6404C30 SHSpec-19 Effectiveness of Processing

     The Australian flap was caused by one PC, Wern, who had a psychiatric
history and couldn't have passed a sec check.  He got run on Level VI
material, flipped out, and went to court.  The legislature has been
investigating.  Upper-level materials have been appearing in court.  A
document has turned up showing collusion and plans for how witnesses should
testify.  The org is ignoring instructions to use the document, because of
their lawyer's advice.  The lawyer is protecting the government of Victoria!
And cables keep coming through, begging for money.  This has interrupted
research.  It shows what happens when an org goes off-policy and you can't get
orders executed.  Policy has been developed out of past errors.  When it is
ignored, errors appear and trouble follows.  Jane Kember took two years to put
Johannesburg back together after they went off-policy.

     The effectiveness of processing and effective processing is you, the
auditor, bringing about a desired effect on the PC.  That is your one
activity.  This applies also to your activities as an instructor, a lecturer,
or just to the way in which you produce an effect on someone you are talking
to.

     One can produce an effect through threat of destruction and by
destruction.  That is fifty percent of existence.  Fifty percent of all
effects in this universe are produced by force.  If we study that fifty
percent, we will find that "nearly all mental healing activities drift into
it."  This includes electric shock, etc.  It is the solid form of effect.
Psychiatrists do not realize that they are trying to influence thought.  They
have no definition of thought.  They don't even think that anything is there
thinking.  They are trying to influence matter.  Man, to them, is matter, and
they are using matter to influence matter.  They are actually in the field of
physics.  So an auditor runs a danger in operating in the remaining fifty
percent, producing beneficial effects.  The danger is that the auditor will
leave the other fifty percent on automatic and occasionally drift over into
it.  Thus everything may be fine for awhile.  Then the auditor suddenly
explodes.

[This may be the mechanism of failed help = destroy.] An auditor, in blowing
up at a PC never has and never will have a good effect on the PC who provoked
it.  What cures you of doing that is finding, on Level VI, that you did have
it all upside down and backwards and that you did actually skip a whole Code
on the PC.  Ultimately, you keep to the Auditor's Code for your own good as an
auditor, since violating it makes auditing much harder.

     Taken at random, fifty percent of effects would be destructive.
Fortunately, by the laws of life, it is the other fifty percent that has
lasting benefits.  Eradication has to be 100 percent to be effective.  A
purity of destruction would be a not-thereness, but destruction doesn't go in
that direction.  It leaves a pile of rubble.  An as-ising of a situation is
not looked on as destruction.  It is seen as a constructive, beneficial
action.  Actually, it is an ultimate in the fifty percent-destruction
bracket.  If you want to free someone, you don't just blow up the jail he is
in and create a shambles.

     So the effect that you are trying to produce on the PC is simply to set
him free by as-ising that which is keeping him caged, without knocking him
around or leaving rubble around.  It is actually pretty easy to do.  The way
you would leave rubble around would be by giving advice but not as-ising
anything.  You have launched an other-determined action.  You have set up
conflict between two or more other terminals.  Life could be handled by
setting it into more violent counter-motions, as in war.  This leaves lots of
debris.

     Those are the mechanics by which life handles its problems, i.e.
counter-motions, terminals vs. terminals, etc.  As an auditor, you are being
asked to decry and put aside the standard dramatizing actions that life is
prone to.  You are asked to assume a better, more workable discipline.  You
are asked to find out what the problem is, what considerations they have had
about the problem, and what they have done to solve it.  We find that these
are the building blocks of the prison:

     1.  The problem itself.

     2.  What they have said the problem was, or what has caused it.

     3.  Solutions they have had.

That is all the cage is built of:

     1.  Conceive the problem was there.

     2.  Alter-is it.

     3.  Keep on solving it.

     There doesn't have to have been a problem before someone conceived of it,
since a thetan is always capable of postulating.  Then he justifies it,
assigns it to someone other than himself and makes that person cause, and then
starts solving the wrong problem.  He will submerge the problem.  The solution
now becomes a problem to him.  So he solves that one, etc., etc.  Eventually
all he knows about it is that he is unhappy, abstracted, and can't
concentrate.  That is the prison that he has built.

     As an auditor, your art is in as-ising these bits and pieces, rather than
adding to them by giving him new solutions.  If you give the PC a command that
would as-is some problems and you fail to discover that the PC is doing
something other than the command you gave him, he won't improve.  You may then
change processes, still get no improvement, and end up mad at the PC.  You
would thereby have slipped over into the other fifty percent of
effect-production.

The only reason why an auditor would start this cycle would be from failing to
understand that he is supposed to be knocking out aberration, not letting the
PC add to it.

     Another deficiency in delivering processing to the PC is where the
auditor fails to realize that a problem has gone.  green auditor may not know
that things blow by as-ising, just by the PC's inspecting things and
communicating them to the auditor.  There could be too little horsepower in
the problem for the PC even to cognite, it is so insubstantial.  There is
nothing more to it than its isness.  Be on the lookout for the problem's
having blown on the comm cycle alone, before you have a chance to "handle"
it.  The new auditor may never realize that this as-ising is what his training
in TR's, comm cycle, etc., are for.  Ideally, you want the PC to blow by
inspection, remember.

     On the other hand, the auditor can get so used to things blowing, fast
that he gets a shock when something doesn't.  He has run into one of life's
little problems that, instead of floating free, has roots.  Problems come in
two kinds:

     1.  Loose problems.

     2.  Problems that have roots.

Some things that worry people don't have deep roots.  Then there are a fee
subjects and items that are just little flags, which turn out to be very
deeply anchored indeed, and which don't blow.  Don't mistake the one for the
other.  If you do, you will get overrun or unflat processes.

     (R1CM is R1C with the meter.  Follow the BD, after you have completed
your cycle of action.)

     It is a mistake to take up something that has a flag that goes all the
way to China but gets no needle reaction or TA BD -- only a clean rise, when
it is mentioned, although it is something that does bother the PC.  It may be
an obvious condition, like the PC's wife leaving him, or his lumbosis.  But
the more you talk about it, the more trouble you have, because as you force
the PC into a recognition of the reality of that condition, you pin him to his
most fundamental bank.  The condition will be something the auditor brought
up.  It is an unreal subject to the PC.

     The only cage that the PC can as-is is the one that he is aware of.  You
can force the PC into oddball modifications.  This is where testing dead-ends,
because you can read deeper into the psyche than the PC can as-is.  [LRH
recounts a papier-mache incident.] The PC's head may be made of papier-mache,
and this may be very obvious to the auditor, but the auditor must not evaluate
for the PC.  The PC can't as-is anything that he isn't aware of, and if he is
not aware that his head is made out of papier-mache, and if it doesn't read
on the meter, don't try to handle it.  If you do, you can restimulate the PC
without any hope of destimulating him.  "If it reads on the meter, it has a
potential of being real to the PC."  The meter has the value of only reading
on things that are real to the PC.  If it doesn't read, it is unreal or it is
well suppressed.  "You can as-is in a PC what [he] has reality on." This takes
a bit of cage away, so he can see more and as-is more.

     You could do almost anything on a PC if you audited him on what he could
recognize, things he had reality on.  That is the magical trick.  Everybody
has some level of reality on A, R, and C, so they can get something out of
processes involving ARC, no matter what level the PC is at.  Stick to what is
real to the PC.

     "'Look around here and find something that's really real,' ... is
probably one of the most nebulous [commands] ever [given].  But [the PC] walks
over and picks up that wire over there and he says, 'That is very, very, very
real:'  I don't know what he means, but it means he can recognize a ... wire.
I don't know what he means!  I don't even know what he means when he says he
can recognize it:  But it means to me, for the benefit of just the process
itself, that he can see it, recognize it, and direct his attention to it.
Great!  That's all I'm asking.  I don't care what else he means....  What goes
on in the PC's head when he answers that question? Wow!"  Who knows?  (Who
cares?)  The only time you would care is if the guy was being glib.

     Beware of the PC who runs glibly, rattling off answers, etc.  It is an
automaticity of a circuit answering for the person.  The PC may come up to
awareness of somatics that he has had all along.  Learn to look at a PC from
the viewpoint of what the PC can see.  The auditor's ability to estimate what
he has as-ised is part of his effectiveness in auditing.  "You've got to know
what you've [already just] taken care of, and therefore you have to know how
it is taken care of.  It is taken care of by being perceived and as-ised, and
that's the only way it is taken care of.  You ask the PC to look at something
you know he can look at.  He looks at it, and he as-ises it, and that's the
end product of [all] auditing."

     It is all very well to have theories about what is wrong with the PC, as
long as you don't try to get the PC to as-is your concept of what is wrong.

     Actually, the division of the world into the destructive and the
constructive is an artificial one.  At the top of the scale, there is only the
free, since as-isness is destruction.  [Paradoxically, what, at a lower level,
is viewed as constructive (as-ising) is actually destructive, and what, at a
lower level, is viewed as destructive (force, suppression) is actually
constructive, in that not-is-ness causes persistence.]  Auditing is simple,
because it evades the complexities of life by undermining them.  If auditing
were a solution to life, it would have to be as complicated as life.
Fortunately, it isn't.  It is an as-ising of life.

