6110C31 SHSpec-73  Rudiments

     Those things that are closest to present time have a greater influence on
the PC than the whole track, in his estimation.  So you have a PC who is
convinced that anything wrong with him must have happened in this lifetime.
This is one of the things wrong with him -- that he thinks he can get this
aberrated in fifty years or less.  As far as the basic seat of aberration is
concerned, it is all "way prior to this lifetime.  To the PC, what has
happened in the last twenty-four hours is more important than what has
happened in the past month, but it isn't, really.  From the PC's viewpoint
what has happened in the session is more important than what has happened in
this day, hence the violence of session ARC breaks.  Because of this evaluation of importances, you can't audit over the ARC break.  As it recedes into the past, it loses importance. The analytical mind fixes its attention closest to all of the havingness, which is in present time.

     So there's always the disagreement in the session that what's really
wrong with the PC is in the yester-lives, but the PC thinks it's something
wrong right now.  If you treat what is wrong with him now with heavy actions,
as if it were a tremendous barrier, the PC will think so too.  Thus you can
validate the PC into out-ruds.

     An auditor has to adjudicate whether it will do more damage to get the
rudiments in or to audit with them out.  A goals run is very difficult with
the ruds out, but you can attack ruds with such ferocity that the PC gets
convinced that they must be really out, so they go more out.  If the TA starts
going up while you are getting ruds in, lock very pleased, as if you'd just
gotten ruds really in, wind up the ruds and get back on the goals terminal
line.  Ruds a bit out is better than ruds 'way out.

                           [Details on goals running]

     You will sometimes find the PC planting his heels in.  Examine the case
from the aspect of its goal; examine the goal from the aspect of what dynamic
it is an overt against, and you will find out how a PC got a goal in this
solid.  He had this goal as a perfectly honest goal, perhaps, and nobody
wanted this goal because it didn't fit in with certain dynamics.  They
invalidated it, and he reasserted it, etc., etc., to the point where he pretty
much dropped it.  When you first pick it up, you find it behaves like an
overt.  You can run it as an overt, which is why the two-way flow run on it
works.  You can ask, "What would the goal _______ do to a group?" and find how
it could be lots of overts against groups.  This means it has been invalidated
a lot, which is why it goes out so easily.  Any goal that isn't an axiom is
out of agreement to some degree with groups the PC has been associated with.
Thus it has been invalidated on other dynamics and so becomes a source of
invalidation.  He uses it to invalidate and others invalidate it.  So if you,
as the auditor, invalidate it even slightly, out it goes.  The terminal, being
an outgrowth of the goal, is similarly fragile.  Not accepting the PC's
handwritten list resulted in the goal getting lost.  The PC didn't mention
when the auditor got a new goals list with the meter.

     Don't run any processes, e.g. sec checks, on any specific terminals other
that the goals terminal line terminals, except O/W, and when the PC runs out
of O/W against the terminal, don't force it on the terminal anymore.  The PC
will ARC break as his attention is newly forced on the terminal.

