or 'Why' the TWC turns into a listing action. You wrongly invited the pc to give a list of persons, places, reasons, etc.
Listing is guided by The Laws of Listing and
Nulling, which is a subject of its own.
Examples of wrong questions: "Who upset you?" You are asking the pc to give a list of persons (items). "What are you upset about?", would also be a listing question as it asks for items. "Which person did you trust the most?" would also ask for items. "Why are you upset?" may plunge the pc into the Bank.
"What happened?" is different than
"What illness?" or "What town?", the last two being
too close to listing questions.
Other Examples of Correct Questions: "How are you doing lately?" is a correct TWC question. It would uncover out ruds and be cleaned up easily. It gets off charge but does not get into items. "Are you better these days than you used to be?", "How have you been since the last session?" are all light rudiment type questions that let the pc Itsa, without going into a list or plunging the pc into the Bank. Your guiding principle is to get the pc to Itsa the charge already steered up and available.
TWC as a Rud: "How are you doing?" is sometimes used as a rudiment. When the pc is well into auditing and seems to get on with it you can simply replace formal Flying Rudiments in the beginning of session with "How are you doing?" If the pc has an out rudiment he will tell you. The question will uncover it and you would handle the out rud with the obvious rudiment procedure (ARC break, PTP, M/W/H). If the pc feels fine when coming in the "How are you doing?" will simply produce an F/N VGI answer and you can go onto the major action.
TWC's Revealing an Out Rudiment
Example: The pc is upset with somebody who stole
her apples when she was a child; the TWC uncovered it. You would ask:
"Was that an ARC break?" (F)
The pc may cognite on the whole subject and have F/N, VGI, Cog on Apples. That would be the EP for the TWC as well. If no subject EP occurred you would simply return to your TWC and complete the action to EP. In this fashion you can take up out ruds as PTP's, Problems, Withholds, Missed Withholds and ARC breaks.
TWC a Class 3 Action
Also, as explained above, an auditor trained in Listing and Nulling will know the dangers of getting into a listing situation, but also how to repair it if it should happen.
Example: Pc: "I never liked my brother back
then." Auditor: "What about your brother?" Pc: "He was
a teacher's pet." Auditor: "What about teacher's pets?" Pc:
"I don't like them." Auditor: "What else don't you
like?" And so on and on.
Remember what it said under Auditor's Admin: "When running a two-way communication process it is important that all items (terminals, statements, etc.) that read are marked on the worksheets: SF, F, LF, LFBD. All reading items are circled in green after the session". Now you know why. They can be taken up later and produce more TA action.
Evaluation/Invalidation in auditing TWC is the
third deadly sin. The auditor asks and listens. He doesn't explain or
comment on anything to the pc.
Ask and listen and ack. Prompt only by varying the original question now and then, that's what a good TWC auditor does.
TWC's are usually done to destimulate areas heavily charged. It is not classified as a Major Action. It is a tool of Repair. But pc's having troubles in life or auditing can attest to the magic of two way communication done strictly under Auditor's Code and all of basic auditing. The trick is simply to get the pc talking about a subject that is in hot restimulation in his Bank. Open the flood gates and drain the area for charge. To keep the area discharging you don't go looking for more but simply keep the channel clear and the pc talking with light questions right down the main line.
TWC is also used to get a pc to fully cognite on a subject recently audited. By taking that subject up as a TWC and have the pc discuss his thoughts, ideas, etc. his cognition will usually widen and bring about a stable EP.
Sometimes it is used as a check-up on a pc. The reason it is done in session in this case is, that the auditor can repair or clean up any non optimum situation right away.