SHSBC 58

GOALS AND TERMINALS ASSESSMENT

A lecture given on 14 September 1961

Okay. This is 14 Sept., AD 11, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. And
there's nothing much to talk to you about today. And probably you should
all go home. There's hardly anything to learn. It's too much. And besides,
if you did learn it, what could you do with it?
People would get Clear. Just people would get Clear, that's all. Something
horrible happen.
You got a new routine that is going to require of you some additional
skills. And that routine, I repeat, consists of setting the pc down,
finding the pc's goal, finding the pc's terminal, assessing the Prehav
level and running the Prehav level. And then assessing for engrams the pc
has been in valence in. And then handling the various engrams one by one.
And now we come to a question mark. How soon we return to the Prehav
general runs after we've done that? It's not been determined. But I'll tell
you this: you'll see a pc's needle get awful loose after you've run a
couple of engrams. Boy, it starts getting awful loose. I'd say offhand it
probably depends on the pc to a marked degree, how many engrams you run him
before you run back to the general run of things. Because after you've run
one or two engrams, of course, the pc is going to be in some sort of a -
well, he's going to have all kinds of locks and everything stacked up and a
whole new set of engrams. And you find the pc changes gradiently. They lose
their chronic somatics at first. And then they lose their chronic emotional
difficulties. And third or fourth engram, why, they probably lose some
other things and start to get down to cases on the thing.
And then if you do another general run, assess again on the Prehav level
and do the general run on their terminal once more, you'll probably come up
with some more - an interesting series of engrams again. And then you have
to do the same thing.
Theoretically, the engrams should run faster and faster. They should do
better and better. And we're into a phase of it which we've had trouble
with before. And that is getting somebody to run an engram. And we have the
answer to that. Get subjective reality on being in some engrams and you
won't have any difficulty running them. Trying to run an engram without any
subjective reality winds up in ARC breaks and upsets of magnitude, but
nevertheless can be done and will have to be done in some places of the
world. All right.
Now, that general a rundown, of course, is flanked by Security Checks.
The whole thing is flanked by Security Checks. Everything about it: Running
engrams, general Prehav run, terminal checking, goals checking - just to
run it backwards. That's all flanked by Security Checks.
What ratio of Security Check and so forth? Well, the more difficult it was
to get a pc in-session, the more I'd concentrate on Security Check. See,
the more - that's a proportionate amount. If the pc is difficult to get
into session, or difficult to keep in-session, I would just come down on
that Security Check with spiked boots, because that's where it lies. That's
where you're going to get the fastest release of anything.
And if you can't seem to get anyplace on a Security Check, there is an
extreme form of Security Check known as the Not Know version of Security
Checks. I wouldn't advise running it. Now that you're running engrams,
there is no point in running the other, because you'll run him into two or
three different chains. If you start running Not Know, you see, on engrams
and that'll carry forward one set of engrams and then terminal carries
forward another set and it's all kind of messy. And if you're going to run
anything like engrams, I'd just run them on the terminal line. That's where
they appear.
Now, let's look it over. What's made this - what's made this activity
possible? We were steered widely out of course by auditors taking forever
to assess, or auditors taking no time at all to assess. This is - lecture
is on assessment, Goals Terminal Assessment. I'm just following the routine
down. Yesterday I took up Security Checks. Today, why, I'll take up Goals
and Terminal Assessments.
We were steered wildly out of our course by auditors - number one, first
instance - just assessing I don't know what! Get some old tomato can off
the shelf and gaze at their reflection in it or something and say, "Well,
that's your goal and that's your terminal and you've had it."
And then that went to the other Aristotelian extreme of, well, 285 hours
later we're still assessing for the goal.
Somewhere in between that is the best amount. But if you take more than ten
or twelve hours for assessing for a goal, I can tell you very, very plainly
that your rudiments are out.
Now, Washington course, you know, had thirty students and throughout the
course - in the course of thirty hours; they probably only got about thirty
hours of auditing per student in that six weeks' course on goals - and
during that thirty hours, they found not one goal. There was no
cross-checking on rudiments in that course, unlike the 22nd American,
unlike the South African course. Similarly, very few goals were found on
the Melbourne course and I don't know positively whether or not they
checked rudiments on each other or not, but I would say not. If they did,
it was very ineffectual.
And it boils down to this. Although the Instructors of the Washington
course are very incredulous - they are sort of uhhuugh-hhgh on the
communication lines now. "Well, were certain people in the course that we
found the goals and terminals on - well, were the goals and terminals in
their first 150 list and - ?" you know, they're just - just don't believe
it. They just don't believe it. It just is not possible for them to
comprehend that every one of their students had their rudiments out.
Now, what they're not estimating is the delicacy of the goal and how
rapidly it disappears from sight. And you've either got to be a very
skilled auditor with terrific altitude or you've got to have the rudiments
in. Take your choice. I can get goals and terminals with the rudiments out.
All right. That's simply a question of altitude. The degree of altitude you
have over your pc is the degree you can keep him in-session. And that is
the whole story of how to get the goal and terminal.
But if you sit there and apparently don't know what you're doing and you're
very unpositive, you know, you take the E-Meter and say, "Well, let's see,
now. Where's - see the instruction book over here. See and so on and so on
and so on. Hm-mm-hm-mm-hm-mfli-hFfl-lflm-m. What's this? Oh. Oh, I haven't
got the cans plugged in. Now, here are the - these are the what? The uh -
cans. I don't know - why are these called cans?" you ask the pc.
You haven't got any altitude anymore. It's gone. You just poured it down
the sink. And that's the end of it. All you've got to do is sit there,
unconfident and you get an inconfident preclear. All you've got to do is
look stupid and sound stupid and you'll have a stupid session as an
auditor. That's the whole works.
You've got to know your business. And the degree that you inspire
confidence in the pc is actually just the degree that you know your
business, the degree you could do the TRs, the degree you can do Model
Session, the degree of familiarity with which you handle the E-Meter, the
positiveness and directness of your questions to the PC. These things are
all altitude. If you want to know what altitude is, it has nothing to do
with your past record. You can have the most marvelous past record in the
world. And you sit down in front of this pc, fumble with the E-Meter,
fumble the command, be unconfident in your handling of the pc and you have
no altitude. So altitude is never automatic.
Altitude is made. And it is made right in session, every session, by the
expertness with which you do the session. And if you want altitude, all
you've got to do is do a letter-perfect session. And that's all there is to
altitude. Because that itself inspires confidence in the pc. That's well
worth knowing, isn't it?
Don't let me ever hear you say, now, any of you, "Well, if I were just Ron
I could get this done in a hurry." You just say instead, "Well now, if I
acted like I knew my business well enough, I would get this done in a
hurry." Okay? Because look, I've got no altitude with some of the Pullman
car porters I've audited. They don't know me from Adam. You know? Lots of
the people I've audited - they never heard of me, they never heard of
Scientology, they never - nothing. Yet they respond immediately and at
once. Bang! Well, why? Why? Well, because I don't fumble. That's about the
only thing you can say about it.
Also there's very high R. I keep a very high R in a session. Reality up,
up, up. I don't get chatty or nonsensical with the pc, but I am apt to be
slightly didactic in a session. Not overwhelming, but just to keep the R
up. If I don't think the pc is acting right, I'm liable to ask him "Why
aren't you in-session?" You know? I'm sitting there wondering why they're
not in-session, so I ask him why they're not in-session.
This R-factor is such a tremendous factor and is so little appreciated and
so little understood, that a person's auditing will be incomprehensible to
him in that it's apparently good with one pc - or on one day and not good
on another pc, or on another day with the same pc. You see, it's his
auditing skill is - goes over the rolly coaster. Well, that's because his R
goes over the rolly coaster; his reality on the subject goes over the rolly
coaster. A pc can always tell. And so forth.
Well, I gave a session last night, if the pc doesn't mind my remarking on
it. And the pc was at once struck with the fact that we were not going
along as smoothly as we had the session before. Well, there's no question
about the
fact that the R was out. But it was out between me and the session. It
wasn't out with - much with the pc, it was out between me and the session.
Now, how was it out between me and the session? I didn't know what the hell
to do! Two nights before I had this pc in an engram - night before - had
the pc perfectly, right there. Had it all spotted and identified, all ready
to run.
Next session I was going to take it up. Of course, that's a little mistake
in itself (to locate an engram and not run it, see?). But not much of a
mistake. You'll find yourself doing it quite often. It's unavoidable. And
set the pc down and, "What do you see?"
"Well I see blackness."
"What's going on?"
"Nothing."
What reactions can a guy get on a meter? Nothing. I start talking about
this incident. Nothing. I get nowhere and I suddenly say, "Where the hell
am I and what are we doing?" Well, I didn't express it aloud too much and
the R went out just like that. But I myself was totally baffled. What the
hell was going on? Pc was of no assistance whatsoever. Quite - quite usual
in running the type of engram you run into.
The pc says, "Well, I just don't know." And that's it. You're not even
asking him a not-know question. "I just don't know." And then the pc will
get restive too, when you've located an engram perfectly and the pc right
in it and then you hit the same engram and the pc can't find it.
Pc says, "What's happening?"
Well, of course, to some slight degree, they blame the auditor. "Why don't
you take me and shove me into this engram?" You know, that's - kind of a
thing.
Well, what engram? How could I shove a pc into an engram I couldn't locate,
identify, do anything with? I mean that engram was a szszszsz.
You say, "What are you looking at?"
He says, "I'm looking at blackness."
"Yeah. Well, good. Now, where's this - go to the point where something or
other was happening the last time," or something like that.
"What do you see?"
"Nothing. Blackness."
Well, let's see what we can find in this. Well, in the first place, you're
not - you're not looking for a needle in a haystack. A person who's looking
for a needle in a haystack is looking for a needle. See, he knows it's a
needle. Well, looking for an engram, you don't know what the hell you're
looking for a lot of the time. You just don't know what you're looking for,
because that's the keynote of an engram: "Don't know." Pc can't tell you.
He can't find out on the meter and you yourself don't know. Now what?
All right. So the R-factor went out and it was a little bit difficult to
keep the pc in-session. Because my reality factor went out because it
startled me. And then I never remarked on it to the pc, see? It did startle
me. Was the pc in the engram? Wasn't the pc in the engram? Had we lost the
engram? Was there something else? Were we on some kind of a chain? What was
the matter here?
Of course, it worked out the pc was in the engram and the engram didn't
have anything much about it. It was just totally dark. It was all black. It
was black for a whole lifetime. The pc was blind. There were no remarkable
somatics. There was nothing very dramatic except how the pc had lost her
eyesight and that was done under an anaesthetic and that was unrecoverable.
Took three hours to run the engram which was kind of a championship run.
And I finally even resorted to lock scanning and some other tricks. Not
lock scanning. I scanned the pc through that whole lifetime several times,
trying to make the pc hang on the point of trauma. Pc never hung. Just the
pc would keep running into these things and learning more about it and ran
emotion and things. "When were you apathetic?" Yeah, you know? And so
forth. Ran off emotional curves. Did everything I could think of. And we
finally got it. And we got it all straight and it was the damnedest story
anybody had ever heard of. It almost made me sick at my stomach. But there
it was. There it was.
But the R-factor went out, basically, because I wasn't too frank with the
pc because I was taken totally by surprise. You find the engram, there it
is. It has the somatics, it's all properly registered, it's got a picture,
it's got visio - there's everything with it. And you say, "Well, we'll
catch it next session." Next session, "What engram? Where?" Pc was right in
it. That was the trouble with the whole thing. Nothing ever happened. Pc
totally dependent on visio - no visio. Sonic shut off. Emotional downcurve,
everything else. All right.
Now, I could have done better on this. You can always do better. You always
have a six-foot rear-view mirror with a tiny little peephole in the front.
And I could have said, "Well, this is awfully odd here. It's a - we had it
and - where is it? Where is the point we had last night? And, you know? I'm
puzzled about this," and possibly the R-factor would have gone up. I don't
know whether it would have or not, but it would have made an easier
session. Well, it wasn't difficult to run this session. Nothing happened
except it just wasn't a very high-powered session. And it took about three
hours to run the thing, see. But I think it would have taken three hours to
have run it anyhow, because it was a whole lifetime from earliest childhood
to complete adulthood, all blind, on a pc who was totally dependent on
visio. Well, that was a rough one to crack. Not many somatics connected
with it. Nothing very dramatic that way. All right.
The R-factor has a great deal to do with this. The auditor in this case was
suddenly uncertain. You wouldn't have been uncertain. I had a horror when I
got halfway through running this - "How in the name of God one of these
auditors in the class would run this thing, you know?" Because, brother, I
was using the whole lousy lot, you know? I was using the whole book of
tricks from A to izzard. You know, I was running emotional curves and I was
running Not Know in all different kinds of fashions and I was using
scanning - not scanning through engrams, but scanning through a lifetime.
And you know, you scan somebody through a lifetime and he'll hang up in the
moment of trauma, see.
And you say, "Well, go to the beginning of this thing. Now scan rapidly on
through to the end of that life," and he'll hang up in the engram necessary
to solve that life, you see?
And the engram was a whole lifetime and I'd never expected this breadth. I
thought I had about - you know, I didn't think about it very hard. I
thought maybe I got an hour or two, see? An hour or two of a lifetime. Oh,
no, no, no, nothing like that. Something on the order of - I don't know -
sixty, seventy years. Pc finally had a cognition and the pc exteriorized
from the body and could see again. Why, she had the cognition - well, she
said to herself, you know, "Well, why didn't I do that a long time ago, you
know? Why did I live that lifetime at all?" That was what it amounted to.
But the pc was on a chain, where the pc's taking it all for granted. See?
It since - that chain is very usual to the pc and is very outrageous to the
auditor. It's fantastic! See?
And the pc says, "Oh, yes, yes." Something on the order of "Well, they took
the Empire State Building and parked it on a cloud and it sailed away, you
know?"
And the pc is going on with perfectly usual, ordinary activities, you know.
"So they took a drink of water," you see, is the way it sounds to the pc
going through it, you see? And to the auditor it says, "Well, so then they
took liquid fire and poured it into everybody's eardrums," you see. It's
just going - just completely jarred out. So the R-factor couldn't have
helped but be out in the engram. And only somebody with a natively high
R-factor, you might say, could have kept it in. But I had horrors. I said,
"How in the name of God could they run this one?"
In the first place, they would have said to the pc, "What are you looking
at?"
Oog-h! And the pc would have said, "Blackness" and "I don't know."
And just about ten, fifteen minutes with that type of questioning after it,
you would have been absolutely certain - almost all of you - would have
been absolutely certain there was no engram there. And the pc is sitting
right in the middle of it. And you would have gone off and tried to run
another engram, your pc would have ARC broke and that would have been that!
So it was a dynamite situation. It's tricky. It's tricky.
All right. Well, you can confront that in due course, but confront first
how to find a goal. And the R-factor is terribly important when you run an
engram, but it is even more important when you are running goals.
In the first place, Homo sap, apparently, gets in a games condition about
goals, so the R-factor will drop.
"What goals have you had? Go ahead. List your goals. I dare you. Oh. Oh." I
tell you, auditor reality would have been pretty bad to smother them, but
auditor reality can be very bad while doing somebody else's goals because
it's sort of a native games condition. Won't let the pc have a goal.
Apparently, that's what it adds up to. So you just have to overcome this
and somehow or another keep a high R and do everything you're doing very
positively and very confidently. And the way to do things positively and
confidently is very simple: just know your business. In order to be
positive and confident, all you have to do is be superlatively good at your
business.
And what is your business? All right. This is very simple. Got to have your
TRs, your Model Session and know exactly what you're doing with a Goals
Assessment. If you know those things, you look confident and if you're
willing to let the pc have a goal - and if you're having difficulty getting
the pc's goal, why don't you just ask yourself that question? "Am I let -
willing to let this pc have his goal?" Why, you'll find out you can get
this goal. Now, that is a different approach than rudiments in.
I just call it to your attention here that this is another approach. This
comes under the head of altitude. How much altitude do you have while
you're auditing the pc? Well, you have as much altitude as you are
competent. And that is all the altitude you will ever have. You're
competent also in that session. Your competence cannot go on automatic. All
right. Now, that is another approach and if you can keep your competence
level up and not stumble and bumble about the whole thing and do a proper
job of it, you'll find out that the goal doesn't disappear. See?
Now you've got another whole angle of it, is you buck this up with the
rudiments and you make the rudiments very good. And you make it so the pc
doesn't have any immediate withholds from you. Pc is willing to talk to the
auditor, able to talk to the auditor. And get those rudiments in. Get those
in real good. Make sure the pc doesn't have a present time problem and so
forth. You can spend quite a bit of time on that. And then get your Goals
Assessment done.
Now, let me call to your attention a mistake that was made on the
Washington course, which was just conducted. And that is, they were
evidently, from the records Mary Sue was looking at, were doing a
tremendous amount of Security Checking under the guise and heading of
rudiments.
Now, how the hell anybody managed that, I don't know. But it had nothing to
do with the price of fish. The withhold that you are looking for while
doing the rudiments, is the withhold from you personally which will make
the pc unwilling to talk to you in the session.
You aren't looking for all of the withholds of the life. That is why you
run a Security Check entirely independent of your normal sessions. You are
not trying to do a Security Check while you are doing rudiments. And of
course, you would foul up like mad.
As much as eighteen hours of the thirty hours devoted to looking for goals,
in the Washington course, was devoted to rudiments. And that is just
balderdash! I don't mind saying so, but it was all devoted to doing
Security Checks.
Can you think of any better way to deny a pc a goal? Isn't that
interesting? You get up so far in the rudiments and you say, "Well, are you
withholding anything from me?" something like that.
And pc doesn't have any fall at all. There's no reaction.
And you say, "Well, come now, you must be withholding something from
somebody."
"Ah, well, put it that way, yes."
See, you'd never get around to doing a Goals Assessment. Hm-hm-hmhm. Smart,
huh?
Now, if you go on past that withhold button, you want to know what the pc
is withholding from you. Right now! And you see, the rudiments are all
nownesses. The present time of the rudiments and so forth - the present
time problem, as addressed in the rudiments - means a situation which
exists now in the physical universe. Whether it's long or short durations,
it must have a nowness about it.
Now, the one thing we have stepped a little bit wide from on this is the
rudiment concerning ARC breaks, because you'll find that the pc has had a
limited auditing track, a very limited auditing track: a few hundred, at
most, a thousand or two at the absolute outside. Some old-timer might
possibly come around with a fifteen-hundred-hour auditing track. In view of
the fact that you've got a pc who has had many ARC breaks with other
auditors, it is better to ask, "What haven't you been able to tell an
auditor?" and "When?" You see, it's much better to approach it that way.
But you will find out that you can also play this one to death. After
you've done that with a pc once and have gotten the backtrack off, you
should shorten that rudiment to "me," not an auditor. "What haven't you
been able to tell me? When was that?" See. You just cut down your track.
Now, the others under the heading, sort of a crossed-up thing, of
straightening up auditing with the pc at the same time that you were
running rudiments. So remember that it's got a double barrel. The proper
rudiment is just "me."
See, the rudiments are actually addressed to keeping the auditor in-session
with the pc - reverse-wise. Now the auditor has confidence that the pc is
not going to go out of session, so of course he keeps the pc in-session.
That's the basic purpose of the rudiments. Nobody laughed.
No, it just has to do with that session. The rudiments ordinarily have to
do with that session, that auditor. And then, on a gradient scale, it's
that session, that auditor, auditors. Don't go outside the realm of the
auditing session or auditing sessions, if you really want to start doing
fast rudiments and keep them in. Because that's the rudiments that will be
out. All you're trying to do with rudiments is not solve a case. You're
trying to set up a session so the pc will be in session during that
session. That is all.
Now, you will find it necessary to establish a willingness to be a pc, on a
lot of people. Well, what's he willing to be and what is he unwilling to
be? That goes a long way. That becomes a process. If you needle-flatten it,
it is adequate for your purposes. If you tone arm-flatten it, of course you
run the whole case.
You get the difference between these two things? So don't - I've altered
that little thing in my notes. I don't know if I passed it along to you in
that form. But it is just needle-flatten all rudiments. Rudiments get
needle-flattened. Processes get tone arm-flattened.
Well, what's needle-flattened? Well, when you don't - when you ask the
question again, do you get a needle reaction? You don't get a needle
reaction, so you don't ask the question again. Now, that's fairly simple,
isn't it? Nothing much to that.
So, let's take a look at this and realize that the first and foremost
necessity is a competent auditor, who does know what he's doing and a pc
who is in-session with that auditor, even though he might not be in-session
with some other auditor. That's your second requirement.
And then actually let the pc have his goal. Don't go cat-and-mousing around
about the thing. Let him have his goal. The goal will appear, ordinarily,
in the first 150 and boy, that is a wide figure. I mean, that is a big
figure. I think it ordinarily occurs in the first 50. But I'm just saying
150 just to take care of exceptions.
Let him have it. If you haven't found it in that length of time, then
assume, one, that you apparently haven't any altitude with this pc and two,
that the rudiments are out.
Well, now how do you solve the altitude? Well, you solve the altitude with
the pc by doing a competent job. And you get the pc in-session, of course,
by getting the rudiments competently done. That's all.
And if I didn't get his goal within the first 150 goals a pc gave me, I
would just go back and beat the rudiments to death on a whole basis. In
other words, I would - I would just hit this willingness to be a pc, you
see, with - that particular facet. What's wrong with the auditor is the
unwillingness of the pc to be a pc.
I'd make sure that the present time problems and so forth were at least
kicked out a little bit. I'd make sure of all of these various points in
the rudiments. I would just beat them to death and I'd go back and do the
same Goals Assessment all over again. Got it?
I don't know that I would let somebody else check the rudiments, but - seem
rather dull. But you might have somebody else check the rudiments just in
case they're only in with you or something, but aren't really in with you,
or some goofball situation like this that you can't quite undo the lock of.
What is this? Means the pc has become wary of giving you his goal, or the
pc has become very distracted from the subject of goals. That's all it
means. You haven't got the pc's goal in the first 150? Well, the pc has
become distracted.
Now, Goals by Elimination is a perfectly valid way of finding goals. But
this can be carried to much, much too great a length. You can do Goals by
Elimination just by reading the list, each goal once. Do you realize that?
Read the list over and over and over. And you'll still do a Goals
Assessment by Elimination. You don't have to add repeater technique to it.
It'll eventually work out. Actually, there's hardly even any time to be
won. And if you find the PC is getting edgy about repeater technique, well,
just start reading the goals list from beginning to end. Simple. Check each
one and say, "Well, that one's in and that one isn't in," and so forth and
so on.
Go back to the beginning of it and read the goals list again. You'll find
those that were in have now dropped out. And gradually it'll boil down to
the one that's in and that's it. Because only one goal is going to
register.
Now, there is a worse crime than doing a long Goals Assessment and finally
finding the goal. There is a worse crime. And that is doing a stinking,
lousy, hit-or-miss, who cares, wrong Goals Assessment. Now you can really
louse up a pc. That just wastes the whole works. And it does worse than
that. It actually harms the pc.
So do a careful Goals Assessment. And I won't say then that you should rush
the Goals Assessment up just to get within ten hours or that sort of thing.
At the end of ten hours, you're not sure, well, keep on going. But
remember, you've already got the pc's goal when you've had the first 150
and that's for sure. It would be a very unusual and rare case that it went
any further than that.
You keep asking the pc for goals, you're just bludgeoning him. You're
bludgeoning him with more goals you want. More goals. More goals. More
goals. More goals. You can always add goals to the list. But don't knock a
person apart, because he can't think of any. And that was one of the
symptoms that was turning up on these endless assessments.
Auditor would finish the list and then demand more goals. He'd say, "Well,
have you got any more goals?" and the pc would get a needle reaction.
Look, the needle reaction was on "For Christ's sakes, I haven't got any
more goals!" See? It was a needle reaction on an ARC break.
And then the auditor would sit there and say, "Well, what is that goal?"
What goal? Hell! I could have given it to him if I had been the pc at the
time, you see? "I'd wring your neck, man!" You see? Just as blunt as that.
Because that's what it amounts to.
You get an ARC break read and you say, well, there's more goals. And that
nonsense can actually continue by actual test for about 150 hours. Pretty
grim, huh?
There aren't any more goals. All there are, are ARC breaks but they never
get cleaned up, don't you see? Every time your needle falls, well, you say,
"Well, there must be more goals," but actually it's falling on an ABC
break. And the pc does want to find what his goal is, so he somehow or
another holds him in-session and he's more or less on auto by this time.
See, the rudiments are wildly out when you get into this kind of a
situation.
No sir. You go over a very elementary routine here and without adding
anything much to it, why, you will find the pc's goal. It is - of course,
from my viewpoint, I'm explaining to you how to find a white pebble in the
middle of a black desert. You see? It just isn't possible for anybody not
to be able to do this, you know? Because of that impossibility, I
eventually had to assign it to that one. There's some kind of a goals
condition going on here - which is a super games condition. It's a
specialized condition that relates to one human being letting another human
being have a goal. And it's even gotten into auditing, which shocks me, you
know, because I've never seen anything else get into auditing like this.
Must be, though. It was happening all the way around the world.
The first list of how you got the pc's goal is so simple; there's nothing
much to it. I mean, so you got the pc to give you a list of goals and then
you went over them and found out the one that fell the most and that was
the Pc's goal. Auditors couldn't do that. Don't think they can. I don't
think they can now, because they read cognition surges and all sorts of
things on these things. Pc gets a new goal and he gets a hell of a surge,
you see. "Hey, what do you know? I - when I was nine years old I wanted to
blow up the local bank! Hey, what do you know, you know? I did." You know,
he gets a big fall.
And the auditor says, "Well, that's his goal" and writes it down. That's
it. And then says, "Well, all right. What's the terminal for this? Who
would blow up a bank?"
"And - and who'd blow up a bank?" "Oh, uh - I guess, uh - bank robbers. Uh
- yeah."
"Bank robbers would, huh? Well, who else would blow up a bank?"
"Well, I guess uh - most anybody would blow up a bank."
"Oh, anybody? Good, I'll write that one. Uh - uh - who - who'd be capable
of blowing up a bank?"
"Well, my mother would be."
"Ah! Your mother. Good. That's it."
And of course they got a big fall on it because the person had a - "That's
odd. My mother. It flashes into mind she'd blow up a bank. That's very
peculiar." And you get a big fall, you see. The fall's never repeated, by
the way. The fall would never repeat on the bank and it'd never repeat on
this terminal.
So they assess mother on the Prehav Scale - this usually with great care,
taking eight or nine hours to do this one. Get all the levels totally
reacting, you see, and then pick out one, kind of at random and then run
it, you know?
Next time they do the assessment, why, they got 15 levels live and they run
on that level for a little while. Next time they do the assessment, they
got 24 levels live and they do the assessment and run it again. And now
they got the whole scale live and the pc is spinning in.
Just - this is actually the way it was going. So I developed Assessment by
Elimination and I found out it worked and proved it out to myself and found
out that this was the way it worked and I could do it very easily and it
actually made my job easier too, and that was dandy. And that is to say you
took these 30, 40, 50, 60, 100 goals the pc gave you and you eliminated
them. And you found out oddly enough that they would all eliminate. Every
single one of them would eliminate, except the pc's goal. And I figured,
well, nobody could make a mistake doing that, so that was released that
way. And the immediate response to that was to go on doing an endless Goals
Assessment. Just keep asking for more goals and then more goals and you who
were here, you know how that was. It was - it was pretty grim. What was
this?
But I was operating on a datum that you don't know about. And that is that
people have been assessed - some very rare cases have been assessed to
Clear without finding the goal. They must have been by former auditing, you
see, just within about three or four centimeters of the top. And then you
did an assessment and they cognited on these things and blew forth to
Clear. It has happened. Well, in view of the fact that it happened, I
thought this other could possibly happen, too, then. But it didn't and it
doesn't. And a quick recapitulation on the whole thing showed that the
goals were always within the 150 and that was it. So the upshot of this is
that it's just Assessment by Elimination.
Now, the person is going to rephrase goals and is going to think of
different goals. Of course, you have to put those things down. But it's
mostly when the pc volunteers them that you put those down. You're not
beating him to death trying to find vast new numbers of goals. And you'll
find that you've got the pc's goal. And that - that's it, because it all
eliminated and only that goal is falling.
Now, the speed with which you can do this is totally dependent on your
skill, not the pc's difficulty. See, you've got a big altitude factor,
you'll at once pull this pc's goal up and there it'll be, you see? But if
the pc's feeling a little bit queasy about goals and is getting ARC broke
and other things are going off and the rudiments go out, all of a sudden
goal ceases to react.
Evidently, it's a very delicate thing. Evidently, the rudiments out can
suppress the goal. And in the absence of very much altitude, this happens
easily.
You got the pc's goal. The pc gave you the goal, but it disappears off the
meter. So do the other goals disappear off the meter. Everything disappears
off the meter. Why do they disappear off the meter? Well, because the
rudiments are out. That is all.
Rudiments are out; of course, altitude has gone to hell and pc isn't
in-session or anything else.
So the proper way to do a goals list - the best way I know of to do a goals
list at this time, is to ask the pc to come to session with a list of all
of the goals they have ever had. And then sit down, take the various
categories of goals, like secret goals, withheld goals, any other kind of
category of goals that you can think of and ask him for a few of those. And
you ask him for a few more of those and in the next category and get a few
of those. And run it down so you're not getting wild needle reactions on
the thing. You'll wind up with a goals list there that will be maybe -
maybe as much as 150, maybe as little as 60 or 80. And then having gotten
this, why, you - well, I just start in doing an Assessment by Elimination.
Probably the best thing you ought to do in view of the difficulties we've
had on it, is to check the rudiments. Now that you've got the goals list,
check the rudiments and start in from the beginning. And just mark the
goals that react as you pass them by. And some of those goals will be quite
null.
Now, there are two ways you can do it and both of them are quite valid.
One, you can repeater technique them - repeat the goal 2, 3 times. If it's
still in, leave it; and if it's gone now, scratch it. And the other one, is
just go over the list. Just read the list, one goal after the other goal.
And those that are still in, mark them as still in. The next time you read
the list, those that are out, you omit. If they all disappear, consider
that the whole list has been muffed and get the rudiments very thoroughly
in and go back over the whole list again just as though you've never
assessed. Now, that would give you the pc's goal. See, I don't think you
could miss.
Now, once you've got the pc's goal - once you've got the pc's goal - you
want to be very sure that that is it. And the way to be very sure is to get
somebody else to check it.
Now, the way to check a goal is to take this goal against some of the
others that were reacting last - you know, some that were still in, the
last ones that disappeared, something like that - and read it over in
comparison with the ones that were still in. You know, go by it casually as
though it's just one of these other goals, see, not give it undue emphasis.
And you may be reading 5, 6, 8, 10 goals there, you see? And you just go
over this list, read them down, see if any of these other goals now react.
And then find out if that goal is consistently reacting.
First thing you want to do when you're checking is to check the rudiments.
And then if the rudiments are out, get the pc to go back and get the
rudiments put in. And then check the goal. Don't check goals with rudiments
out. And you'll find that the goal, if that is the pc's goal, will react
very nicely and very neatly and that's all there is to it.
Now, pcs often get very sure that such and so is their goal and if I catch
any student off of this course - I don't care, you can do it maybe off of a
course in lower south Ambria or something. Don't for God's sakes, Q-and-A
with this. Don't - don't Q-and-A with a pc, please. If you learn one thing
here, please learn: Don't Q-and-A with the pc.
The pc says, "Well, I just know that's my goal. I just know it is. I just
know it is. I just know it is."
Look, that had nothing to do with the price of fish. The E-Meter knows.
Maybe it's their goal and maybe it hasn't - isn't their goal.
I've had pcs going around this very place saying, "Well, that's my goal: to
blow up the First National Bank and that's it. We know that. Yes sir,
that's my goal. There is no doubt about that," you see. And that's out
tomorrow. That disappears. And their goal is something else. But they can
get hung up on one of these goals. But this doesn't mean that because they
get hung up on one and keep on telling you that that is the goal, that it
isn't the goal. You see, the goal they're telling you about may be the goal
and it may not be the goal. That's beside the point. Works same way with
terminals. It may be the terminal, it may not be the terminal. What the pc
is telling you had nothing to do about it.
When you check it out, you know. What the pc says has nothing to do with
it. That's all. You just never take what the pc says. That's all, man. You
just don't do it! Because you're going to make some serious damned blunder
that's going to wind up somebody in one awful mess. I'm not kidding.
You take the wrong goal just because the pc said it was that: well, you're
playing an awful overt on that pc. And you take the wrong terminal just
because the pc was absolutely sure that it was a bank president - that was
the terminal, yeah.
"Who would rob the bank?"
"The bank president."
All right. That's it! Because that's the most logical one. Of course,
that's it. And so forth. Well, you buy that just because the pc says so?
You run that on the Prehav Scale and the next thing you know, you have more
levels live. And you run it on another level and you've got more levels
live. And you're just making the whole scale go live. And what you're doing
is bringing into play every bit of the Step Six phenomena. Step Six
phenomena only took place when you were operating with the wrong terminal.
Whole bank beefs up. The whole bank goes live if you start running the
wrong terminal. So it's a very dangerous thing to do. And it's not a mild
thing to do at all. And one of the easiest ways to fall from grace on this
is to take what the pc says is his terminal regardless of what the E-Meter
says.
The E-Meter knows. If it doesn't check out on the E-Meter, it isn't it. And
if it - if it fails to check out on the E-Meter, it may still be it but it
means just the rudiments are out. Get the rudiments in; it'll react.
Now, you assess a terminal exactly the same way and there's tricky ways of
assessing terminals. You can ask for both the cause and effect end of the
goal, now, under the heading of terminals - cause and effect end of the
goal.
I'm not scolding you, but actually my temper has been sorely tried in the
last few months on this subject. It's looking for this - not a white
pebble; it's this white mountain in the middle of a black desert, you see.
It's very simple. You just take any goal and it usually has a cause and
effect. You consider the goal cause-distance-effect, like a communication
line, don't you see? And there's something that does it to something in
almost every goal.
In other words, "I," you see, "want to rob the First National Bank." All
right. There's "I" who wants to do the robbing and there's the terminal to
be robbed. See? There's two things there. So you can get two lists and
it'll appear on either end. But don't worry about that too much. And if you
find it too difficult to reinterpret, just do the simple list.
You just say, "Well, who would rob the First National Bank?" or "What would
rob the First National Bank?" You see? And something on that order. There
is no point, however, in a - in avoiding this. But you - I'm only - reason
I'm putting this reservation in there is because I imagine there can be
goals that it'd just try your wits trying to find out which is the cause
and which is the effect end of the thing. Like, "to be myself." Well, who
is trying to be what? And you've opened up the whole field and you're
nowhere. Of course, this is just a nowhere goal. It's quite usual. It's
quite an ordinary goal for a pc to wind up with: "To be myself."
Great. "Who are you?" Now you've got a tough terminals run, man. It's a
tough terminals run. You've got not a clue. Nobody's got a clue. "What is
the terminal?"
"Myself."
"Who are you?" That's the obvious thing you have to ask. "Well, I. . "Who -
who are you?"
"Who is trying to be who?" is the double one, see? "Who are you trying to
be who?" See? It's quite amazing that you can do a Terminals Assessment on
it at all. Yet it's a very common goal. All right.
Now, you mustn't omit - you mustn't omit - things as terminals. Because to
a pc here and there, you're going to find a spacecraft is more real than a
spaceman. And although we have always so far broken the what over to a who
- you know, found spacecraft and it wound up to be a spaceman - I imagine
from just that indicator that sooner or later there's going to be a what
that doesn't break down to a who. It's going to be the First National Bank
and that is it. It isn't any who robbing anything, it's the First National
Bank, see. That's it. That's the goal - terminal. It's a what. We've found
enough of them.
Well, here's a common sort of occurrence on the track. Fellow is riding
around, minding his own business in a spaceship - only blowing up planets
and doing other minor things - and hardly troubling anybody, you see,
hardly at all. And terrific numbers of overts, you see? And he smashes up a
spacecraft 1, spacecraft 2, spacecraft 3, spacecraft 4, spacecraft 5, then
starts putting spacecraft 6 in danger, sort of impulsively and it starts
getting chipped up. And the next thing you know, this fellow will not
assess as a who. This fellow will assess as a spacecraft. Good enough. If
you can't make it come out to a who, well it's obviously - that's it.
What's he done? He's sort of splattered all over a spacecraft and is being
one.
Now, when you realize that a body is a vehicle this is not as odd as it
might look. A body is a vehicle. Thetan carrier.
Now, you've got to use some sense in making a Terminals Assessment. But
like, in doing an assessment on goals, you don't prompt. You don't prompt.
Just lay off prompting. The safest thing to do is to just leave it alone.
That's the safest thing to do. If the pc doesn't say it, it isn't said. You
understand? Because you can feed him something weird and get a reaction on
it and it isn't quite right and then you have a lot of trouble, then you
get an ARC break. And I think most of the ARC breaks on goals is prompting.
See, I think that would be the most fruitful source of them. So although I
have prompted successfully, it doesn't mean that it always works. He says,
"Well, I don't know. To be a denizen of the frozen north. Yes, that's the
goal." "That's the goal you're operating on - to be a denizen of the frozen
north." All right.
And you say, "All right. Well, give me a terminal for that." It's always a
very safe question.
"Uh-I can't think of any."
And you say, "Well, who would be a denizen of the frozen north?"
"Well, I can't think of any."
"Uh - well, who would occupy the place?"
"Well, can't think of anybody at all."
Oh, what a temptation at this moment, you know, to say - because you know
you've got it on your own branch line of terminals - goals terminals, you
know - say, "The Royal Northwest Mounted Policeman?"
Well, of course, the pc has to reject this. Pc has to reject this and to
that degree rejects you as the auditor. And every time you give a pc a
suggestion of that character and he has to reject it, why, you - he's
thrown you - had to throw you out of session. In other words, he had to go
on auto, you see, to some slight, tiny degree. And this may be - the source
of these ARC breaks may be straight out of the area of prompting. I almost
never prompt.
But I've had four or five auditors sitting behind me while I was doing a
Goals Assessment on somebody, passing me notes. "It's his wife," you know.
"It's his - it's his wife." This isn't distractive at all to the pc, you
see. "It's his wife." They don't realize that it's just because I'm trying
to hold the pc in-session that I don't turn around to them and say very
impolitely, "Why don't you shut up! If it's his wife, it's his wife. And if
it isn't his wife, it isn't his wife. And that is all there is to it!"
Now, the auditor's phrasing - the auditor's phrasing of the goal won't run,
much less assess. It won't run. It's got to be the pc's phrasing of the
goal. So you start feeding him leads - oh, wow! See, you've just opened up
the doors to all sorts of errors. He's got to reject the auditor. He can't
rephrase it himself, you see. So just knock off the prompting and you will
be a very much happier auditor. You know what's wrong with the pc. The pc
is always looking like this, you know? Always looking like this. And he
says, "Mmmmmmmm. Mmmmmm. Mmmm." You know, he always does. You say, "He must
be a robot." It's very obvious he's a robot. Very, very, very obvious.
And he sits there and he can't think of another terminal and he doesn't
know what would be in a factory, see? He just hasn't any idea, you know,
what would be in a factory.
"Factory, factory. Nobody in factories. Factories are always empty."
You know and he goes, "Mmmmm, hmmm."
You say, "God Almighty, why didn't he fall wise to this thing?" And a
terrible temptation, you know, to say "Could it be a robot? Could it be a
robot? Could it be? Could it be?" Well, he gets all wound up. He's got to
reject you. Got to reject you by rejecting the suggestion, don't you see?
And he's got to look at it. Now, he's got to get his own thought channel
straightened out and back again. He doesn't quite know what he's doing. And
you can waste a half an hour session time, just like that - bang. That is
the least that will happen with prompting.
Turns out it wasn't that at all. The terminal is a derrick. He'll finally
fall wise to it.
Now, in view of the fact that the terminal has got a lot of not-knowingness
connected with it, don't expect them to come up with rapidity. Expect a lot
of comm lags. Expect a lot of comm lags on something of that sort.
Now, wherever you have a pc in session on a Goals and Terminal Assessment,
your temptation, because it is apparently a very loose action - not a very
tight auditing situation, don't you see; he isn't running anything and so
on - your tendency is to be loose in your auditing. You let down your
barriers. And when you let down your barriers, your altitude goes right
along with it. You've got to be more careful during a Goals and Terminal
Assessment of proper adherence to a professional appearance than in any
other auditing situation.
It's obvious that auditors haven't done this because they've taken forever
to get terminals and goals. So casualness or lack of discipline in carrying
out the routine must itself be very poor.
Now, there is no routine designed that does solely a Goals Assessment. I
thought of designing one time - and I said, "Oh God, that's too" something
or other - a special Model Session, you see, for a Goals Assessment. I
thought afterwards, "Oh, that's going too far, man. Another Model Session?"
and that sort of thing. You don't have to have one. But you certainly have
to keep up a professional demeanor and you have to be very crisp and you
mustn't let it down and you must carry it forward competently or the goal
will disappear. And later on when you get the terminal, it'll disappear.
Anything is liable to happen in this line.
So, you take your E-Meter and you put the pc on it. And you read things off
in a very businesslike fashion. You acknowledge every time, whether the pc
speaks or not. It is not necessary to have the pc say one single word while
you're reading a Goals or Terminals list back to them, but always
acknowledge as though the pc has spoken. Always acknowledge. You say, "To
rob the First National Bank," he says absolutely nothing. You say, "Thank
you."
Sounds kind of odd to you, but you'll find the pc gets hung up. He's kind
of answered it, don't you know? He kind of, you know - he's thought it.
Now, that's enough.
Now, for a pc to be required to speak or answer up, or say very much while
you're reading a list like this, is quite distractive. And you think the pc
may not be in-session. So you may be trying much too eagerly to get the pc
to look like a pc while you're reading this list. And it's not necessary at
all. All he does is sit there on total irresponsibility, holding the cans.
That's enough.
All I expect of a pc is the goals list and the terminals list and to sit
there in some kind of a - of a state of attention, no matter how slight.
That's all I expect of a pc in doing a Goals and Terminal Assessment. You
know? He
isn't supposed to say, "Oh well, yes. Oh, rob First National Bank? Well,
yeah. Why, you just read that goal. I see. Rob the First National Bank.
Let's see, I'll think about robbing the First National Bank for a moment.
That's fine." Oh, bunk! You don't want to have anything to do with that.
See?
So you tell a pc before you start reading the list, "You do not have to
speak. You do not have to say anything if you don't want to. It is only
necessary that you sit there and listen to me read this list. That is the
only thing I actually expect you to do and if you want to say something,
why, by all means, do so."
And you just say that to the pc before you start any kind of a list. And
you'll find out you'll just make hay left and right, you know. Ram, wham,
wham, wham, wham, right on down the line. All right.
Now, on reading a goals or terminals list, you of course read only instant
read. You do not read latent read. If the read takes place more than tenths
of a second after you've read the goal or terminal, it is a latent read. It
must read now. And you'll find the further the terminal is off the line -
the further the goal is off the line, the further the terminal is off the
line - if you could time the meter reaction with a microsecond meter
alongside of it, you would find there's a direct relationship to how far
the goal is off the line to the length of time it takes the E-Meter to
respond. Unfortunately, it's measured in microseconds.
The further it is, the slower the read. Until this gets over to total
idiocy. You see, it's dropping fifteen or twenty seconds after you've read
the goal. Why, that has nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with it - pay
any attention to it. It isn't even a read. It's an afterthought. Remember
that the goal and the terminal are the sum and substance of the reactive
mind. And if anything is going to instant read on a meter, it's the goal
and the terminal. They're going to read right now. Instantly! So you ignore
latent reads.
Well, now to be on the safe side, what do we mean by a latent read? It's
any read that takes place from one-half to one second after the question is
stated. Anything that takes place one-half to one second after the end of
the question or the end of the terminal reading is a latent read.
An instant read is anything that takes place up to a half a second. That is
just to make very sure that you don't miscalculate it because you can be
speaking to somebody who has difficulty with English and you've got a
little comm lag. The comm lag won't be much, though. That will just be that
little split-second comm lag. You're reading - you're doing the Goals
Assessment on somebody from Germany. And you're doing it in English and
their native tongue is German and they're having difficulty with English
and haven't spoken it for a year or two, or something like this. And you'll
find out there's just a little wheel turn. But you'll find out this will
occur on everything so that you can quickly measure it up. And it's no more
than a half a second, let me assure you. So that would be for a very
special case.
And the more it is close to the goal and the more it is close to the
terminal, the faster the read is going to occur. And as I say, if you had a
microsecond meter you could probably establish a Goals Assessment instantly
and immediately by a second meter that is sitting alongside of this meter,
you know, plugged into it. There was no current there after your voice
impulse. It would be a very complicated meter, which is why I don't
advocate building one. It would have to take voice impulse and measure the
length of time from the voice impulse to the meter's impulse. In other
words, it'd be slightly connected to the auditor, in that his voice would
actuate it. And when
his voice ceases, it would have to instantly measure the length of time
from his voice ceasing to the - a current going through the E-Meter. I'm
merely stating this just as a - as an indicator. You'll see this as you get
more experience on the thing that it's fast. It's real fast.
And when you've got the person's goal, you say, "bank pres - " you got a
read. See, you don't even get a chance to say "bank president."
"Bank pres - " read.
And it's a cashier, is the next terminal on the thing. And you say,
"cashier" - read. See, cashier isn't it. You could establish that,
actually, with due attention to the E-Meter but nobody is asking you to do
that and that is not a part of the routine or regimen. It's just a little
indicator that you can - some nonsense that you can pay some attention to.
It's not even very valuable nonsense at the moment. All right.
The characteristic of the reactive mind is that it hasn't a concept of
time. That is the first thing that goes out in an engram, is the concept of
time, so that the engram becomes all time. So of course, that thing which
reads with the least time is the most reactive. That is the total
rationale. All right.
Now, if you've gone all the way through a terminals list and you suspect
there may be some more terminals, why, by all means get some more terminals
onto the list. But this itself can be a defeated activity. When you start
getting up to a hundred or two terminals, this just starts getting to be
nonsense. Somebody has missed. I'd go back and I would take the whole group
that I had gotten, before I noticed the pc was having trouble giving them
to me - I'd take the earlier group - and then I would cover that one with
the rudiments in. I would get the rudiments thoroughly in and then I would
go over it. And I would pick the terminal out of it.
Now, a person's terminal will only bury if the rudiments on the sessions in
which it was found were out. That's the only thing that will bury it. You
clean up the sessions, it'll reappear. And therefore, you're interested in
getting the thing checked, basically to find out if it still reads
elsewhere.
Now, in doing Goals and Terminals Assessments, you can run into odd bugs.
You can run in to some interesting, odd propositions where the present time
problem of the pc, which he doesn't actually realize, is getting in the
road of his Goals Assessment. And his Goals Assessment is not his present
time problem, or something is crisscrossed up like this.
Well, it to some degree has something to do with his rudiments being out.
But that goal which has to do with his present time problem will read
sporadically. It will read very sporadically. It'll be in and it'll be out
and it'll be in and it'll be out and then it'll be out and it'll be out and
it'll be out. And then all of a sudden it's in again and so on.
It's not any instant read connected with the thing. A thing just lurking.
So you can suspect that there might have been something wrong with the
auditing room or might have been something wrong with the auditor. Or there
might have been something wrong with the session's present time. That's the
first thing you ought to suspect on something like that.
And as I say, we had the example of somebody being assessed up on the
second - British second floor and what do we find? We find the person's
fear of height was getting this and I'm - I was told afterwards, after I
mentioned this last time, that being audited in the basement had something
to do with kicking in dungeons or something of the sort, see? So that
wasn't so good either. We still got the person's goal, so it's all right.
But a present time problem of the auditing environ - it wasn't a present
time problem in life, having to do with life or livingness; it was just
having to do with the auditing environ - was kicking in and raising the
devil with the Goals Assessment. Well actually, that should have been
discovered on the question, "Is it all right to audit in this room?" So it
goes right straight back to rudiments out. See, a rudiment was out and the
rudiment that was there - "Is it all right to audit in this room?" - and
that should have been caught. And all that difficulty would have been
avoided, don't you see? And you wouldn't have had any questions at all on
the thing.
All right. To recapitulate: to do an assessment, it is best to tell the pc
to go off someplace and sit down and - you know, tonight or something - and
do a full list of goals. And you can also give him withheld goals and
secret goals or anything else you want to give him on the list. And say,
"Give me goals for all of these subjects," and so forth.
And he'll come back with a large sheaf of paper and he sometimes has a
hundred goals on it. And then you yourself look at the meter and ask if
he's got any more on this subject, that subject or the next subject, you
see? And you've made sure that he doesn't have any ARC breaks on this, and
you just drain down the needle reaction. And you get a few more that he
might not have mentioned or might have been too reticent to tell somebody
about, or something like this. And then that's about it. Just consider,
well, you've got the list. All right. That's fine.
Now, your reading of that list can be done by repeater technique, going
over and over and over, which is the common, most accepted way of doing it
but which can wind up some pcs in difficulty. Or just reading the list over
and over and every time you get an instant reaction from a goal you mark
that it's still in. And you no longer get an instant reaction on another
goal and you consider it's out. And you just scratch goals and check goals
and scratch goals and check goals. And that's all you do.
Then you finally have got it down to the end of the thing. You find out
you've got two or three reacting and maybe that was the end of that session
or something of the sort. And catch it the next time and go over that. And
then maybe go over the whole list again before you get real sure. Find out
if they're all null, you know? Then you got it down to one goal and there's
one goal that just is consistently reacting and it reacts very nicely and
very consistently and that's it. Well, get somebody else to check it.
Now, if that goal has not appeared, the first thing that you must assume is
that the rudiments were out in that session. So you laboriously put the
rudiments in now. You put them in with a thud! Don't try to do a full
Security Check when you get to withholds, but let's find out if there were
any withholds while that Goals Assessment was going on. And let's find out
if there are any withholds from you particularly - you know, that kind of
thing. And get this thing in, get it back real good and then do a Goals
Assessment from scratch. Well, this is less difficult than you'd think.
Much less difficult than you'd think because most of them will be out now
anyhow. And he'll only be left with a handful of goals and you'll come
right on back and you will find the person's goal again.
Well, what if this happened again? Well, by this time, get the rudiments
in! And do it all over again. And set the case up. And just keep doing
that, not getting more and more goals and going on and on and on and on and
on with the compounding errors. You got it?
All right. Now, same way with a terminal. Same way with a terminal. You've
got the person's goal? You're going to do a terminals list. I actually
don't care what wording you use to do the terminals list. There's a cause
end of the terminals line, an effect end of the terminals line. There -
apparently there are two lists. But you can get far too mechanical for
this. And you could say, "Well, who wanted to be a baseball player?"
Fellow says, "I did."
Well, that's not informative. Because you certainly can't run "I" as a
terminal.
And all right, you - it's an oddity for you to say, "Well, what's - what
would - so you call a baseball player?" or "What - who would play
baseball?" or something like this. And you get some more of these and some
more of these and some more of these. And the reason you do that is because
the pc's statement, "baseball player," might be just a hair out. It may be
"a pitcher," you see. It may be "a batsman." It might be something else,
see. It's just enough out that it won't quite run. And you get that thing
straightened out and you usually got it.
But a goal of this particular character - now I'm taking somebody else's
goal in vain, but I'm sure that she won't mind - a goal of this character:
"To have a particular kind of body." Well, that leaves the doors wide open,
don't you see? What's a particular kind of body? And you get a description
of this body. "What would you call such a body?" you see? "Who would have
such a body?" "What kind of a body is it?" See, that gives you two lists,
you know? "Who would have it?" and "What is it?" And you get that list and
shake that list down and get that all straight and you've got it made.
And that's the proper way to do one of these things. When you've got that
taped, it will make a considerable difference in your pc.
And your final tests, of the thing, are these: Did it make much difference
to your pc that you found that terminal? Does it make any difference to the
pc? Well, if it didn't make much difference to the pc, there might be some
question on it. Not enough question on it, however, but to cause you to do
the final test. And the final test is such an elementary test that it is
hardly even worth describing.
You assess the pc on the Prehav Scale. And assessing the preclear on the
Prehav Scale, you find a level for that terminal. All right.
You run that level until the tone arm motion slows down; you're not getting
very much tone arm motion left. Sometimes you have to run the level for a
while to get some tone arm motion to appear. But let us say the tone arm
motion has appeared and disappeared off the tone arm and you do a
reassessment. Well, the first time you assess, there were only 4 levels
live of the Prehav Scale when you did it. And this time you do an
assessment and you have 12 levels live on the Prehav Scale. You'd better
drop that just like a hot potato because that is a wrong terminal! And if
you persist in running it any further than that, the pc is going to go into
the soup.
So what do you do at this time? You get the rudiments in and you do a Goals
Assessment using the original list. And you find the pc's goal. And you're
much horrified because it's the same goal, probably. And then you get the
Terminals Assessment on the thing and you will find that that was wrong.
Now, it can only be wrong if you did it wrong. But something slipped. It's
the wrong terminal. And that is a positive proof.
If you want to get a good auditor reality on this sometime, pick a terminal
at random on a pc. You know, you pick a terminal. You know? You make up
your mind now that this person looks like a robot. So you say, "That's
fine. Now, we're going to run a robot on the Prehav Scale. All right. Now
we're going to do an assessment on a robot. "Would a robot be serene?" and
here we go, see - whichever way you assessed it. "Would a robot have
faith?" And I imagine as some Academy student is doing probably this very
instant, is asking somebody, "Would a robot have TR 10?" Go up the list
very nicely, do a proper assessment; you will find that the robot will
assess by elimination. Yes, the robot does have a level. That's fine. Now
we're going to run this level.
Note carefully, however, how many levels a robot was alive on the Prehav
Scale. Note that carefully and mark it down, an arithmetical number. There
were 5 levels live on the Prehav Scale when we assessed a robot. There are
the pencil dots that say which levels were alive. There were 5.
Now we're going to run it. And we give it a 21/2-hour enthusiastic run with
all the rudiments in and everything going along just perfect, you see, and
the auditing command perfect - five-leg bracket; everything is fine.
Now reassess it on the Prehav Scale. You're going to find about 10 levels
live. Well, good. They will assess too. So you assess those things down to
just got 1 level left. Now we're going to take this one level and we make a
perfect command. We get the rudiments in (if we can). And we're going to
take this one level and we're going to run it on the preclear.
Robot. Good. And we're going to run it for 21/2, 3, 4 hours. Oh, the
preclear will be getting gains. Pc will be feeling much better. Odd
somatics, but very much better. Not quite sure, but probably all right.
(Confidence in the auditor, you see.)
And now flatten that second one. And now you got 5 and 10 written up there
in the corner - do another assessment on the pc on the Prehav Scale and
you're going to find anything. You're not going to find 5. You're not going
to find 10. You'll be finding 15 or 20 levels live. Actually, works out.
Works out every time. It's just a mysterious little slide - empirical fact
that moved in sideways on us. Your arbitrary terminal is not the pc's
terminal.
Well, you haven't heard me saying too much lately about auditing Prehav 13.
A little of it goes an awfully long ways. Why? Because you're running
arbitrary terminals. Oh yes, they're assessed terminals to some degree. 