SHSBC 80

ROUTINE 3A

A lecture given on 7 November 1961

Thank you. Well, you're lucky people. You're lucky. You are. You don't know
it but you are.
What have you done in the last two hundred trillion years to make you this
lucky? Hm? Now, what have you done?
Female voice: Got smart enough to come here.
Aha. Got smart enough to come here. All right.
Now, your immediate, direct business today which is the - what is this? The
7th of...
Female voice: 7th of November.
November, AD 11. All right. Your immediate, direct business today is
Routine 3A and the talk I'm going to give you is totally concerned with
Routine 3A and you should have in your possession HCO Bulletin of November
7th, 1961. This is one of those rare occasions where the lecture, the
bulletin, the data and the cases are all assembled at one point of
conjunction.
Now, may I call your attention to a safety table which I think was the 26
October - hm?
Female voice: 29th of October.
29th of October. The safety table - what it is safe to process. Well, it is
safe to process a goals terminal. It's quite safe to process one. But it's
not safe to process any other than a goals terminal. Therefore, the only
people who should run Routine 3A are, of course, those people who have been
trained, and the only terminals that should be run are those that have been
checked out by a graduate of Saint Hill, period.
That puts a sort of a limiter on the amount of auditing done until you
realize that I have simply said checked out. Checked out. That takes those
zones and areas of the world that are too lazy to send anybody to Saint
Hill or something of the sort and that leaves them unclear, but they can go
ahead and beef up their banks and have a ball.
But we're not going to worry about them. Our next concern after this is
after all of the bad assessments have been done and all of the bad runs
have been done and everything is all messed up, how to salvage a case that
has been put into that condition by auditing which is unauthorized.
And I call to attention a Class II at this moment is the only authorized
auditing anyplace in the world where a Saint Hill graduate is not. That
means all the field. That means all organizations, and so forth. That means
Class II, which consists of Security Checking, problems, getting rudiments
in.     There's tremendous numbers of things that can be done under Classes
I
and II, and we've been doing them for years and getting good wins on them.
So why everybody has to stretch up against a Class III activity is a little
more than I can comprehend. Because when you get up to this level of Class
III, if you don't know your business you can really tear somebody to
shreds.
Now, hitherto we have been running Routine 3, and this is one of those
milestones in a line of research and we cease as of now to run Routine 3.
It has ceased and desisted. We will never again run Routine 3. It is ended
because it is modified.
And the modification of Routine 3 is extremely simple and all it consists
of is simply adding a step to Routine 3. There is just a step added in.
Now, in Routine 3 we found a goal. And we did this by getting the pc to do
a list or we wrote down the list the pc gave us. And we didn't do it, by
the way, by taking the pc's list and then filing it and saying, "Well, of
course, the pc doesn't know what's wrong with him so his goal can't be on
this list, and so we put this away in the files. Now we get another list
and we ask him if he has any more goals. And we can't find any more of
those goals. So we try to find were the rudiments out. And then, of course,
the rudiments are out. Nobody can get the rudiments in. And so - and you
don't have to look at an E-Meter either because it doesn't know either."
And then decide that the person has lots of marital difficulties so that
their terminal must be, of course, a husband.
That is not the way we do - did - should do such a thing. What we do is get
a goals list. It's all too elementary. I get at this point and I go into a
little bit of confusion about this point, because I never can quite guess
what people are going to add to something. They can always add something
like, well, what I just said, you know: "The pc never knows what's wrong
with him, so therefore his goal that he gives you couldn't be right, and
you have to make up a goal for the pc." Don't think it hasn't been done. I
mean, that's how they miss Goals Assessments. Terrific invalidation and all
that sort of thing.
But we learned in Routine 3 that it was very difficult to get a goal. We
learned that you had to get a goal with the rudiments in, in, in. And we
had to be very careful of this, and we had to not invalidate the pc, and we
had to be very, very sharp in getting our goal. And nothing of that is
altered in Routine 3A.
In fact, it might now become just a little bit more difficult. Because we
have found another piece of the puzzle.
Now, having found the goal - having found the goal, by doing an assessment
as in steps 1, 2 and 3 of Routine 3 - A, also - same thing. We got it
checked out of course by somebody else. We made sure that this was the
right goal. And then we asked the pc, in Routine 3, what terminals would
answer up to that goal, and we had cause and effect type terminals. And we
made lists of these. And then we assessed this by elimination, and we
finally came up with one terminal - only one terminal sounding. Just as we
had only one goal remaining in, then we came up with one terminal remaining
in. And that thing stayed in and was not sporadic or fluctuating. It always
gave instant reads. That was the pc's terminal.
And then we assessed this on the Prehav Scale and having assessed it, we
put together a - found the level of the Prehav Scale and we put that into a
five-way bracket. And having put it into a five-way bracket, we then ran
the pc on this. Along with this, we, of course, did Security Checking.
That's Routine 3.
Now, if you've learned Routine 3, it is absolutely nothing to do Routine
3A.     There's a wild difference between these two Routines, but not in the
way to do them.
Now, we come to this problem with Routine 3. Difficulty of assessment. Skip
it. That is merely a matter of auditing skill. You can assess or you can't
assess. You can audit or you can't audit. I mean, that's all there is to
that.
Given assessment and then assessment of terminal and then run on the Prehav
Scale, we had only a small percentage of the people running in this
particular fashion going Clear rapidly. Why? Why? What was this - rest of
this percentage? And this has been my action and activity through April,
May, June, July, August, September, October of 1961. Why?
They all would - apparently running on the right terminal. They all obeyed
the rules of terminals and so on. So we went off into hidden standards and
we investigated that very thoroughly.
And we did a lot of good for cases, and we found a whole new chapter in
processing. And we found out that you get the prior confusion and blow off
the stuck circuit, and you could do a lot of tricky things with this hidden
standard. We learned how to take problems apart this way.
And actually right now all you have to do is just find the prior confusion
to an out-rudiment, and the rudiment will go in. I mean, this was a big
gain. So it's easier now to get rudiments in. If we just did them by prior
confusion, we would get our rudiments in. These were wins and cases ran a
bit better. We had the idea of group mores and that the individual was
breaking down a third dynamic mores, and all of a sudden we have moved
Clear from the status of first dynamic Clear through second dynamic Clear
to third dynamic Clear. We've gotten that far.
In other words, we're cleaning up the first, second and third dynamic.
Clears made prior to this date are beautifully cleaned up on the first. And
just between ourselves, they sometimes act like it. So without graduating
somebody up through a first dynamic Clear, we can at this particular stage
of the game... That's no crack on the thing, but I have actually had some
backlashes in this direction that were very first dynamicy. They're very
reasonable, but very first dynamicy which was no objection on my part. I
never rolled them under because of it, but that was the way it was.
And we have here - we're looking at a third dynamic Clear, particularly in
Routine 3A because we're going to run it in this particular direction. We
keep broadening this concept of Clear and we keep broadening the stability
and the expected stability of Clear and we keep shortening the number of
hours to Clear. And shortening down the hours to Clear has been my main
action, but it also has "Let's just knock out all of this slow gain." And I
have been fighting on that research front here all during this summer,
working with students and so forth. Not experimentally - we were always
doing exactly - where we were going and what we were doing, and most that
we knew. But all of a sudden, there was a violent blue spark, and it went
from one corner of the Saint Hill to the other corner of the Saint Hill,
and it left ozone behind it all the way. In short, I had a cognition of
some magnitude. What on earth keeps a goal hanging? Why does a goal - why
is a goal alive at all? I mean, how has this goal come down the track
endlessly, endlessly, endlessly, endlessly, eons and eons and eons. What is
keeping this goal there?
Well, we know of only one mechanism that does this. Only one mechanism does
this, and that is the mechanism of a problem. Problem definition: postulate
- counter-postulate. And because they're postulate - counter-postulate, the
thing gets suspended in time. In other words, you have a postulate, and
that postulate would just evaporate unless it had resistance.
And there are two postulates counter-opposed, and each one of them are of
equal force, so if these two postulates are of equal force, you get
something hung up in time.
The way you can unsettle this postulate - counter-postulate, of course, is
very easily, as we have recently discovered, just find the area of prior
confusion. And of course, it weakens or strengthens one or the other of the
two postulates as you get the overts and the withholds off, and the thing
tips over, and the problem disappears.
But let's look at the difficulty of keeping a problem alive - the great
difficulty of it. It has to be two balanced forces. Otherwise, one force
over-balances the other force and ceases to be a problem, becomes a
solution or ceases to exist.
We have a husband and a wife, and they have fought, and they have fought,
and they have fought. And finally one of them gives up. They don't fight
anymore. Maybe they aren't - maybe one of them isn't happy, maybe the other
one isn't happy; but that's beside the point. They aren't a problem any
more. They're a solved situation. It's a solved area. Or they get divorced
and separate, and they aren't a problem any more there either until an
auditor comes along to it and tries to settle why they're having difficulty
in their current marriage. And he finds this past marriage still hanging
fire someplace in the bank.
But the problem has to have two more or less - two or more, more or less
balanced, forces counter-opposed. You have a bull weighing twenty-seven
hundred pounds with his forehead pushed up against a bull weighing
twenty-seven hundred pounds. And these two bulls are pushing with
twenty-seven hundred foot-pounds of thrust. And they're trying to collapse
their heads into each other to the depth of one foot, in other words, but
there they are.
And if you consider them from the standpoint of a problem, there they would
be. There's nothing going to happen because one twenty-seven hundred pound
bull is pushing against one twenty-seven hundred pound bull. And unless
somebody makes their foreheads skid or trips one bull or something like
that, there they are going to stand in the pasture. Now, that is a problem.
And that is the problem. And that is the anatomy of a problem.
When the pc says to you, "I have a present time problem," and you get a
fall on your meter and so forth, this is the kind of thing that's
happening. The pc's effort to go in some direction is being countered by an
effort of him not to go in the direction or somebody else's effort to go in
a different direction. And these two forces are counter-opposed. And you
get an nonresolved situation. It's nonresolved. It is not nonresolvable as
some pcs would have you believe. It just doesn't happen to be resolved
because it's in counterpoise. And that's what happens there.
Now, you run off, of course, the pc's end of this, and it then will cease
to be, very often, a problem with the other party. Now, why does it cease
to be a problem with the other party?
Well, it takes two twenty-seven hundred pound bulls. And you've just taken
one twenty-seven hundred pound bull and you have either made him go up to
three thousand pounds, you see, or you have headed him in an opposite
direction with regard to this sort of thing. And of course you don't have
postulate - counter-postulate now. You have something else.
And the other person who has the other side of the problem in present time,
of course has nothing to push against, and so that postulate evaporates.
You see why this mechanism exists. This happens very often. I mean, all too
often for just happenstance.
We process a pc on her family. And we process her on her family, and we
spend hours at it and so on. And we finally finish up, and she seems all
cleaned up on the family. She's not worried about her family now. She
doesn't - not trying to make her family guilty, or not not make her family
guilty. And there she is, and she suddenly receives a letter, a telephone
call or something. And it says, "Dear Amy, All is forgiven. Come home." Or
something like this will occur, you know. It's quite amazing.
One particular instance, there was somebody worried about money
disappearing out of the cash box in an organization. Money disappearing out
of the cash box. Money disappearing out of the cash box. This person was
worried about it. Blaming herself. Blaming herself. Blaming herself for
money disappearing out of the cash box. Couldn't figure out how the money
was disappearing out of the cash box. Thought she must be guilty about it.
Worried, worried, worried, worried, worried. Got it run in an auditing
session.
The second that she had it run in the auditing session, almost within the
hour following it, the person who had been taking the money out of the cash
box came in, paid the money back. Mysterious, wasn't it. Well, apparently,
the person worrying about it all the time, and force and so forth, had this
interlocked in some peculiar way in the theta universe in some fashion
where nothing resolved. Nothing was happening. Now, there we're getting a
little esoteric. Do you see? That's a little bit out beyond the
understandable boundary.
But we have this, of course, as the most obvious thing: There's the
husband, and he goes home. And he has an awful fight with the wife, and
they chop each other up. And then the husband gets audited. And then all of
a sudden, why, he's nicer to the wife, or she hasn't got anything to push
against. Or she's baffled, she has a new problem maybe - "Who is this?" You
know? Something on that order. And of course, the problem has ceased to
exist by very material understanding. I mean, we can understand how that
problem would cease to exist. We've changed one of the protagonists.
But how about this other one? Five thousand miles away the girl's family
haven't written to her for years. We process her on her family and all of a
sudden the family goes into communication with her. This happens all too
often.
But these are all examples of things suspended in time. As long as you've
got two interlocked forces, you get a time suspension. And when you're
dealing with the mind... This is not necessarily true in the physical
universe. These two bulls actually are moving on the time track. But in
straight thinkingness, there is no apparent motion on the time track where
two things are interlocked.
You've got postulate - counter-postulate, and it's all mental, so it's not
really tied down to the physical universe anyway. And it just goes on
drifting in time. Well, an examination of this demonstrates that there must
be something on the other side of the goal. If this person has had a goal
for the last eighteen trillennia, what has kept it there? You see? That's
just the - how come? How come it doesn't as-is? How come he never realizes
it? How come he never backs off of it? How come he never quits on the
subject? How come he never wins on the subject. It just stays there. He's
got a goal "to pick gooseberries" or something. And there it is.
And if you'd put him on a meter six trillennia ago, I'm sure that you would
have gotten some kind of a reading "to pick gooseberries," you see. Well,
how come it stayed there that long?
Well, it's the same anatomy as the problem. There is on the other side of
every goal a thing called a modifier. The exact definition of a modifier
you have in this bulletin: "A modifier is that consideration which opposes
the attainment of a goal and tends to suspend it in time." That is a
modifier.
Just as you have the husband fighting with the wife and the wife fighting
with the husband, and their equal velocities of fighting, then, suspend
that fight in time, in the same way, let us think of the husband as having
a goal and the wife as the reasons why he isn't going to make one. And you
get their counterpoise, then, carrying forward the whole thing as a
problem, don't you see.
All right. Or let us say the wife has a goal and the husband is damned if
she's going to realize it and so in similar circumstances you've got this
whole thing carrying forward in time. In other words, you've got these two
people locked horns to horns and they're not moving. Well, a person's goal
found by a common Goals Assessment - you don't do anything different in a
Goals Assessment. You do it the same way you have always done. When you get
the list of goals and so forth.
The next step to that is to find out how come it is locked in space. And
you find out how it is locked in space by finding the modifier. Modifier is
a technical term. I invite you to use it as such. You could call it lots of
other things, but we don't happen to have called anything a modifier, so it
doesn't mess up our - it doesn't mess up our nomenclature. But it certainly
does modify the goal. And that's what it sounds like when you get one. The
thing it sounds most like is modifier.
Now, in doing Routine 3A, after getting your goal proved out and totally
checked out on the person, you would then do a list of modifiers. This
list, I think you will commonly find, is very short and I think the
modifier is very easy to attain. But the reason the modifier does not come
about is by the pure mechanics of its not-as-isness. It has a
characteristic of not as-ising. It's a denyer.
If you know your old Dianetics, all pcs have denyers. And they'll go
running along through an engram, yoppety-yoppety-yoppety-yoppety-yoppety..
yoppety-yop, and then skip. And they obviously - there's something else
went on there. And then they go on to the end of the engram,
yoppety-yoppetyyoppety-yoppety-yop.
And when you finally find this middle of the engram, it'll be something
like, "It isn't here." You know, somebody has said at that point, "It isn't
here." Or somebody has said, "Well, nothing is happening just now." And the
pc runs down the engram, hits this "Nothing is happening just now," never
notices it because, of course, nothing is happening just now.
In other words, they take it literally, dramatize it, and it becomes truth,
you see? So if there's nothing there, why, of course, the pc never runs
that part of the engram. And after you've run it and run it and run it and
run it and run it, a clever auditor in the old days would eventually ask
for the bouncer which made him get out of it or the comeback, the pullback,
or something like that. He'd ask for one of these types of phrases. And
amongst those that he asked for was a denyer. Something that says it isn't
here. Something that says it doesn't exist.
And he'd ask, "Is there a denyer there?"
And the pc would say, "No, there's nothing here."
And the clever auditor would say, "Repeat that."
And the pc would say, "All right. There's nothing here. There's nothing
here. There's nothing - well, what do you know? That's my mother talking.
She is saying, 'There is nothing here.'"
Similarly, I have - you can get phrases and that sort of thing, and
meanings and senses, doing all kinds of queer things.
I ran into a case one time that had sonic only on one section of the track
for one instant. And he always had sonic at that point of the track. And
you run him along through engrams and so forth, and he had no sonic, but
he'd get into this one particular incident which he just couldn't seem to
run, by the way. And he kept it around; it was a good showpiece. And run it
down, and just before the sonic turned on, we finally found out, it says,
"Get away. Listen."
And the pc, of course, listened, and he heard for the next few words. He'd
hear pure sonic for the next few words. He'd hit this bouncer, and then
he'd hit the listen command, and then he'd have sonic for a few words, and
then the sonic would disappear.
People can become totally obedient to this type of phraseology. An old-time
Dianetic auditor knows this very well. There's nothing - not much
mysterious about this, but people who have - later on the line, have never
had too much experience with this particular type of phraseology and so
forth. So when I tell you that all modifiers found so far were denyers at
the same time, you'll realize why the pc's intelligence doesn't go on over
into them. They're all a "It isn't here." See, they're all a "Doesn't
exist."
"But you couldn't have any money anyway," you see? "But you couldn't" -
that is one. "But you couldn't have any money anyway; they would take it
all away from you.
Well, of course, the pc states the goal. And then there's the rest of this
thing over here. If it occurred in an engram, that would be the way it is.
Occurring as a goal, he runs along and he says, "Well, the goal is to rob
banks."
And you say, "That's fine." You assess it. You go find a terminal for it
and everything else. Well, "To rob banks," but there's a little more to the
goal, and it's a denyer.
"But you couldn't have any money, and they would take it all away anyway."
See, so that end of the goal disappears. That's a disappeared end of the
goal. Now, actually it doesn't take any real skill to get these modifiers
once you've got the goal. The skill is to get the goal. The goal is what is
important here.
But as you get to step 4, you ask the person to make a list of modifiers.
Maybe there'll only be ten of them. Maybe there'll only be one. Maybe
they'll come up with the first one, bang! And so on. But they get maybe
eight, ten of these modifiers.
They've got a goal: "To play a violin." And you find that all assessed out.
It proved out just the way you've been doing it. Now, when you come to step
4 here, you say, "All right. Now, what would make that goal difficult to
achieve? What would be the consequences of achieving it? What would make it
impossible to realize that goal?" And write down anything the pc says and
make a list of these. And that list - you don't write down "To play a
violin and - " so forth. You just write down "and" and the remaining tail,
you see. Just write down the tail. Don't keep chugging the goal down his
throat because you'll never be able to assess the modifier if the goal is
in as part of it.
You've got to assess the modifier - the tail of the cat has got to be
assessed all by itself. You keep saying the goal each time, and of course
you're going to get - the thing will stay alive and you'll never find the
modifier because the goal, of course, and the modifier react alike. You've
got to assess the modifier as itself.
"To play a violin." And you've got that now. You've got it all proved out.
Everything is fine. Now, you're going to come back to step 4, and you're
going to ask him, "Well, what makes it difficult to do that? What would
make it impossible to do that? What would be the consequences of playing a
violin, and so forth?"
And every time he says something that this would be, you write it down on
this list. And of course the pc actually is much more likely, if you've got
the actual goal, to give it to you. Just bang! you see. And it's just a
matter of whether or not it's an "of" or an "as" or just some little
wording change.
So you write it down every way that the pc tells you, and you've got this
list of tails of the cat and their modifiers. And now you turn around and
assess those, and you assess those by elimination just exactly as you
assessed the goal. But don't call the goal off every time while you're
eliminating them. Because, of course, none of them will ever eliminate if
you keep calling the goal. You just want the tail.
All right. And you finally find out "to play a violin, but all the strings
are missing." You know, the pc's intelligence never gets on to that type of
a phraseology because it's missing. There's no way you can get to it, the
pc will tell you. You're liable to get into arguments with the pc, but he
says, "But there isn't any more of it. There isn't any more to the goal,
you see."
And then eventually he'll say, "Well, it - well, it does seem there's
something missing here. Oh, I see what it is. Oh, well, yeah. Well, it's
'to play a violin but all the strings are missing.'"
Well, that's the modifier: "All the strings are missing." And you write
down "All the strings are missing." And then you say, "Well, is any other
thing that'd modify and keep you from doing this?"
"Well, 'the instrument is gone.' That might be it. The strings are gone. Or
'to play a violin that doesn't have any strings on it.'"
All right. You write down "doesn't have any strings on it." You see, you
write down any way he phrases this thing. All right. You get a dozen of
these things or whatever it is.
You ask him if there are any more modifications than he has given you. You
get no knock on the meter. You get no knock on the thing. You've got the
modifier list.
Now, you simply go down this modifier list, one, two, three, four, five,
six. Just do it by elimination. Just read them off to the pc the same way
you assess goals, and you'll find that one is left alive, and that is it.
Now, having done that, you combine the goal and modifier. And you write
that down. You combine the goal and modifier. That's step 6 here. And you
combine the goal and modifier as the question for the terminal, but it's
"to play a violin but all the strings are missing." And that was what
proved out.
Now, you want to know "Who or what would play a violin with all the strings
missing?" Now, this is very tricky stuff you've got with this sort of
thing. Because it gives you a different Terminals Assessment than a plain
Routine 3 Assessment. It gives you a realer, completely real, terminal to
the pc which scoops up, if you've done it right, all of his hidden
standards at the same time. That's what I've been gunning for.
Now, it is true that the terminal the pc has been running - which was "to
play a violin," and you have assessed out "virtuoso," and "virtuoso" did
prove out. There's no doubt about it. And you've been running "virtuoso."
And "virtuoso" has been running, and it runs hard, and the pc goes vague on
it, and there's sort of circuitry stays in, but the pc goes through it, and
you're winning, and so forth. Well, there are many explanations for this,
and I don't particularly care to be nailed down on the exact explanation,
but I would say that you had, offhand, a more general terminal, or you had
a terminal too early on the track to as-is easily, or something of this
sort. You've got something else: it is on the goals terminal line, there's
no doubt about that!
But you probably have the original form, or you've got something there. And
the earlier you go on the track - you might know this rule - the earlier
you go on the track, the tougher the energy masses are, so you get a
rougher run. And you've been running "virtuoso" very nicely, but "to play a
violin with all the strings gone"... And of course you assess, "Who or what
would play a violin with all the strings gone?" and of course we get
something of the order of ''a circus clown."
And then you assess it, "circus," "clowns," "clown," well, it's "a clown."
And you've got it. It's "a clown." Well, maybe it's a very decayed form of
the terminal you were running originally, but it runs like a bomb because
it's very close to the pc's reality, and it's very close to his circuits.
So it runs more easily. And you'll find out it integrates more easily to
the pc.
I'm not trying to tell you that Routine 3 terminals are wrong. If they are,
hang me but it doesn't matter. All I'm trying to tell you is that they are
apparently very resistive. They are quite hard to run and the pc bucks into
them and he goes through big energy masses. And most of this to me is the
symptom of trying to run too damn early on the track. Trying to run into
the whole problem all at once.
Because look, if he had this goal for a while, and the goal was actually a
pure goal, you, of course, would get a different kind of a terminal for the
pure goal than the goal modified, you see. Now, you've got a different kind
of a terminal. You may have a kind of a degraded type of terminal. You may
have a different terminal anyway. It'll make different sense to the pc. And
it actually assesses faster, and you will get a faster Terminals Assessment
with it.
So you take the goal modifier - you say, "All right. Who or what would play
a violin with the strings gone?"
Well, obviously, you could have got hundreds and hundreds of terminals for
"Who would play a violin?" but you don't get too many for "Who would play a
violin with all the strings gone?" "An idiot. Uh - a clown. Uh - a party
cutup. Urn - a fake." You see, a few things like that because it's so
restricted. And you get a much shorter list. And it assesses rather easily.
So now you make up your terminals list combining the goal and modifier as
the question "Who or what would (goal plus modifier)?" "Who or what would
play a violin with strings gone?" And you make a nice list of these, and
then - just exactly the way you've handled any other Terminals Assessment -
you do this one now by elimination, and you'll wind up at the other end
with a terminal, which is the only terminal in the lot that would react on
the meter.
Now, you, of course - there are several things you could do. Now, we get
in, because we accumulated more technology, we were doing it the hard way,
we accumulated a lot of technology to do it the hard way, you could do
several things. You could address it to groups with this group type of
command. You could address it to - you could simply date it on the time
track and find a prior confusion to it and do a Sec Check on it, and you'd
probably blow the whole goal terminal mess.
You know, "When's the first time you ever ran into a clown?"
"Oh, well, that's different. The first time I ever ran into a clown - yeah,
who was trying to play a violin with all the strings gone. Oh, oh, oh,
well, you mean that type of clown. Well, all right. Let's see. That
particular type of clown, well...
And you could probably date the thing and you could find an earlier area of
confusion and so forth. You see, a door opens there. You get easier
processes. Or you could run the terminal on a Sec Check sort of business,
or fool around with that. Or you could find out how you wouldn't make the
terminal guilty and how the terminal wouldn't dare make you guilty, a
negative-guilt run. I can just think of dozens of ways to handle this exact
situation. Why? Because it handles exactly as a present time problem
handles.
You're now getting rid of goals and terminals with the modifier in there -
you're getting rid of them on the same basis that you would get rid of a
present time problem. So how many ways are there to handle present time
problems. Well, it'd be that many ways to handle a goals terminal. It all
becomes - should become at that moment very comprehensible to you.
You know that a present time problem is rough to handle. You know that it's
sometimes very difficult to get rid of them. You know very often that they
blow very easily. You know several processes that get rid of present time
problems. They don't dismay you. You know that they take a little bit of
monkeying with sometimes and it takes some two-way comm and so on. So don't
be surprised if any of these things went. Don't be surprised if any of
these things blew the goals terminal, see. So there's no reason for me to
say didactically there's only one way to do this. No. We have just opened a
wooden door and found that an iron door was there. And then we opened the
iron door, and we're on our way, you see. There are many ways to do this.
Now, the proven way to do this is to assess on the Prehav Scale, get a
five-way bracket and do a run. And that is a proven way to do that. So that
is the way we will say you had better do at the moment. Because it
shouldn't be too long a run. It shouldn't be as difficult a run as you've
been doing.
All right. I just wanted to make it plain to you that there are other ways
that you could handle the same situation because I think now you can
understand what a goal is and what - how goal stands in space, and then,
therefore, what a goals terminal is.
A goals terminal is something that epitomizes both the goal and the
resistive modifier. That would be the goals terminal you're looking for.
It's the thing that epitomizes both of these things in one terminal.
Now, we admit that at one time or another one terminal had the goal and
another terminal had the modifier and that there was a collision someplace
along the two, and so forth.
We admit that there - you could dream up all sorts of anatomy to all this,
but where the pc is concerned, he never as-ises postulates which aren't his
own. And we must consider that neither the goal nor the modifier are the
pc's if they're still in suspense. They must belong to a terminal, ha-ha.
You see that?
Actually, it's just the goal has been hanging out like a little, tiny red
flag showing what the terminal was. Now, when we get the modifier, this
really puts an enfilade fire on what the terminal is.
In other words, we got two tags on the terminal now. So we can get a more
finite, squarely placed type of terminal. And admittedly, the terminal may
be later on the track. Admittedly, the terminal may not take care of the
entirety of the entire entire. But it'll certainly unbalance the goals
terminal modifier - pardon me, the goals and modifier situation. That'll
certainly become unbalanced. And as fast as it does, you can expect a blow
of that goals modifier situation. And as soon as that situation is gone,
you of course are in the position of being able to do another complete
Routine 3A. As soon as you can't get a knock on the goal, you can't get any
reaction out of a terminal anymore, and you can't get any reaction out of a
goal anymore and you can't get any reaction on a modifier anymore, that's
it. You test all those things.
Now, how you do a repeat on this thing might prove a little more
complicated than Routine 3 because you got to check the modifier and then
check the goal. And then check the modifier and then check the goal again,
before you give it all up. Because you could be fooled if you didn't.
You check the modifier. Now, the person has blown the terminal but still
has the idea. You check the idea and the person looks at the idea and that
idea sort of surges. You see, you look at the goal, let us say, and you get
a surge on the goal. Now, the goal has surged, so you say, "Well, it's
still alive, so we'd better do something else." No, no. It's not. It may
not be at all.
You check the goal, then check the modifier, and we get a bang, bang, surge
on the modifier. Now, we go back and check the goal, and we find it isn't
there. Then we go back and try the modifier, and we find it isn't there.
Because they will still stay hung up, and you've got to check both sides a
couple of times to get them separated. The pc may still hang onto the idea
after the terminal has gone.
You see, the pc's been living this life for a long time. But if you checked
it off that way and thereafter couldn't get the goal to react and couldn't
get the modifier to react, and then couldn't get the goal to react, and
couldn't get the modifier to react; you get all of your rudiments in. You
get all these terminals that you had. You check over all these terminals
the pc also gave you. Make sure you got all that old terminals list
straight. Then we'd better get all the rudiments in like mad and we'd
better check that goal again. We'd better check that modifier again. We
can't get any tick out of them. We can't get any tick out of any of the
rudiments. Then you go into a new Routine 3A. You got it? And you just go
right down from the beginning again.
Of course, you use the pc's old list, the first goals list the pc gave you.
This has to be assessed again. You will now find that some of those are
alive. You naturally add to it anything. But you do the same thing you did,
see. But instead of having pc write a goals list, your next run on this is
take the pc's original goals list and anything that you added to it in
assessing it. And then you add various types of goals to the list - you
know, new goals. And then you assess the whole list locating a goal by
elimination. And then you go into it again. You ask for modifiers to that
particular goal.
Now, when you've found the modifier for that goal, then you get a list of
terminals for the goal and modifier. You assess the list of terminals, and
here we go again. But I don't think you're going to be able to do that very
much. I think after you get the first one, two or three, all of a sudden
you're going to start getting blow, blow. And you'll find the goal and
you'll get the modifier and it unsettles the two. And you never get to a
Terminals Assessment. And you go boom, boom. And there you're left with
empty hands again. And you keep on blowing these things, and I think you'll
eventually blow most of the pc's goals list.
I think every one of them had a modifier. Tiny one that was overridden by
the fixation of attention on the goal, don't you see. But once the goal is
gone, these other ones start getting a little bit live, too.
Now, that's the way you would tackle this picture, and that's Routine 3A.
Now, you get - let's take a case now that has been run with a goal. And
let's say that goal was "to be a willow wand." Let's look over here, and we
find that some cases will have just a modifier and we will have gotten the
modifier before we got the goal. Now, I'm just only prepared to find that.
I haven't found it, but I would be prepared to find it.
The person has come up on the goals list with a modifier. And you've got a
pc sitting there who has a modifier. Now, you have to find the goal. But
the goal will be right adjacent to the modifier and probably be in front of
the modifier and not - instead of behind the goal. Let's say somebody has
one - well, let's put something fairly factual: "To leave all hospitals
alone." And we've gotten this as a goal. And it checked out on the goals
list. And that's what we have: "To leave all hospitals alone."
Well, hey! You know, that really sounds like a modifier, doesn't it. So
what's on the beginning of this thing? That's what we want to know now.
We'd come over and we'd say, "All right. Well, what would you want to be
doing which would be modified by leaving all hospitals alone and so forth?
What would be the front end of this thing?" I think you'd probably come up
with the terminal or some terminal that the pc has already given you. You
got the idea?
It possibly is - let's say the terminal was "a willow wand" and "to leave
all hospitals alone." Okay? "Leave all hospitals alone," and you want the
goal. Well, the pc assessed out on a terminal, "a willow wand." Well, it
may be something on the order - you just ask the pc about it and sort it
out.
"Who would want to leave all hospitals alone? Why or whatever - what other
goal would a person have? What goal would this modifier modify." You know,
ask him any type of question which is just straight on. Explain to them
anything that you want to explain to them, but try to get the front end of
this thing, and you possibly will find it's "to be a willow wand and leave
hospitals entirely alone."
Now, your terminals list is no longer the pc's terminals list. It's going
to be different. And you say, all right. "Now, who or what would want to be
a willow wand and want to leave all hospitals strictly alone?" And it
doesn't make any sense to you, but it'll make sense to the pc. They've been
living with it for trillennia.
Now, you'll get a very finite terminal. You get a very sharply defined
terminal. It'll be distinctly different and well within the pc's reality of
the situation. You should - that's what you should do.
Now, I don't know that that has happened. And I haven't any case histories
of that happening at all. I am just prepared for it to have been done. I'm
just saying, well, there's a possibility here that after you've done - I
mean, in the future not just in the past. And you've worked and slaved, and
you've sweated away, and you've gotten your goals list, and your goals list
"to always jump out of second story windows." All right. Take it as a goal.
And write it down. But remember, it's probably the modifier.
Now, just how you get around to that other end of it will be proved out in
time, if we have to face this problem. I'm just facing the problem before
we come to it.
And you say, "Well, what else - what else would this goal consist of?" No
reason to work hard at it. The pc very well might give you something
idiotically simple like "Well! Well, to burn down houses, of course."
And you say, "Well, what would that consist of?"
"Well, to burn down houses and always jump out of the second story window."
"Didn't I tell you before?" is liable to be sort of the idea behind all
this.
Now, these goals that are total occluders like "and never find out about
anything." If you had a goal like that, "Never find out - to never find out
about anything." It sounds to me like they were - they wanted to or wanted
to be or wanted to have, you know, and never find out about anything. See,
that's the whole goals modifier situation. So these things could be found
backwards as well as forwards.
As I say, I don't know of these conditions. I've no experience with that at
this particular time, but there's a provision for it.
All right. Now, how about the terminal that you are running on the pc right
now? Will it do any harm whatsoever to leave it unflat? I don't know of any
harm it'd do to leave it unflat because certainly the horribleness of this
situation is this: is, that which is unknown to the pc, he tends to
dramatize, he tends to be aberrated about. That which is unknown to him and
is close to him and influencing him, he tends to be aberrated about. All
right. What about this?
Well, if you've got a terminal on the pc and it's "to collect gold bricks,"
and we audit this pc, and the pc says, "Well, I'm very sad, and it makes me
very apathetic" - and we go on auditing the pc and gradually they climb out
of this, but every once in a while he mentioned being apathetic about it
and they're not quite happy about this and so on - when we get the
modifier, we are very likely to find out "and to act apathetic enough so
nobody will find out that I have them." See, "to collect gold bricks and to
act apathetic enough so that nobody will find out I have them," see. That's
the modifier.
Yeah, but by having the goal, you've been kicking the goal, kicking the
goal, kicking the goal and of course it's restimulating the modifier all
the time. So the pc is acting like he doesn't have any engrams, acting like
he doesn't have any bank, acting like he doesn't have any anything, don't
you see, apathetically. It's all part of the modifier situation.
Interesting, huh?
Well now, I think possibly some goals have been found which are the goal
and modifier. I think this condition already possibly exists. "To be a
willow wand and have everything go crazy." That's obviously a
goal-plus-modifier situation.
There's numerous conditions of this, but if you just get down the basic
anatomy of it, you're all set. You've got to find a goal. See, you've got
to find a goal and that's just routinely. And then, having found the goal,
you've got to find the modifier. Or if while doing the goal you got only a
modifier and it was only the modifier available, now you've got to find the
rest of it which is the goal. You've got to get this package.
And then you've got to get the terminal that fits both. Your pc may have a
struggle giving you one that fits both or he may not. But the terminal that
fits the both of them, of course, is giving you seven-league boots in the
direction of clearing because it's got both sides of the problem. And it's
got the individual who epitomizes both sides of these things and you should
be able to roll along with it rather well, rather easily. It should be a
faster run, in other words. You haven't lost any ground, particularly.
You've just won some ground here in this particular wise.
Now, we take - what I want you to do if you have found - if your pc has a
goal, well, just enter in here - you've already got the goal proven out - I
don't care if they have a terminal and it's been run or anything else -
just enter in here at step 4, take that goal, compile a list of modifiers,
and go right on down the remaining steps of Routine 3A. You'll find you'll
shortcut this situation.
There is the rest of the package is what you've got to find. Instead of
running off one-half of this thing to unsettle the goals-modifier
situation.
You see, actually, it would unsettle if you just ran off half of the
problem. It's a longer run. Let's find the one that unsettles both sides of
the thing simultaneously and is contained in one person. And I think you'll
find in that all of circuitry the pc's been packing around and all of the
hidden standards and anything else will probably be combined in these
things.
This is not very hard to do. This is not very hard to do. It shouldn't take
you very long. I'll go over it once more. I just - you know what the pc's
goal is, and just say, "Well, what would make that goal difficult to
attain?" "What would make it impossible?" "What would be the consequences
of attaining it?" Any such question as that, or if somebody's heard this
lecture, say, "Well, what's the modifier to your goal?" It's as elementary
as this, you know.
And then you make a whole list of these things, you see. And when you've
got your list done, just assess 'em by elimination. Then you find yourself
with your goals - goal plus modifier. And now that whole thing, by the way,
will react. It'll react very nicely. You never saw a goal react as nicely
as when it's combined with a modifier. Bang! Bang!
All right. Now, take that goal plus modifier and ask for a terminals list:
"Who or what would want to be a willow wand and jump out of second story
windows? And, you know, who would want to play a violin without any
strings? What would? What would play a violin without any strings?" and so
forth. And he'd give you a very short list. Doesn't matter whether the list
is short or long, the idea is just to get a complete list.
Well, you shake that list down. You shake, of course, the modifier list
down. You say, "Well, are there any more modifiers?" You get no reaction on
the E-Meter. Similarly, when you've got your terminals, you say, "Well, are
there any more terminals that you can think of now?" Well, that's blank.
All right. Do your Assessment by Elimination. Get your rudiments in, of
course, frequently and routinely if you want to do a smooth, fast job of
it. Do your Assessment by Eliminations, and you'll wind up with his
terminal.
As soon as you've got that terminal, the easiest way to handle a terminal
and the one that you understand best is to assess it on the Prehav Scale
and you will find that there it sits, and put a five-way bracket together
or something on that thing and just run it. And it's simple. There's not
too much to that.
It requires auditing skill, however, to do this. This is what fools the
untrained, relatively, or partially trained auditor. Everything I have told
you sounds very simple. And it is very simple. But that is the trouble with
it. So many things can be added to it, so many complications. And what
people always neglect - and they won't admit this about themselves - is
good auditing requires a superb auditor.
You have to have good auditing skill - just the mechanics of auditing have
to be excellent - in order to audit. And you can't do one of these things
with a halfway-through-HPA mechanics of auditing. That's all.
I mean, your pc is too far out. Your rudiments are too far out. You're
juggling with the E-Meter in one hand and something else in the other hand
and trying to smoke a cigarette at the same time with your feet on this
window sill. And just somehow or another you can't seem to get anything to
work so you eventually - and you say, "Well, it's perfectly all right."
Don't know the Auditor's Code, you see. You say, "It's perfectly all right.
I know what this person's modifier is. I know what it is already," and
evaluate for it and say, "Well, it's actually 'a husband.' That's what I
ought to be running. Assess for a husband, you see, and just kind of pick
out the level at random and put it in the command and run it all."
Yeah, obviously the person has done Routine 3A, only there's no visible
result. It's all mysterious. It takes weeks and weeks and weeks to do the
Terminal Assessment. They just can't seem to get a terminal, or the
terminal they got - you get ahold of a sheet they did the terminal on, it
hasn't got any marks on it. You say, "Well, what is this? What is it?"
And they say, "Well, that's the terminal list."
"Well, what did you do with it?"
"Well, we picked out the best terminal, of course."
It's the complications that foul this up, but basically, as a hidden
background to all of this type of activity, is superb auditing skill. It is
good auditing presence. It's being able to hold a pc in-session.
Why so particularly with this? See? I mean, you can go halfway through an
HPA Course and give a Security Check and miss a question, the guy's upset
for a couple of days, and somebody else gets the question and straightens
it out, and so forth. And everybody lives, you see. And it's all all right.
But what makes this so peculiar?
Well, in the first place - I've been asking this question, you see, myself
from the first time it happened that Peter - who I just got through
training in running a course in South Africa, and he got well trained
running that course and he did very well and the students did well and
Peter goes home to Australia and he has a six-weeks course - I think it was
during the first week we had nearly all the goals and terminals. We were
very upset because there were two or three students that didn't have any
goal or terminal at the beginning of the second or third week down in South
Africa, wasn't it? Oh, we were quite peeved. And he goes through six weeks,
and I don't think he had enough goals and terminals to put in your eye. He
had three or four. He made two Clears on a particular unit which was very
well done. But he didn't get any goals and he didn't get any terminals
worth a nickel.
And it's worried him sick. He says, "Why does everybody take forever to do
it?"
And I was sitting down here at the beginning of this summer and so forth
and everybody was having such an awful time doing it. Relatively skilled
auditors. So we started shaping up auditing skill. That's what we started
working on - the smoothness and the skill of the auditor and sure enough,
when I finally got down to it just relatively a month or two ago (a couple
of months ago) I said - you remember how discourteous I was - I said,
"Well, you're in a games condition with the pc, and you just haven't got
the rudiments in, and that's all there is to it and find them." Remember?
Everybody all of a sudden busily got the rudiments in and bang-bang-bang,
everybody had their goals and terminals. Remember?
It's a crime now if at the end of two weeks of two-and-a-half-hour-a-day
auditing when we haven't got somebody's goal and terminal; it just seems to
be very, very peculiar. And we begin to think of the case as peculiar and
we wonder what the auditor is doing, really. And so on. Lots of questions
get asked. Well, what is that basically? That's twenty-five hours of
auditing.
If it's gone twenty-five hours without this result, why, "What? Oh, don't
tell me that case hasn't got his goal and terminal yet. Hey, wait a minute.
What's this?" And it's just all based on this one thing: Superb auditing
skill. That is all.
Why? All summer long I wanted to know this burning three letter word why.
It's because every time you ask for a goal, the modifier restimulates and
the modifier is usually a disability. It's as silly as that. So you're
walking uphill the whole distance that you're doing a Goals Assessment.
But, of course, it becomes dead easy after you've got the goal and the
modifier because you're no longer kicking against the modifier.
Let's say we're looking for this goal. Now, we don't know what the goal is.
We have a list of two hundred goals and we don't know what the goal is. But
beforehand, before we find out what the goal is, let us take a future peek
with a crystal ball, and we find the goal is "to be a lute player and hate
everyone horribly."
Well, that's fine. Now, we're looking down here, and we finally get down...
We've gone across "lute player" every time we turn around and we go three
or four goals further than "lute player," and we found that the rudiments
all out. Why? Well, the pc is hating everyone horribly.
Now, we don't know that the pc has got this as a goal and we didn't even
know the modifier was there. So as we come down the dress parade, see, we
keep crossing this. And every time we hit the goal, we restimulate the
modifier. So the pc goes out of session.
Now, in view of the fact that all the other goals on the list have
modifiers too, look at the potpourri which finally finishes up here. Oh, we
find this pc ARC breaks with the greatest of ease and we finally find out
that we have dug up a goal which says "to be a lute player and hate
everybody horribly," and we had "to hate everybody horribly" in full restim
the entirety of the Goals Assessment, right down to the time when we got it
as a modifier. It's right there.
And you have to be good enough as an auditor and smooth enough as an
auditor that this thing never has a ripple to get moving on. It's got to be
done perfectly. And when it's done perfectly, it never, of course, knocks.
And if it does, you put it straight back in place. And you get down to the
end of the list with perfect auditing, of course, you found the person's
goal and terminal rather easily.
Ah, but let's look at somebody else someplace who is not that well trained.
Every time they drop the command, drop the ball, drop the E-Meter, let the
cigarette go out and so forth, and make noises as they remove and take off
and put on their shoes, you see, during the auditing session, and some
things like this, and just miss here and there, you know, like - well, miss
clearing the command and miss starting the session, and, you know, few
misses of that character. And what happens?
The pc goes dzu-dzu-uzz-uzz, you know? Because remember, even though you
don't know it, you haven't pushed the pc into this valence. The pc was
sitting in this valence all the time from the moment he walked in and got
his first auditing. He is solidly in the valence. And the closer you get to
the valence, of course, the less he is in it, but until you've got the
whole thing, you're living right on a borderline. You see, you're not in
it, you're in it and so forth. And if there's a hidden part of it that
you're never mentioning, that thing will just start going alive like a
small volcano.
And anything you do which crosses the goals-terminal-line mores throws the
thing into full panoply. So here we go. And we find him hating you
horribly. He doesn't know why.
"Never, never find anything anyplace." Well, of course, this makes a tough,
tough assessment. But what do you know? You can actually assess across such
a level. You can actually assess across such a modifier.
Now, let's say we had a modifier like "and never to let anyone come close
to me, ever." Oh, man, think of what that would do. You'd do a sort of a
detour around the goal every time. You'd get down toward the goal - now
that it's position is known by the pc reactively - you get down toward the
goal. The second that you got on the goal, you'd get an ARC break just
before you got to the goal. Or you'd get something going here, and you'd
never - the pc'd never be reached. He would have made his modifier. It
isn't his goal. It's his modifier.
So you finally get the goal, but the modifier is still there, so the pc is
therefore hard to audit. So I can get you to look forward to some much
easier auditing. It isn't so difficult to get the terminal or hold the pc
into a Prehav level run if you've got the modifier. That becomes very easy
auditing.
Why? Because the fangs are gone out of the situation. You're just auditing
both sides of it. The pc knows full well it's "to hate everybody,
horribly." And he'll even make a wisecrack at you. You'd better not make a
wisecrack at the pc. The pc can always make a wisecrack about his
own...There's a little rule in this that's almost a technical fact. The pc
can always joke about his own goal or terminal, but you'd better not. You
get some of the sourest looks. It's quite amusing.
But anyway, there was the trickiness back of it all. But this doesn't say
that it requires less trickiness in the future. It requires the same amount
or better auditing to get that goal. Particularly if the pc knows you're
now going to pull his modifier, and the pc is liable to sit there saying,
"Well, let's see. Oh, that's my goal, huh? To be a lute player. Well,
that's pretty good. I wonder what the modifier is. Hm, do you suppose it's
so-and-so, so-and-so, so-and-so? I hate everybody horribly." Pc is kind of
doing a self-audit on it, you know. And you've got to hold him in line and
get it anyhow.
So it might be a little tougher to get the goal than it was before on
somebody that's aware of this. And it might not be. But some of you are
going to laugh madly about the final modifier that appears after your goal
because this is the craziest thing anybody ever heard of. It'll be
something that makes it just - it's just the complete volte-vis. There you
were minding your own business and all you wanted to do was play the violin
and so forth. And yet there's this whole long tail on this kite -
particularly hit people over the heads with it or something like this, you
see. Or "to play a violin so that I will never under God's green earth
become God." Oh, that kind of thing, you see.
It's "so I will never become," "so I will not have," "so it will not
happen." These are all denyers. Now, the mechanics, the basic mechanics of
this, are pretty easy to see. You don't have to say that these things were
implanted into the pc. You don't have to say they were. You don't have to
figure it out this way - or that the pc implanted it into somebody else.
The pc will immediately realize that this makes quite a game. But in the
past, when you started to run the game out, you were running up against the
modifier. And the first few levels of the Prehav Scale would find a pc
pretty - feeling pretty bad because the modifier was in and it wasn't
as-ising.
But the games condition involved with it gives us a great understanding of
it. The pc has a goal "to build or make violins," let us say. Well, what do
you think happens in the course of existence? The person goes on for
millennia and he's a good violin maker and he's going to make violins. What
do you think'll eventually happen? He'll eventually, certainly, pick up a
packaged counter-postulate, won't he? Thetans being thetans.
For instance, we're building a beautiful fireplace out here. People have
been coming by making the wildest cracks about that sort of thing. You've
got to be awfully careful because it - the state bricklayer is about to
drop a brick or two on their heads, you see. But it's a perfectly nice
fireplace. Very effective and so forth. It hasn't got any of its trim or
anything, so it merely looks massive. But they can't see something like
this happening as a forward goal without adding a counter-postulate. You
got the idea? They just can't do it. They're in a games condition with
life, and any degree whatsoever, why, somebody says, "I would like to teach
cats to race." Somebody - the least somebody's liable to say is, "Well,
it's been tried," or "I don't think it'd be easy to do that." And if you
had a mother or a father who was particularly in a games condition with
life, everything you said got something of this order, don't you see?
So your overt, of course, is that you've been doing it too. And one gets
into this sort of thing - somebody has an ambition to shoot your head off,
you're liable to get a counter-postulate on the subject. And you're liable
to say, "No, you shouldn't have such a goal." And you're liable to dream
this up in such a way, "Well, only madmen have goals of that character."
And eventually you could see that the person would wind up with a goal
something on this order: "To shoot everybody's head off, even though only
madmen do it." You see, he'd get the same combo. He'd get - the goal and
the modifier would get united to some degree.
Well, that's all well and good, and that would apparently work out all
right, but there's this other piece of nonsense connected with this thing.
One must have overts on the person who has the goal and modifier. See, it's
the other person that has done that, and the overts of the pc are against
the person who has the goal and modifier. It's very complicated, isn't it.
Somebody else has to have the goal and modifier. Otherwise, if they were
the pc's terminals, they would have as-ised. I mean, if they were the pc's
ideas or postulates, they would have as-ised right now. But they haven't;
they're still stuck there. So the other way of sticking them is to have
them in a terminal.
And you get the goal plus modifier in a terminal which doesn't have the
postulates that the pc has, see? So the postulates, goal plus modifier,
belong to a terminal, and now the pc is against the terminal. And that's
the way you get that out. The pc's overts and other rambunctiousness
against this terminal and the overwhelmingness of the terminal toward the
pc, eventually winds the pc up in this terminal which has this goal and
modifier.
We can see how the goal and modifier got together. That's very easy to see.
But how did they get perpetuated to this degree so they never got as-ised;
well, you put them in a valence, see, and you had nothing to do with the
ideas of the valence and of course, they didn't as-is. That's about all
there is to the mechanics of the situation. It's not actually a very
difficult, mechanical situation. It's more humorous than not, because once
you start looking over the modifiers which are actually on the ends of the
purest of goals - why, this goal is the purest, sweetest goal you ever saw.
You could just hear Brahms playing in the distance, you see. It's just
marvelous, but it winds up with something like "and never tolerate anyone
if I can kill them first," you know. See, or something weird like this, you
see.
"To benefit all children - " I just leave it up in the air. What you can
count on is that it will be a denyer - there'll be a denyer about it. It'll
be something missing about it all. The thing will be worded in such a way
as to say it isn't there. And that it will modify the living daylights out
of it and it'll give you an entirely different, more finite real terminal
picture which is very central to the pc's immediate case and worries.
All this is pretty easy. Do you find anything difficult about it? HCO
Bulletin of November 7, 1961 covers all of this data. I've been going over
it with you because I want you to do it now. As soon as you audit your pc
again, I want you to perform those actions just like that.
Now, you can go ahead and get these things checked out and go through them
as before and so on because they're relatively easy to check out. You think
you can do this all right? This thing - this thing looks pretty simple. All
right. Might not look simple to you. Does it look simple?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
You can see that a funny thing has happened here is: the front end stays as
hard or even harder and all of a sudden the routine gets much easier down
toward the end. Well, let me say that this thing only works when
accompanied by Security Checks.
I was rather interested in a very well known auditor who won't come near
anybody for any training. Hasn't for years and years and years and years
and years. And he was insisting somebody find his goal and terminal for
him. But he wouldn't have it done if he were going to get a Security Check
too. And somebody has actually consented to do a Goals Terminals Assessment
on that person on those conditions. I imagine the tail end of that goal is
"to get help and kill myself in the process," because he actually would
know better than to do something like that - even him. But I think that's
quite amusing. So a Security Check must go along with Routine 3A, and
you'll find the most fruitful Security Check that you can run on a pc - it
requires a bit of an imagination and skill - is to do a Dynamic Assessment
on the pc. We've been doing this - you've been getting this in your
auditor's report notes and so forth, and I've not said too fabulous much
about it. But if you can get a Dynamic Assessment and get the dynamic that
is out and then compartment the dynamic - I gave you a lecture on it but
I'm just saying you do this off the cuff. You don't need a lot of
paraphernalia. And sec check that dynamic smartly on the pc, you actually
will pull what the pc considers withholds. You will pull those much more
strongly.
And I'd like to add one more note. This is almost enough discoveries for
one lecture, wouldn't you say offhand? The Earth shakes when you look at
something like this. I actually - I feel a little bit contrite about
suddenly giving you a steer to this degree. It was quite startling to me
that a piece of the jigsaw puzzle was sitting right there, you know. There
was a missing piece of the puzzle right there that was making it much
harder and it was making it much longer and much more arduous. Yeah, you
can do it by running out one side only, but it is evidently much harder.
Now, there's another piece of the puzzle. That's enough, and I should say
nothing more about it, but I can't forbear, as long as I brought up
Security Checking, to give you an interesting little discovery on the
subject of Security Checking.
The person who will not - I found this out the other evening - a person who
will not admit to overts or withholds or react on overts or withholds, will
react on a direct not-know question. You know, they don't consider it an
overt, really, and they don't consider they have a withhold and the sec
check question would be clear, otherwise, will apparently react on a whole
channel, particularly on another person with a not-know question.
But it's a simple one. Not the original not-know version that came out two
or three months ago, but a very simple version such as - well, let's say
we're security checking an employee, and we'd simply say, "Well, what
doesn't your boss know?"
Now, you could have said, "What have you done to your boss? What have you
withheld from your boss?" and you wouldn't have gotten any reaction on the
needle.
But if you say, "What doesn't your boss know?" Or "What have you done that
your boss doesn't know about?" You get needle response. That's quite
interesting. That's an interesting thing to know. Just this little piece of
stuff.
As you go down the line, you'll very often find this girl. She's been very
unhappily married for years, or find this guy and he's been having an awful
hard time, and you say, "Well, what have you done to your wife?"
And he says, "Nothing." He's never done anything to her? "Well, what have
you withheld from her?"
"Nothing. Never withheld anything from her."
And I can put this little slingshot in your hands which is "Well, what
doesn't your wife know?" BOOM! Evidently it isn't a crime, but it's an
awful reaction because it's a basic disagreement. You're asking for the
most fundamental disagreement there is - the reason the trick works. He
knows something she doesn't know. And, of course, that's the most
fundamental disagreement there is. And of course you're asking right at the
center of overts and withholds. And after you've got these off, don't be
surprised if he explains it all to you that these are overts and that these
are withholds, and you'll now get reactions on overts and withholds. Never
considered them overts before. But now, after you've stripped this one
little question off - just "What doesn't (blank) know?" is the clue to all
of this. That's the wording that goes into it.
You're liable to get all sorts of ramifications to the whole thing, but
they will eventually come down to needle reaction on it. It's a good thing
to know, good thing to use.
All right. Finishing off this data on Routine 3A, who is to use Routine 3A.
Well, I would say anybody who has been thoroughly trained at Saint Hill can
use Routine 3A. Who else can use Routine 3A? Nobody. Is that plain enough?
I think we'd save an enormous number of casualties by just laying it down
right there. And of course, having laid that down and having publicized it
broadly and so forth, just look at the people you could make guilty when
they come limping in and saying, "Well, I went around to Glutz up in
Chicago. And they get your bulletins regularly. They're sent in to them by
the AMA and so on. And they found my goal and terminal all right, and ran
me on it. And then ever since that time I've had this - this - this odd -
this odd leaping sensation, and so forth." Well, at that time, remember you
at least have the solace of being able to make them guilty also, and say,
"Well, why didn't you get the cotton out of your ears the time you were
told nobody was supposed to use this except certain definitely trained
auditors?"
Okay? Well, it's all yours. Go ahead. I'm not going to - probably tonight,
aside from one or two, I'm not going to do too much with your reports. I'm
going to be very interested in tomorrow night when you've had a crack at
all this. Okay?
Female voice: Thank you.
All right. Well, it's all yours.
Thank you very much.
