6203C29 SHSpec-126  CCH's

     The CCH's were developed when the HGC in London was finding out that
there were pcs that weren't gaining and were getting no results.  The CCH's
don't run things out; the CCH's familiarize the PC with control,
communication, and havingness.  The PC does an upgrade on CCH's in the teeth
of the adage that the PC must be at cause.  Actually, there is a gradient of
causativeness, from very slight, at CCH-1, to considerable at CCH-4.  The
CCH's are a way to get the PC to sit there and look at something, so he finds
out he can confront it.  The PC becomes aware, through familiarization. that
control, communication, and havingness are not necessarily horrible.  As the
case goes downscale, it gets to a level where it is predominantly motivator
and won't respond to anything else.  The person does not have an adequate
enough idea of cause to be causative.  Above that point, a person's cause can
be increased easily; below that point, it can only be increased to the point
of getting him to confront something going on someplace else.  That is where
CCH's take over.

     Instead of letting the PC run up further overts by being accusative and
critical, we get him to confront communication, control and duplication.  Just
communication and duplication in itself gives case gain.

     Havingness is the concept of not being prevented from reaching, or the
concept of being able to reach.  A havingness process is a continuous
duplication of being Able to reach.  Havingness wasn't a quirk.

     CCH-1:  Getting the PC to reach you enables him to communicate with the
             auditor; it establishes the auditor as a terminal.  This should
             get the PC being at cause; he cogs that he can reach and will
             therefore communicate to you.

     CCH-2:  The PC has had his body running on a machine for ages; it
             operates all by itself.  CCH-2 lets the PC take over the
             automaticity of body motion that he has relinquished; he does
             this knowingly,

     CCH-3:  This was developed to get the PC in the same communication time
             (and space) span as the auditor.  Some people can't put a
             dispatch on a comm line because they can't tolerate distance on
             the line.  They always bring a body.  CCH-3 gets the PC over the
             necessity to be touching something in order to feel in comm with
             it.  This is an effort at a gradient: How far can the PC be from
             the auditor and still be in comm?  For instance, some people have
             to be there in person to deliver a message.  CCH-3 lets the PC
             enter space into a communication.  His cause-distance-effect has
             been one of minimal distance, just cause-effect with no distance,
             so if the PC were in the auditor's head, he could be audited.
             The PC gets the idea of communication by duplication; CCH-3
             enters space into the communication and some duplication.  The PC
             cogs that he can talk to the auditor and understand what the
             auditor is telling him to do.  Keep it very simple.  The word,
             "contributed" introduces the idea of cause.  You are gradually
             bringing him around to this idea.  That is why you ask if he
             contributed to the motion.  You don't care what he answers; you
             are just planting the idea.

     CCH-4:  You are actively asking if the PC is satisfied that he duplicated
             the motion.  It's the PC who should be satisfied, not the
             auditor, necessarily.  If the PC is satisfied when he hasn't
             really duplicated the motion, the auditor's only mistake is to
             contradict or criticize him or invalidate him.  If the PC is
             wildly off but says he is doing it, find a simple motion the PC
             will duplicate, so he doesn't keep making himself into a lier
             every time.  Or get off the misduplicated motion for two or three
             turns and then come back to it.  He will eventually improve it;
             he will get better.

     The above is the only reason why CCH's actually work.  It is a peculiar
fact about CCH's that they don't even require the PC's agreement or approval
to get gains from them.  They worked in 1956, then got altered to a point
where they didn't work because they had stopped being run as a combination,
which is as important as how each is done individually.

     If a PC gets run on CCH's when they are not producing change, he gets the
idea that he is being punished.  So you run it to three times through with no
change, then go on to the next CCH.  It is as important for the PC to not mind
doing it as it is for him to do it perfectly.  The PC will start nut doing
them on the auditor's determinism.  Running just CCH-1 for hours with no
change doesn't offer enough randomity to cause a change.  That is the trouble
you get into, tackling each one just by itself.  The PC will run for two
hundred hours on CCH-1 with no results.  An exception is that you can only run
CCH-1 on an unconscious person.  Similarly with touch assist, engram running,
"You make that body lie on that bed," and others.  With an unconscious person,
you should also cycle through three or four processes.  Do the rotation and
the case will unsettle.  Go through CCH's to get them to bite; there should be
enough randomity in it so it will bite.  Otherwise, it might just go on and
on.  The CCH's unflatten each other.  They are run tone 40.  Upper indocs are
vital training, e.g.  "Put a thought in that ashtray," helps the auditor get a
thought into a PC's head.  That is the way they should be run.  They are a
tone 40 process (i.e.  CCH's 1 and 2).  You lay the commands into the PC's
head, not necessarily even verbally; just command the PC without reservation.

     The CCH's are non-verbal processes.  They could be run on a deaf person.
They are action processes with a common denominator of solids, not thoughts.
So do them when you are not getting TA on thinkingness processes for several
sessions.  If a discussion of auditing produces TA motion consistently, put
the PC on CCH's.  The PC in such a case is not familiar enough with control,
communication and havingness to be willing or able to go into session fairly
easily.  The other PC who should get CCH's is one who gets TA on tactile
havingness.

     CCH's are not only for psychotics, though they are the only process you
can run on a psychotic.  CCH's reach far higher than was previously realized.

     The need to keep doing CCH's as long as they produce change and stop
doing one when it produces no change goes in the teeth of time and the
physical universe's Q and A.  You would think you should change one when there
is change and not change when there is no change, but this isn't so.

