SHSBC 75


IMPORTANCE OF GOALS TERMINALS

A lecture given on 25 October 1961

In just a second you're going to clap louder than that, because I'm going
to relax the problem of your having to pass examinations in order to have
auditing, on the condition that you go on and get your noses to the
grindstone and get them passed.
So you don't have to worry about that now. Don't look so spooked. Now you
can run out all of your unkind thoughts on it.
Okay, what is this? The 26th of October?
Audience: 25th.
Twenty-fifth of October? Okay, 25th of October 1961. This is planet Earth,
isn't it? Yeah. Okay.
Well, now having given you some good news, I'm going to give you some good
information. But the main thing that you had better know about goals,
terminals, runs and that sort of thing, probably has not been made
abundantly clear. I have been on this particular track here for some time
and the lecture I'm giving you is pretty much of a hallmark in this
particular line. I mean, it's pretty much of a high-water mark, because
there's a great many things have been resolved that had been a question for
a long time.
You see, when you're attacking life head on, the doors open and the
highways go out long and white quite regularly. But sometimes you know that
there're some dark woods behind you. And now and then, why, as you're going
up a well-known road, why, you all of a sudden find out that that wood is
not a dark wood anymore, that you've gotten some data which wrapped up some
little bit of something. In putting together the jigsaw puzzle of life, in
trying to piece out what it is and what it is all about, you have a problem
not unlike having a jigsaw puzzle with an infinite number of pieces and
it's almost infinite.
And when you first look at this problem, as when I first looked at it many
years ago, it was just a potpourri of odd pieces. And the funny part of it
is, they didn't even look like they would ever fit together. None of the
pieces were made to fit to any other piece. In other words, it was a
brand-new thought that it could be fitted together, in one piece, not in
eight thousand different islands.
Now, philosophy in past days has tended to compartment life and you have
all sorts of compartmentations. And philosophy has never actually attempted
a total view. It has been a bit beyond them and so they compartmented
things up. They do various things and we've used some of these dodges
ourselves in the past. I've used some of them as we've come along. I've -
well, take Spencer, Herbert Spencer. He said that there was two zones of
this and that and he broke down various things; but within the framework of
this and that and conditional to this and that, you then had a rule. You
get the basic thought that goes behind this. You have things like the
knowable and the unknowable. And that's an awfully interesting word -
unknowable. Oooooo.
Well now, more to keep people from worrying about it than any other reason,
I have used that analogy in the past, but that was more to keep people from
worrying about it - not that I thought there were unknowables. I just said
that there were areas that you didn't have to know all about before you
knew the answers to the situation.
And tremendous reservations. . . Kant, for instance - he not only
compartmented it into the knowable and unknowable, but he said that there
was transcendentalism and "You, you little worm you - you rat - we're all
calm up here on the philosophic clouds, you burn, you stupid jerk. It's
mostly all unknown to you and always will be and nobody will ever know
anything that has anything to do with anything that is important, so just
go on and be stupid and be happy about it."
I don't know exactly where he got this particular notion but I suspect it
was his bank. And as we look at this huge, piled table of pieces of jigsaw
puzzle, we get some of them together. And it makes a little bit of - more
of a picture and we get some more of them together and it makes a little
bit more of a picture. And then it turns up a yellow piece. And we've got a
picture and it doesn't fit in any part of the picture we have got, so we
put it over here on the side and we say, "Someday we will know about this
yellow piece, but right now we're not going to worry about it particularly
because the picture is making sense."
And we go on and we make more picture and we understand more of it and then
all of a sudden there's a green piece. And it's a hexadiagonal shape and it
fits nowhere. And we take this green hexadiagonal piece and we put it over
here with the yellow piece and we say, "Well, we're not going to worry
about them for a little while."
After a while, you've put enough pieces over here, green, purple and pink,
that didn't belong in the proper picture that you stir them up a little bit
and all of a sudden they go clank, and then they become - and they go
together of themselves and then they go clank, and go into the main
picture. Every once in a while we make one of these forward surges. Well,
this is one of those occasions. This is one of those occasions.
I can tell you a flat fact. That is to say this is one of these facts
that's without reservation. And it's rather startling, because we have done
it and we didn't realize there was anything important about this. But we
have done this in the past, but it's a fact which becomes one of the
fundamentals of auditing.
Now, I must tell you clearly that auditors are divided into two categories,
ritualists and fundamentalists. They're divided into these two categories.
There is the auditor who, without any understanding of what he's doing,
actually goes forward with the ritual and carries through to the end. And
he's perfectly happy and he very often gets a result.
But he runs into more bugs than other auditors. This is the majority of
auditors. They go down the line and they think that's just fine. And I
appreciate it, you understand, because it demonstrates a very great faith
in me. But that's what it demonstrates and that's all.
Now, they would be better off - and any ritualistic auditor who is getting
results would get more results and be better off - if he knew the
fundamentals on which his ritual was based. If he knew the fundamental. For
instance, we say "agreement to begin a session." Now, if he knows what the
fundamentals of agreement are, he realizes at once that he's got to have a
mutual knowingness about what this session is all about.
And regardless of the ritual, his end product is going to be a mutual
knowingness. "We are going to do so-and-so and such-and-such and then we
have an agreement." And this agreement then precludes the preclear from
having an enormous amount of not-know. Do you see this as an example?
So one auditor could just go ahead and run Model Session and everything is
fine and run it off to the end and he comes out, he gets a result. It's an
attestation to Scientology and the way it's put together that he can get a
result under that basis. But how much better, how much better, if he knows
he's trying to get a mutual knowingness about what is going on and make a
contract and he's a fundamentalist, he's going by definition. What is
agreement? You see? Well, agreement is a mutual knowingness, a mutual
postulatingness towards certain end products and he knows if that's absent
- if a mutual knowingness about what this  session is all about is missing,
that there's going to be a not-know throughout the session on the part of
the pc. It's all going to be a little bit of a mystery, so he's not going
to make as fast a result as he would if he were auditing by fundamental.
Now, you can audit by fundamental and use the ritual, you see. You could
actually succeed by just using the ritual and not knowing the fundamental,
which is quite interesting, but you could succeed much better if you knew
the fundamental which underlay the ritual. And also used the ritual. That
way, why, you have many more wins.
Fundamentals are quite important and this is one of the fundamentals of
auditing which has been missing right up to this date. We could not answer
this formerly, but if you have traced through - I think you could trace
through the lectures for the last several years and occasionally find a
remark by me that I have for a long time studied this particular facet and
hadn't yet an accomplished answer to it, a finished answer.
That is, is it better. . . I even thought I had it licked one time and it
was very close to licked, but it is not quite right. "Can you audit
conditions at all?" Now, we've inclined very definitely up until recently,
up until now, to believe that you couldn't audit conditions very
successfully, that you should audit terminals.
Now, let's clarify this. Let's clarify this. Let's classify terminals. What
terminal can be run on the pc? And this is one of these great basic facts
of auditing, so flap your ears. The only terminal that can be run on a pc
is his goals terminal. And no other terminal can be run with impunity on a
pc.
You can run another terminal for a short time. You can run it rather
limitedly. You can appear to be getting away with it. Everything can be
going along fine, you hope, and all of a sudden the bank stiffens up and
the pc doesn't seem to be making much progress and so forth.
That's because you're auditing another terminal than the goals terminal.
Now, factually, on the long haul you can get away with auditing these
terminals sometimes for twenty, thirty, forty, fifty hours. You can get
away with them for a while - and all this will become very visible to you
shortly - but you cannot continue to audit any terminal which is not the
pc's goals terminal. The only terminal which can be audited with complete
impunity, with total unlimited runs, is the goals terminal of the pc. And
that is all that can be run in the way of terminals with perfect impunity.
That's a fact.
Nail it down. Give it its proper level of importance because it will solve
for you "Why did the pc's tone arm go up to 5.0 and stick?" It went up to
5.0 and stuck-refer to this particular moment and you will know why it went
up and stuck. You must have been auditing some other terminal than the pc's
goals terminal. It doesn't matter what other terminal. You must have been
auditing another than his goals terminal.
So if you were running his goals terminal and it went up to 5.0 and stuck
after you began the run of the goals terminal and then it got sticky and
sticky and sticky and there was something real wrong running some
double-barreled process (such as your groups 10-way bracket that you're
running right now) and the tone arm went up and it stuck and nothing
happened- ha-ha-ha, there's something wrong with the goals terminal. That
is what is wrong. You're auditing some other terminal than the goals
terminal.
You are busily, busily, happily clearing up a present time problem on the
pc. You're happily clearing this up and all is going well and all of a
sudden the tone arm starts going up and it goes to 4.5 and the pc gets very
logy and it gets very sticky and starts to comm lag and gets misemotional -
ha-ha, you're running another terminal than the goals terminal of the pc.
Now, there's two things which can make that tone arm go up and stick. You
understand, "go up" is all right. Go up, go down, who cares? But go up and
stick. Now, that will happen on a Prehav Scale run and it does for this
reason: You've exhausted that particular line and you must get over onto
another part of the Prehav Scale. There, it is the Prehav Scale that is
doing that. But on the 10-way bracket, if it did this, you've not got the
right terminal, that's all. There's something wrong with the terminal.
Withholds can make the tone arm go up and stick. And running the wrong
terminal can go up and make it stick. Running the wrong terminal on any
process. Now, there's a great temptation to run a present time problem and
so on.
You see, this particular class has helped me resolve this and I wish to
thank you for it. You haven't suffered for it particularly. Pon was crying
the other day and I recognized at once why she was crying and I use her as
a particular example. I examined her auditor's form, wondering about this
and I found out that she had been run on the ARC break process very hard
and very long. And what happened?
She was going up - if you don't mind my using this?
Female voice: That's all right.
And she was running along happily, cheerily, cheerily, cheerily and
everything was going along fine and then all of a sudden started to get a
little bit misemotional to the auditor and a little bit upset with things
in general. And then they went along and ran the ARC break process a little
longer and the tone arm went up to 5.0, clank, and there it stayed.
And they kept on running it, but Pon didn't - didn't calm down and didn't
feel better. Now, I see today she looks much better and I think they
undoubtedly are following the auditor's report directions which I gave out
last night. I'm sure they ran a terminal today. And she feels much better.
Isn't that right? Probably not much better, because the terminal itself
cause...
But look at this. I wish to use this as an example because it's right here
in your midst. Now, the ARC break process refers to an auditor and refers
to a pc. Ah, those are two different terminals than her goals terminal.
These are not her goals terminal. See? That comes under the heading, then,
in spite of the fact that it's cleaning up auditing...
It doesn't work like this on every pc, but it'll work eventually like this
on every pc, you see. It doesn't work fast on every pc like that, but it'll
work that way eventually. And this will become very comprehensible to you
when I go out and tell you all about the mechanism involved in this thing.
Well, what happened here, see? The auditor is not her terminal, a pc is not
her terminal. She has been run on an auditor and a pc, running that 15-way
ARC break process and her attention is being taken off of her goals
terminal and her bank is beefing up.
Now this is the Create/Six phenomena. It is right here. The Create/Six
phenomena is not involved with creating. And I've known there was a spook
back of that and every time I've mentioned that to you, every time I've
gone over it, I've had some little reservation. You remember, I've always
made a little bit of a reservation - "Well, I don't know why this happens,"
you know? "It doesn't seem reasonable to me. And it doesn't happen with me
and if it happened all the time, why, it should happen. But some people's
banks get very solid when they start creating. And so we don't run Step
Six."
This has happened enough times, you see, so that we abandoned a process
which was not uniformly a bad process at all. Why? Why? And that little
question has just stayed around. It's one of these yellow pieces with
orange polka dots. Lord knows where it fits or how. Why do some people run
Step Six - which is "Create something. Create something. Create something"
- and have the whole bank go solid? But juust a few people have this happen.
And other people run "Create something. Create something. Create
something," and as a lot of old-time auditors right here in this room can
tell you, you can go on and have them create things and create things and
nothing bad happens. They go on and they get well and everything else.
Well, why does it only happen to a few?
So if it was create - if create was the total basis of this, why, then -
then of course it would work on everybody. Only it doesn't.
All right. Instead of saying, like the ancient philosopher, sitting on his
stone - it was probably very unhealthy sitting on stone, but anyway -
sitting on stone, he said, "Well, there are different types of people.
There are different types of bank. Everything is different, you see and you
have to have understandings of fifteen or twenty different classes because,
you see, they don't all head under and respond to the same principles. So
men are different and thetans are different and it's all different, you
see. And therefore, after you get through studying the alpha system, then
you have to study the beta system and then you have to study..." you know
and here we go, you see?
Well, I don't work on the same principle. I'm perfectly welcome - it's
perfectly welcome for there to be great differences, but if you have the
answer to life and the mind, you don't have different types of cases and
you don't have some cases responding to something and other cases not
responding to something, you see. It must be that you're not quite down to
the fundamental. It must be that you're dealing with a fundamental which is
not rock bottom. You must be up the tree a ways.
Well, in this particular instance, I'd never accepted that create phenomena
without protest, even in lectures when I talked about it. Maybe you can
remember my having objections to this, here and there. "I don't know why" I
would tell you.
Well, it isn't create. That's why. It's wrong terminal. That's why,
huhhuh-huh. Hu-huu, a little difference here, ha-ha. Some people are so
stuck on their goals terminal that you take their attention off their goals
terminal and the bank beefs up. Or when you were running create on them and
telling them to mock up things, you were having them mock up things other
than their goals terminal, which were off their goals-terminal line and it
distracted their attention off their goals terminal, so bank picked up.
So we get another fundamental here - not from that angle, this is from
another angle entirely. This is empirical. I've watched this and watched
this and watched this and I noticed that banks become solid and the pc gets
more somatics and the pc gets more misemotional about the thing and things
get more tough and it all gets tougher and tougher and tougher,
rrrurrerr-he's sort of going into concrete.
What is this? Why? It's running the wrong terminal. Running another
terminal than the terminal of the pc's goals chain. The pc's goals terminal
doesn't do this. And it is the only terminal in the case that won't. There
is just one available terminal in any case, one available terminal and that
is the goals terminal of the pc. There is only one goal. There is only one
terminal. And if you run that terminal, no matter what you do in the way of
a process, the bank will not beef up. It'll not become solid. But if you
run any other terminal longer than its basic tolerance or until the pc
notices you're running it, why, he gets cast in concrete. You know, I mean,
he gets misemotional, the engrams get tougher, you get more screams, the
circuits suddenly start acting up, and so on. The case gets rougher.
Now, usually in from three to ten days you will get a drop out of this. If
he doesn't get any auditing for three to ten days, it'll just disappear.
It's not a particularly dangerous condition, beyond the fact occasionally
in Dianetics or Scientology somebody has suddenly had weight added to them
in the process of processing.
Why? Why? Running something else than their goals terminal, that's all.
Every time you saw increased weight by reason of auditing, it was because
the bank was becoming more solid; it was manifesting itself on the body
line and you were running something else than a goals terminal.
That will be good news to several Scientologists.
Let me call to your attention that the - I must say this in defense along
this line - this fantastic situation where every person is walking around
with a different valence. All from the same source, but every person has a
different valence and it is usually different than the identity he is.
It is true that the terminal, running a terminal - this is perfectly
factual - is much superior to running a concept, but the only terminal that
can be run is the goals terminal, which is the added statement on the end
of the line which makes it completely factual and useful. You audit against
a concept and the pc's havingness will go down or something else will
occur. You must audit - if you're going to audit for a long haul or do
anything permanent for a case, you must audit a terminal. But what
terminal? It is only the goals terminal of the pc that is available for
auditing. If you don't know that terminal, you cannot run any terminal. I
cannot say that too emphatically.
Don't run any terminal if you don't know the goals terminal of the pc. You
can do almost anything with the goals terminal of the pc. Let us say the
goals terminal of the pc is a "motor machinist's mate." Unlikely terminal.
"Who would be a motor machinist's mate?" Anyway, his goals terminal was a
motor machinist's mate.
Well, I don't ask you to experiment in this particular line, but you
possibly could do something like this: "Mock up a motor machinist's mate.
Thank you. Mock up a motor machinist's mate. Thank you. Mock up a motor
machinist's mate. Thank you." And then nothing would happen. Nothing would
happen bad to his bank. He would get the total kickback of his terminal. Oh
yeah, he'd be very upset, but it will be emotional upset from the terminal
and that upset will reduce and discharge and it'll run out.
Now, why wouldn't some - I go clear back to 1950 - why wouldn't some
engrams run and why wouldn't other engrams run? And why, when running some
engrams, did they just get tougher and tougher? And why, when running other
engrams, they got softer and softer? Now, why?
Well, because the engrams that ran out were on the goals-terminal chain and
the engrams that weren't on the goals-terminal chain wouldn't run. Now,
I've already shown you here in the - just a few weeks ago that an engram
that lay on the goals-terminal chain ran like hot butter. If you knew
anything about running engrams at all, it just ran out and swamped up.
There was not any great difficulty about it. It ran easily and the pc felt
much better afterwards.
But if you ran one which was off the goals-terminal chain, as some of you
knuckleheadedly did.. . You know, I mean you're doing a Goals Assessment
and the pc all of a sudden gets an engram and you say, "Well, Ron says it's
all right to run engrams" and you all of a sudden run the engram and you
made no progress and something happened with the Goals Assessment and
everything would start to blow off and little jets of steam started to come
out of the pc's ears and it didn't work. You had your hands on an engram
that wouldn't run.
Why wouldn't the engram run? Because the engram was not on the
goals-terminal chain and did not contain in it a terminal of the pc's goals
chain. In other words, his terminal wasn't in the engram, so it didn't run.
Now, how we got away with running as many engrams as we did, Lord knows.
This bug sat there all the time. So some engrams ran and some engrams
didn't run. You get a person early enough on the track and you usually run
into his goals-terminal chain, so we went basic, basic, earlier, earlier.
The "earlier" principle still applies, perfectly valid. You use it today on
the prior confusion to knock out a hidden standard. Marvelous. It'll work.
You get the prior incident that underlay all the incidents. The first time
the individual ever had an overt against Dianetics and Scientology, you can
park his whole case until you find it and then the rest of the chain blows.
That principle is right there. But lying right alongside of it there's
another principle. And that is, in running engrams, if it is not on the
goals-terminal chain of the pc and does not actually contain his terminal
and is not directly related to his terminal, the engram will not run. And
that's all there is to it.
That terminal which is not the goals terminal of the pc, that item in the
bank which has nothing to do with the goals terminal of the pc and so
forth, have only a very limited run and if run too long at some point in
the line - either at once or twenty hours from now - will all of a sudden
find the bank going solid. Fantastic, isn't it?
I know some people hearing this and some people thinking about this and
looking at this, are saying, "My God, we've been walking a tightrope."
Yeah, we have. We have; we've been walking a tightrope. There was a
fundamental there, which was a goofy fundamental - an oddball fundamental
of some kind or another.
It wasn't much of a tightrope. I had the ends of the thing pretty well
nailed in. They were well set in concrete. Very few have fallen by the
boards, but nevertheless there was that spook factor. And now we discover
it. Well, it's a good time we do. This is our first year of clearing, where
we're doing very wide clearing. We certainly better know this now.
All right. Then if you can't - for heaven's sakes, if you can't run
anything but the goals terminal of the pc and if you can't neglect running
the goals terminal of the pc and if you can't run other terminals on the
pc, then how're you ever going to get a rudiment in? How are you ever going
to get a rudiment in? Because they contain other terminals than the goals
terminal of the pc. Oh-ho. Well, that's horrible, isn't it? And how are you
ever going to clean up any present time problem of long duration if it's
not on the goals-terminal line, huh? Becomes impossible, doesn't it? Huh?
Isn't this fantastic? Well, fortunately it's not impossible. We'll go into
that in a moment.
I looked at this with a ghastliness before I brought it up here. All right.
Let's go into the basic and exact mechanism and I'll show you the other
mechanisms. Let's go into the basic, exact mechanism of why the bank acts
up and won't erase if you run something else than the goals terminal of the
pc. All right. Let's take this object. Let's take this object here. All
right. And this object we will say is the goals terminal of the pc and this
object over here we will call an other terminal, other terminal.
Now, you're all of a sudden - to see why life becomes practically unlivable
and why, also, the people who have been going around spreading these nice
quiet philosophy, like "It takes living in order to live your life out. You
have to do some living, you see, in order to erase it totally." Oh, yes,
that's around, you know. "Processing isn't enough." You hear this
occasionally. "Processing isn't enough."
We get some old mystic philosophy or something -  somebody will say, "Well,
you have to do some living too, you see." And now we get where they get
this "living too." "You have to go out and live because it'll spin you in
every time." Now, I'll show you how this all amounts to.
All right. Here we have the pc valence. This is his goals terminal, this is
the valence that you plunge for and that you assess so crudely and so
circuitously for with the valence acting up and the rudiments out and you
eventually find it. And outside of Saint Hill they occasionally find one,
once in a while. They haven't found a right one yet but they find
otherwise. All right. That's actually just - that's just - put it under the
heading of a dirty crack. That's all it is. It's true, but that's ...
I just had a lot of cable traffic today on exactly this subject, back and
forth, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang, all on this subject. "We can't find
the pc's goals and we can't find the pc's terminals. And there are no ways
to find the pc's goals and terminals." And it can't be because the
rudiments are out. I mean almost. Wasn't this bad. But I took it in that
frame of mind. I just chose to be annoyed and superior.
All right. Here's a thetan. He's in the middle of this thing. And this is
his terminal and there it is. And the basic postulates on which this goes
in are quite interesting. And as soon as you know this, by the way, you
could probably, by using fundamentals and a little bit of Straightwire,
occasionally make a case go bzzut-bluu-vlum! You know, not clear him but
make him feel awfully odd. All right.
The basic is this: As long as the thetan - he knows this - keeps his
attention on his goals-terminal valence, as long as he keeps his attention
on it, it is all right. Everything is all right. This is introversion
deluxe. As long as he keeps his attention on his goals terminal, everything
is all right. The bank is only normally psychotic, and these various things
occur.
Now, to this and appended to this goals terminal we have innumerable
considerations, packages, personalities, postulates, circuitry and
machinery. It's all a complete package. Here it sits. There have been
others. There have been earlier ones. But I'm talking about the one which
is now available to the auditor and which can be run with impunity and
which you find with your ordinary and general run assessment. As long as he
keeps his attention upon this valence, he's okay. All is okay. The bank
will not misbehave; it'll just be normally nuts. He's taken care of. And
that is built into the machinery in which he is operating. That is the
built-in strata on which he is functioning. And as soon as he puts his
attention on any other terminal - now get this - as soon as he puts his
attention on any other terminal, he's doing something that is not quite
right.
He is rigged so that the valence in which he is will assert itself. The
punishment mechanism is that the valence gets more solid and more assertive
and more it, the second that. . . The thetan, you see, punishes himself by
the basic built-in mechanism and the basic fundamental of the valence that
if he puts his attention on anything else then the valence is going to do
something extraordinary; it's really going to act up and it's really going
to call attention to itself. All right.
So he puts his attention over on this other object and instantly this
valence, his goals-terminal valence, goes "Woof-rrrruuuum-creak, ummmummm,
mm-mm, mm-mm-mm-mm-mm-mm! Uh-uh! Somatics! Somatics please. Calling all
somatics. All right. Calling operator, electric-current switch panel,
mysterious current passing through temples. Numb feet, numb feet, calling
up numb feet." There it goes. The whole machinery goes into action as soon
as he puts his attention on another terminal. Now, you thought I was
talking about auditing, huh? Oh, I'm not. I'm talking about day-to-day
living. Oh, oh. Isn't it fantastic that the more terminals he is asked to
put his attention on the worse he will get. And we have just found a big
hole in the road called life.
I'll go over that again. The second he puts his attention on any other
terminal than the one he is interiorized into, it acts up and he gets his
head knocked off one way or the other. And that applies to life.
So when he sees a streetcar conductor, if he were to see the streetcar
conductor, the bank would start acting up because this terminal is what we
call the bank.
An interesting thing. I have found - I've found Lucifer out today. This was
the rig. He goes up to see the bank manager. If he puts his attention on
the bank mana -  you see, his terminal doesn't even have to be anything
related to the bank manager. If his - he, by the way, would be fairly
comfortable, comparatively speaking, if his terminal were to be an arch
bank robber and it wouldn't be quite so bad putting his attention on merely
a bank manager. If they were slightly related, why, it might not be so bad.
But his terminal is a washman and he puts his attention on a bank
president, you know? The bank president startles him: the bank president
says, "Well, all right, I'll give you an overdraft and extend your loan" -
depending on what country he's in - you know and it startles him.
You know and for a second he looks at the bank manager. Just for a second,
you see, he puts his attention actually on the terminal called bank manager
and his bank goes creak, creak, creak, creak, bing! One of these pinball
machines you see in these penny arcades, because he put his attention on
another terminal.
The pc is drifting along in-session, being well interiorized in running and
all of a sudden the auditor drops the E-Meter. Now, just the mechanism of
attention sliding off of what the pc's doing is, of course, a shock and a
surprise, but that doesn't account for the repercussion that very often
occurs.
The pc is well interiorized into his valence because he is running and all
of a sudden his attention is shifted over to another terminal, whether it's
E-Meter or auditor or - it doesn't matter what. Over to another object or
terminal. His attention is shifted outside of this goals terminal.
It could happen to him in life, but in view of the fact his attention is
fairly comfortably relaxed on his goals terminal, one way or the other, on
his bank in an auditing session, it's just the magnitude of shift. You see,
he's more interiorized and it exteriorizes him harder, so his bank goes
crunch! clank! Gets solid and acts up.
All of the mechanisms by which he prevents himself from becoming other than
this goals terminal go into action and punish him back into becoming the
goals terminal. Interesting mechanism, isn't it?
Life, you see. He goes - he sees a fellow student. He feels nervous around
this fellow student, you see. He feels nervous. Now, he'll feel as nervous
about a fellow student as the fellow student is appearing. A person is as
nervous about any other terminal than his goals terminal as it appears or
manifests to him. It's a direct proportion.
In other words, the more he is forced to put his attention on another
terminal, the more nervous he gets, of course. It works out quite easily
and simply.
So here's his - here's the pc and his goals terminal. He's going along just
dandy, just fine. He's living totally interiorized. And as long as he never
sees anything and as long as he never meets anybody, as long as he never
really notices anybody, as long as he never talks to anything or notices
the physical universe in any way whatsoever, as long as all this is
occurring, he is all right, he thinks. Now, that he can gradually become
familiarized with his surroundings or gradually familiarized with other
terminals is just marvelous. It just comes under the heading of
familiarization.
But if you familiarize him along the line and then suddenly familiarize him
rather too suddenly about something of the sort, the whole goals-terminal
structure, which is being violated up to this point, will go in again,
clank.
Life is an aberrating activity. Well, there are other terminals in life.
Now, you wonder why people don't see well. Well, if they don't see well
they don't have to see any other terminals and if they don't see any other
terminals of any kind, why, of course, their bank doesn't beef up. If they
see any other terminals their bank will beef up.
They're teaching themselves this lesson all the time: "If I look not at
something else, if I put not 'mine' attention upon any other terminal, I
won't get this cotton-picking backache." They know this reactively.
Now, everything in Book One applies. It's how the fish protects himself
from being eaten and how he uses restimulators and all that sort of thing.
But the one restimulator and the one mechanism that he used is not
sufficiently delineated. It's in Book One. It tells you all about it in
Book One, 1950, but it doesn't press it home. And there's one factor
missing in that book: that there is only one such terminal. And there's one
consequence missing in the book: that if he puts his attention on anything
else in the way of a terminal, to some slight degree it's going to mess him
up.
Well, I just level with you. There's the data. There's the data.
You get out and board a bus, the conductor comes by - click, click, snap,
snap - he wants your pennies. You get along just fine if you just hand him
the pennies, you see. You see, don't really notice him, don't pay much
attention to it, you know. It's perfectly all right. But if he then goes
snap, snap with one of these punchers, you see and your attention goes this
way, you say, "Damn that," you know? You get - you get about what the
borderline is.
There's apparently some tolerance and probably the tolerance varies from
person to person to the degree that they've been forced to look at other
terminals. And they can tolerate quite a bit from another terminal before
they go booey. They can tolerate quite a bit. They can talk to people. They
can go to parties. They can talk to people. They can act around.
But, actually, life is not peculiarly life that has nothing to do with the
mind. That's the way it's mostly been regarded. But why is it that people,
as they go along in life, quite ordinarily go to less and less parties.
People ordinarily become less and less gregarious. Well, naturally.
I don't think bodies wear out. I think the thetan's - not the body's - the
thetan's goals terminal beefs up. And when it beefs up to a killing point,
that's it. And that's age. I think this mechanism is that pervasive in
life. So you see it's pretty, pretty fundamental fundamental, isn't it.
All right. Well, this puts us in a bind, ladies and gentlemen. It scraps
every rudiments process you've got, just like that. It's not possible. You
can't put rudiments in, obviously. It violates this rule. Obviously, you
can't audit a person because the second that you put his attention on you,
the auditor, why, the goals terminal beefs in and he gets worse. So
obviously auditing is impossible. Obviously, you can't clear up the minor
difficulties of the individual if it involves running other terminals. That
leaves you with just, of course, a Goals Assessment, a Terminals Assessment
and a goals terminal run, period. That's what it leaves you with as
effective auditing. That's the lot, as far as effective auditing is
concerned.
So the importance of Routine 3, in those characteristics, could not
possibly be overrated. We've come back onto the highway and all of a sudden
found out there's just one road there. Mess up that road and you've had it.
Uruuh! That's a bum show, isn't it?
Look, you can't run the auditor out, because he's a terminal. So if a
fellow had too many bum auditing sessions he would have had it, right?
Finish him. You may as well think this thought through in its most gruesome
- most gruesome lines. I'm presenting it tto you with as much crepe on it as
possible. If you find some places on it where I haven't hung any crepe,
why, you supply them to yourself. You can see that it's a closed channel.
A person who's had a lot of bad auditing, of course, that's ruined him.
It's obvious there's no recovery from anything, except by his goals
terminal. Yeah, but his rudiments are out so nobody can find his goals
terminal and he's not at Saint Hill; he's being audited by somebody who
read a - read a short leaflet on it.
So this gets very interesting, doesn't it? That's as narrow a view as you
can get. Now, can the view be expanded at all? Now, these long yards of
black crepe, festooned about, give us this other aspect. Is there any
slightest peep-holes of light shining through the funeral crepe? Are there
any? Yes, yes.
Here's another bug. Here's another bug datum, another interesting bug
datum. It's a purple piece with cross-diagonal orange and blue slots. It's
shaped like a biscuit cutter, dissected and made into a tolahedron. And
it's ridden along with us for a long time because every once in a while an
auditor has sat down and run fifteen or twenty different processes on a pc,
all of them figure-figure, think-think processes and the pc's got a
tremendous case gain. Next time we try the same processes or anything like
these processes, nothing happens.
Did you know this bug factor occurred? You must have run into it yourself.
You must have asked somebody to think of being well, sometime or another,
you know or something like that and ran this for a little while and
something wonderful happened with the case. And then you got hold of
another case and you said, "Think of being well" - with great confidence,
you see, you did this; enormous confidence - "Think of being well," you
know. And the fellow says, "All right, so what?"
But this funny looking piece is this: that cases have recovered on
conceptual address; they have recovered from running concepts. When I first
dreamed up Concept Processing, way, way back - I guess it was - I don't
know, 52, 53? 52.
A bunch of psychiatrists and chiropractors and a whole bunch of birds -
next year or something like that - they read all the bulletins carefully,
backwards and, God, had something like "conceptualism" and so on. And they
just took this original material. Actually, for -  at one time, I think
only four or five years ago, they were running two or three hospitals in
the United States and this is all they were doing. They were doing it all
messed up and backwards and they weren't getting much in the way of
results. But it - there was something there.
And I didn't know how much there was there. And fortunately - fortunately,
I knew basically that it was only a terminal proposition and I knew you
couldn't do anything unless you did something with a terminal.
But it was - it's taken a long, long time to sort out what terminal and to
find out how to get that terminal and how to run that terminal well. That's
taken a long time to do. And if we'd stopped with conceptual activities,
significances, we never would have gotten anyplace; nobody would ever clear
on significances, but you can make people feel better.
The reason you can't clear on significances is, of course, significances
are part of the package of the valence and terminal. They're the valence
that the pc is in on his goals-terminal line, see? His considerations can
be shifted around and it doesn't do very much. It's processing the
terminal. See, but you can shift the terminal's considerations somewhat.
Don't think you can't.
One of the ablest of these processes is old Rising Scale Processing. This
can change a terminal package around faster than anything you ever heard
of. But it doesn't get rid of the terminal, but it doesn't beef it up; it
doesn't get it upset. And you can audit it.
And you can lay this one down, not for very permanent results, not for any
broad wonderfulness, not for any spectacular thing - merely a miracle here
and there. Depending on the good sense with which you pick out the concept,
you can audit concepts on a preclear. You can audit concepts on a preclear
as long as they do not in any way hook up with a terminal. That is the
basic rule. You can audit concepts on a preclear as long as they do not in
any way hook up with a terminal other than his goals terminal. That can be
done - and that's fairly fortunate for you.
But here's the limiting factor from an auditor's practical viewpoint. Not
that it limits this, but the auditor, trying to apply this, is going to
every once in a while goof. He's going to think he's running a concept or a
significance when actually he is running a terminal. He'll say, "Let's see,
we can run concepts and significances so it'd be all right to say, 'What
does your mother think?' That sounds good." All right. "What does your
mother think? Thank you." "What does your mother think? Thank you. . .
Thank you...
Tone arm starts up, you know. "What does your mother think? Thank you."
Tone arm goes on up higher. "What does your mother think? Thank you." Tone
arm gets up to 6.0. "What does your mother think? Thank you." Tone arm
sticks. "What does your mother think? Thank you." "I don't know. Ron said
that you could audit concepts as long as they weren't connected with any
terminals. Uh, oh, wait, wait. Oh, oh. Oh! I've - I've been... Oh, oh, oh,
oh! I'll have to run this out in my next Security Check because I've been
running his mother. I've been running a terminal on the pc, you see. And
because I had think connected with the terminal, I for a moment, you see,
didn't realize there was a terminal there." Now, that's a very gross one.
That's a very gross one.
You can - you can duck one like this and you can say, "Well, what would -
get the idea of running away from things," you see. "Oh, that's good.
That's an easy concept, see. Doesn't put anybody's attention on any
terminal." And the tone arm starts up, it starts up and it starts up. And
the only thing it is, it's got a terminal mixed up with it, see.
Now, you can get away with running "you," because this covers, to some
degree, the goals terminal, see? You can run "you." But you can't run
anybody else, not on a pc on a concept. All right.
And you can - here's the next big, broad basis of it: You can security
check terminals. Why can you security check terminals? Because the person's
overts and withholds from the terminal in a limited sense were when his
attention got pinned on another terminal than his goals terminal and if you
can separate his attention at those points on the track when they have been
pinned against other goals terminals, you of course are less activating his
goals terminal. You are picking out times on the track when his attention
got onto other people selectively and pinned and stuck on other people and
you're picking those points off. And not running any repetitive process or
fixing his attention on the terminal and in any particular way, but by
getting his attention on the things that pinned his attention in the past
over onto the terminal, he therefore feels better.
And that's why a Security Check works. Hasn't anything to do with God and
sin. Has to do with broken mores and attention pinned on groups and it has
to do with all those things, that's for sure. But I'm talking about just
why would coming into the church and confessing that you just murdered one
of the choir boys last night, for immoral reasons, produce a tremendous
case gain, as they claim? See?
Well , his attention - he's got an overt and he's got a withhold which
pinned his attention on the track on another terminal than the one he's on.
You weren't saying, "Think of murdering choir boys. Thank you. Think of
murdering choir boys. Thank you. Think of murdering choir boys. Thank you."
Eventually, the only thing that's coming through to the pc is choir boys,
choir boys, choir boys and his bank start - is likely to get solid. See,
he's liable to get a high tone arm and get very upset and that sort...
Now, why does the high tone arm occur on a withhold? Why is it accompanied
by a high tone arm? The person is withholding something and so forth. It's
because at that point on the track their attention is pinned on another
terminal, other than their goals terminal, so you get a high tone arm. You
got that one? All right.
Now get the idea of a time track and the individual at intervals in the
past has had this mechanism violated by life. Life has demanded of him that
he take his attention off his goals terminal and put it on another
terminal. And of course those are best expressed under the heads of overts
and withholds. So there's the points where his attention is on other
terminals.
So if you can just knock out those points delicately - flick, flick, get
the overt off, get the withhold off - he frees from that terminal and his
attention is no longer, at that point of the track, violating his goals
terminal, so he feels better. So knowing that rule you can security check
with impunity, as long as you don't put his attention on too many
terminals.
That is to say, let's not sit down and make a list of 8,795 people and then
let's say, "Mother, Mother, Mother, Mother, Mother, Mother, Mother, Mother,
Mother, Mother, Mother, Mother, Mother, Mother, Mother" - and all of a
sudden the pc's tone arm starts up, up, up, up, up, up, up. Of course, it's
the auditor who is putting his attention on the mother.
See, the auditor is not disengaging his attention from Mother in the past;
the auditor is putting his attention on Mother in the session. Now, you get
the two differences there? That's a very delicate difference. We can say,
"All right, now, what have you done to your mother?" Plang.
"What was that?"
"Well, I did this and that..."
"Have you ever withheld anything from your mother?"
"Yeah." Plang. "Did that and so forth."
"When was that?" Plang, you know. Boom, bang. "All right. Now, have you got
any other withholds from your family? All right, that's fine. When was that
one? All right." You know. Just - you could run almost regular Security
Checks.
As long as you don't say, "Well now, what sort of a person was your mother?
Now, was your mother very mean to you, one way or the other? Now, was your
mother a big woman? Was your mother a small woman? Did your mother talk
loudly or talk softly? Exactly how did your mother... ?" And all of a
sudden it gets to be a word Mother to this fellow, with letters about six
feet high, you see and it's all massy and bulky and he feels very crushed
in and starts to feel sort of solid and sort of upset.
You've just taken his attention off his goals terminal, that's all. You've
stressed the other terminal too much. You get the idea?
So you can get the overts off and the withholds off. Oh yeah. Well, this
takes off the times on the track when their attention got stuck on the
other terminal. And as long as you don't get this other terminal pushed
into a point in the session where their attention is being fixated on this
terminal which is in violation of the goals terminal, their bank won't get
solid, they will recover and they'll feel fine. Okay?
I gave you all the rudiments processes that are effective processes here
several lectures ago. They are very easy processes actually. The basic
process is this: "What's your attention been on lately? Thank you."
"What has it been on?" Not "What could you look at?" You see, "What could
you look at?" is a violation of the goals terminal. "What has your
attention been on?" I just give you that as the fundamental form. "What has
your attention been on?"
You could spot where his attention had been on things and the rudiments
would clear up. So here's a fundamental way. This is actually part of a
lecture of some two or three months ago.
You've got a present time problem. All right. Don't run problems because
problems bring up terminals and the person then finds himself facing a
terminal and then you'll find the problem doesn't run because it's not his
goals terminal and you're going in circles. So you don't run a present time
problem. You merely spot the problem, when he has had it before and try to
get the earliest time his attention was on such a problem. You just sort of
backtrack it and pull out the earliest pin and let his attention just come
on up to present time on the thing. And you'll find out that the problem
has discharged without running terminals in connection with the problem.
You understand, rudiments have not been unsuccessful because they are not
run very long. You're not putting his attention on this terminal over any
long period of time, so you've gotten away with them. But recognize, we can
recognize now that we have gotten away with something.
And you can continue to get away with this and you can go on running
rudiments processes the same way you are running them without running into
too much trouble. But here and there you're going to run into enough
trouble to cause us to gradually graduate it over to merely this "What has
your attention been on?"
All right, let us take an ARC break. All right. How would you clean up an
ARC break? You would say, "Well, do you recall any other AR - any other
things there that were bad that you didn't - you know, was - your attention
was on saying something to somebody and you just couldn't say it and so on?
Do you recall any other circumstances like this?"
"Oh, yes, yes.
"Oh, well, got another one? Oh, yeah" - boom. "Got another one?" - boom.
"Got another one? Yeah, that's right."
"Oh well, I see what's wrong in the session now," the pc says. "I've - I've
been trying to tell you something and I couldn't tell you," see? His
attention is still stuck on trying to communicate to the auditor or
something of the sort, see.
Find out where his attention got fixed in the session and unfix it and of
course he'll feel better because it's not in violation of his goals
terminal. Simple. So if you just specialize, in rudiments, in unfixing the
pc's attention where it is fixed, then he will feel better.
You see, wherever his attention was fixed on the past track on another
terminal than himself, he violated his goals terminal, so it's a little
aberrated point on his track. He feels a little bit funny about it.
It's amazing the amount of - number of terminals that pcs can actually look
at without spinning in. But if you take auditing, with all of the
heavy-drill mechanics back of it and try to make them face up to a terminal
in auditing, wow, wow, wow It gets to be pretty wild. I mean, you keep
bringing up...
Well, let us say that you have taken up his mother, you have run his
mother; and it was perfectly all right; and it worked out all right. And
you ran his father and you started running his father. And this had nothing
to do - you never assessed this fellow and you've run his father and you
were just going to clean up his whole family, you see. And you ran his
father and you ran his father and you ran his father and you ran his
father. And, I don't know, the tone arm seemed to be getting up and the
case seemed to be getting sort of sticky. So you ran his father, so you ran
his father, so you ran his father, so you... The case seemed to be getting
awful sticky by this time and you couldn't quite see what the devil was
happening on the thing and you sort of knocked it off. And you decided,
well, you couldn't do very much about that. And you just skipped it after a
while.
And three or four days later it was all right. You asked him about his
father and he didn't seem to be particularly upset, so you let it go by.
Have you had that kind of thing happen? Well, that's what's the back of it.
You're putting his attention on Father and his father was a wild violation
of goals terminal. So was Mother, but you see it's Mother plus Father made
quite a lot of violation of goals-terminal attention, you see and by the
time you'd gotten - some pcs you could get fifteen family members or
something like that up the line before they finally went clank!
So Sec Checking can be done. Disengaging attention fixed in the past can be
done. And goals terminal running can be done. Everything you have learned
about prior confusion becomes terrifically valid if you omit the problem
running. Don't run the problem because you immediately and at once run into
groups and other people and other terminals.
All right, that's what I learned from you. I watched your tone arms going.
Boy, you sure had a time. That's why I changed you over quite rapidly on to
running your goals terminal so swiftly, on almost the identical process. Of
course, it was a good thing. You got used to the process, got used to the
form, got used to auditing it and it didn't do anybody any particular
amount of damage, except one class member, and she's recovered today, so
that's all right.
And there is the view of the thing. Don't - just in the interest of not
goofing, just in the interest of having nothing funny happen in the
session, just in the interest of everything going along smoothly and the pc
never having any ARC breaks - if you want to have no ARC breaks with the
pc, keep his attention on his goals terminal and run him on his goals
terminal. Never put his attention on the auditor and never let his
attention go on anything else but the goals terminal,
pockety-pockety-pockety~pockety pock.
Now, there's another mystery on this I'd better tell you about, is why did
it take one of thirty-six or more of thirty-six Havingness Processes? Some
pcs ran on one Havingness Process and some pcs ran on the other Havingness
Processes. One of the thirty-six Havingness and one of the thirty-six
Confront Processes do not violate, for some peculiar reason, the goals
terminal of the pc and therefore, remedy his havingness and let him move on
the track. For some reason or another they're all various combinations of
commands and it sort of lets him walk through a gate.
So you ask one pc, you say, "Look around here and find something you can
have." He can't run it. The thing gets stiff. Why does it get stiff?
Violates - "attention must be on his goals terminal." His attention must be
on his goals terminal, you ask him to look at the wall. Oh, no. Well,
you've asked him to look at the wall in this particular way and that's no
good. So you finally ask him, "What emotion does that wall have in it?" or
something like this. Oh, he'd tell you that. That's easy. And for some
reason or other this doesn't violate his goals terminal. It's where the
concept of the havingness and the concept of the confront are matched to
the now-I'm-supposed-to packages of the goals terminal.
And where these things are exactly matched - where the havingness is
matched to the goals terminal and doesn't violate the principles of the
goals terminal and where the confront doesn't violate the goals terminal
and matches its principles, then that havingness and confront works like a
bomb on the pc. You only find two or three or four of those processes will
work on each pc. And there's thirty-six of them and pcs work on all
different ones.
Now, what's variable in cases? What's variable in cases is the goal. What's
variable in cases is the terminal and the now-I'm-supposed-to's that go
around that valence. And these can be infinite. You can have the most
complex sort of a valence. Think of your own valence just at the moment -
did you ever see so many complex facets to anything in your life as that
valence?
Well, people really don't understand what a bank president is. They really
don't. He does this and he's now-I'm-supposed-to do that and he's
now-I'm-supposed-to here and he's now-I'm-supposed-to there. And for
practically every answer and facet of life, the bank president has an
answer. It's marvelous, absolutely marvelous. And as long as you don't
violate any of these particular principles, you can live a happy life. At
what cost? Well, just the cost of you, that's all. Of course, you can't be
a good bank president, either, because it takes more than I'm-supposed-to
to be a bank president.
But somewhere in those Havingness Processes - somewhere in the Havingness
Processes, somewhere in the Confront Processes - there's one or two or
three or four that work. Well, they don't violate the terminal. They're not
necessarily what the terminal would do or not do, but they are not in
conflict in some mysterious, alchemical way, with the now-I'm-supposed-to's
of the valence. And so you sort of found a little hole in the picket fence
it went through. Well, that's very good.
Now, we're also, then, in contest with looking at other holes and for other
holes in the picket fence in the way of how do you do things with a case.
Well, most concepts would be functional as long as they're strictly
concepts. They'll patch up a case a little bit.
Of course, you can't change this valence around. No, the valence is in in
concrete. You can run the valence out, but you can't change it around. But
running concepts you can make somebody feel better and you can alter
something of their considerations. And remember there's a thetan there,
too. And concepts are a hole in the fence. Because it's all right to put
his attention on an idea, but it is not all right to put his attention on
another valence.
Therefore, you have innumerable people able to absorb or pay attention to
or have concourse with ideas that cannot have any concourse with masses.
They cannot observe masses. They can't do anything with masses or people or
something, but they can do something with an idea.
Well, a hole in the fence is that the - an idea is not a violation of the
valence terminal. Now, unpinning attention off violations of the goals
terminal in the past - you see, times when his attention has been fixated
over on another terminal. .. Of course, that was a violation of the goals
terminal, so you're patching up that; you're of course freeing his
attention on the backtrack. And that's done by Security Checking.
So Security Checking is a wide hole in the fence. Now, there's another hole
in the fence, is that you can run any problem by picking up the zone of
prior confusion and sec checking it. His attention stuck on the problem
because his attention was already stuck on violations of the goals terminal
prior to the occurrence of the problem. So you can always get rid of a
present time problem by finding the incident of prior confusion.
I did this the other night with Mary Sue. Just the most mysterious thing
you ever saw. You get used to these sort of things - takes it in stride. I
was thinking about this and I noticed that after you - after you left, she
was wheezing and sneezing and so forth. She was sitting in the other room
and there was no heater in there and she was very cold. And I noticed that
she put on - as any Texan would - put on a wool sweater and then she put on
a coat over the wool sweater and then she put one of these
driving-sport-car, heavy-padded jackets on over that, you see and she was
looking around for a couple of shawls or something.
And I said, "What goes on?" She says, "I'm cold." So frankly, she was under
a very heavy pressure to get her reports done, don't you see? And I was
standing in the door talking to a lot of you, you know and I was slowing
her down, you see. So time was sort of stopped. But her attention, you see,
was rapidly snapped over on to the group standing in there holding the door
open.
Now, you said, "All right, now, all you have to do is get off her overt
thoughts of why don't they go home and why doesn't Ron shut the door and
why doesn't it get hot in here and why doesn't somebody turn on the
heater?" You know, this sort of thing you would have said. "That's the
thing to do and that's all set."
Well, I just made a nice interesting little two-bit test out of it and I
did all that. And she was still sniveling and she was looking around for
four or five more mackinaws and shawls, Texas fashion and so forth. And
then I found that while reviewing your sec checking earlier, she had become
just shakingly furious with a couple of incidents where a lousy job was
being done and it was the prior confusion.
Everything blew straight up. She took off the mackinaw after throwing me
out. I actually... You get this as an incident? If Suzie will beg my
pardon. But you get that as a very homey fundamental little piece of
nonsense. See?
The apparent O/Ws that would directly cause the situation had - and the
exact problem had nothing whatsoever to do with being parked on the track.
That was all much earlier. It was actually an hour or two earlier than
that. And then some other incidents had happened and made the earlier
incident key in. It was just the prior confusion to what the pc was saying.
And she didn't have any recall of having done this other thing at all. She
wasn't thinking about it at all. The second it blew into view, that was it.
So actually you haven't lost anything. You have a faster method of getting
rid of a present time problem than you had before, when you get a Sec Check
of the prior confusion. Just find out who was there earlier and did the
needle move while they were there earlier and find out what they did
earlier than the time they are worried about. If they're worried about
eight o'clock, find out what happened at five. They are very stuck in a
fight with their wife as they come into session and you say, "There's a
hell of a present time problem. We've got to get rid of this problem and so
on, in order to get on with the session." And you say, "When did this fight
take place?"
And they say, "Ho-ho-ho-ho-ho. It's been going on all evening. It started
about supper time."
You say, "Good. When was supper?"
"Well, supper was at six-thirty."
"All right, that's fine. What happened at five?"
"Oh well, that was before the argument with my wife, you see. And this has
nothing to do with the present time problem. Because my present time
problem with her - she didn't have dinner ready and I had to get back here
for the session and so forth and we had a fight."
"Oh well, all right. Well, what did happen at five? Where were you at
five?"
"I was down at the lumberyard."
"Well, all right, so you were down at the lumberyard. Who was down at the
lumberyard?"
"Oh well, nobody, but there were those - " Clank!
"Who was that? What was that? What occurred then? What did you do?"
"Oh, well, I completely forgot. As a matter of fact I fired the foreman."
"All right," you say, "thank you very much. Do you have a present time
problem?" You won't get any action. You didn't even discuss the fight with
their wife. Anything the pc is worried about is pinned by an unknown prior
to the fact. That is the rule. Anything that the pc is worried about is
pinned by an unknown prior to the fact. Any present time problem is fixed
as a problem by a prior occurrence, prior to the occurrence or subject
matter of the problem.
I've told you for some years now that any time a pc blew on you, they had
had an ARC break for at least an hour - half an hour to an hour and a half.
And maybe when I get your goals terminal all run, maybe you'll notice
what's happening to the pc and be able to put your attention on the pc
without caving your own bank in.
So, you clean up an ARC break. How do you clean up an ARC break? Well, the
pc goes clank, blump, thud, tone arm goes up, things get sticky. You say,
"Do you have an ARC break?"
"Well, yes."
"What happened?"
"Well, you muffed that command." Hm-hm. All right.
Now, let's use the attention - "What was your attention on?" sort of a
thing. You get the idea? "When was the first time your attention was
distracted from your auditing, from being audited, that you can pick up
now?"
"Oh well!" And bing, bing, bong, thud, boom, boom, pick up two more, bang,
bang, another one, boom, that's it. They're in present time, no ARC break.
If you don't believe it, try it sometime.
Or it was the fight they had before the session that you didn't pick up as
a PT problem. But the ARC break is hanging up and is an ARC break because
of a prior enturbulence which is not now in the consciousness of the pc.
Anything that is wrong with the mind is unknown to the mind.
You needn't make a full fetish out of that and say, "Well, if the pc says
he has a stomachache there is no need to believe him at all, because the pc
knows nothing about his case." You see, you could carry this out to a
ridiculosity. But if the pc said he had a stomachache and then told you
where he got the stomachache and why he has the stomachache, you should
realize that this has exceeded the knowingness of the pc, because if he
knew where he got the stomachache, he wouldn't have one. But you still use
where he got the stomachache and when he got the stomachache, so that you
can get a few hours earlier than that.
Fellow says, "I had a nervous breakdown." All of a sudden, why, it's most -
you see, you're all trapped into this as being the most logical thing in
the world. He said, "I - I was sitting at my desk and," he said, "my
business was semibankruptcy and - and everything was going to pieces and
all of a sudden my secretary stuck her head in and screamed at me, 'Your
father has just died in a convulsion and uh - his will is bankrupt,' and uh
- uh - and so forth and that's why I have  this nervous breakdown."
Well now, you must believe that the pc has a nervous breakdown. That's
perfectly fact. He can observe that. But why he has the nervous breakdown,
when stated by the pc, is a violation of this fact. He still has the
consequences of a nervous breakdown. If he knew where the nervous breakdown
came from, he would not have the consequences of a nervous breakdown.
So you take the fact that he is suffering from a nervous breakdown - all
right, that's fine. And you take the fact of when he thought it started and
what he thought began it, in order to get a bit earlier than that and find
out what did begin it and start it. It'll always be earlier and always be
unknown to the pc. That's how life hangs up.
Now, couple this with the fact that it was always a violation of his goals
terminal because his attention fixated on something else. See, his
attention fixated on something else, some other terminal. If you pry his
attention loose from having fixated on prior terminals, why, you've got the
thing taped.
In other words, Sec Checking works, concept works, getting the person's
attention off parts of the track it is fixed on, that works. Running
terminals - don't do it. Might as well lay the law down now, rather than
soften the blow and try to make myself look very intelligent about the
thing. I pat myself on the back for knowing there was a terminal there.
Nobody else knew it. Yeah. And now I find out that we've got a firm grip on
the terminal. We know that there is a terminal there that is the terminal
we're looking for.
And I can impart to you this oddity that apparently, now that the checks
are all in, some of the variations of auditing, the ARC breaks of pcs, a
lot of "Why does the tone arm go up and stick?" - a lot of these answers
are rapidly satisfied by the fact that his attention mustn't be on any
other terminal than the goals terminal. And it's only by taking his
attention off the goals terminal, by running some other wrong terminal to
the case, works.
I'll give you an oddity. Do you know that many Dynamic Straightwire - not
very many, but enough to make it interesting - Dynamic Straightwire
terminals that were found for runs in yesteryear are the goals terminal of
the pc. Isn't that interesting? They're sometimes worded just a hair
different or something like that. It's quite interesting that auditors here
and there just picked right out off the cuff, you might say, by doing a
Dynamic Assessment and actually would arrive with something which was a
near throw on it. One instance - the Dynamic Assessment gave the food of
the terminal, which the Goals Assessment found. In other words, it was
right on the line. It wouldn't have been damaging to have run it.
Did a Dynamic Assessment and let's say - well, this wasn't it - but "chop
suey." For some reason or other the only thing that could fall out of the
hamper on a Dynamic Assessment was chop suey. And we assessed the fellow
and we find that his goals terminal was a Chinaman.
You see, they're - they're matched up here and there that closely. There
are probably other methods of crosschecking whether or not the goals
terminal is right. There are safeguards of this, having become sufficiently
important.
Mary Sue just proposed a safeguard. She says, "Well, why don't you do a
Prehav Scale assessment, then do a run on the l0-way bracket on groups and
problems on the goal. Not do the Prehav run, you see. And then go back and
do another Prehav assessment and see if a lot of new levels have suddenly
come live, as a crosscheck."
There are probably a lot of these crosschecks could be used, one way or the
other and you'd know very well whether or not you were running the pc's
goals terminal. But the best run is, is the pc interested? Is his case
running? Is it fairly easy to keep the rudiments in? And does the pc say,
"Oh no, I never want to get Clear"? Is the pc getting upset with life? And
is the pc saying, "Oh, I never want to be audited again; this is too
ghastly," yet continues to appear for session?
There are a number of tests. There are a number of behaviors which are
peculiar to the goals terminal.
All right. Well, there have been a lot of snarled spots taken off the line
and they've made a much neater picture. You possibly will feel a little bit
confused. Some of your data you may feel you now have in crosswise, it's
been unstabilized. That's why I've gone over it carefully to tell you what
data is or is not crosswise. And the only thing I'm telling you is that you
have assisted me to the degree of showing me that you cannot run a problem.
Can't be done.
We still have the whole Problems Intensive, the whole lot, but we have it
in its original version. You go ahead and find it, you find the problem.
And you only find the problem in order to find the prior confusion. And
then you just sec check the prior confusion and you've got your - your
Problems Intensive is just fine. Just omit running the problem. You get in
trouble running the problem, but you won't get in trouble taking their
attention off violations of the goals terminal earlier, even though you
didn't know what the goals terminal was. Do you see that?
So it's the same thing. You do it the same way. There's absolutely -
everything is just exactly right. The only thing I've got to change on the
form is just that one little line about running the problem. You don't even
have to word or run the problem and none of you could do that anyhow, so
it's all right.
Yeah, you could run it all right, but wording it, that was beyond you, you
see.
Okay. So there we are. I've brought you up to date. Some of your cases
ought to be running like startled deer. I've relaxed the rules now on which
you're being examined, therefore, I expect you to be examined even more
frequently, but not under so much duress. The thing for you to do is to get
Clear by Saturday and then start studying Monday, finish up the checksheet
by next Thursday and you've got it made. Okay?
Thank you.


