Subject: FZ Bible SHSBC TAPES PART 1 10/12 repost [x2]
Date: 4 Dec 1999 00:35:20 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

SHSBC TAPES PART 1 10/12 repost

**************************************************

St. Hill Special Briefing Course Tapes Part 1

Contents

   New #    Old #   Date     Title

01 SHSBC-1    1   7 May 61 E-Meter Talk and Demo
02 SHSBC-2    2  12 May 61 Assessment
03 SHSBC-3    3  19 May 61 E-Meter
04 SHSBC-4    4  26 May 61 On Auditing
05 SHSBC-5    5   1 Jun 61 Flattening a Process and the E-Meter
06 SHSBC-6    6   2 Jun 61 Flows, Prehav Scale, Primary Scale
07 SHSBC-7    7   5 Jun 61 Routine 1, 2 and 3
08 SHSBC-8    8   6 Jun 61 Security Checks
09 SHSBC-9    9   7 Jun 61 Points in Assessing
10 SHSBC-10  10   8 Jun 61 Question and Answer Period: Ending an Intensive
11 SHSBC-11  11   9 Jun 61 Reading E-Meter Reactions
12 SHSBC-12  12  12 Jun 61 E-Meter Actions, Errors in Auditing

We were only able to check one of these (number 6) against the
old reels.  If anyone has pre-clearsound versions of these
tapes, please check the others and post differences.

**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************

SHSBC-10  renum 10  8 Jun 61 Question and Answer Period: Ending an Intensive

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD: ENDING AN INTENSIVE

A lecture given on 8 June 1961

[Based on clearsound only.]

Thank you.

All right. You haven't - let's see. What is this? This is the
8th of June 1961, solar system. Have to keep you oriented.

You haven't had any opportunity to ask any questions the
last couple of lectures. I have simply decided what you
didn't know anything about and filled you in. So now I want
some questions. Of course, it's kind of cowardly asking you
for questions in the first place because this assumes that
I don't know what you're fogged up on. Yes?

Female voice: Exactly how and when the Havingness and
Confront commands, and where, are fitted into a run on SOP
Goals. Just where they go in relation to running the level?

When do Havingness - or where do Havingness and Confront
commands get fitted into SOP Goals. Actually, I'll answer
it for all sessions.

Female voice: Yeah.

If you have the pc's Havingness and Confront commands, you
start the session with them after the rudiments and end the
session with them when this room situation goes - when you
ask about the auditing environment. The point there is you
run them backwards at the end. You run the Confront and
then you run the Have. You just run them at the
beginning - Have - Confront - that is after the beginning
rudiments - and at the end rudiments you run them Confront
and then Have. This actually is quite mechanical.

You can take these two processes and throw the guy into his
bank. See, you bring him into the room and then throw him
into his bank. Just look at it that way, you see? He comes
into the auditing room, and you say, "Is all right if I
audit you in this room?" you know. You say something like
this and he says, "All right." And you say, "All right."
Far as you're concerned it's all right, but you haven't got
him in the room yet.

Now, if you've got his Havingness and Confront, you move
this over into his first process. In other words, you
bypass the rudiments. You ask him if it's all right to
audit in this room, and we don't care what he says. If
you're going to run his Havingness and Confront Process the
first thing you do - what does it matter whether it's all
right to audit in the room or not? You're going to
straighten this up shortly anyhow. Well, why isn't it all
right to audit in the room? Well, he probably has a PT
problem and ARC break and a withhold. That's why it's not
all right to audit in the room. So who cares! It's there in
the rudiments mostly to call attention to the fact that
there is an auditing room, which might have been missed by
the pc. You get the idea?

All right. So that's not anything that you handle, although
there is a process given to handle it. But that process
assumes - TR 10 in a Model Session - that you don't have the
pc's Havingness and Confront Processes. So, you say, "Is it
all right to audit in this room." And it goes wha-a-a-am,
crash! And you say, 'Fine," and go right on to your next
rudiment. Don't use that as an excuse to waste auditing
time. You got the idea? There's no point in it if you've
got his Havingness Process.

All right. Now, let's finish up the rudiments. And our
first process is now going to be a Have Process, and of
course that nnhummp was mainly an ARC break, PT problem and
withhold or one of them. So you've taken care of that now.
Now you can bring him here. See, a present time problem has
got him out there somewhere. So you can knock that out, of
course, he's more here, isn't he?

So you run your rudiments and then you saw into the Have
and Confront Processes immediately after the rudiments.
Your Have first, and then your Confront. Well, you've
handled his PT problem, his withhold and his ARC break and
so forth, so therefore, he's more willing to be in session.
You run the Havingness Process, and of course he tends to
leave where he has been and arrive where he is at. And now
you run the Confront, and you say - you're saying just the
same as, "Just between you and me, I think you ought to
take a look at your bank. It is time you ceased to avoid
all this. It's a question of how can a thetan live in this
much mush?" You got the idea?

So you say, "Well, let's now take a look at your bank.
Let's take a look at your case." You could say this, you
see, very splendiferously. Theoretically you could do that.
You could - you say, "Well, here you are in the room." And
you've straightened it up so the guy can be audited, and
"Here you are in the room. And now, what do you think about
your case?" See? Well, instead of saying, "Well, what do
you think about your case?" you run a Confront Process.

All right. Confront Processes cycle. They go out of PT and
into PT. So if you are very clever, you will run just one
cycle. Out of PT and into PT. See? If you're very clever.
Out he goes and back he comes. You say, "Look. It is safe
to leave present time in this room. (1) The room is safe.
We've just run Havingness on it; and (2) we are now
demonstrating to you, that it is very safe for you to slide
down the track a little bit. And when you come back, you'll
still find the room here." What do you know!

You're saying that in essence then when you're running the
Confront Process.

So, all of the processes today - all Security Checks, all
everything - when, if in doubt about how to say "good
morning" to the preclear, say it in Model Session. Use
Model Session for everything that pertains to auditing.
This does not apply to a Johannesburg Security Check given
for purposes of security only. There you don't even bother
to clear the commands. You try to clear the commands, and
if you don't clear the command, you look at the fellow and
say, "Well now, listen. If I have to leave this one with it
still falling off the pin, you realize you've failed a
Security Check. Are you sure there is nothing you wish to
tell me?"

He thinks this over for a minute and he says, "Well, maybe
I'd better tell him about the bank robbery, you know? The
illicit diamond buying." And so he sometimes gives up like
that. But you wouldn't work day and night, on and on and on
and on and on to clear somebody's Security Check, you see,
if it were to be given for an employment Security Check.

In the first place, somebody whose Security Check is so bad
that, particularly on the subject - ... The original question,
by the way, "Have you ever cooked a company's books?" It
sounded just a little bit slangy to me. It out-created me
on the subject. "Have you ever cooked a company's books?"
And you now have that under the heading of "falsified," I
think it is. And you strike that one, you see, while you're
security checking somebody for employment, and it goes
clang! And what do you want to clear it for? You wouldn't
have the guy on a bet!

All right. So we finally find out, well, he only falsified
them a little bit. He's just been entering everything into
the petty cash column and sticking it in his pocket, or
he's been doing something innocent here that should never
be reprehended anyhow. When you're security checking as a
Security Check - just en passant here - you must know what
a meter's talking about.

It takes a good auditor to do Security Checking. You can't
teach somebody in ten minutes how to do a Security Check
and then trust any result he gets. Because what's he do? He
gets somebody on the meter, and there's no - there's no meter
responses of any kind whatsoever - you know that the person
is totally irresponsible anyway. Dead thetan reading
properly at the Clear read. And it all says, "There. That's
all right with that." He asks all the way through the
Security Check rapidly. He gets no reaction of any kind
whatsoever, so he says the person's secure. The person just
got out of Dartmoor Scrubs, you know - just that day!

So you have to know something about pcs and a meter in
order to size up the person, and if they're not getting any
reactions anyplace on a Johannesburg Security Check - you
know this is impossible anyway - your auditing experience.
But you don't run that in Model Session, and you finish the
check in any event. No matter who you're running it on, you
always finish the check, but you don't necessarily spend
four hours clearing up one level. You just want to know if
he's hotter than a pistol on these various levels.

And one of the ways to do it is go right on through the
check, whammity-whammity-whammity-whammity-wham, getting all
the withholds that he gives you as you go by. And then
you've marked several that didn't null, and go back over
these and ask searchingly about them - something on the
polite nonauditing attitude of "Well, you realize that if
these levels retain withholds, as they apparently do, and
you have not told me all, which you obviously haven't, that
if you fail to do so, that is it; you have failed a
Security Check and will be rated here as an insecure
person. Now do you want to tell me about it?"

And the fellow says, "Well, the meter must be wrong and so
forth, and so forth."

You say, "Okay. You've had it." Reach down to the bottom of
the page and say, "Failed check, such-and-such a date.
Unemployable." That's it. Don't monkey with it.

That's not true in auditing, you see. You run that in Model
Session and you get those questions just as clean as wolf's
teeth. You see, there's a tremendous difference between
giving a processing check and a Security Check, even though
you're using the same list of questions. Now, you just take
those things apart. So in - en passant, I mentioned that.

All right. Havingness and Confront is run after beginning
rudiments in the order of the Have and then the Confront,
and before end rudiments in the order of the Confront and
the Have. Okay?

Female voice: Thank you.

Right. Any other question?

Female voice: Yes.

Yes.

Female voice: You've told us this before, but it hasn't
sunk in and I'd like for you to tell us again.

Okay.

Female voice: If you've got something which has been
restimulated by the questions in a Security Check, but it
doesn't seem to be on the first ones, would you go on
through and then check back on them afterwards?

Not in processing.

Female voice: No.

In doing a Security Check for employment or loyalty or
something of this sort, some other purpose, yes, you would
do it as you said it, but not for processing. You do not
leave a falling level behind you. Leave nothing falling
behind you. That's pretty hard to do. You very often get
them falling on later things and in the panic about
withhold. But remember, if it's been carefully given in
Model Session, you will have the opportunity to ask the pc
if he's withholding anything in the Model Session. And the
reason you've got withhold in there at beginning and end
rudiments, is because you get two cracks at the pc every
session.

So, if a question were hanging up in that particular
fashion and you couldn't seem to get anything out of the pc
or get it clear, you might suspect, because of the sporadic
reaction of the needle - if it's not on the button, you see,
it doesn't act constantly, it acts sporadically. That means
you're near something, but you're not on it. It falls and
it theta bops and it rock slams, and then it goes null, and
it falls and then it goes null, and then it rock slams
and - you're just not asking the right question, that's all.

And if you were to get - I didn't say that you should get
baffled at this point, but if you were to get baffled, you
know, about the whole thing, a good thing to do is take a
break. Well, you'd take a break by ending your session,
wouldn't you?

So that gives you a crack at the withholds, doesn't it? And
then you take a three-minute break. And then you start a
new session. And this gives you another crack at the pc's
withholds when you're clearing that rudiment, you see. And
this time, you'd clear the rudiments, real hard; the end
rudiment and the new beginning rudiment. And by the time
you got back to the question again, you've probably gotten
the withhold that he kept ticking or tacking on, and that
question now will probably be free. And that is the - really
the right way to handle it. I'm sure you can see the sense
of that.

And the other point to make here is your pc, if he's doing
this, is probably having trouble. And there's another
co-related factor of this. If a pc is having trouble, his
attention span is poor. If his attention span is poor, the
best remedy for that is short-sessioning, which in itself
is a technique. If you were to take a pc who was having a
lot of trouble and you were to begin a session and run TR
10 as the sole body of the session - just ten minutes of it,
you see - and then run end rudiments and end the session, and
then begin a session and run some more TR 10 and end
rudiments; you would oddly enough get a lot of cases with
formal auditing that are really CCH cases. So it's well
worth knowing how to do that. So it is not a waste of time
to do that. It is beneficial to do that. And I'd recommend
that if you are having an awful lot of trouble giving a
processing check, that you also add in this thing called
short-sessioning. You could go at it like this: a session
per question if he was having too hard a time. Then you'd
sure get it every time, but that would be the extremity,
the reductio ad absurdum. Okay? That answer your question?

Female voice: Yes.

All right. Any other question? Yes, Reg.

Male voice: On the assessing for goals, we have the goal,
the terminal and the level fine, and you tell us that they
each - reaction should be the same for each - rock slam,
rock slam, rock slam, throughout.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: Now, if on the Primary Scale you get your same
reaction, is it then necessary to go on to the Secondary Scale?

No. This is a matter of judgment.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Let me clear up-clarify up some things like this. This is
the same reaction on the goal, the same reaction on the
terminal, the same reaction on the Primary; now would you
go over into the Secondary Scale? Would it really be
necessary to assess the Secondary Scale? Well, we've gotten
here our first question that tells us actually a Secondary
Scale at this stage is too complex. There actually will one
of these days be a tertiary scale. And rather than spend
the next two months keeping you from having something
resembling a complete scale, I relegated my final sort-out
to after the first publication. So therefore, at this stage
of the game, you find the Secondary Scale rather clumsy.
There won't be anywhere near as many words as that on your
present Secondary Scale when I finally get them all sorted.
You see? A lot of those words will be over on the tertiary
scale. So your question, then in the future will also apply
to if you find it on the Primary Scale, is it any reason to
go on to the Secondary Scale, if you find the same reaction.
All right.

It would also apply then - well, if you found the same
reaction on the Secondary Scale, would there be any reason
to go over into the tertiary scale? You get the idea? So
the question would be - could be broadened to include the
whole future formation of the Prehav Scale. And I'll answer
it in that particular fashion.

I myself had wonderful luck with the original issue, and
the only ones that I missed, aren't now on the Primary
Scale except under "motion" and "misemotion." The emotional
states of pcs are missing on the Primary Scale. So what I
would do - what I would do - would be to take certain selected
levels as necessary levels. If somebody has an original
Prehav Scale, I will read you what those levels are, and I
would say that if they fell on these levels, go to the
Secondary Scale as a necessity, and if they don't fall on
these levels, take it. See, I can give you a qualified
answer because it's a matter of judgment. I'm not trying to
be complicated with you.

Now, any level here that was on the original scale, if that
fell as much as the terminal - good, heavy reaction - I would
go ahead and run it. And I wouldn't much bother with going
over into the Secondary Scale. But those levels here which
really weren't on the original, it would be safest to
assess them again over on the Secondary Scale, even though
they fell as hard as the terminal, for the excellent reason
that they are too pervasive, with this odd exception:
overts. Overts.

Now, you've got an overt situation, that if you get the
general form "overt" falling as hard as the terminal,
nothing has been told you except the person has an
attitude. And you can go ahead and run, "What have you done
to," and "What have you withheld from?" but you've already
substituted an auditing command for this word overt, or
you've done one substitution. So you for sure had better
find out what kind of an overt. And the overt is the
longest list.

Apparently the English language has specialized in ways
and means of "overting" and for that reason, pcs have
enormously odd categories for these types of overts. And
from one pc, when they fall on the word overt, this means,
refraining to think an unkind thought about them so as to
put them right, or something very complicated. And to
another pc, it means hitting them over the head with a
brickbat. And that is the only overt there is. You get the
idea? And this is peculiar to the whole list of overts.
Each pc has a different type of overt that he considers an
overt.

So it's such a matter for judgment that I for sure would
move over into the overt list even though overt fell like
mad. I wouldn't then just automatically run "do," because
you've already done one substitution. What kind of a do?
Let's find out, because it will fall on overt, but what
does he classify as an overt? That is singular, the way
that stands out. So you'd say, well, if you fall on overt,
assess the Secondary Scale. That one for sure.

Now, looking over the rest of these levels, there are two
more, which if they fell, would leave you with no recourse
but to do the whole Secondary Scale, and you sure better
had. And that's "emotional" and "misemotional." You better
find out what is misemotion. Is it standing woodenly or is
it screaming at the top of his voice or what? So again it
requires the secondary list to qualify the term.

Let me forget what I said there at first. I can give you
a good test. I just thought of one here. Any time you
yourself would have to make a wild substitution for the
level, assess the Secondary Scale. That would be the rule.
Yeah. Any time you'd have to make a wild substitution to
find out what it was all about, well just move into the
Secondary Scale and you won't be guessing. Then you'd be
safe. But if that is not the case, you can run any other
of these levels. Let me say it that way. If that's not the
case, you can run any others.

Now let me give you one further piece of data on that that
is interesting. And that is, the goal fell a certain
consistent amount or reacted a certain amount. The terminal
then in its turn fell or reacted a certain amount. All
right. That terminal is going to remain falling that
amount, but when you check it back against the goal, you're
checking it back as to how much the goal now falls. And
this is not - not what's meant. It's how much did the goal
fall? Because the second his attention comes off of the
significance of goal and onto the solidity of terminal, you
get a change on the goal's reaction. Your goal's reaction
on your Assessment Sheets must be noted very precisely as
to how many divisions of rock slam - put it down in inches
if you're not sure, in some guesstimate of inches. How much
theta bop? How consistent? How much fall? How consistent?
You put that down about your goal because you're now going
to lose it. And you're not going to see that reaction on
the goal until you've got a terminal cleared off of it.

Now you may be able to go back and find a lot of reaction
on the goal again. And you might not be able to. So let me
clarify that, just as long as it's part of this
clarification. Yes, the terminal must fall as much as the
goal; the level must fall as much as the terminal. But the
terminal and the level alone can be measured against each
other. You can't measure all in one breath, the goal, the
terminal, the level. You can't say, "to pick gooseberries,"
"General MacArthur," and "failed withhold," and compare
them one against the other. You couldn't do an operating
condition of this character in auditing because "to pick
gooseberries" is lost back in the limbo someplace, you see,
and you'd have to get that one from your notes. Now is the
terminal falling as much as you found the goal falling in
your notes? Because this goal is now only falling in your
notes. It's not falling on the pc this much. It still will
react, but not as much. So checking your terminal against
the level can be done however, directly.

You say "General MacArthur, failed withhold, General
MacArthur, failed withhold, General MacArthur, failed
withhold." You wouldn't do that, but I say you could do
that, and you'd get the same reaction for General MacArthur
as the right level. And that would be the only test.

But if anything leaves you in doubt - just to answer your
direct question - if anything leaves you in doubt as to what
auditing command to shove into this, on this primary list
here, there are several here. Inverted Communication. You
get this awful fall on Inverted Communication, you see.
Well, what's Inverted Communication? Of course, one of the
phrases that you can use for it is "intend not-to not
communicate." But nevertheless this- could be other
inverted communications, peculiar communications.
"Communication on a via" is also a peculiar communication.
You could ask, "Would you communicate to a cat on a via?"
And the terminal's a cat, you know. And you get an awful
fall on this thing. Well, maybe you could run it directly.
"Communicate to a cat on a via." But you've got an Inverted
Communication Secondary Scale that clarifies the whole
thing for you. So it has a practical use as well as a
pedantic one. Okay?

Male voice: Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions? Yes?

Female voice: Well, it's still the query on the Havingness
and Confront. Originally the thing on Havingness and
Confront was you assessed for them after the first terminal
was flying.

Yes?

Female voice: Now I know of three cases, you know, that had
them added in...

Yeah.

Female voice: ... while on their first terminal. When you
- just at what point, now, on running SOP Goals, do we look
for the Havingness and Confront - ?

That isn't the question you asked. If that's the question
you mean...

Female voice: Well, that's the one I intend to ask. That's
the one I intend to ask.

All right. All right. Okay.

Female voice: When?

You ask when to run them.

Female voice: When to assess one and start including them
in their sessions as a regular part of auditing SOP Goals?

All right. All right. I will also answer that. Answered it
yesterday.

Female voice: Yeah.

How many parts or stages or stops or pause points are there
in Routines 1, 2 and 3?

Female voice: Well, one at the end of beginning rudiments.

No, ma'am.

Female voice: Oh, yeah.

Now you track with me.

Female voice: You mean the other separate rudiment. Yeah, yeah.

If you're going to insist this exact question be answered,
you track on this one now. Take a look at it now.

Female voice: All right. Yeah.

How many places in the process of intensives...

Female voice: Yeah.

.. would be pause points - where you could use your power
of choice on what you were supposed to do to the pc - are
there, in Routines 1, 2 and 3 consecutively?

Female voice: As you finish each section of the Routine
there's certainly a pause point.

No. Every - ah, yes. As you finish each and every section,
any level, any Security Check, any CCH step, any anything...

Female voice: Yeah.

.. Have and Confront can be located.

Female voice: All right.

There's no point in being pedantic about something it'd be
stupid to be pedantic about. You can find them anywhere,
anytime, as long as you've got done what you were doing.

Female voice: All right.

So you do a case assessment, you can find the pc's
havingness and confront.

Female voice: In other words, there's no particularly
optimum time to start using...

Oh, yes. Well now, that's a different question.

Female voice: Yeah.

Ah, but that's a different question.

Female voice: All right.

You've asked me can. All right.

Now, you write down his name, rank and serial number and
finish off with how many of his parents deserted how many
of his grandparents or whatever, see? And you've got that
all taped, you could turn right in, find his Havingness and
Confront Process. You could do this case assessment, and
you could find his Havingness Process. Then you could go
ahead and run a Joburg Security Check and find his Confront
Process. Oddly enough, you could find his Confront
Process - and now we're getting unoptimum - immediately after
you did this check, without damaging the pc in the least,
or you could do it when he was totally finished with
Routine 1. Wait until then to find his Confront. You could
find his Havingness Process, actually, at the time he
flattened his first terminal on SOP Goals running. By that
time, you've got to have it.

Female voice: Ah. All right.

And that happens to be just about your last hung dog. Going
from there on without finding the Havingness and Confront
Processes is expensive in auditing time, because the pc
never gets a chance to orient his bank or orient himself in
the physical universe as he is running. So therefore, a
great deal of auditing time is devoured from that point on,
if his havingness and confront are not present.

Less auditing time is devoured proportionately to your
being - toward the beginning of his auditing. The closer you
are to the beginning of the auditing, the less auditing
time is at stake.

For instance, you find that immediately after your case
assessment, you're wasting time. So when we get that close
to the beginning we're becoming silly, because one Joburg
is going to change his Have and going to change his
Confront. So you found them for what purpose? For their use
in one session, two sessions, three sessions. Now you're
going to have to find another Havingness and Confront
Process. And you're also liable to get all balled up on
"Well, let's see, his needle keeps tightening and the tone
arm keeps going stiff here on his confront and I don't know
what this is all about. It's just getting awfully
confusing. I guess the pc is confused." No, he's changing!

And you are going to have a harder time finding the
havingness and confront the earlier you find them in a pc's
intensives, not sessions. The earlier you look for them,
the harder time you're going to have finding the Havingness
and Confront Processes. And the more time you're going to
use doing it and the less use they will be to the pc
because they're going to change anyhow. So you can get
silly about this. See, it ceases to be just precautionary,
and it becomes simply a flagrant waste of auditing time.

All right. Now let's move in to the CCHs. Let's say that
this pc was going to be scraped all the way off the bottom.
All right. All the way up the line. All the way through all
routines. Got the idea?

All right. During the CCHs, locating his havingness and
confront is of no benefit of any kind because you are not
running in Model Session. You're running CCHs. So when are
you going to use the Havingness and Confront? So once more
you don't need the Havingness and Confront, but it would be
perfectly all right to assess for them and get them. You
got the idea?

All right. Now we get up to a point of where they become
useful. They are now useful. And that would have to do with
your general runs and Joburgs, you see. That would be useful.

Now, in view of the fact that you're going to run Joburgs
along with the CCHs, you nevertheless haven't got too many
sessions going there, so it - and your Joburg and the Havin-
and the CCHs are going to change the case a lot. And you're
going to have to find new Havingness and Confront Process.
So you can just go on a treadmill of wasting auditing time
by finding Havingness and Confront Processes practically
any time through Routine 1. You can just mark that right
down in the book. That's practically a waste of time,
because the case is going to change all over the place, and
you're going to have to find a new one every time you turn
around. So the pc's havingness runs down, so he's
uncomfortable; well, he's been uncomfortable for a couple
of hundred trillion years. Well, it won't hurt him to be
uncomfortable a little while longer. In terms of auditing
time, it's rather wasted to try to find Havingness and
Confront Processes during the CCH and Joburgs that make up
Routine 1.

All right. General Prehav runs and Joburgs at that level:
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. But the first run
flattened is sort of the pc getting used to what's going on
and getting his feet under him. He's already grasping too
much! You know, "What's this? I - I my - all - all my life...
Goodness gracious, could this be true? Uh, huuh! I uh ..."
You know? He's terribly interested. It's - these levels are
running at absolute obsessive interest, you know,
practically, because you've got him of course, right where
he lives.

All right. Let's say, "Well, let's stop being interested,
pc, and let's stop talking about all the things you're
trying to tell me about, and let's throw all this away
because it's not much importance to me. Ha-ha, ha-ha,
ha-ha. And we're going to find your Havingness and Confront
Process. We've got lots of time to waste here. You've
bought two hundred hours." Well, that's just about how it
would sound to the pc.

All right. But let's get that first level flat. And let's
get that good and flat, and let's get our first Joburg done
at Routine 2. Let's get our first Joburg done, and let's
get another level run and flat. Now the pc feels like he
can breathe. And right about then it becomes economical to
run your Havingness and Confront Processes. And it's
economical, and continues to be economical right up to the
point where it ceases to be adjudicative and becomes an
absolute, utter necessity. And that's in Routine 3, first
level run on the pc's goal terminal. And if you haven't
found the Havingness and Confront by that time, your pc is
now going to start to run very slowly, and you're going to
wonder why.

Now, that's the whole story. So, possible? - anytime.
Optimum? - sometime in the middle of Routine 2. Oh, I'd say
in any time during the first third of the totality of
Routine 2, it's kind of wasteful. But after that it becomes
quite economical, to find them. Now you're saving auditing
time.

And during the CCHs, oh man, are you wasting auditing time.
But you can find them. And it's perfectly okay, and the pc
will tell you he feels marvelous and isn't it a good thing,
and his havingness is way down, and you've just set him up
so that he can come into every session, and he's learned a
new trick now. He hasn't got anything to think about.
You're running the CCHs, see. He's learned this new trick:
"My havingness is way down. How do people act? Let's see.
It says in the textbook here. How do people act when their
havingness is down?" See, it's a new trick. Then he'll say,
"Oh, gee, I've just found out there are a whole bunch of
things I can't confront." This is a big cognition. So he
obsessively wants to try to confront them. See, you're
starting to get a process in the road of your processing.
And the pc's interest becomes unduly absorbed any time
during Routine 1 with Havingness and Confront. That's all
there is to it. Of course, I'm talking about a raw meat pc
running in right from the beginning.

That fairly clean, clear and cool and collected? Well, I'm
glad I finally answered your question.

Female voice: Thank you very much.

All right. Any other questions? Okay. What day is today?

Female voice: June 8th.

Yeah, I know it's the 8th but what day is it? This is
Thursday. Let's see. I'd better talk to you something about
leveling off a case, in just a few minutes. I'll just give
you a few minutes of "how do you level off a case." This
would be true in an HGC. It'd be true in your private
auditing, and so forth. A case is not going to get any
processing for a while. What do you do?

It is sequitur to exactly what we've been talking about
with Have and Confront Processes, so I might as well add it
in here. It is not just unkind, it is stupid, not to end an
intensive. Just as you would think it was stupid to fail to
end a session. Similarly, it is very dull not to end an
intensive.

Well, an intensive of a twenty-five hours is relatively
uneconomical. But it nevertheless has to be ended. I mean
it's uneconomical to get twenty-five hours of auditing.
Now, a person just gets off the launching pad, and he's
just going over the end of the runway lights, and the
control tower says it's time to whipstall. That's about
what it sounds like, too. You see, the guy has just taken
off, you know, and he just gets the idea that he might go
someplace, and he whipstalls.

Fifty hours, that's fairly economical. He gets a chance to
go someplace. All pcs could be compared to the frog who
climbs out of the well at the rate of three inches up in
the daytime and falling back two every night. But this is
proportionate. The deeper he is in the well and the earlier
he is in auditing, the more gain he makes up in the daytime
and the further he falls at night. And so when we say,
ending an intensive, it is better to cleanly and properly
end even a twenty-five-hour intensive. It is better to do
that than to say, "Well, it's a waste of auditing time,"
because he'll feel better for it if you do end it right.
Fifty hours: it's economical to end them, because you
practically stabilize the person's gains. You bring him out
of the woods and so on.

You end an intensive depending to a large degree on what
has been run during the intensive - what has been run during
the intensive. And you would end the Routine 1 differently
than you would end Routines 2 and 3. Two and 3 could be
ended almost exactly in the same way.

Let me say what would be an optimum twenty-five-hour
intensive even though it's uneconomical: A Joburg complete;
one CCH flat. If you haven't accomplished those in the
twenty-five hours, be rough, you see.

All right. How would you end this intensive? Well, you'd
better end this intensive by making sure both of those are
ended. The one CCH which you got flat, let's make sure that
that's flat. And let's make sure that Joburg is now
standing up and saying okay. And that's how you'd end the
intensive. Got the idea? I mean, you do no more than just
check over these two items. Of course, you check over that
CCH rather briefly because you can unsettle any process.
Processes come to temporary flat points and then unflatten.

All right. That's about the best you could do, except
during the last hour or so, it would be very beneficial to
run TR 10 - without Model Session or with it, it doesn't
matter - but to run TR 10. All right.

Now let's take Routine 2 or 3. How would you end the
intensive? I'd say during the last few hours of the
intensive, do nothing but run the Havingness and the
Confront Processes of the pc. Now, in a Routine 2 intensive
of twenty-five hours, you should certainly have had one
level - one general level - flat and one Joburg completely
completed. And the person's Havingness and Confront Process
found, and you would spend at least the last three hours of
the intensive, preferably five, which would make the last
HGC day of that intensive, doing nothing but running the
Have and Confront Process.

Just run the Have Process to a loose needle, run the
Confront to a slowed tone arm. You know, tone arm doesn't
look like it's wobbling very much right this minute, so now
we're going to run some Have, and then we're going back to
the Confront. Now we're going to run some Have, we're going
to run some Confront, and it stabilizes the case most
gorgeously. And he walks out of that intensive feeling
marvelous. If you do that and you do a good job, you
stabilize the gains. Otherwise, he's still kind of stuck
in the intensive. He's still wishing he had some more
auditing. He's still fixated on all kinds of little
factors. And the kind thing to do to him is let him gain
from his gains, and you level him out with your Have and
Confront.

Have, by the way, is never run further than a loosened
needle. I see people running ten minutes of Havingness.
This is incredible - unless they're only getting in five
commands in ten minutes or something. This is incredible!
That's an awful bogged Havingness these days!

All you're trying to do is run it from needle test to
needle test, can squeeze to can squeeze. Is it looser?
That's it! That's - you've had it. That's it. And it's only
about twelve commands. If you've got the right Havingness
Process, it's twelve commands. That's it.

Now you can get fancy with the Confront Process and run it
to what is called a blowdown, and that is to say the needle
rises and blows down. You come off of it. See? One cycle of
a needle - of the tone arm, pardon me. One cycle of the tone
arm. It will rise a little bit and blow down. And you run
it until the tone arm rises, largely or slightly, and
continue to run it until it goes thoomp! Or slides back
down a bit. And you come off of it and you run twelve
commands of Have, see. But somebody running ten minutes of
Havingness is somebody - just like somebody eating sugar, you
see - "I think I'll have some sugar. Would you hand me that
hundred-pound sack?" It's very hard on the digestion. And
this is factual. You see, the Have Process can run the
case. And you don't want it to run the case. You want it to
orient the pc in the environment. Please get its purpose.

See, you start running Have, and you run more than twelve
commands of Have, and what happens? The pc's bank starts
fluctuating. And the next thing you know he can run Have
against the bank. And he's running - you're running the bank
with a Have process, and you're not supposed to do that.
You're supposed to run the bank with a Confront Process. So
it's a misuse of the process. It's something like using a
pair of shears to dig up a garden. Not quite clever.

And you run ten minutes with it, and you've got the guy
going through engrams and his somatics turning on. That's
Havingness? Oh, yeah! You can do fantastic things with
Havingness. It isn't that Havingness doesn't work and it
isn't that Havingness won't run the bank because it will!
Boy, will it! But you've now started a new process known as
"running the bank with Havingness." And you go more than
about twelve commands with it and you've started that new
process, and you're going to get tone arm motion, and you'd
better run it now till the tone arm motion gets out of it,
and ... But it's a misused process. It isn't for that
purpose at all. It's to tell the pc, "Hey! Look! Physical
universe!"

And he says, "Well, what do you know? Oh! Physical
universe. That's pretty good."

And you say, "Good. I'm going to give you two more commands
and then end this process. And, pow! That's it! And then
you got the Confront, and you move right into the Confront,
get a jiggle out of the tone arm...

[End of lecture.]


