The Double Negative Principle

Until recently we have always taken falls on an e-meter to mean that there was charge on a case and that it needed to be run out with various auditing techniques. While this is true in part, there is a little - known factor about the meter that has left roughly nine-tenths of a being's case gains on the table.

This factor is that a read registers disagreements, and does not mean something is true or not. When asking a PC if, “you hate mamma” produces a read. One automatically assumes that they must have hated mamma. But this is not necessarily the case. Remember, this only means they disagreed with the question.

The reality could be they disagree with someone assuming they would ever hate mamma, Momma could be perfectly fine women that is loved by everyone. This can cause a whole set of problems. Ones that have to be sorted out with processing great cost to all involved.

I have looked for a solution to this problem for a long time. A method of assessment or processing that would allow us to determine truthfulness. Not a truth based upon a PC's subjective reality, either. Meaning that if you asked them the exact date and time something happened. It would later be found to be accurate through third-party sources.

Unfortunately, it was discovered that this is not possible. You cannot establish objective data through the use of subjective means.

I did find the next best thing though.

If you take an auditing question and form a negative version with the use of NOT. You can determine if the answer is true, instead of just being charged.

This leverages a lie (in the form of NOT) against a standard auditing question.

This has one of two effects:

1.) There is a read on the question. Then the surface charge is blown off (because of Not).

2.) There is a null read.

You are probably thinking [Well, Ron. That means the same thing it always has.] But no!

If one thinks in terms of disagreement. Disagreeing with the auditing question means the PC's bank is saying, “There's no charge here!” And the small disagreement (fall) is then cleaned up with NOT to avoid by passed charge.

This means the null read actually indicates charge and agreement on a subject. But it is static charge.

Take the example of momma again.

We ask the PC, “Do you hate momma?” Then the needle blows down and goes null.

This means he doesn't hate mamma, He disagreed with the question.

That is why it read and was cleaned with the use of NOT.

Now, if the read would have been null it would mean he did hate mamma. There was no disagreement, so he not only hated her, but has a high reality on the subject of hating mamma.

All this may make your head spin. But all you need to remember is that there is Standard Charge, and Static Charge (accessed with the use of the double- negative principle).

This means we have:

Standard Charge. which is formed of disagreements and resistance.

Static Charge Formed of agreements and no resistance.

The ratio of Standard - to-static charge is probably 1:9. That leaves nine-tenths of a beings case in the Static band. It also has a totally different set of behavior than standard charge.

Since there is no resistance, you can often go straight to basic, run incidents irrespective of others on a chain, and there is no linear order of time involved.

So, the Double- Negative principle comes from the fact that we take a disagreement (negative response) to an auditing question, and discharge it with the use of NOT (negative, in the form of a lie.

This allows us to pinpoint and erase charge with unprecedented ease. It also determines the truthfulness of an answer to any auditing question.