Subject: FZ Bible SHSBC TAPES PART 1 09/12 [x2]
Date: 2 Dec 1999 19:42:01 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

SHSBC TAPES PART 1 09/12

**************************************************

St. Hill Special Briefing Course Tapes Part 1

Contents

   New #    Old #   Date     Title

01 SHSBC-1    1   7 May 61 E-Meter Talk and Demo
02 SHSBC-2    2  12 May 61 Assessment
03 SHSBC-3    3  19 May 61 E-Meter
04 SHSBC-4    4  26 May 61 On Auditing
05 SHSBC-5    5   1 Jun 61 Flattening a Process and the E-Meter
06 SHSBC-6    6   2 Jun 61 Flows, Prehav Scale, Primary Scale
07 SHSBC-7    7   5 Jun 61 Routine 1, 2 and 3
08 SHSBC-8    8   6 Jun 61 Security Checks
09 SHSBC-9    9   7 Jun 61 Points in Assessing
10 SHSBC-10  10   8 Jun 61 Question and Answer Period: Ending an Intensive
11 SHSBC-11  11   9 Jun 61 Reading E-Meter Reactions
12 SHSBC-12  12  12 Jun 61 E-Meter Actions, Errors in Auditing

We were only able to check one of these (number 6) against the
old reels.  If anyone has pre-clearsound versions of these
tapes, please check the others and post differences.

**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************

SHSBC-9  renum 9   7 Jun 61 Points in Assessing

POINTS IN ASSESSING

A lecture given on 7 June 1961

[Based on clearsound only.]

Thank you.

I was going to say I can always tell when somebody is mad
at me: They don't come to my lectures. That happens to be a
coordinated fact, you know that? People who don't - haven't
attended my lectures in the past in Central Organizations,
eventually squirreled in some fashion. Odd. Peculiar. So I
always look around to see who's there, you know? It's my
Security Check.

All right. Now, this is the 7th of June, isn't it?

Audience: Right. Uh-huh.

Marcabian intelligence report date - something or other.
Did you hear about the Marcabians who had to PDH the
Thedeans who had to - in order to make Frank Sullivan safe
for democracy. Anyhow - ah, it's a wonderful life.

All right. Now, I lectured to you yesterday on HCOB June 5,
1961 [PROCESSES ALLOWED]. Tried to give you some very fast
general coverage concerning it, and this bulletin was
issued to you today. This bulletin is based totally and
completely on what we have found people would do and what
people can do. And they can do these. And although I can
tell you innumerable ways to punch buttons on cases,
innumerable ways to become aesthetically telepathic about
cases, read their facsimiles and all kinds of weird things
like this, it doesn't happen that over the last eleven
years people have uniformly been able to duplicate this. So
as a result, we have techniques and technologies, and we
have taken it all down out of the beautiful esoterics of
esoteria and have got it well situated now into the
ponderous clank of something that can be totally understood
and duplicated. Okay?

The trick of communication in Dianetics and Scientology is
the interesting trick back of all the tricks. That is the
one thing that has been the most difficult and is probably
the greatest achievement. Other people might look at other
things, but learning how to get things understood is one of
the most difficult things - without developing a large
vocabulary.

We could easily do this by inventing eighteen dictionaries
and the 8,000 new terms you have to learn as a medical
student and so forth - and we've got somewhere around 400
terms that are - 472 terms, I think, include all of the
oddball ones we don't even use. In common usage, I think a
Scientologist's vocabulary probably isn't over about 75 or
80 words that are completely strange and peculiar and have
their own meanings. But once you define these words - once
these words are defined - people look at them and realize
there was no such word. See, so we've had to make something
that sounds like English, you see, then mean something. And
it's very odd - as soon as I get out the dictionary - which
I'm doing - I do that between 7:00 A.M. and 7:05 on my
schedule.

I must have an overt on buzz saws though. I did get to bed
for a couple hours sleep this morning, and I no more than
closed my eyes, than Farmer Jones opened up on a buzz saw.
And you know, he is perfectly tuneless on the thing. He
can't play it worth a darn. So he has now got another black
mark in his book and our books. And factually - not for that
reason at all - everybody is being very fed up, because they
open up his book now and they find nothing but total black
pages. You know, he's run out of black marks.

But trying to communicate to him, for instance, anything
about anything is a very good example. Here's an actual
example: You try to explain what the situation is all
about. You draw a blank. You draw a complete blank. But he
responds like mad to processing. Even anything as corny as
a Touch Assist.

I ran an engram on him one day standing out in the front
drive. The odd part of it was his hand recovered and
everything else. He'd been kicked by a cow in a milk pail.
And at first he thought the milk pail had kicked him. He
didn't know when it happened. He couldn't locate when it
occurred. It was sometime between breakfast and supper. He
didn't know at what moment what had happened. He had no
clue, and he was having a rough time. And his hand was all
crippled up, and he couldn't milk. So I stood him out here
in the front drive and ran out a bad hand. He became rather
pathetically curious afterwards as to what we were doing.

There's no language to talk about it, you see? That's the
trouble you have, you see? The no-language barriers. It's
the no-language barrier. These words do not exist in the
language because the understanding didn't exist in the
language.

Now, words are based on agreed-upon understandings. And
English is a Johnny-come-lately language. Most of these
postulates hadn't been made or thought of for the last 200
trillion years. You're going to express them in English?
People don't even know these principles.

However, you tell him a definition of a word, carefully,
using, oh, I don't know, using twenty, thirty words,
something like that - a definition of a word - he doesn't
latch onto the word rapidly because the concept is
brand-new to him, and he's rather stonied by the
definition. This is something that's never occurred to him
before. He can sense the truth of it. Something is going
ding, ding, ding. "That's true, you know. That's true. You
know?" But he can't quite grasp it. And while he's still in
the throes of grasping this, recognizing there is a truth
there, if you threw right on top of it a condensation of
your explanation and his cognition in just the few letters
contained in one word, you've almost collapsed the track on
him, don't you see? He has to realize the principle before
he can take the word. You got that?

It goes reverse-wise. A child has to find out that the
stove is warm before he begins to understand what "warm
stove" means, don't you see? Now on a thought level they
have to understand the concept. Well, this is almost like
processing.

It used to be fellows would read the Axioms and read things
about it and get all sorts of cognitions. And you know,
Dianetics: Evolution of a Science: We have numerous cases
of people in hospitals having been given this or finding
it, and just reading the book and throwing back the covers
and getting up and sliding into their shoes, much to the
horrors of the nurse, and leaving and never being sick
again.

What did this? It was basically a resurge of hope that
there was some understanding of all this, don't you see?
But it was the understanding alone. So the understanding
operates as processing. You got it? It operates that way -
it's clarifications.

Well, until you have somebody who has wrapped his wits
around some of the principles, so that he isn't still
going, "Let me see. Are all men bad? Are all men good? I
wonder if all men are good. All men are bad. There probably
is two different kinds of people. There's the good people
and the bad people."

I knew a nut one time that used to say, "Well, there are
two kinds of people: there are happy people and unhappy
people. And you're an unhappy person." And then she would
add gloomily, "And I'm a happy person." See, she had this
all worked out.

And if you all of a sudden shoot something in and say,
"People are thetans. And there's the overt-motivator
sequence, and what they do to others, why, they think is
done to them;" boy, you've just fired a philosophic salvo
of fleet intensity. See? Wham! You know, and everything is
reverberating from horizon to horizon, you see. And you
say, "Now do you get the word 'overt-motivator sequence'?
Oh, you don't understand the word yet. Well, you're
stupid." And in training people, they actually have to
learn the principles before they learn the words.

That'll make this dictionary rather interesting reading,
because they look at the word, and they're perfectly
willing to commit that to memory. And then they read the
definition, and the fleet salvo reverberates from horizon
to horizon, and they say, "What word was that? What word
was that? You know? You know? That's submerged. That's
gone. What are we connected with? What planet is this?" you
know? That kind of thing. And then they finally come around
and they say - they look at it again, and then they look at
it again and then they run into it with familiarity. And
then they get more and more familiar with it. And then all
of a sudden they know the word. See, they can package it,
because the understanding of it is so easily understood
that it is thought-wise transmittable. You got the idea?
Until that time, they can't learn a vocabulary.

Now, you can do anything you want to, to teach people how
to learn a vocabulary, but you run against the principle of
the communication of the idea that is packaged in the word.
And these ideas have not been familiar to man.

All right. Doing that in a relatively simple way might look
complicated to people simply because their basic difficulty
is trying to grasp some principle. And they haven't got a
good idea of what an overt-motivator sequence is, and every
time they try to face it, you know, it sort of blows the
words "overt-motivator sequence"; they become meaningless.
And what they haven't done is grasp the principle of the
overt-motivator sequence. It is not that they haven't
grasped the word. They could spout the word parrot-fashion,
but they cannot understand this other principle, don't you
see? See what we're connecting up when we're training people.

Actually, we know - would have no sounder method of educating
somebody than teaching him the principles of Scientology
under the guise of teaching him the vocabulary of
Scientology. Got the idea? They couldn't help but have a
repercussion.

All right. Now similarly, the operational actions which we
undertake apparently are liable to shortness of
understanding or misunderstanding. Therefore, what will be
done and what can be done by a person in Scientology, by a
Scientologist, is monitored by what he can easily
understand and what he is willing to perform. And you have
that right here, and this is quite a triumph, this HCOB June 5.

Now, to a nontrained person, this bulletin would probably
be gobbledygook, because it doesn't explain too much here.
It's dependent on other publications, you see? It says
CCHs. Well, of course, we've been through the ropes and we
know what the CCHs are, but that wouldn't mean anything
to - oh, I don't know - Menninger, presuming he's still alive.

"CCHs. Oh, must be something made up. Something made up."

"No," you say, "No. It's a repetitive thing. It's actually
control, communication and havingness. When you apply
control, you obtain communication, which gives the preclear
havingness. And it is a method of entrance on cases which
is rather infallible. And that's what CCHs mean." Look
where you'd leave Menninger. See? He wouldn't be around
there, that's all.

In the first place, you've enunciated to him a principle
that psychiatry, if it had any teeth left, would give them
all if they had a formula by which they could actually
bring back some sanity, see? They haven't got that. So
you've thrown him this formula and control to him is
electric-shocking people, and communicating with people is
electric-shocking people, and havingness to him is electric
shock or psychosis. So it adds up to him: "Well, control,
communication - it'll drive people crazy." Get the idea? His
adjudication. You see how he'd arrive at the point where
"it'd drive people crazy," because his havingness is
psychotics. This is all the havingness the man has,
obviously. See, so control - that's electric shocking people.
And communication - that's electric shocking people, because
he knows you can't, see? And havingness - well, that's
electric shocks and psychosis. Oh, psychosis. You can have
psychosis, so that if you ran the CCHs on anybody, you'd
drive them crazy. And they electric-shock people because it
drives them crazy.

You see, you're baffled because you don't realize that
you're dealing with short-circuited thinking. You know: A =
A = A, therefore you do it. Fact equals fact equals
contrary fact, so you dramatize it. So you're not even in
that case dealing with thinking. As the - I'm not berating
these people. I'm merely saying there couldn't be any
thinking because there's bulletin after bulletin that they
themselves put out continually, saying that surgery and
electric shock do nothing but harm people. And they go
right on ordering them and doing them, you see, so that it
must be a short-circuited thinkingness. So you're not
penetrating at that level at all. Now how are you going to
penetrate?

You say to this fellow, "All right. Now look. Joburg
Processing Check. That is a series of questions which are
asked the person to obtain from them data which they
ordinarily have not handed out." And right away, Menninger
says, "Ah, Catholic church." See? Thu-thup! So we now have
the fact that we are driving people crazy by using the
mechanisms of the Catholic church. You get how you get a
no-think out of this? This would be the no-think.

Well, it's very interesting to see how these things add up.
But they are not gobbledygook to you because you've
experienced a great many of these things - experienced them
all. The only thing you possibly haven't experienced is
being Clear, and you possibly have not seen a Clear
floating needle.

As a matter of fact, I told an auditor in HGC London the
other day that they ought to take the pc around and show
the auditors a Clear free floating needle. And I got into
the most oddball yippety-yap you ever heard of. Why?
Because this is an unfamiliarity. We're in a zone of
unfamiliarity, and even the despatch was misinterpreted. It
caused a great deal of randomity, this despatch.

The pc got hold of it and interpreted it that I had - was
forcing upon her the concept that she was Clear. The auditor
must have interpreted it similarly because never showed it
- this Clear floating needle type needle - to any of the
other auditors. The only thing I wanted them to do, if
anybody had cared to read the thing - the only thing I wanted
them to do - was to be able to look at a floating needle.
Nobody had ever seen one up there, see? And this is a
floating needle. And it was a wonderful opportunity for
somebody to see a floating needle. Instead of that, pc is
ARC broke and it has to be run in the next session.

Look at the randomity that suddenly developed here. Pretty
wild, you know? You say, "Auditors, I want you to show a
floating needle." Pc has an ARC break. Auditor doesn't go
anywhere near anybody. Pc has a present time problem. The
auditor is mad at me because I've upset the pc. See? Pc was
haunting HCO - shouldn't have been - watching things coming
in over the telex. Oh, wild.

Well, look, that's the only thing on this bulletin that the
auditors in London wouldn't have a fair familiarity with at
this stage. And it caused randomity. Got it? So it takes a
little while to develop an understanding of things. Right?

You shouldn't be teaching somebody above their zones of
reality, really. But you can reach them with processing and
they then do gain a subjective reality on the thing. And
you can reach them in numerous ways, don't you see? And you
actually could teach them a bunch of these philosophic-level
principles and then they'd get - even get a vocabulary if
they got a subjective grasp on these things. But it's an
auditing process. It blows enturbulation off the case. And
while it is blowing off the case, the case feels confused.
So the instant reaction of Menninger is, "This is terribly
confusing. I haven't got anything to do with it."

I had a psychiatrist reading Dianetics, and he was rushing
out every few minutes and putting the electrodes on
somebody and coming back in. And he says, "Yes. Yes. I've
looked at this book. I've - this book came in the other day.
It came in the other day. And I looked at it, and I've
looked it over. And I've reported it to the association. I
think it's disgraceful." And he says, "I'm a Horney." I
said, "Well what philosophy do you follow in your
psychoanalysis?"

He says, "I'm a Horney man myself. I'm a Horney man." And he
rushed out and strapped and shocked somebody else and came
back in again. And he says, "I'm a Horney man."

And I said, "Well..." I saw it while he was gone, I saw
the book Horney, Karen Horney. So I said, "Well, what is
Horney? What is the Horney offshoot of Freudian analysis?"
and so on.

He says, "I don't know. I never read it."

It'd be different if I was telling you that for a gag. But
actually that's totally factual. Unbelievably true. He was
a Horney man, but he'd never read anything by Horney. I don't
know - how do you get it? Telepathic?

I think they'd call it probably, Freudianly, "telepathic
emission," something like that. If you keep a book on a
shelf long enough, why, you get it by contagion or
something. Maybe some years later he expected as long as
the book sat on the shelf, why, he would become all of a
sudden imbued with its characteristics.

Well anyway, none of this bulletin, to a Scientologist, is
apparently incomprehensible. And the only place a
Scientologist gets in trouble out in the field and
untrained, is in doing Goals Assessments. And trying to run
SOP Goals, he can run into too many things.

Now, for instance, we've just run into one on a case today.
Case was apparently flat on a level on the case's terminal.
Apparently flat, but wasn't. Wasn't. Couldn't have been,
because the case was still worried about the level.

Well, we were running the principle of running the rock
slam out of the needle rather than running the motion out
of the tone arm. And now a question enters: Is this right?
I mean, is it right just to run the rock slam out or should
you actually flatten that level?

But nevertheless, this case does not answer the problem,
because this case might have had a present time problem not
detected by the auditor or, after the rudiments were
checked out, suddenly had a present time problem. See, the
rudiments sort of boost the case's reality, and all of a
sudden the case realizes it has a present time problem, so
now doesn't get a rock slam. You see, the process isn't
biting. Actually, their mind is on something else so the
auditor thinks it is flat.

Tone arm motion reduced, in other words, by reason of a
rudiment out. And the tone arm moving so little that the
auditor would be brought to the conclusion that it was
flat. I would be brought to the conclusion it was flat,
reading the report, don't you see? So we go off and assess
for another level. And then we come back and find the rock
slam there 100 percent, because some PTPs have been handled
on the pc.

In other words, we have this odd adjudication that we can
put on running terminals, and that is that if a pc has a
rudiment out, a level can look flat which isn't. And you
can put that down in your book, because we've just
discovered it and proved it out factually. Because when we
went back to this level-  two levels have been run since,
but the case was bogging.

And in patch-up of cases on general run of Prehav and on
patch-up of cases in general - of a general run of the
terminal -of the goal, if a case isn't making much progress,
you had better go back - that's why you must keep your
auditor's reports. This is the way to patch one up, is go
back and pick the earliest level run and that might not
have been flat, and flatten the level, and come on up to
the next level after that and flatten that, because that
will now probably be unflat. In other words, you've got to
flatten every level now that you've left unflat, and all
levels will tend to be unflat, since the level you left
unflat. You got it?

So you must keep your reports. The case apparently bogs.
Well, the case had a PTP and an ARC break or something like
that, and it wasn't detected, and for that reason the tone
arm ceased to move, and you say the level is flat. And it's
not, and you run a few more levels, and all of a sudden the
case is having more and more PTPs, and more and more
obsessed with upsets and problems and so forth.

Well, the way to patch that up is to go back and review the
tone arm figures on each level that was run at its end.
See? Get the end run. Review the last twenty minutes of
every process level that has been run on the pc. Okay? And
pick the earliest one that you suspect may not be flat. Got
it? And to be on the safe side, pick the earliest one that
you suspect. But you could - there could be a little bit
later one that you might suspect more, but you wouldn't
quite be able to decide. Well, if you couldn't quite
decide - it usually will be quite obvious to you - but if
you couldn't decide - well, go back and pick the earliest
candidate and run it, because they'll flatten off rather
quickly. You got it?

Now, take all the motion out of the level this time. Just
run it down to a point of where it just grinds to a
brake-smoking halt. Hm?

Now, what else would you do to patch it up? Well, if you've
done a good Goals Assessment, you've got the hidden
standards. You know, the person always looks and finds out
if his right ear is no longer burning, so he knows the
process is working. This is the standards. Lots of people
have these standards. And these standards are actually
present time problems of magnitude of long duration. And
you're running a case with a PT problem that has a hidden
standard. See? Well, why run this? Now you would do much
better to use what it says here about handling problems of
longtime duration under Routine 2, second page. Problems of
long duration.

Now, we mean by a problem of long duration, years or within
this lifetime. The problem must have existed for years or
in this lifetime. Otherwise, it's a PT problem. It's less
than a year; it's only months or weeks, hours, minutes,
seconds: it's a present time problem of short duration.
These are simply artificial labels to give you an order of
magnitude.

So the difference between a present time problem of short
duration and a present time problem of long duration are
quite important to you, because you handle a present time
problem of short duration always in the rudiments only.
Don't take it into Prehav or into processes or anything
like that. Just put it into the rudiments. And the
rudiments processes that are supposed to be run in the
rudiments will handle it, and you shouldn't do any more
about it than that.

But a present time problem of long duration, which means
more than a year and less than a lifetime - this lifetime,
see - you do a Terminal Assessment just like you were doing
a Goals Assessment. And you just keep hammering and hammering
and hammering and running and running. And it's not
something you do in twenty minutes, the way I've been
getting it in auditor reports. "Well, we did a Terminals
Assessment for the present time problem of long duration,
and then we assessed for the level, and we immediately got
to running it." And you look up at the assessment, and it's
five minutes. Oh? Five minutes? How interesting.

You mean you could get a list of all terminals which might
be involved in this problem and do an assessment by
elimination in five minutes? Oh, yes. Like hell you could.
You're looking at a couple of sessions, man! Let's get
real. This person has a hidden standard. His right ear - he
knows whether processes are working because his right ear
doesn't burn. But when his right ear is burning, why, then
he knows a process isn't working.

You had a case go through HGC London a very short time ago
who had some kind of a peculiar thing of some kind. It was
something as unlovely, I think, as a - if you will excuse
me - a vaginal discharge and when this lessened, the process
was working and when it got increased, the processes
weren't working, and everything was being barometered by
this rather fantastic action.

Now, that's nothing against anybody. You'd have to find
that out. Oh, look. There is something connected here that
is real to the pc. It must be more real to the preclear
than the preclear's case, by automatic definition, because
the pc uses it as an indicator for his case so that this
thing must then be a substitute for his case. You got that?
I mean, a substitute for the case. That's why you must know
about hidden standards!

In other words, the hidden standard is more real to the pc
than any case or life difficulties he is having, because he
tries to find out if it is functioning or not functioning.
He's sort of packing an E-Meter around on the side of his
head, don't you see? You got the idea? Well, his attention
obviously - this is merely a problem of attention.

There hasn't been a lecture, by the way, on attention and
dispersed attention, attention units and so forth since, I
think, something ridiculous like the end of June 1950 at
the Elks Hall in - it was - must have been someplace in New
Jersey - Elizabeth! Mmmm! The Elks Hall in Elizabeth, New
Jersey. There was a whole hour lecture at that particular
time on the subject of attention units and how they are
trapped in the bank, and the individual is running only on
1 percent or 2 percent of the theoretical 100 percent of
attention available to him, because his attention is pinned
down in other places of the bank, you see?

Well, that's very, very interesting to us today to all of a
sudden have this old one suddenly leap into view,
full-armed, see? Because here it is; here it is. You're
working with it right now. You're assessing for a goal to
find out where the person has most of his attention. You're
assessing for the terminal and immediately the goal would
disintensify that you find the terminal really, because, of
course, the attention is really fixed on the goal because
it is fixed on the terminal. And the second it gets fixed
on the terminal, you've rather unfixed it on the goal, so
the goal will read less after you've been assessing
terminals a little while.

All right. Your next point here is that if the pc has his
attention on a burning right ear, well, for heaven's sakes,
it's practically a total computation sitting right there on
the side of the pc's head. So what do you do? You say,
"What is it now? Has that been - have you worried about that
for some time?" You say, "Well, what would have to happen
to you for you to know that Scientology works?" That is the
cute question.

The pc always answers up and they give you some of the most
remarkable answers you ever heard in your life. "Well, to
know that Scientology really works, my daughter would have
to get over her hives."

Oh, come on. This person's attention isn't even on himself
But nevertheless that is the answer. "Well now, has your
daughter having hives been a problem to you for a long..."

"Oh, well yes. Specialists. Take him up to Pennsylvania,
take him up to Wyoming, and we've gone down south. We've
gone practically every place. We've imported special bees
to sting her and followed the very best directions we
possibly can. She still has these hives. And we keep
rubbing pickle juice into them all the time. And every
night I have to get up five times a night and rub pickle
juice into her hives so that she can sleep. And this has
been going on for some years. And I actually feel guilty
about it myself, you see, because one day she walked up to
the stove when she was just a little child and - she did.
And I spilled onion juice all over her. Well now, ever
since that time I think she's had these hives."

Hey, what better indicator do you want? You say something
about the problem, and your pc goes off like a small
firecracker, see? Like a string of ladyfinger firecrackers,
you know. Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop. Pc real
interested. Yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. Brrrrrr. Yap,
yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. Where do you think their attention
is? Attention is on daughter's hives. So to clear this pc,
you have to get her daughter's hives out of the way. But
you get her concern as a pc's attention off of these hives.
If the hives cure up, it's totally coincidental. But they
might.

Now, here's the hidden standard. And this hidden standard
keeps more people from getting released or cleared than any
other single thing I know of except withholds. See? So it's
just junior in rank to withholds for holding people up and
holding cases up, you know? And actually, the present time
problem is right on the goals chain. Always is. Otherwise
it couldn't be a problem of long duration. It's somehow
connected with it. So if you scrape the top off, the case
assesses much more rapidly. That's the least that would
happen.

And you might find yourself thoroughly, straight on the
goals line if you did a very good assessment. You've
short-circuited the whole thing, and this is running like a
bomb, and after you've run three levels on this
present-time-problem terminal of long duration, you assess
the thing very carefully, and you don't find the Prehav
Scale live on a dozen levels - oh, coo! You must be straight
on the pc's line. And it didn't take you seventy-two hours
to do the assessment. It took you more like about five.

So you get the values of a hidden standard? It's something
to pay attention to. Something very interesting, besides
being terribly amusing. I'll swear I have heard some of the
weirdest statements that Homo sap has ever made, I'm sure,
when I talk to them about hidden standards.

"What would have to happen for you to know that Scientology
worked?"

"Oh, well - well confidentially, whenever I've been
processed, I see whether or not my right foot ticks. And
if it stops ticking then I know we're on the way, but if
it starts ticking, I know we're off." You get the most
interesting answers.

Now you say, "What else - " you don't ever ask this, but
I've - can pursue the question line in other directions,
and it becomes practically ridiculous. You say, "What else
do you use this right foot for?" You wouldn't ask that in
processing, but you get the most fascinating answers. They
sometimes use it to find out if people are mad at them,
what the weather is going to be, whether or not the food is
going to agree with them, whether or not they're going to
be sick. You know, in epilepsy the fellow always knows a
certain feeling when he's going to have a fit, see, and he
knows if he gets a certain condition, he's going to have a
fit. Well, they use these hidden standards the same way.
They know they're going to have some bad luck. Well, the
nervous stomach, for instance. Fellow's nervous stomach
turns on, he knows he's going to have some bad luck. He
knows there's some bad luck coming up one way or the other.
He uses his stomach to measure the future.

You find all sorts of people - this is the most common one:
"Now, what would have to happen for you to know that
Scientology works?"

"Well, my nervous stomach would have to turn off."

"Oh?" you say, "Your nervous stomach would have to turn
off. Well, very interesting. How long have you had this
nervous stomach?"

"Well, ever since I was a child."

"Well now, does it ever turn off in processing? Has
anything ever turned it off in processing?"

"No. I keep watching it." Then all of a sudden, "Brrrrrr,
yap, yap, yap, yap. And this auditor and that auditor, and
we ran this and we ran that, and we did this and we did
that, and the other thing, and so on, and so on, and so on,
and this stomach, stomach, stomach, stomach, stomach,
stomach, stomach," see? Hidden standard, hidden standard,
hidden standard. You got the idea?

Well, it's almost an assessment when you strike the fire on
the pc's interest, see? He's going to be in-session on
that. Man, is that pc going to be in-session. Well, he's
already willing to talk to the auditor about it. He's
already interested in it. So his attention must be parked
around there someplace.

Now the mistake we have made is, not assessing this nervous
stomach. We can ask all sorts of embarrassing questions,
such as, "Whose stomach is it?" We can do a Presession 38
type terminal search. You can do all sorts of things with
this thing. They - that's the who - or what, who and when.
"What's wrong?" and "Who had that trouble?" and "When did
he have it?" It sometimes knocks the whole problem out just
discovering this.

But now, instead of running a Presession 38 type of
operation on it - it is a faster action but a more - not
always a faster action, but more certain, you know - in the
interests of certainty - is to do a Terminals Assessment by
elimination on this somatic, on this standard item. Is it
his ear? Is it his head? Whose head? Whose ear? You got the
idea? And we just - whose might it be? And a pc guesses about
this thing, and it might be this one's and it might be that
one's, and it might be an - ... You just write all those names
down, you see? It might be his inner ear, so you say "inner
ear." And it might be his lobe, you know, and you write
down "lobe." And it might be his aeroglopis. And you say,
"His what?"

Don't challenge it. What you want to find out is how to
spell it. It's his aeroglopis. And that's the mechanism
that lets air in and out of the ear. And you never even
knew it existed. Neither does medical science. Nobody has
ever known this one before but the pc, you see?

And you'll find that the reason this line of questioning
is so intriguing is because, of course, you have hit the
primary source of individuation on the pc. This is the one
that makes him different from everybody. It's sort of he
knows who he is; he's the one that has an earache. So he's
different than everybody else, so it's the least duplicated
area of the bank. So, of course, it'll fire off as an
automaticity because it's most out of communication and
therefore most out of control.

So locating the hidden standard and assessing it by
elimination, by which you get a long list of terminals. Oh,
I don't know, somebody's nervous stomach, you ought to wind
up with a list of terminals of something like two hundred,
something like that. Big.

Well, ever since we've started doing Goals Assessments on a
highly therapeutic level, it is nothing for people to come
up with 546 goals, and then come up with 546 terminals on
that one goal. This takes some time, and it takes some
doing. You don't do assessments in a part of a session and
then get the show on the road, because you're usually wrong.

I should talk to you about something in assessments that's
just occurred to me. I mentioned it to one auditor a short
time ago and used the phrase, and it's never been used
before, but it certainly is something that you should know
something about. It's called a cognition surge. And it can
throw your whole assessment awry. It's a cognition surge,
and this is the source of most of the charge you get on the
bank. It isn't - when you're going over a whole bunch of
goals and that sort of thing and the individual all of a
sudden says, "Well, what do you know? I have always wanted
to shoot magpies. And I don't even know what they are.

The E-Meter will react rather violently. It's a cognition
surge. It's a release of electrical charge that goes along
with the person having a cognition. And if you watch an
E-Meter carefully, often when they're having a cognition -
a real cognition - you will get a marked fall. Well, when
you're assessing and you ask for another terminal, the
person sometimes all of a sudden says, "Hah! What do you
know! Airplane pilot, of course," see. And you get a steep
fall that has nothing to do with anything, really, but the
fact that he's cognited that he might have had something to
do with airplane pilots, and this is what it's falling on.
It's sort of on the assoc- possible association, and you'll
get a mad drop.

Now, another thing. When you're sometimes assessing for a
level - which is more common - the individual all of a sudden
realizes that there is such a thing as fighting wasps. This
has just never occurred to him before, see? And you do -
you're reading along, you're reading the assessment, and
you're saying - it says, "Fighting. Scrapping. Knifing.
Burning," and so forth. All right.

Now, right about the time you've entered in this line, you
say "Fighting," and you get a great big drop on the needle.
And you say, "Boy, with that much drop, that must be it. I
won't assess any further," and have you just pulled a
bloomer. Because it says "Fighting" and drops like mad, and
that's why you always do them at least twice, you see, once
up and once down. And the next one, "Burning - scrapping,
burning."

Now you come back over the list again, and it says
"Fighting," and it is just as dead as a mackerel. And you
say, "Well, that is the most peculiar thing. How was it so
hot when now it's so cold?" Well, you read a cognition surge.

The person - it's a "Whaddaya know! There is a possibility
of some time or another fighting a wasp, you know? Ha-ha!
Ha! What do you think of that? Ha! Incredible. Nobody could
possibly fight a wasp. I always have known that. And here's
the idea, but it's a funny thing of I've never thought of
this idea before, don't you see?" It isn't the terminal
level that you should run. It is simply the fact that he
had an idea at that instant. When you come back over it
again, it's flat.

There's nothing disappears off a meter faster. Sometimes
when you me assessing terminals, you will find that
terminal after terminal in turn pick up the cognition
surge. And it only lasts for about five or ten questionings
on the terminal.

It just - this fellow has never thought of himself as having
been even remotely connected with being a rocket jockey.
This is not a possible connection, don't you see? And not
being a possible connection, of course, you get a
tremendous blauw, bang, thud at the idea of being connected
with a rocket jockey. But it doesn't have anything to do
with the fact that the terminal is "rocket jockey." Got the
idea?

A cognition surge actually occurs when an associated
terminal or associated level to the one you're looking for
blows off rather violently. And this happens during
assessments of goals, terminals and levels. And when you
get a disassociation all of a sudden - the guy all of a
sudden gets rid of that one, your meter will react. And
your meter won't react again. And the source of probably
most bad assessments, or most assessment errors, is when
the D of P sets the guy down, it falls off the pin, and
they say, "That's the terminal." No. It's not the terminal.
That was the charge a terminal made leaving. See?

Now, you ask him again about the same terminal, and you get
a little flip, and you ask him again about it, and, man, is
it gone. But sometimes a terminal will look terribly hot
for about twelve recounts. Just look hotter than a pistol,
and the pc is getting interested in it. But the pc's
interest is not because he is that terminal or is being
that terminal but because that terminal is blowing. He has
just never inspected the fact that his unknown terminal was
connected with this now known terminal. Well, the inspection
of this will give you an E-Meter reaction. But it's a very
short-duration reaction.

That's why on a goals terminal you grind them out by
elimination. That is why on the Terminal Assessment you
grind them out by elimination. And a PT problem of long
duration you always grind out by elimination, because
you'll just get nothing but cognition surge after cognition
surge after cognition surge after cognition surge. And it's
the one that's left you want. Because all of these things -
you've entered, already, a random area. You got a goal
fast, you see, which is actually to do something about -
only we're not quite sure what - or to learn lessons from
a burning right ear, you see? And you're in this brrrrrrr
area, and so you get all sorts of fireworks on the meter,
you know, and terminals blow, and ideas, and he remembers
people he never heard of before. Don't be too surprised if
you get a couple of hundred terminals, and by the time
you've got them all assessed, he says, "What burning ear?"
See, don't be too surprised if this occurs. You get how you
do this PT problem of long duration?

Now, after you've got the terminal and you do assess it on
the Prehav Scale, you of course now run it the same way you
do a goals terminal. You just run the levels flat. But they
run flat awfully fast, so your twenty-minute rule doesn't
apply. You kind of have to watch the needle. And you still
can leave one unflat, by the way; have to go back and pick
it up. Various things have to be done. Have to retrack your
steps.

That's the only other thing I know of in here that you
probably don't know - didn't know how to do - I hope you
know some more about it now - is the assessment for this.
Because I noticed most flubs at the present instant are now
being made in assessing and running present time problems
of long duration. And the flub just stems from these
things. They don't make a terminal list, and they don't do
assessment by elimination, and they grab too quick at these
cognition surges. Got 'em?

All right. Once more I didn't ask you for any questions
today. Some of you are now going to have terrible withholds.

Okay. Is there any fast one anybody really has to know
before session tomorrow?

All right. Thank you very much. Good night.

[End of lecture.]


